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://newdiscourses.com/2025/07/a-beginners-guide-to-the-woke-right/#chapter2">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

Speech to the Second Chamber of the States-General (Dutch Parliament)By Ralf Dekker, MP28 November 2025Chair,It appears that Russia is moving ever closer to achieving its objective of destroying Ukraine’s military capabilities, capabilities that have been built up over more than ten years by NATO, especially by the United States.With the inauguration of President Trump, fortunately, dialogue with Russia has reopened. The European countries, with the exception of Hungary, have unfortunately failed to seek constructive openings at the diplomatic level.President Trump has said that he would prefer to withdraw from the conflict as quickly as possible. Within his political circle there is resistance to this, as there is also among the European countries and, of course, within the Ukrainian government.In the meantime, the Trump administration has launched several initiatives to reach an understanding with Russia. The meeting between Trump and Putin in Anchorage was, in that regard, a hopeful development. Since then, there have been contacts between the US and Russia at various levels.Russia continues its war of attrition and is steadily working towards the capitulation of Ukraine. Militarily, the US or NATO can do little to stop this. And the numerous economic sanctions remain without noticeable effect. They seem, above all, harmful to the European countries themselves.President Trump wants to pre-empt the moment of Ukrainian capitulation, in order to avoid a humiliating American defeat, and thus a failure of his presidency.The leaked so-called 28-point plan, with which the Americans intended to conduct talks with Russia, contains no outright dealbreakers and does include several points on which the Russians would gladly reach agreement, such as declaring Ukraine definitively neutral and therefore excluding NATO membership, the absence of NATO troops, strong limitations on its armed forces, territorial arrangements, and elections within 100 days.According to the Russians, this plan was in line with the agreements Putin and Trump made in Anchorage and could form a basis for further discussions.Subsequently, the European countries and Ukraine formulated an alternative plan which added elements which are unacceptable to Russia, such as an unconditional ceasefire, possible NATO membership, and Article 5-like security guarantees.The resulting 19-point plan has not been made public in detail, but seems to strike a balance between the two proposals. It is reasonable to assume that such a plan will not make peace negotiations with the Russians possible.It seems that we, the European countries, are living in an unrealistic world. We are the ones who systematically torpedo viable and seemingly realistic American proposals and turn them into an unacceptable diktat to Russia.We act as though we are the winners. But it is becoming increasingly clear that we are the losers. And losers are not in a position to impose diktats. This makes the situation absurd, cynical, and the complete opposite of what it appears to be.Under the guise of striving for a “just peace” and upholding the “rules-based order”, more and more of Ukraine is being sacrificed in a war that will certainly be lost without - but also with - American support.In the future, therefore, any peace deal with the Russians will only become worse for Ukraine and also for Europe.This is pushing Europe towards a financial crisis and a very problematic future, with real risks of escalation in which Western European countries such as the Netherlands could become involved in combat operations.Among the “coalition of the willing”, of which we are a part, everyone seems to think along the same lines, a moral condemnation of Russia and the relentless continuation of a sacred and unwinnable war - even if that runs counter to American peace proposals.For us, this has so far only cost money, which by now is running out.For Ukraine, it has cost above all hundreds of thousands of lives. And those lives, too, are running out.I would like to ask the Prime Minister: urge the “coalition of the willing” to exercise restraint and avoid further escalation.Do not obstruct the American peace plans.Thank you.

large_Ralf-Dekker.jpg

medium_Ralf-Dekker.jpg

small_Ralf-Dekker.jpg

thumbnail_Ralf-Dekker.jpg

Ralf Dekker In The Ukraine Debate: ‘European Countries Should Let Donald Trump Do His Job’

