The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf">National Security Strategy of the United States</a>, published at the end of last month, has been especially rude about Europe, berating it for ‘civilisational erasure’, mass migration, crackdowns on free speech, and so on. These are no doubt matters of opinion.&nbsp; But the document also points out indisputable facts, such as that Europe’s GDP has dropped from 25% of the world total in 1990 to 14% today. It is indeed shocking that the European economy has sunk not only relative to the great Chinese power-house but also relative to very comparable economies such as that of the USA: eurozone per capita GDP now makes us as poor as the 49th poorest state in the Union. But when FVD MP Frederik Jansen started to say that this should be a wakeup call for Europe, and that the criticism should be discussed and addressed, he was interrupted by other MPs saying that the document was itself contested in the US, that the Americans should keep their mouths shut and – absurdly – that there was no such thing as mass migration into Europe. In other words, in today’s Europe, it is more important to maintain illusions, if necessary by silencing or ignoring criticism, than to confront reality or even discuss it.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyL-EyTOMDM">Watch Frederik Jansen’s intervention here (translated by AI)</a><img src="/uploads/image_b74623dd17.png">The illusionism goes very far and includes abandoning the law of non-contradiction - that everything is what it is and not another thing. This became clear when the caretaker Dutch government – disavowed in recent elections – agreed to send another 700 million euros into the bottomless pit of the Ukraine war. Pepijn van Howelingen tackled an MP from the so-called JA21 party (founded in 2020 by FVD rebels) which voted in favour of this huge sum. ‘Why isn’t the money being spent in the Netherlands?’ Pepijn asked. Incredibly the JA21 MP refused to even accept the basis of the question. She pretended for several minutes that giving 700 million to Ukraine did not mean that this money would not be available in the Netherlands as well. In her Ingrid Coenradie’s looking-glass world, money can be spent twice. Why not three times or four times?&nbsp; Everything is possible once you deny reality.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmqaWRIpIJA">Watch Pepijn’s questions here (translated by AI)</a><img src="/uploads/image_f5d80ea5f1.png">‘Fantasy’ is how Ralf Dekker described the EU’s plan to seize hundreds of billions of Russian assets, or to use them as collateral for a common EU loan. It is a fantasy to think that the EU financial system can survive such a colossal and blatant act of theft. Never mind what you think about the Ukraine war – if investors see that funds held in EU banks can be seized, they will put their money somewhere safer. Unfortunately, like Hitler in the bunker in the famous scene from&nbsp;Der Untergang, the gradual encroachment of the terrible truth about the war is driving European elites mad. They are increasingly irrational actors, and that bodes very ill for all of us.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/using-russian-assets-as-collateral-is-a-fantasy">Read Ralf Dekker’s speech here</a><img src="/uploads/image_8e33f5219c.png">Speaking of irrationality, John Laughland was a guest on the Australia-based TV station, The World Today, to discuss the sanctioning of an EU resident, the former Swiss army officer Jacques Baud, and an EU citizen, the French political commentator, Xavier Moreau. To silence dissident voices, especially when they are as analytical as these two, shows that the European elites are running so scared that they have taken leave of their senses.&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1fVcGci9Bs&amp;t=1387s">Watch John Laughland’s interview here</a><img src="/uploads/image_f1eb322498.png">Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst, joined us on The Forum &amp; Friends this week to discuss the new US National Security Strategy and the ongoing war in Ukraine. Larry is wonderful: if you missed it, you can listen back by clicking below.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hexwB_LxW1Y">Watch The Forum &amp; Friends here</a>

large_unnamed (9).jpg

medium_unnamed (9).jpg

small_unnamed (9).jpg

thumbnail_unnamed (9).jpg

The Weekly Forum - 18 December

Speech by Ralf Dekker MP to Parliament, 17 December 2025Chair,In terms of support for Ukraine, the Netherlands is the world’s leading donor per capita. If we include the money spent on receiving Ukrainians here, we have already spent approximately €20 billion.On top of this come the negative economic effects of EU sanctions.One of the EU’s 19 sanctions packages against Russia involves freezing the central bank reserves that Russia holds within the EU, around €190 billion of which is held at Euroclear in Brussels.The EU sanctions were introduced with the rule that they must be renewed every six months, unless one of the EU Member States exercises a veto. Unanimity was therefore required for renewal.This was radically changed last week. By invoking economic emergency measures (Article 122 TFEU), a new rule has been agreed whereby Russian assets in the EU will remain frozen permanently, unless unanimity is reached to decide otherwise.A veto therefore now works in exactly the opposite way to before. This has led to anger in Hungary and Slovakia. But Belgium, Italy, Bulgaria and the Czech Republic also oppose this. In my view, that anger is justified. The rules of the game are being changed during the game itself. Legal vandalism.The next idea is to use these permanently frozen Russian assets as temporary collateral for the issuance of loans to Ukraine and to oblige the Belgian institution Euroclear, which holds €40 trillion in foreign assets, to provide loans on this basis in exchange for eurobonds. So-called “forced loans”.These loans would only need to be repaid by Ukraine once Russia starts paying war reparations, assuming, of course, that Russia will ultimately be the losing party.Chair, let us be realistic. Reparations from Russia will not materialise. Using permanently frozen Russian assets as temporary collateral until imaginary war reparations are received is a fantasy, and completely contrary to existing international law.First of all, this move amounts to de facto confiscation. That is close to a declaration of war. It is an escalation that will provoke severe Russian countermeasures.Moreover, this measure is extremely damaging to the confidence of countries and investors in the EU and the euro, with potentially enormous negative economic consequences. It is not without reason that national and supranational financial institutions strongly advise against this.In legal terms, this construction is likely to prove unsustainable in the long run, meaning that sooner or later the EU will be forced to repay hundreds of billions that we will no longer have.The intended loans to Ukraine may fund perhaps another two years of the Ukrainian budget, war, and dead soldiers and civilians, assuming the war does not end on the battlefield much sooner.Belgium wants to borrow the required billions for Ukraine on the money and capital markets and leave the Russian assets untouched, because it fears risks to Euroclear, to the Belgian state, and also to the EU and the euro.As far as those risks are concerned, FVD agrees with the Belgian Prime Minister. Permanently freezing Russian assets is a flagrant violation of international law and will return to us like an economic boomerang.In addition, Chair, we are appalled at the prospect of the EU taking on and maintaining large loans on the basis of eurobonds. This can only happen if the EU also has substantial own resources and is therefore allowed to levy taxes itself. This is a situation we would wish to prevent at all costs.Chair, continuing to provide large-scale support to Ukraine in this hopeless struggle against Russia is immoral, as it merely prolongs the bloody war and solves nothing. Ukraine will ultimately be its main victim.The Dutch share of this continued support could amount to around €12 billion. FVD is categorically opposed to this. This is not our war. We could use that money far better elsewhere.Let us stop this, Chair.Thank you.

