Unfortunately, our fears about the proposals of the three parties of the new governing coalition, D66, VVD and CDA, have been confirmed: in almost every area, these parties are heading in the wrong direction.There is no proposal to tackle mass immigration: no asylum freeze, no repeal of the Distribution Act, let alone withdrawal from European rules or any serious focus on returns to countries of origin. Instead, the parties propose more structural reception facilities, which will lead to increased inflow. These plans stand in stark contrast to the wish of the vast majority of the Dutch population to put an end once and for all to this heavy burden on our society.The three parties are proposing a new tax, euphemistically referred to as a&nbsp;Freedom contribution, which is expected to raise €5 billion per year from 2027 (almost €600 per household per year). This money would then be spent directly on wars that are not in our interest.In the fields of climate and nitrogen policy, the parties also want to allocate billions to measures which demonstrably have no positive impact on the climate or the environment, but which do have far-reaching consequences for our economy, which make our energy supply more unstable and which increase our dependence on foreign energy. New statutory emissions-reduction targets and a nitrogen fund are hanging over our agricultural sector like a sword of Damocles.Nevertheless, there is a positive note: Forum for Democracy wholeheartedly welcomes the annual abolition of 500 regulations for entrepreneurs. We also support the construction of nuclear power plants and the retention of mortgage interest relief, which strengthens the position of first-time buyers in the housing market.The good news is that these three parties do not have a majority in parliament. Forum for Democracy will make full use of the space this creates. Good proposals can count on our support; bad proposals will be opposed, and where possible we will negotiate. Naturally, we will also come forward with our own proposals to protect, preserve and restore everything our beautiful country has to offer.Lidewij de Vos&nbsp; Parliamentary group leader, Forum for Democracy

large_01KG7V4S2MDY99QCJKNJ4SSMC4.webp

medium_01KG7V4S2MDY99QCJKNJ4SSMC4.webp

small_01KG7V4S2MDY99QCJKNJ4SSMC4.webp

thumbnail_01KG7V4S2MDY99QCJKNJ4SSMC4.webp

Forum for Democracy’s Reaction to the Plans of the New Governing Coalition

Forum for Democracy has always taken a keen interest in foreign policy. After all, it was founded in 2016 to campaign against the EU association agreement with Ukraine. Since then, it has been not just euro- but also NATO-sceptic. Seldom, however, has there been such a magisterial presentation of the underlying philosophy of that policy as the one delivered this week by Ralf Dekker to Parliament. As Ralf magnificently explains, the bottom line is national interest, whereas Dutch and European foreign policy (and other policies) seem instead to be dictated by very destructive ideology, abolishing identity through immigration, ensuring geopolitical irrelevance through parasitism on NATO, and stifling freedom through bureaucratic tyranny.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/forum-for-democracy-lays-out-its-foreign-policy">Read Ralf Dekker’s speech here</a><img src="/uploads/image_6a153dbc51.png">FVD International’s director, John Laughland, was Ian Proud’s guest on his successful podcast, The Peacemonger, this week. Ian is an ex-Foreign Office diplomat who spent time in Moscow and who disagrees with the prevailing Western policy on Russia. John and Ian’s conversation ranged over a large number of issues, essentially concentrating on Europe and its structural decline. John insisted that the EU and its national governments are trapped in a downward spiral of decay, the bureaucratic doom loop meaning that the system pushes ever more mediocre people to the top, who in turn accelerate the collapse. Just like the old Soviet Union!<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti-r42TxYJc">Watch John’s interview here</a><img src="/uploads/image_611286afbf.png">One of FVD’s MPs, Gideon van Meijeren, is the victim of a political trial. He was accused in 2023 of incitement to violence and the judicial procedure has been going on ever since. It is blatantly political. The appeal against his initial conviction was held this week. To cut a long story short, the Prosecution case is based on misrepresentations (otherwise known as lies) but above all on politics: Gideon is a suspect because he suspects the government of being dishonest. The Dutch security services argue, absurdly, that anyone who does not trust the government is seditious. The obsession with security which now dominates European politics should remind us that the old KGB was the Committee for State Security.<a href="https://solari.com/the-prosecution-of-dutch-mp-gideon-van-meijeren-where-media-political-and-legal-corruption-converge/">Read about Gideon’s political trial here</a><img src="/uploads/image_6b478ea3e3.png">We had a particularly charming and intelligent guest on The Forum this week, the prominent geopolitical commentator, Carl Zha, to discuss Mao Tse Tung and modern China’s perception of him. If you missed it, you missed out badly.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpowUpJrVEo&amp;t=1s">Watch The Forum here</a>