After the major interview by American journalist, Tucker Carlson, with political commentator, Nick Fuentes, discussion in the US has flared up about the identity of the MAGA movement.Critics say that people like Nick Fuentes should not have a platform because their identitarian view of politics goes against American values. Supporters emphasise the role of absolute freedom of expression. They argue that thinking about identity and self-interest is of fundamental importance for the MAGA movement.&nbsp; Even President Donald Trump felt compelled to respond. According to him, everyone deserves a platform and it is ultimately up to the voter to determine which voices they want to listen to. Yet prominent Republicans such as the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mike Johnson and Senator Ted Cruz continue to criticise Fuentes sharply - especially his view that American foreign policy is influenced by Israeli lobby structures which push the American national interest into the background. This is an important topic which has been explored in depth by political scientists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt in their book,&nbsp;The Israel Lobby. That criticism touches on a broader debate within the Right about power, identity and what to do about the political liberal order in which politics is conducted nowadays.&nbsp; With this internal struggle on the Right, it is becoming increasingly clear that a culture war is taking place on a deeper level than simply between Left and Right. The differences within the Right seem to be just as great as between the Left and the Right. A new term is increasingly making its appearance in this debate: the ‘woke Right’&nbsp; This article aims to help the reader understand what is meant by this term, and to show that it is theoretically incoherent. To do this, it is necessary to go back to the philosophical framework of the man who coined this term: James Lindsay.&nbsp;James Lindsay, critical theory and Cultural Marxism&nbsp; Lindsay is known for his dissection of Marxism and his thesis that aspects of (Cultural) Marxism, including critical theory and contemporary ‘woke-thinking’, are variants of an ancient metaphysical tradition: gnosticism. Lindsay does this both with articles and in lectures.&nbsp;The core of gnostic thinking is that man can reinvent himself, that he can detach himself from history, nature and material limitations and that a future, Utopian society is possible when existing structures are broken down. Lindsay recognises in this the contours of Marxism: the (cultural) class struggle becomes a liberation project, hierarchies are regarded as artificial power constructions, and a new man will appear once the old order is destroyed. It is thus the belief that it is man's task to escape from the material prison of things. Dialectical change ensures that the collective consciousness of man will reach a new level: post-material and post-dualist, man as a united world soul.&nbsp; Despite his harsh statements against left-progressive and woke movements, Lindsay identifies himself with classical liberal values. In his worldview, individual rights, freedom, political equality, property and privacy are the most important values. He emphasises rationality, objective truth and reason, as a counterweight to what he sees as relativistic tendencies in postmodern and cultural Marxist ideas.&nbsp; He also regards the “woke Right” as a threat to these individualistic values. According to him, these people use the same group-orientedness, identity rhetoric and power politics as do woke groups. The ‘woke Right’ according to him, places moralistic purity and group loyalty above individual autonomy.&nbsp;What Lindsay sees as the ‘woke Right’ can better be described with the terms identitarian or anti-liberal Right. The current anti-liberal Right can best be seen as a group of right-wing people who do not simply accept the foundations of the liberal order, as developed in the post-war era. Although there are many flavours in the anti-liberal Right, and although the different groups do not agree at all on how ‘deep’ the ‘rot’ in the system is, there are also similarities. In contrast to the liberal order, which has become an increasingly universalistic doctrine, the anti-liberal Right wants to go precisely in the other direction. In times of universalism, traditional core values and self-interest should again become the foundation. The systematic peeling away of the liberal illusion of the post-war world order is central here: it is not a moral order. This idea which has been sold as a new paradise has turned out to be an illusion. Human nature never changes, whatever system there is, and universal values and human rights are precisely used in this order to strengthen the real power pyramid in the world. This is now under the guise of democracy, but in reality nothing has changed in the world. Power is still a top-down phenomenon and the rest exists only to keep people docile. The liberal system is not real.This is not surprising either. The post-WW2 world order is (certainly after the fall of the Berlin wall) a mish-mash of, on the one hand, the economically liberal capitalism from the United States and, on the other, cultural Marxism. This is called progressive liberalism and all our institutions have this ideology as a starting point. Globalism is an expression of this ideology.Lindsay's theory that the anti-liberal right possesses the same qualities as gnostic ‘parasitic Marxism’ is therefore quite wrong. On the contrary, the system which is criticised by the anti-liberal Right itself possesses the same parasitic qualities as Marxism.It may be true that the anti-liberal Right in action uses critical theory to criticise the power of the liberal political system. But it also stops there. The epistemological and metaphysical position of the anti-liberal Right is of a totally different nature from that of cultural Marxism.The anti-liberal Right precisely attaches value to identity. Identity is even its foundation. The goal of cultural Marxism is the opposite: cultural Marxism undermines the self, and the order of things, by dismissing fundamental concepts as social constructions (think of the gender discussion). With this, critical theory subverts the rootedness of a society. A man is a man and a woman is a woman because, besides the fact that it is biologically a fact, in nature everything is built up from aspects of masculinity and femininity. The traces from eternity confirm that this has been the case since the fall from paradise (and the introduction of the state