Defense_Support,_Energy,_Use_of_Frozen_Russian_Assets,_and_EU_Membership_Volodymyr_Zelenskyy_Met_with_Ursula_von_der_Leyen_(54008879415).jpg

large_Defense_Support,_Energy,_Use_of_Frozen_Russian_Assets,_and_EU_Membership_Volodymyr_Zelenskyy_Met_with_Ursula_von_der_Leyen_(54008879415).jpg

medium_Defense_Support,_Energy,_Use_of_Frozen_Russian_Assets,_and_EU_Membership_Volodymyr_Zelenskyy_Met_with_Ursula_von_der_Leyen_(54008879415).jpg

small_Defense_Support,_Energy,_Use_of_Frozen_Russian_Assets,_and_EU_Membership_Volodymyr_Zelenskyy_Met_with_Ursula_von_der_Leyen_(54008879415).jpg

thumbnail_Defense_Support,_Energy,_Use_of_Frozen_Russian_Assets,_and_EU_Membership_Volodymyr_Zelenskyy_Met_with_Ursula_von_der_Leyen_(54008879415).jpg

Using Russian Assets As Collateral Is a Fantasy

The Nexperia affair was a disgrace. In October, the caretaker Dutch government seized control of a Chinese-owned semi-conductor manufacturer and sacked the senior management. The suspicion was that The Hague was acting on orders from Washington to sabotage the Chinese economy: it used a law from the 1950s, supposedly to prevent supply breakdowns within the country, but that law had never been invoked before. The Chinese government responded furiously, stopping all exports of chips to Europe and creating a panic, especially among German car manufacturers. The Dutch minister backed down - red faces all around. FVD’s Ralf Dekker addressed this matter in a recent speech to Parliament. FVD is not hostile to the government protecting strategic industries but that boat sailed long ago, as dozens of major Dutch companies have fallen into foreign ownership. On the other hand, FVD does not want to go back to the old pre-1990s corporatist model, when the government was deeply involved in whole swathes of the economy. Is there a middle way? Can the government take a strategic view, and perhaps a stake, in certain companies believed to be essential to the national interest? Maybe – but that would require ‘national interest’ to be a clearly formulated concept in government policy!<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYzpVStwHhQ">Watch Ralf Dekker’s speech here (translated by AI)</a><img src="/uploads/image_245071cef6.png">Such interventions and expertise show that FVD is not just about the EU or immigration. The party’s interests are exceptionally broad.&nbsp;<a href="https://eerlijketen.nl/?srsltid=AfmBOoq7SdHC9dKURzNgsLraMdgkv2mcF6Hij4qcbM4bwLbhTHeWnwFV">Eerlijk Eten</a>, the food delivery company – from the farmer to the kitchen table – is one example of FVD’s interest in metapolitics, not to mention in food itself and in particular in exceptionally high-quality meat. In this, as on so many issues, FVD is swimming against the tide. The Dutch government has recently published the recommendation that people eat less meat and more plant-based foods. But what is the basis for this advice? Dieticians are far from unanimous about the healthiness of plant food as opposed to meat. Has the climate madness also gotten a grip on health policy? Pepijn van Houwelingen has put down questions to the government to ask about this. Don’t hold your breath for the answers!<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/new-guidelines-push-for-lower-meat-consumption">Read Pepijn van Houwelingen’s questions here</a><img src="/uploads/image_ea1b3bae19.png">And what is at the basis of everything – food, the economy, human life? Energy, of course. On this, as on other matters, FVD has a unique and original message, in this case about thorium. China has just developed a thorium reactor which uses molten salt instead of solid fuel rods.&nbsp; The molten salt, mixed with thorium, acts as both coolant and fuel. This means that a nuclear reactor can neither suffer a meltdown, as at Fukushima, nor a steam explosion as at Chernobyl. Thorium is also three times more abundant than uranium. This is a chance to produce safe, clean energy at low cost – a chance any responsible government should seize.&nbsp;Only FVD thinks ahead.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/thorium-sustainable-energy-within-reach">Read FVD’s explainer about thorium here</a><img src="/uploads/image_c7afc90e38.png">Samuel Furfari has been working on energy for 36 years, at the European Commission. He has authored 20 books on energy policy and was our guest on The Forum this week. His message is simple: renewable energy can simply never supplant ‘fossil fuels’ because these sources can only ever supply a small fraction – and an unreliable supply at that – of total energy needs. Yet international elites, who meet for yearly UN-sponsored climate conferences, continue to parrot the fiction that they can. It is nothing but wilful illusionism, as if summits could change the laws of physics.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dP1UxM8MCPU">Listen back to The Forum here</a>