large_image.png

medium_image.png

small_image.png

thumbnail_image.png

The Weekly Forum - 30 January 2026

Speech by Ralf Dekker MP to the Dutch Parliament, 28 January 2026Chair,Over the past five years, our party’s contributions on foreign affairs have always had two central components. On the one hand, firm criticism of supranational structures, the EU and NATO, and their negative impact on our independence and on our ability to do what is necessary for the Netherlands and for the Dutch people. On the other hand, attention to the deeper, often unspoken, causes of conflicts.We wanted, and still want, to look beyond the reality that is so often presented to the public from a North Atlantic perspective through distorted and censored reporting. This is the imposed “preferred reality”, to use the words of Major-General Van Kappen.&nbsp; This sometimes results in positions which deviate from the mainstream and are not always immediately understood.But it is precisely through this independent and critical approach that we have also been able, on crucial dossiers, such as Nord Stream 2, to expose geopolitical power games.In a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape, we as the Netherlands need our own approach and our own vision for the future. On behalf of Forum for Democracy, I would therefore like to propose that the Netherlands formulates a number of clear criteria against which our foreign policy should be tested.First: the interests of the Netherlands and of the Dutch people are central and are our absolute top priority. First and foremost, we are the Netherlands. Only secondarily are we part of overarching organisations. We must constantly assess whether our national interests are being sufficiently served.There should be no blind trust, no altruistic behaviour, no automatic adherence to old agreements, and no actions which run counter to our own interests.Second: strengthening our own economic power, without vulnerable dependencies, in the short and long term.Third: freedom, peace and security as the basis for our actions. Cooperation and trade are, in principle, not excluded with anyone.And finally: an open, critical and pluralistic outlook. Things are often not what they seem at first glance.These four criteria form the compass that guides us through the complex international relations of our time.Chair,Europe is in a deep, existential crisis. Not only economically, but also culturally, militarily and not least in the field of freedom of expression. The anchor on which Europe has always slavishly relied, the United States, has cut loose.The decline of Germany over the past ten years is emblematic of this enormous European decay. Economic growth has more or less come to a standstill; major industries such as BASF, Volkswagen and BMW are languishing. Investment plans do not progress beyond the planning phase. And the energy situation is hopeless. The long-term gas supply contracts of the Netherlands with Germany, at secret, highly favourable rates for Germany, currently constitute Germany’s only affordable energy supply.And now President Trump is laying all of this bare. In his first term, he proved to be completely right about defence and energy. Now, in his second term, the recent US National Security Strategy effectively defines the EU as a “dying patient” that can no longer look after itself. The criticism of Europe is devastating and amounts to:<ul><li>Loss of identity and distinctiveness &nbsp;</li><li>Parasitic behaviour in economic and military terms &nbsp;</li><li>Bureaucratic tyranny: Brussels dictates how we should feel, what we may say, and how we should live</li></ul>True political leadership would take this harsh American criticism as a wake-up call. But what do we see? Mainly anger. And laughter. The same conceited attitude we saw in 2017 and 2018 when Trump issued his first warning. The traditionally leading countries of Europe and their governments are behaving quite literally like those of Rome during its decline in the fifth century, and like those of the Netherlands in the eighteenth century. Ideology, mixed with arrogant moral self-glorification, is the recipe for the downfall of a society.The EU has become a kind of ideological fortress that undermines our prosperity, autonomy, security and future growth. A deeply bureaucratic and technocratic institution in which the following are zealously defended: that biological men can become pregnant; that mass non-Western immigration is a blessing; and that “green growth” exists.But what has the EU contributed to the improvement of the Netherlands over the past twenty years? In that period, we have paid at least €200 billion into it. No more than half of that has come back. The EU gives us the feeling that it has economic value, but in reality it seems mainly to cost us money.The same applies to NATO, but in the field of security. Certainly, NATO has played a positive role, but from the 1990s onwards its role and significance became unclear. The dominant role of the Soviet Union as the ideological and military enemy of the West, for which NATO was created, disappeared, even though the Ukraine conflict is framed in that way. In the meantime, NATO enriched the US arms industry and made Europe dependent.We should continuously ask ourselves two questions regarding our bilateral and multilateral partnerships: “What does this concretely deliver for Dutch people?” and “What is the concrete plan and intended outcome for the future of Dutch people?”Chair, we must be willing to understand that the geopolitical reality has completely changed, at least if we want our country to remain relevant at all.The new US security strategy focuses on “control” over a defined sphere of influence consisting of South and Central America, Canada, Greenland, Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines, Australia and New Zealand.That is more than 50 per cent of global GDP and extremely rich in raw materials. The spheres of influence of Russia and China are just as clearly defined. Africa, the central and southern parts, will likely become a battleground for these three blocs, focused on scarce resources. Brazil and India will receive a special status.