of things as they are now) (in whatever cultural form you look at this).Gnostic cultural Marxism is in essence a liberation doctrine. Gnosticism focuses on liberation of the oppressed (classes, identities) from a corrupt world. The ‘woke Left’ deconstructs hierarchies for this Utopia. The ‘woke Right’ wants to restore hierarchies, for example the Christian-nationalist hegemony. This is not gnosis, but reactionary dualism: 'us vs. them' for dominance, not for decolonisation. Lindsay himself implicitly acknowledges this by linking the ‘woke Right’ to Alexander Dugin or post-liberalism, which is reactionary, not gnostic-liberating. Gnosticism promises a 'new heaven on earth' through self-criticism and self-undermining: the ‘woke Right’ offers no spiritual redemption in the world, only restoration and unmasking.Lindsay is therefore quite right about Cultural Marxism. But how can he be so wrong when it comes to the anti-liberal Right? The answer lies in his own classical liberalism.Lindsay's mistake: classical liberalism is also Gnosticism&nbsp; Lindsay claims, as previously indicated, that the ‘woke Right’ engages in group thinking. But groupthink also within classical liberalism. After all, an individual can only be free when everyone has equal rights. Classical liberalism is also an ideology and therefore already collectivistic in nature. The revolution must first take place before the individualistic Utopia can dawn.&nbsp; Now we go a step further. Lindsay’s own position is ITSELF not coherent with his own criticism of (cultural) Marxism. To illustrate this, we return to Lindsay's previously mentioned criticism and the concept of 'gnosticism'.&nbsp; Classical liberalism is itself also an heir to a gnostic way of thinking. It detaches the individual from the natural and divine connections in which it was always rooted - family, people, church, kingdom - and elevates him to a kind of abstract bearer of rights. The world thus becomes disenchanted: reduced to matter and contracts. Money and trade almost acquire the status of sacraments.&nbsp; In this liberal dream, flesh, birth and death fade into the background. It becomes a kind of market-gnosis, in which man thinks to liberate himself by abolishing everything that binds or limits him.&nbsp; Look at John Locke with his theory about the ‘tabula rasa’. Man is at birth a ‘blank slate’ who will explore the world unprejudiced. This is precisely a gnostic idea. Things have no origin and core and every generation can go into the world unrooted, detached from what binds him or her to previous generations. The individual is a person who, detached from his environment, can shape the world to his hand through his own actions. In this way, the material prison is also dissolved. Man can transcend his nature because it hardly influences him. It is therefore logical that more progressive-liberal philosophers such as John Rawls, with his theory about the ‘veil of ignorance’, base a theory of moral equality on the concept of ‘tabula rasa’.&nbsp;According to the Alexandrian gnostics, the true man has no nature, no flesh, no ancestors; he is pure potential which liberates himself from the ‘prison’ of the body, the family, the people, history. Locke secularises this and makes it the foundation of liberalism: man born without bonds, only rights, and the state as an artificial contract. That is the Alexandrian parasite (which Lindsay himself names in this way) that has disguised itself as ‘the Enlightenment’.The Enlightenment: Rome, Judea and the parasite from Alexandria Both liberalism and Marxism can be seen as two sides of the same ‘enlightened’ coin. It is the idea that we can create paradise on earth. This idea is as old as the story of the Tower of Babel.The current world order, which we can see as a coming together of economic liberalism and cultural Marxist thinking, packaged as globalism, is an order in which both worst points come together. Globalism is, on a worldwide level, the implementation of the new gnostic consciousness structures. It is a worldwide uniformisation of values and cultures.Marxism breaks down constructions in a very explicit way but liberalism does the same less explicitly. Take as an example the concept of government. A government was historically always an expression of self-interest, something which had a historical basis. Very long ago, this was the interest of the monarch. The monarch could make a historical claim to his right to rule from his birth and from divine right. When the centre of gravity shifted and the bourgeoisie emerged, the first governments arose from a very simple concept: the government should look after interests. This was lost with the further liberalisation of state structures. Self-interest gave way to universalism. This followed from the liberal value of equality. Often in the debate, it is claimed that liberalism assumes only freedom, but as Locke already noted, the condition of freedom for everyone is equality. This is where it went wrong. Governments increasingly behaved as guardians of universal liberalism. Further cultural and economic integration have ensured that universalism has made itself the goal. Borders matter less and less, the interests of people abroad are rarely subordinated to people at home. Liberalism works mainly through psychological nudging: small steps over a long period of time; however, the result is the same as with Marxism.The whole world will, with the advent of a universal progressive-liberal order, enter a new stage of evolution, as already noted by Francis Fukuyama after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The world will with this moral new social order break free from the oppression of traditional structures. This ideal could not be more gnostic!Conclusion&nbsp; In conclusion, the term 'woke Right' is more a rhetorical weapon than a serious analysis. It obscures the profound differences between movements which criticise the liberal order. Where progressive liberalism and cultural Marxism indeed approach reality as something that can be rebuilt according to gnostic insights, the anti-liberal Right precisely emphasises that an objective order exists - biologically, historically and culturally – and that it cannot simply be wiped away in the name of an abstract ideal. The worldview of the anti-liberal Right thus stands not next to, but diametrically opposed to the gnostic tradition which Lindsay describes, and to which ‘woke Left’ belongs. It is not aimed at liberation from the world, but at a revaluation of the world as it is, including the borders, identities and nature which define it.