large_unnamed (8).jpg

medium_unnamed (8).jpg

small_unnamed (8).jpg

thumbnail_unnamed (8).jpg

The Weekly Forum - 11 December

5 December 2025 The Health Council, which provides independent advice to the government and parliament on public health, has published new dietary guidelines aimed at reducing meat consumption and promoting plant-based proteins. These recommendations will be incorporated by the Netherlands Nutrition Centre into an updated&nbsp;Schijf van Vijf (the Dutch equivalent of healthy-eating guidelines), which will be widely deployed for educational purposes from next year onward, including in primary schools.Forum for Democracy (FVD) is concerned about the growing steering and behavioural influence stemming from the Health Council’s guidelines. Whereas nutritional education should focus on objective information, today’s recommendations increasingly appear to form part of a broader agenda, commonly known as the “protein transition”. The Health Council even calls for “strong government policy” to make plant-based food the norm. This sets a troubling precedent in which the government increasingly interferes with the individual freedom of Dutch citizens to choose their own food.The guidelines are remarkable in themselves, given that there is no universal scientific consensus within nutritional science on the alleged health benefits of plant-based diets. Animal-based foods contain essential nutrients which are difficult to replace, while plant-based proteins are absorbed less efficiently. This makes it particularly important that guidelines applying to the entire population are based on scientific sources free from ideological or activist aims. It appears that this is not the case here. According to the Health Council, having less meat on our plates would make people “healthier” and keep the planet “liveable”.FVD is asking the government for clarification about these new guidelines, their underlying scientific basis, possible influence from interest groups and international agendas, and the implications for public health and the Dutch agricultural sector. Food choices belong to the private sphere, and the government should exercise extreme restraint. For this reason, Pepijn van Houwelingen is submitting parliamentary questions on behalf of Forum for Democracy.Below you will find the full set of parliamentary questions: &nbsp;Written questions to the Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport regarding the new guidelines of the Health Council stating that the Dutch should eat more plant-based foods<ol><li>Is the minister aware that the Health Council advises, among other things, reducing the consumption of red meat to a maximum of 200 grams per week and making plant-based food the norm because it is said to be healthier for people and better for the environment? &nbsp;</li><li>What is the minister’s view of these new guidelines from the Health Council? &nbsp;</li><li>There is extensive debate within nutritional science about what constitutes a healthy diet; how does the minister define “a healthy diet”? &nbsp;</li><li>The Health Council calls for “strong government policy” to make plant-based food the norm; what concrete measures is the government considering? &nbsp;</li><li>Does the minister agree with Forum for Democracy that there is still no consensus within nutritional science on what is healthy and unhealthy, due in part to the complexity of the human body and varying research outcomes, and that caution is therefore needed when prescribing normative dietary patterns for the entire population? &nbsp;</li><li>Is the minister aware that, to compensate for protein shortages resulting from eating less red meat, the Health Council recommends consuming legumes (plants with seeds in a pod such as beans or peas)? &nbsp;</li><li>Is the minister aware of various studies in nutritional science showing that plant-based proteins are absorbed less effectively by the human body? &nbsp;</li><li>Is the minister aware of the Health Council’s recommendation in this advice to eat a handful of peanuts every day? &nbsp;</li><li>Is the minister aware of various studies in nutritional science showing that peanuts often contain anti-nutrients, such as lectins, which inhibit the absorption of essential vitamins and minerals, for example, zinc and calcium? &nbsp;</li><li>Is the minister aware of various studies in nutritional science showing that unprocessed red meat contains nutrients that are exceptionally well absorbed by the human body? &nbsp;</li><li>Is the minister aware of various studies in nutritional science showing that unprocessed red meat contains essential micronutrients that are far less abundant in plant-based foods? &nbsp;</li><li>Is the minister aware of various studies in nutritional science showing that animal-based foods have a higher nutrient density than plant-based foods? &nbsp;</li><li>How does the minister ensure that scientific advice, such as that provided by the Health Council, remains independent from political ideologies, activist movements and commercial lobbying groups? &nbsp;</li><li>Can the minister rule out that the Health Council’s guidelines are influenced by interest groups, NGOs or international agendas aimed at reducing meat consumption, for instance because reducing meat consumption is considered “good for the climate”? &nbsp;</li><li>What potential public-health consequences does the minister foresee in terms of the risk of deficiencies of certain nutrients in diets that are heavily plant-based? &nbsp;</li><li>What economic consequences does the government foresee for Dutch farmers if these recommendations are followed in policy? &nbsp;</li><li>In the minister’s opinion, where is the line between promoting public health and respecting individual freedom of choice? &nbsp;</li><li>Does the minister agree with Forum for Democracy that a person’s diet is ultimately their own responsibility and that it is undesirable for the state to engage in nudging, such as through taxes, and other forms of behavioural steering to reduce the consumption of animal proteins? &nbsp;</li><li>Does the government share Forum for Democracy’s view that the freedom to eat meat must always be guaranteed? &nbsp;</li><li>Can the minister explain how it will be ensured that the upcoming update of the&nbsp;Schijf van Vijf, a tool widely used in primary education, contains only scientifically substantiated health information and that there will be no ideological or activist-driven behavioural steering? For example, by teaching young children that eating red meat is bad for them or for the planet. &nbsp;</li><li>Does the minister agree with Forum for Democracy that health advice should be based solely on health information, and therefore that health advice must never be based (even in part) on considerations related to climate policy? &nbsp;</li><li>Is the minister aware of the so-called “protein transition”? How would the minister briefly describe the protein transition? &nbsp;</li><li>In the minister’s view, is such a protein transition necessary? If so, why? &nbsp;</li><li>Is this Health Council advice part of that protein transition? In other words, is one of the aims of this advice to contribute to the protein transition? &nbsp;</li><li>Can the minister answer these questions as soon as possible and separately from one another?</li></ol>

large_01KBQ0C497X3BZ7HAFHB5WNBZC.webp

medium_01KBQ0C497X3BZ7HAFHB5WNBZC.webp

small_01KBQ0C497X3BZ7HAFHB5WNBZC.webp

thumbnail_01KBQ0C497X3BZ7HAFHB5WNBZC.webp

New Guidelines Push For Lower Meat Consumption: Pepijn Van Houwelingen MP (FVD) Submits Parliamentary Questions