&nbsp; Ukraine could, in time, become the “Switzerland of Eastern Europe”.This new geopolitical model no longer revolves around ideology or human rights, which were in fact always selective rhetoric. It revolves around:<ul><li>Raw materials, food and water &nbsp;</li><li>Military power and technological leadership &nbsp;</li><li>Big Tech and artificial intelligence &nbsp;</li><li>Control of outer space, connectivity, navigation and satellites</li></ul>And here, and this is the critical point, North-Western and Central Europe fall outside this new balance and risk becoming the world’s “Orphan Area”, the abandoned region.This specific European bloc of twenty-five countries, with a combined GDP of approximately 20 trillion dollars, is in poor shape. In addition to enormous cultural and demographic problems, there are major other weaknesses: -Limited domestic raw materials: strong dependence on others. -Hardly any indigenous satellite navigation systems. -Energy weakness: no efficient and future-proof strategy. -Heavy dependence on China and America: economically, technologically, in AI, Big Tech and pharmaceuticals. -Industry under severe pressure: competitiveness is eroding rapidly. -Food production is being dismantled due to climate and nature extremism. -No vision for 2050 and beyond.Chair, effective foreign policy is not only about diplomacy.&nbsp; It is primarily about financial power, technological power and military power, linked to relative independence or strong countervailing power in essential products and services.A forsaken Europe faces crucial choices:Option 1: Continue on the current path of dismantling, and cultural and economic decline, and merge this into a federal European model. A disaster scenario.Option 2: Complete vassalage to America — in other words, the erasure of Europe.Option 3: Autonomous strength and independence, followed by effective cooperation.Option 3 is the desirable strategy, and it consists of ten essential steps:Step one: Immediately stop climate policy, green growth and mass non-Western immigration. Start remigration and stimulate autonomous population growth. Reduce central government apparatuses by approximately forty per cent. This will free up a great deal of money for reinvestment.Step two: Reduce the EU to economic cooperation only. No more ideological or regulatory coercion from Brussels.Step three: Energy independence through nuclear power and modern fusion energy, and the full restoration of fossil energy.Step four: Build a fully European satellite system and top-tier rocket technology. Significantly expand and modernise nuclear weapons. Anyone who thinks you have impact without countervailing power lives in a fantasy.Step five: Industrial and technological revival in every sovereign country. Focus on indigenous Big Tech and AI. We must revitalise our industry.Step six: Shape the best military industry in the world. In every country a fully capable defence with a “Platinum Dome” per country. Independent capacity to defend oneself and a domestic military industry.Step seven: Restructure every sovereign country with a focus on better educational outcomes, freedom of expression, pluralistic media, a drastic reduction of rules and regulations, a sound justice system, and the launch of major transformation projects.Step eight: Mitigate all dependencies. Focus on technological leadership and free trade based on our own and mutual interests.Step nine: Build superior logistics and food production systems. Food and water are the foundation of geopolitical power.Step ten: The 1+1=3 cooperation, genuine synergy based on strength, not on the dilution of weakness. Because a bowl of fresh fruit mixed with some rotten fruit quickly becomes entirely rotten.In other words: Europe, eighty years after the Second World War, once again needs reconstruction. The additional investments required are on the order of €2 trillion per year over the next twenty-five years. That sounds like a lot, but it is less than what we annually waste on bureaucracy, regulation and ideologically driven destruction of value.It is time for a review of our foreign policy in the broad sense through a “NBT, National Interest Test”.Foreign AffairsThe Netherlands Court of Audit emphasises that the Foreign Affairs budget contains relatively little policy expenditure, because the majority (90%) is a pass-through for EU-related payments.The Foreign Affairs budget of €16.65 billion is only a small part of government spending that is in fact connected to geopolitics and foreign policy.<ol><li>The Netherlands spends €61 billion per year on international obligations (12.6% of the national budget) and approximately €50 billion on domestic climate, nature, nitrogen and immigration policy. &nbsp;</li><li>Defence/NATO, at €35 billion, is the largest expenditure item (7.2% of the national budget, 2.8% of GDP). With implementation of the 5% norm, this doubles to €62–75 billion. &nbsp;</li><li>EU contributions: €15 billion and rising sharply. &nbsp;</li><li>Climate: structurally €8–10 billion. &nbsp;</li><li>Nitrogen policy: major destruction of value for agriculture and the economy. &nbsp;</li><li>Asylum: €35 billion. &nbsp;</li><li>Guarantees amounting to billions.</li></ol>Questions to the minister: - Does the minister also see that, in the national budget, roughly €110 billion is effectively connected to foreign policy?- And should that entire policy field not be involved in shaping foreign policy?- How does the minister reconcile the closure of diplomatic posts with the enormous geopolitical challenges facing our country?- What does the minister think of the idea of a ‘national interest test’ for foreign policy, the same formal check that we run for all other policy areas?Conclusion: FVD proposes a course of development based on our own strength and shared interests, not on coercion from Brussels, not on passively awaiting orders from Washington. That is the synergy of realistic sovereignty. Countries that are strong are independent. Countries that are independent can choose. And countries that can choose can cooperate on the basis of what truly matters: mutual interest and mutual respect. This should be the plan for the future.Forum for Democracy stands ready to shape this foreign policy. Out of love for the Netherlands and for the Dutch people.Thank you.