large_Flammarion_Colored-scaled.webp

medium_Flammarion_Colored-scaled.webp

small_Flammarion_Colored-scaled.webp

thumbnail_Flammarion_Colored-scaled.webp

‘Woke right’? A Discussion On Liberalism And Identity Politics

“La propriété, c’est le vol,” declared the French socialist, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, in 1840. “All property is theft.” The idea, soon after elaborated by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in their famous&nbsp;Communist Manifesto, is that everything ultimately belongs to “the community”; that we all live, work, and exist within the same society; and that it is impossible to claim that one person “deserves” more than another. Since we are all equal, so the argument goes, claiming something as your own property means you are effectively “stealing” it from the collective.At least, that is what the socialists believe. Opposed to this is an equally widespread notion, expressed for example by the libertarian, Murray Rothbard, in 1982, that “taxation is theft”, in other words any form of taxation is a violation of property rights. In this view, all things are ultimately private property, and there exists no collective which is greater or more important than the individual’s right to dispose of the fruits of his own labour.Who is right? And what does that mean for politics, taxation, and the economy? During the parliamentary debate on the Tax Plan on Thursday 20 November, Jimmy Dijk (SP) and I touched upon this age-old question of political philosophy. Although a concrete proposal was on the table concerning the taxes for 2026, levies on businesses, VAT on groceries, and so on, the discussion suddenly went much deeper.This is how it unfolded: the leader of the Socialist Party argued that under the current tax system, the so-called “rich” still managed to remain wealthy too easily. The system, he claimed, simply was not “fair”. So I asked him what his definition of “fair” actually entailed. When are taxes “fair”? When is it legitimate to take money or earnings from people, and when is it not?His answer was that “the people who do the work” should “earn the money”, and not “the lazy shareholder”. For Jimmy Dijk, “capital”, private property, is therefore the problem. This is exactly what the socialists of old (from Proudhon to Marx and Engels) argued.In a world where the cards are dealt entirely at random, a board game in which one person receives great wealth by sheer luck and another receives almost nothing, that view might even be true. But how do rich people actually acquire their wealth? Roughly speaking, there are two possibilities:<ol><li>through hard work, or &nbsp;</li><li>through inheritance. &nbsp;</li></ol>If you acquire wealth through hard work, then you belong to the very group Jimmy Dijk claims to favour, so if work has paid off, it would, by his own definition, be unjust to confiscate it afterwards. That is where the contradiction already begins. But if you acquire wealth through inheritance, the same logic still applies. After all, your parents or loved ones once earned it themselves through hard work and choose to give it to you. Why should they not be allowed to dispose of the fruits of their labour as they wish? Again, you end up trapped in an internal contradiction.On what, then, is the socialist argument against capital actually based? It seems, for Dijk, mainly to revolve around the extent of the differences: a small difference is acceptable, he implies, but not too large a one. But why should the differences not be too large? If someone works twice as efficiently as another person, or ten times, or a hundred times, should they not also be allowed to earn twice, ten times, or a hundred times as much?At root, the Socialist’s conviction is perhaps that such large differences between people simply do not exist. But how does the Socialist know that? Indeed, how could one possibly know or measure such a thing? There is, unfortunately, no objective criterion for this - except the free market. Thus, logically considered, the Socialist position turns out, unfortunately, to be entirely untenable, and one is always led back to the correctness of the capitalist.<hr>