30 November 2025On 1 November 2025, the Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics (SINAP) within the Chinese Academy of Sciences announced that its experimental reactor TMSR-LF1 has succeeded in performing the first conversion of thorium into uranium-233 in a molten salt reactor (MSR).Molten Salt ReactorTo understand properly what has happened and why it matters for the Netherlands, we must take a step back.In the early 1960s, the first experimental molten salt reactor (MSRE) was built in the United States at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. As the name suggests, the reactor uses liquid salt instead of solid fuel rods in high-pressure water systems. The “salt” is a special mixture that melts at high temperatures and can dissolve thorium or uranium. This molten salt acts as both coolant and fuel.The fission of uranium generates heat, which produces steam. As in any power plant, the steam drives a turbine which produces electricity.Where a conventional reactor using fuel rods can suffer a “meltdown” (Fukushima) and, in case of system failures, a steam explosion (Chernobyl), these problems do not occur in a molten salt reactor.The fuel is already molten, mixed with the salt, and the salt remains liquid and stable well above 1000°C. There is no pressure, and none can build up, because the salt stays liquid. In fact, this reactor has a self-regulating capability: when the salt becomes too hot, the fission process slows down and the reactor cools itself. An MSR also produces no significant nuclear waste. Moreover, the newest designs can even use nuclear waste as fuel. The MSR is therefore nuclear energy without the drawbacks!As early as the 1960s, the American MSRE proved to be a technical success. It demonstrated that the salt was indeed self-regulating and stable at high temperatures. In addition, the reactor could use multiple fuels: enriched uranium and plutonium.MSR revivalIt is no coincidence that molten salt reactors have once again attracted scientific attention. Although the United States ultimately abandoned the MSR program in the 1970s, they made the knowledge gained publicly available.This brings us to the current Chinese test reactor. In fact, the Chinese MSR is built directly according to the American design from the 1960s.The Chinese MSR was therefore able to build on American knowledge. This somewhat tempers the scientific significance of the breeding of uranium-233 from thorium, since it was already known that this was possible.On the other hand, the Chinese reactor includes an improved Hastelloy nickel alloy system, which makes the vessel containing the molten salt more resistant to corrosion from the aggressive salts and intense radiation. Another improvement is newly manufactured graphite. Graphite is the moderator that makes the thorium cycle possible. Its quality is crucial for the reactor’s lifespan, as it can warp or become brittle due to high temperatures.For now, the Chinese TMSR-LF1 research reactor is still unsuitable for commercial use, but it is not unthinkable that China will soon take steps toward thorium-based energy production.A thorium plant in the NetherlandsThe Netherlands has a unique opportunity to capitalize on these developments. The promising startup Thorizon is already working on developing a commercial molten salt reactor. The offshore company Allseas also intends to equip its fleet with a self-developed SMR (small modular reactor) propulsion system by 2035. Dutch industry is therefore ready to embrace this technology; it is up to the Dutch government to support these efforts to the fullest.Moreover, large thorium reserves are available; globally, thorium is three times more abundant than uranium. And thorium does not need enrichment, it can simply be converted into a thorium salt for the reactor. Worldwide mining already produces more than enough thorium as waste to power the world, and it costs practically nothing. A single thorium plant uses only a few hundred kilograms of thorium per year, making it a very sustainable form of energy production.While the Netherlands is effectively already in an energy crisis due to current climate policy, the government continues to ignore a real solution. Instead of investing in sustainable thorium plants, it continues with wind turbines and solar parks, both very unpredictable in energy production. Dutch landscapes and natural areas must give way to unreliable wind and solar energy, even though technology exists which can generate sustainable energy and preserve our natural environment.It is high time for the government to turn its good intentions to build nuclear plants into real action, and to give full support to initiatives for new forms of nuclear energy in our country.