large_01KAK1ENNP1JSEQR10B8R517D5.webp

medium_01KAK1ENNP1JSEQR10B8R517D5.webp

small_01KAK1ENNP1JSEQR10B8R517D5.webp

thumbnail_01KAK1ENNP1JSEQR10B8R517D5.webp

What Are ‘Fair’ Taxes?

The government wants to double defence spending over the next ten years from 20 billion to nearly 40 billion euros. This is in line with the new NATO standard stating that 3.5 percent of gross domestic product must go directly to defence expenditure. In theory, this astronomical investment could contribute to economic growth, innovation and the strengthening of Dutch security. But new research by the Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis (CPB) shows that these billions in investments in reality yield hardly anything for the Netherlands. The vast majority of the new investments will flow abroad, leaving the Dutch economy behind.It is estimated that 61 percent of the new defence investments will be spent on importing equipment such as aircraft, weapon systems and vehicles. Dutch companies simply do not benefit from this. In addition, the CPB warns that the higher spending may even have a negative impact on the economy. Labour shortages will increase further, as defence wants to hire more staff. In fact, the economy will shrink as a result, because defence exacerbates labour shortages in sectors that&nbsp;do generate economic growth. Furthermore, other investments will be crowded out. More money for foreign manufacturers logically means&nbsp;less money for other sectors that&nbsp;do contribute to the growth of the Dutch economy.Although the cabinet claims that these billions generate employment, innovation and growth, the facts show a very different picture. To obtain clarity about these contradictions and to make the real consequences of the billions in spending visible, Peter van Duijvenvoorde is submitting parliamentary questions to the Minister of Defence.<hr>Written questions from MP Van Duijvenvoorde (FVD) to the Minister of Defence regarding the economic impact of additional defence spending according to the Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis (CPB).<ol><li>Is the minister aware of the NOS article – based on research by the CPB – about the limited economic impact of additional defence spending? &nbsp;</li><li>How does the minister assess the CPB study indicating that most defence investments will not generate economic growth in the Netherlands? &nbsp;</li><li>What is the minister’s plan to prevent additional investments from merely leading to budget stacking without operational improvement? &nbsp;</li><li>Why does the cabinet choose to spend Dutch investment expenditure abroad on a large scale? &nbsp;</li><li>Is the minister willing to develop a plan to strengthen the Dutch defence industry so that less Dutch taxpayers’ money leaks abroad? &nbsp;</li><li>How will the minister prevent further labour market shortages caused by defence attempting to recruit additional personnel? &nbsp;</li><li>Can the minister rule out that the additional defence spending will be financed through tax increases which may negatively affect the Dutch economy, as the CPB warns? &nbsp;</li><li>Why does defence invest relatively little in so-called ‘dual-use’ technology, which also strengthens civilian innovation? &nbsp;</li><li>How does the minister explain that the cabinet presents defence expenditure as if it will generate economic growth, while the CPB now clearly shows that this is barely the case? &nbsp;</li><li>Is the minister willing to be more transparent about the limited impact that additional defence investments will have on the Dutch economy? &nbsp;</li><li>Does the minister share the view of Forum for Democracy that defence investments – where possible – should benefit the Dutch economy and the Dutch defence industry as much as possible? &nbsp;</li><li>Can the minister provide insight into the consequences for the labour market when defence focuses on expanding its workforce? &nbsp;</li><li>Is the minister willing to focus primarily on Dutch production and industry rather than on foreign suppliers? &nbsp;</li><li>Can the minister compile a transparent cost-effectiveness analysis clarifying to what extent additional spending actually contributes to the resilience and security of the Netherlands? &nbsp;</li><li>How do investments in equipment such as weapon systems and vehicles relate to what is considered mainly a digital threat? &nbsp;</li><li>How does the minister justify that Dutch tax funds mainly strengthen foreign defence industries – and thereby their resilience? &nbsp;</li><li>Does the minister see possibilities to deploy Dutch tax funds more for the Dutch defence industry and Dutch resilience? &nbsp;</li></ol>How will the minister ensure that defence spending is maximally effective?