large_01KBAQQ1YFHE8MVP491W06HBQE.webp

medium_01KBAQQ1YFHE8MVP491W06HBQE.webp

small_01KBAQQ1YFHE8MVP491W06HBQE.webp

thumbnail_01KBAQQ1YFHE8MVP491W06HBQE.webp

Thorium: Sustainable Energy Within Reach

For months, the US administration under Donald Trump has been attempting to create a diplomatic framework for a possible end to the war in Ukraine. This began with a so‑called US peace deal, which only weeks later revealed itself to be a solid raw‑materials deal in Washington’s favour. This “peace deal” was packed with points which even a critic of Ukraine would have to interpret as signalling that Ukraine – or more precisely, its resources – were up for sale. Why Trump presented such an unbalanced offer was unclear to many observers at the time. What remains striking, however, is that in the end virtually only the raw‑material interests of the United States were satisfied. Peace appeared to be a secondary objective.The recently proposed 28‑point plan by the US administration bears a noticeable resemblance to the earlier initiative. Once again, it involves significant territorial concessions, an unmistakable economic advantage for the United States in the post‑war period, and a clear expectation that the EU should foot the bill while Washington secures the key benefits. Following criticism from Kiev, the plan was revised and condensed into a 20‑ or 19‑point draft during talks in Geneva. US special envoy Steve Witkoff, together with Jared Kushner, held discussions in Moscow to clarify remaining points of contention. Without evaluating the US efforts in detail, one can at least conclude that on the surface there appears to be an interest in de-escalating the conflict. This fragile process, however, has not been welcomed by all key actors in the US and Europe. What is particularly noticeable is that whenever a political opportunity arises to move towards peace, someone within the network of Western allies interjects with harsh escalatory rhetoric.Let us take a closer look at the chronology since mid‑year:The chain of disruptions began with the conversation between Trump and Zelenskyy regarding the delivery of Tomahawk cruise missiles in July. Having previously spoken in clear terms about peace, Trump showed a different side here. Shortly afterwards, the delivery was temporarily taken off the table again, only for Trump to repeat the idea in mid‑October shortly before his trip to Israel. In the meantime, Germany’s Defence Minister Boris Pistorius transformed himself into a handbag Rambo, proclaiming that Germany was ready to “kill Russians”. Whether he had reflected beforehand on which army might accomplish this daring objective is doubtful.After tempers cooled somewhat, US General Christopher Donahue voiced another escalatory message pointing in the same direction. Donahue, commander of the US Army in Europe, declared that NATO was capable of “destroying” the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad “faster than ever before”. This is not just any territory but a strategically vital centre of Russian military presence with nuclear infrastructure. Statements of this kind may be framed in the West as deterrence, but objectively they sound like a public confirmation of concrete war and attack planning against Russian territory. In Moscow, they are perceived as clear evidence that NATO is not thinking defensively but is contemplating the neutralisation of key Russian regions, at a time when diplomatic progress is being discussed publicly.Major General Christian Freuding fits seamlessly into this picture. As head of the Ukraine special task force in the German Defence Ministry, he is centrally involved in shaping Germany’s military support. Weeks before Sollfrank or NATO leadership added their public warnings, Freuding stated on television in July that Germany was financing a high three‑digit number of missiles and long‑range weapons systems for Ukraine, capable of penetrating deep into Russian territory to destroy depots, airfields and command centres. This statement was made not during a phase of escalation but at a moment when the US was attempting to arrange a direct meeting between Putin and Trump. While Washington was engaged in diplomatic efforts, Germany and other European states publicly signalled their willingness to broaden Ukraine’s military operations deep into Russia. From Moscow’s perspective, this is not a sign of readiness to negotiate but a strong indication that the West is pursuing a different agenda while pretending to seek peace.After a brief period of calm, matters escalated again with an American ultimatum to Russia. This time it was Trump personally. In early August, he demanded that Moscow make concessions on Ukraine, initially giving a deadline of 50 days before abruptly shortening it to 10–12 days. Russia interpreted this sudden shift as a threat of potential military escalation. Dmitry Medvedev, former Russian president and current deputy head of the Security Council, saw it as a provocation. He warned that Russia could not be compared with countries like Israel or Iran and stressed the high‑risk character of such rhetoric. Such statements undermine trust in diplomatic solutions and greatly increase the danger of unintended escalation. By this point, the disturbing volatility of Trump’s foreign policy had already become obvious. In predictable fashion, Trump allowed himself to be drawn into a verbal showdown with Medvedev, ultimately claiming that he had moved two nuclear-armed submarines closer to Russia. Whether true or mere theatre remains unclear. It would have served little military purpose given the vast range of such platforms, and would simply have increased the risk of detection.Moscow responded by announcing that it would no longer refrain from deploying land‑based nuclear weapons. This represented Russia’s first tangible reaction to the previous sabre‑rattling from Western allies. A few days later, Trump sent special envoy Steve Witkoff to Moscow. Officially, the purpose was to explore a possible meeting between Putin and Trump in Alaska. In reality, it was less a serious diplomatic initiative than a tactical manoeuvre. Trump was interested primarily in deals, not in establishing a sustainable security order. Accordingly, he sent a property magnate rather than a seasoned diplomat. The claim that Russia needed to be integrated into a European security architecture came late, far too late. Even Otto von Bismarck had been more advanced in his thinking. In the wake of weeks of war rhetoric and questionable political theatrics, the initiative looked more like a media stunt. In mid‑August, Putin and Trump finally met in Alaska. Much was said, little was decided, and no practical results emerged. After a brief summer lull and some atmospheric easing, further disruptions quickly followed.In early November, Lieutenant General Alexander Sollfrank, head of the Bundeswehr’s new Operational Command, issued another stark warning. He claimed in interviews that Russia could attack NATO territory “as early as tomorrow”, albeit on a small scale at first. A large‑scale attack could be possible by 2029. Such formulations are enough to influence the political climate profoundly. While diplomatic efforts are under way, the statement of a senior German military figure creates a threat narrative that pushes negotiations into the background and primes the public for escalation rather than détente.The temporary peak of this escalation sequence came with Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, chair of NATO’s Military Committee. In an interview, he stated that NATO must in future discuss proactive and even pre‑emptive actions against Russia in response to hybrid attacks or sabotage. The term “pre‑emptive” has a very clear meaning in international politics: it refers to the willingness to conduct a pre-emptive first strike. That a NATO military chief used this term at a time when the peace plan was still on the agenda and US envoys were preparing further talks with Putin is diplomatically disastrous and reinforces Moscow’s deep mistrust. The message is unmistakable: the West talks publicly about peace while simultaneously developing military doctrine aimed at forward‑leaning offensive action.Taken together, and there are far more events that could be mentioned, including activities in the Baltic region, a pattern emerges that cannot be dismissed as coincidence. Whenever the political level attempts to open a window for negotiations, the military level intervenes and closes it again. The result is always the same: Russia perceives Western peace initiatives as a tactical smokescreen, Europe loses communicative coherence, and the United States appears divided between its diplomatic messaging and its military‑industrial interests. Whether this is the result of poor coordination, internal rivalries or calculated power politics is open to interpretation. What is undeniable is that disruptions from within repeatedly destroy any emerging diplomatic opportunity.Anyone following geopolitics with attention, and viewing the “Grand Chessboard”, knows that the United States pursues its own interests, which differ significantly from those of Europe. General Freuding himself was recently forced to acknowledge this. He told the press that the United States had suspended its operational communication line with the German Defence Ministry. Such an announcement is a diplomatic earthquake. It means Washington no longer regards Berlin as a reliable partner in key military matters. While the US government publicly works on a peace framework, a German general signals that the most important bilateral military communication channel in the West has effectively been shut down. Outwardly, this creates not an image of cooperation but of chaos. The US negotiates, Germany escalates, and coordination between the two disintegrates. For Moscow, this is not a sign of strength but of Western disarray, and further proof that current Western statements cannot be taken at face value.To this already tense situation comes another strategic shift: the recent remarks by former US European Commander Ben Hodges. In an interview with Euronews he stated plainly: “The United States really sees Europe as inconsequential except maybe for some business purposes.” He placed Europe geopolitically as “number four”, behind the Western Hemisphere, the Indo‑Pacific and the Middle East, and warned that Europe must finally face the reality that Washington is no longer a reliable partner. When a former commander of US forces in Europe openly states that Europe now plays a marginal role for the United States, it carries huge political weight. It explains why US diplomatic signals and military messages within the alliance diverge so sharply, and it exposes that Europe is viewed in Washington not as a strategic core region but merely as a geopolitical add‑on.As if this were not problematic enough, it is compounded by the headless EU policy of Ursula von der Leyen, who has reduced Europe to an international laughing stock. Outmanoeuvred by Trump, not taken seriously by Putin, fleeced by Zelenskyy, she stumbles from one foreign‑policy disaster to the next. There are now countless examples. Whether it is the rushed promise of billion‑euro reconstruction and weapons packages for Ukraine, agreed without regard for the financial situations of EU member states, or the attempt to “use” frozen Russian assets as a political showpiece despite numerous legal warnings. Or her embarrassing negotiations with Trump in Scotland, during which she achieved none of her loudly proclaimed strategic aims while committing the EU to hundreds of billions. Von der Leyen lacks any coherent foreign‑policy strategy that might advance the interests of Europe and its citizens. Instead, she throws around taxpayers’ money as if there were no tomorrow, worsening the EU’s fragile position through short‑sighted and hyperactive decision‑making.This combination of political disorientation in Brussels and strategic discord in the transatlantic alliance reinforces the impression of a West that no longer controls its own direction. While the military side escalates and the political side stumbles, a picture of growing disorder emerges, unsettling allies and adversaries alike. If we combine all these developments, the suspension of the communication line between the US and Germany, the announced deployment of deep‑strike offensive weapons, Sollfrank’s scenario of a Russian attack “as early as tomorrow”, Donahue’s threat against Kaliningrad, Cavo Dragone’s considerations of a pre‑emptive strike and Hodges’ classification of Europe as geopolitically irrelevant—an overall image forms that can hardly be dismissed as coincidence. The Western camp is clearly not speaking with one voice. It is sending contradictory, sometimes chaotic and sometimes dangerously inflammatory signals that in Moscow appear to confirm the notion of a double agenda. As a result, any diplomatic attempt is undermined from within before it can gain substance.Peace requires coherence, order and strategic seriousness. As long as Western military leaders publicly discuss first strikes, territorial neutralisation, imminent attack scenarios and the breakdown of transatlantic communication while their governments conduct peace negotiations in parallel, every diplomatic initiative is weakened from the outset. Europe sits at the centre of these contradictions, geopolitically diminished by Hodges’ assessment, operationally isolated by Freuding’s admission and politically paralysed by the escalatory signals of its own generals. If the West genuinely seeks peace, it must first end its own cacophony. As long as one hand negotiates while the other threatens, diplomacy remains a game with no winners, and Europe its greatest loser.

large_ChatGPT Image 8 dec 2025, 16_57_47.png

medium_ChatGPT Image 8 dec 2025, 16_57_47.png

small_ChatGPT Image 8 dec 2025, 16_57_47.png

thumbnail_ChatGPT Image 8 dec 2025, 16_57_47.png

The West’s Double Agenda

It is rare to hear politicians quoting Plato and even rarer to hear them properly invoking him. Yet this is what FVD’s newest MP, Peter van Duijvenvoorde, did in his recent maiden speech to Parliament. In a debate on education policy, Peter insisted that the greatest lesson Plato taught was Socrates’ famous ‘I know only one thing and that is that I know nothing.’ Not just education but freedom itself are based on the fact that it is impossible to give one simple definition of&nbsp; the true, the good and the beautiful. Any simple definition of these can quickly become instruments of power. Easy dogmatism becomes ideology. Instead, the goal of education must be to encourage us to do that which makes us humans. We are on a permanent path of search for the good, the true and the beautiful yet the search itself is the goal, not claiming to have reached the end of the journey. Just as law needs to be anchored in justice even though justice can never be conclusively defined, so education should not impose a single vision of citizenship, as is proposed, but instead teach children to search, to doubt and above all to think. Peter is a worthy successor of the great 18th century Dutch philosopher David Ruhnken and his motto:&nbsp;oportet quaedam nescire.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry41pzpnxis">Watch Peter’s maiden speech here (translated by AI)</a><img src="/uploads/image_6072d96fad.png">Ralf Dekker, who speaks on foreign policy issues for FVD in the Second Chamber of the Dutch parliament, delivered an impassioned plea for Europe not to wreck Trump’s attempt to end the war in Ukraine. Europe’s insistence on a ‘just peace’ is costing Ukrainian lives without bringing victory any closer, quite the contrary. It is also pushing Europe itself towards a financial precipice. Ralf instead appeals to Europe: ‘give peace a chance’.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/ralf-dekker-in-the-ukraine-debate-european-countries-should-let-donald-trump-do-his-job">Read Ralf Dekker’s speech here</a><img src="/uploads/image_090135b7be.png">We are also pleased to publish an English translation of a recent article on Ukraine by Stefan Korte, whom Thierry Baudet and John Laughland met recently in Austria. Korte argues that the 28-point ‘peace plan’ is in fact a plan by Trump’s USA to extract as much wealth as possible from Ukraine and from Europe, by concluding lucrative deals with Ukraine but leaving Europe to pay for the country’s reconstruction.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/america-cashes-in-europe-pays">Read Stefan Korte’s article here</a><img src="/uploads/image_9e57b0e76d.png">The American Right, meanwhile, is descending into civil war, as significant people within the broader MAGA movement complain ever more loudly about the importance given to Israel by people who claim to put America first. The term ‘woke right’ has been coined to discredit these anti-liberals. FVD International’s Vincent Vos has written an important piece explaining why one of the protagonists of this slur, James Lindsay, is profoundly wrong to claim that this anti-liberal Right is somehow really Left underneath. Instead, argues Vincent, it is liberalism which is rooted in the same gnostic millenarianism as the Left. In other words, Lindsay is the pot calling the kettle black.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/woke-right--a-discussion-on-liberalism-and-identity-politics">Read Vincent Vos’s article here</a> &nbsp;<img src="/uploads/image_57a82d0f86.png">Stefan Korte was our guest on The Forum this week, not so much to talk about Ukraine but instead about the ‘U-Turn for Europe’ cultural project he is setting up to try to turn the tide against oikophobia. If you missed it, you can listen back.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nppSU6yHp0A&amp;t=0s">Watch The Forum here (starts properly at 5.45)</a>&nbsp;<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/subscribe">Subscribe to our Newsletter here</a>