large_01KAK798CWG61MJ0MY589PEAWD.webp

medium_01KAK798CWG61MJ0MY589PEAWD.webp

small_01KAK798CWG61MJ0MY589PEAWD.webp

thumbnail_01KAK798CWG61MJ0MY589PEAWD.webp

Peter Van Duijvenvoorde MP submits parliamentary questions about the tens of billions of euros leaking away to foreign defence industries

For decades, the Netherlands and many other European countries have been governed by coalitions hammered out behind closed doors, after parties horse-trade parts of their manifestos to gain this or that ministry. Only FVD sees through this monstrous charade. Lidewij de Vos explained with devastating clarity recently that there were big majorities in the new parliament for certain policies – on immigration, on nuclear power, on health care. Yet the tradition is that electoral promises disappear once the long process of government formation starts. Why not hold a vote on those policies, confirm the majorities and then create a technical government under a chairman-prime minister to implement them?&nbsp; That would at least respect the voters. The idea is brilliant and simple – but will it be accepted? Don’t hold your breath.Watch Lidewij’s speech&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfMka-S00sw">here</a><img src="/uploads/image_827aa0fa26.png">Unfortunately we did not have to wait for a new government to see these promises disappear like the morning mist. Lidewij put down motions on the various policy areas for which, according to the very recent election manifestos, there are majorities in the Lower House. On migration; on mortgage relief; on nuclear energy; on healthcare – one after another, her motions were rejected by the very parties which had just got themselves elected on these issues. Can there be any clearer illustration that the current democratic system is a con-trick?<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/the-election-outcome-deserves-immediate-substantive-action-not-months-of-coalition-bargaining">Read about Lidewij’s motions here</a><img src="/uploads/image_4d306c5dae.png">Meanwhile, the Dutch government – on autopilot, apparently, because the new government has not been formed yet – is preparing to demolish a village in the name of energy transition. It is surely the height of climate madness to destroy a centuries-old village in the name of ecology. Can there be any harsher symbolism of the cruelty and inhumanity of the climate industry than this? It appears that the decision was taken by the local council without even consulting the inhabitants of the village, who learned about it in the media. FVD’s newest member of parliament, Peter van Duyvenvoorde (above), director of FVD’s cultural think-tank, the Renaissance Institute, who was sworn in to the Lower Chamber recently, has taken up the cause of the village and, together with Pepijn van Houwelingen, put down a number of questions to the government about this scandalous and terrible decision.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/fvd-submits-parliamentary-questions-about-the-plan-to-destroy-the-village-of-moerdijk-in-the-name-of-energy-transition">Read the article about Moerdijk here</a><img src="/uploads/image_1f13361743.png">Stephen Baskerville was our guest on The Forum this week, with a tantalising thesis – that feminism is at the root of all revolutions and that the sexual revolution is a racket to emasculate men and promote female bureaucrats. If you missed it, listen back.<a href="https://x.com/FVD_Intl/status/1991159632841310485">Listen to The Forum here</a>

large_unnamed (6).jpg

medium_unnamed (6).jpg

small_unnamed (6).jpg

thumbnail_unnamed (6).jpg

The Weekly Forum - 21 November

Forum for Democracy International

Articles

Subscribe to our international newsletter

🏛 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

🏛️ The Forum and Friends: Who Lost America with Stephen Baskerville

De Vos To The House Of Representatives: Restore Your Vote And Honour Your Electorate! | FVD

🏛️ The Forum and Friends: The Truth about Diet with Dr Zoe Harcombe, PhD

FVD Nationalists Win Seats in the Netherlands - Exclusive Commentary from John Laughland | TVL (FR)

🏛️ The Forum and Friends: Venezuela with Diego Sequera

Lidewij de Vos Reacts to FVD’s Big Election Win | 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