large_unnamed (1).png

medium_unnamed (1).png

small_unnamed (1).png

thumbnail_unnamed (1).png

The Weekly Forum - 5 December

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights – ‘Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence’ -&nbsp; is heavily used by the European Court to overrule states. In 2024, for instance, Strasbourg invoked it to punish Switzerland for not doing enough to save the planet! How odd, therefore, that its specific insistence on the privacy of correspondence is being savagely attacked by the European Commission, which is demanding ‘chat control’, the electronic surveillance of all text messages by service providers. The Stasi used to steam open envelopes to read people’s letters: this EU measure will make East German totalitarianism look like a vicarage tea party. As usual, only FVD protests. Pepijn van Houwelingen MP raised the issue in committee recently, as the Commission is now bringing back its proposal in a new form even though it was defeated in the Council only last month. Given that the Commission is also proposing to create its own intelligence service, we all need to be afraid, very afraid.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4DXpquSDbg">Watch Pepijn’s speech here (translated by AI)</a><img src="/uploads/image_8ab7adea9e.png">Meanwhile, Socialism is alive and well as a political ideology and not just as a totalitarian practice. In a debate in the Second Chamber of the Dutch Parliament recently, a Socialist MP said that the current tax system was unfair because it allows the rich to remain too wealthy. Thierry Baudet tackled him on this. Why is it unfair if some people have more money than others? The MP replied that ‘working people’ deserved to keep their money but that rich people do not. But how, Thierry asked, do rich people get rich? Do they not work also for their money, maybe perhaps even harder than others? Alternatively, did their parents not work for it, if it is inherited wealth, and should people not have the right to give the money to their children? The claim that only labour is a legitimate source of wealth is thus not just ideological but also profound nonsense. Work is at the source of all wealth, whether it is a meagre salary or a large fortune, and therefore labour cannot be a criterion for the supposed legitimacy or illegitimacy of someone’s financial position.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/what-are-fair-taxes">Read Thierry’s article here</a><img src="/uploads/image_bdfa1e7713.png">The director of FVD’s cultural body, the&nbsp;<a href="https://renaissanceinstituut.nl/">Renaissance Institute</a>, Peter van Duijvenvoorde MP, has asked the Dutch government a very simple question. Why are the new higher levels of defence spending going to foreign arms manufacturers and not to Dutch ones? Donald Trump’s vision of the world is based on wealth extraction – in this case from America’s colonies in Europe and the Far East (Japan). Thus, at his golf resort in Scotland in the summer, he obtained from the EU the agreement to spend hundreds of billions of euros on US weapons. Europe is paying for the reindustrialisation of America while suffering de-industrialisation itself because it has to buy American liquefied natural gas rather than cheaper Russian gas. In short, Europe is being comprehensively shafted by the Atlanticist political cabal.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/peter-van-duijvenvoorde-mp-submits-parliamentary-questions-about-the-tens-of-billions-of-euros-leaking-away-to-foreign-defence-industries">Read Peter van Duijvenvoorde’s questions here</a><img src="/uploads/image_2723912ed9.png">Ian Proud, a former British diplomat, was our guest on&nbsp;<a href="https://substack.com/@theforumfriends">The Forum</a> this week to discuss the various ‘peace plans’ being discussed for Ukraine. Ian is convinced that Trump genuinely wants a ‘win’, i.e. a peace agreement, and that the coming days will show whether or not the key issue of NATO membership for Ukraine will be taken off the table. If you missed the show, you can listen back here.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNOlm5CPZBE&amp;t=0s">Watch The Forum here</a>&nbsp;<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/subscribe">Subscribe to our Newsletter here</a>

large_unnamed (7).jpg

medium_unnamed (7).jpg

small_unnamed (7).jpg

thumbnail_unnamed (7).jpg

The Weekly Forum - 27 November

America Cashes In, Europe Pays - Why the 28/20-Point Plan for Ukraine Is an Economic and Political Disaster for European Nation-StatesBy Stefan Korte26 November 2025There are geopolitical proposals that claim to create peace and there are proposals that merely dress up peace rhetorically to legitimise covert shifts in power. The 28-point plan put forward by the United States to end the war in Ukraine clearly belongs to the second category. Behind the façade of diplomatic reason lies a project that resembles less a peace settlement and more a large-scale economic redistribution machine with a clear beneficiary: the United States. And a clear loser: the European nation-states, whose citizens are expected to foot the bill for a political adventure they never wanted.It should be noted from the outset that the author is very much in favour of a comprehensive and peaceful resolution to the conflict. A genuine peace plan would focus on disarmament, de-escalation, and the restoration of diplomatic communication, with the aim of ending the suffering of soldiers and civilians as quickly as possible. Under no circumstances, however, should a third party take advantage of such a situation to enrich itself economically and expand its geopolitical influence under the guise of peace.A closer look at the “peace plan” reveals a structure that shifts the core of the Western world order. The United States secures privileged access to Ukraine’s strategic sectors: energy, infrastructure, agriculture, and raw materials, taking operational control over reconstruction. The EU, by contrast, is politically marginalised while being financially forced into a role which is nothing less than ruinous - not as guardian of European interests, but as the payer in an American-dominated system. The economic logic of the plan is brutally simple: Washington leads, Europe pays. Meanwhile, Ukraine is transformed into the economic forward base of American interests, a protectorate where US corporations reap the profits, while European taxpayers bear the risks.Particularly pressing is the question of who will actually pay. When it is said today that “Europe” must support Ukraine in its reconstruction, this is a political smokescreen. The European Union is not an actor with its own fiscal power; it merely manages the funds of its member states. Every euro flowing to Ukraine does not come from Brussels’ imaginary vaults, but from national budgets: from Berlin, Vienna, The Hague, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Paris. Tax revenues which could have been invested in schools, infrastructure, hospitals, energy prices, internal security, or family support instead disappear into a country whose state structures have been among Europe’s most prone to corruption for decades. Billions are lost to oligarchic networks, opaque procurement channels, and parallel political structures. These risks are systematically downplayed by proponents, yet they are central: every euro lost in Ukraine is a euro missing from Europe’s national budgets.It is especially noteworthy that the plan has already undergone a revision—but only in a single area: territorial issues. The minimal changes clearly follow no political insight but merely serve to relieve international pressure without altering the economic core of the plan. While certain geographical demands were cosmetically softened, all the central mechanisms for financially draining Europe and allowing American corporations economic penetration of Ukraine remain untouched. Neither Washington nor Kyiv appears to have a problem with this; on the contrary, Ukraine openly demonstrates that it is willing to demand the maximum from European states, while simultaneously selling or leasing its own national assets, resources, and markets to American actors at bargain prices. A double imbalance: Europe pays, the US exclusively benefits.This development exposes the political and economic fault line of the entire project. Ukraine no longer behaves as a sovereign state which values European solidarity but as an actor willingly pledging its future to Washington, knowing full well that the financial consequences will fall entirely on European budgets. The Ukrainian government demands enormous sums from the EU, calls for the fastest possible EU accession, pushes for long-term transfer mechanisms, and does not shy away from selling or leasing key industries, land, energy sectors, and resources to American corporations. The message is clear: Europe pays, America profits.Even more dangerous is the geopolitical dimension. The United States is not only seeking economic advantage in Ukraine but also aiming to expand its control over Europe as a whole. The plan would enable Washington to reorganise Europe’s energy structures according to its own terms. Particularly alarming are suggestions that the US could eventually take control of Nord Stream 2. The logic here is transparent: after years of opposing this pipeline, the US would gain control of the infrastructure and then sell gas to Germany at inflated prices. It would be the ultimate geopolitical irony. A project that once promised German and European energy autonomy would become a tool for American price-setting. Whether the Norwegians foresaw this development when they celebrated the opportunity to sell their expensive gas after the Nord Stream attacks is doubtful. One thing is certain: any illusion of energy sovereignty for decades would be shattered.This development is not a side issue but the political core. Whoever controls energy controls industry, prosperity, and the political manoeuvrability of a continent. The 28/20-point plan is the perfect blueprint to turn an unstable Ukraine into a lever for strategic control over Europe—economically, energetically, and in terms of security.There is also the final escalation of financial obligations: Ukraine’s proposed EU accession. With over 40 million inhabitants and a destroyed economy, Ukraine would become the largest net recipient in EU history. Funds would have to be restructured, agricultural subsidies redistributed, and contributions from net-contributing countries massively increased. European national budgets would be strangled by a political project that enjoys little or no popular support.From a security perspective, the plan also leads to a dangerous illusion. While the US secures diplomatic leadership, it shifts the long-term costs of stabilisation, reconstruction, social systems, and border security entirely onto Europe. Europe finances a project whose foundations it cannot influence. This is not partnership, it is fiscal protection racket logic.The 28/20-point plan is therefore not merely a poor peace proposal; it is a blueprint for a tectonic shift in power away from Europe and toward the United States. It disempowers European nation-states, weakens their budgets, destabilises their social systems even further, and undermines their political legitimacy. Millions of Europeans are already struggling with rising costs, declining purchasing power, deteriorating infrastructure, and overburdened social systems. The idea that these same citizens should now pump billions into a corruption-ridden state for decades, while American corporations acquire the most lucrative parts of Ukraine’s economy, is, to put it mildly, political madness.It must be emphasised that this is not about a lack of solidarity with the Ukrainian population, but about honesty with European citizens. The question is not, “Can Europe help Ukraine?” The question is, “Who pays so that the US can reap the economic rewards?” The answer is clear: not Brussels, but the taxpayers of European nation-states. They are being pushed into a financial commitment they never wanted, whose size they cannot comprehend, and whose risks are not openly disclosed.Proponents of the 28/20-point plan present it as a geopolitical necessity. In reality, it is an economic risk, a social time bomb, and a strategic loss for European states, while the US gains. Anyone who takes European sovereignty seriously must decisively reject this plan. Anyone who wants to keep Europe stable must once again represent the interests of his own citizens. As long as this does not happen, the 28/20-point plan remains a document of Europe’s ongoing loss of power and proof that the United States pursues only its own geopolitical and economic interests, without the slightest regard for Europe, European nation-states, or their peoples. Respect and genuine partnership are entirely absent in this context.

cHJpdmF0ZS9sci9pbWFnZXMvd2Vic2l0ZS8yMDIyLTA0L2ZsMTIzMjU0MzY1OTMtaW1hZ2Uta3AyZ2FkejIuanBn.webp

medium_cHJpdmF0ZS9sci9pbWFnZXMvd2Vic2l0ZS8yMDIyLTA0L2ZsMTIzMjU0MzY1OTMtaW1hZ2Uta3AyZ2FkejIuanBn.webp

small_cHJpdmF0ZS9sci9pbWFnZXMvd2Vic2l0ZS8yMDIyLTA0L2ZsMTIzMjU0MzY1OTMtaW1hZ2Uta3AyZ2FkejIuanBn.webp

thumbnail_cHJpdmF0ZS9sci9pbWFnZXMvd2Vic2l0ZS8yMDIyLTA0L2ZsMTIzMjU0MzY1OTMtaW1hZ2Uta3AyZ2FkejIuanBn.webp

America Cashes In, Europe Pays - Why the 28/20-Point Plan for Ukraine Is an Economic and Political Disaster for European Nation-States

Forum for Democracy International

Articles

Subscribe to our international newsletter

🏛 The Forum &amp; Friends: The USA’s New Security Strategy with Larry Johnson 🛡️

€700 Million for Ukraine, At the Expense of Healthcare? | Van Houwelingen (FVD) VS Coenradie (JA21)

Trump’s National Security Strategy: A Wake-Up Call for Europe | Freek Jansen | FVD

&quot;The EU Is Ruled By Anti-Democratic Bureaucrats&quot; | John Laughland Reacts To Elon Musk | FVD

🏛 The Forum &amp; Friends: The Truth about COPs with Samuel Furfari

&quot;A Good Way To Look At Our Industry” - Dekker (FVD) In The Nexperia Debate | FVD

🏛 The Forum and Friends: U-turn for Europe with Stefan Korte

The Truth Is Essentially Unknowable, Let Us Acknowledge That | Maiden Speech Van Duijvenvoorde | FVD

🏛 The Forum and Friends: Trump's Peace Plan for Ukraine with Ian Proud

Pepijn van Houwelingen On EU Chat Control | FVD

Forum for Democracy

FVD is a anti-globalist political party in the Netherlands founded and led by Thierry Baudet. John Laughland (right) is director of FVD International.

Subscribe to our international newsletter