large_iekwgcvs7fcarqlb8rfj.png

medium_iekwgcvs7fcarqlb8rfj.png

small_iekwgcvs7fcarqlb8rfj.png

thumbnail_iekwgcvs7fcarqlb8rfj.png

Forum for Democracy Lays Out Its Foreign Policy

When Naomi Klein wrote ‘The Shock Doctrine’, she was describing capitalism which, she claimed, provokes or exploits chaos (wars, natural disasters, other crises) to destroy countries and then to asset-strip them. Donald Trump, it seems, is adopting a similar tactic in foreign policy. A series of shocks in quick succession – Venezuela, Iran, Greenland – have allowed him to throw everything into disarray and then to reconstruct new arrangements around himself (‘The Board of Peace’). The European Council convened an emergency summit straight after the Davos meeting and, on the surface, it is all business as usual: European leaders cannot think out of the box. But of course everything should change – starting with the leadership of the EU whose incompetence beggars belief.&nbsp; Ralf Dekker addressed these pressing issues in committee recently, concluding that it was a time for a complete re-think of the international system, on the basis of a new paradigm, national interest, and without any taboos.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNI1C0HOO7E">Watch Ralf Dekker’s speech here</a><img src="/uploads/image_f4d7050fb6.png">FVD International’s director, John Laughland, was interviewed on The World Today, this week, out of Australia. John drew attention to the paradox first identified by St Augustine: ‘The aim of all wars is peace.’ This is because war is waged in order to obtain victory and, with it, peace. This basic fact is unfortunately not understood in the current debate about Ukraine. When Trump re-entered the White House a year ago, he forced ‘peace’ onto the agenda, which Europe had been rejecting since 2022: in September 2022, Ursula von der Leyen ruled out a ceasefire&nbsp;<a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/SPEECH_22_5723">saying</a>, ‘I know there are calls to stop the fighting. But … if Ukraine stops fighting, there will be no more Ukraine.’ Now the Europeans have adopted the vocabulary of peace but are in fact doing everything they can to continue the war for another two years, in the hope that Russia will collapse by then.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrbsDs94WZI">Watch John Laughland’s interview here</a><img src="/uploads/image_d6e0aeace3.png">FVD International’s Vincent Vos was interviewed by Eugene Gioni on European Pulse Media, discussing Dutch and European politics. Their discussion ranged widely and included domestic Dutch politics – climate policy, immigration, remigration etc. – but also international affairs and of course the war in the Ukraine. Liberal democracy, one of Vincent’s favourite themes, was also examined - and comprehensively dissected!<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9uc2BhPdf0">Watch Vincent Vos’ interview here</a><img src="/uploads/image_3c3ad0bdd2.png">Slobodan Despot, the author, publisher and political commentator, was our guest on The Forum this week to discuss the EUSSR – the similarities between the European Union and the Soviet Union. If you missed it, listen back.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSuKcwGe7N8">Watch The Forum here</a>

The Weekly Forum - 23 January 2026

Questions from Member Van Meijeren (FVD) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the EU sanctions regime (submitted 12 January 2026)Question 1 Are you aware of the&nbsp;<a href="https://deanderekrant.nl/eu-verklaart-critici-vogelvrij/">article</a> in the newspaper ‘De Andere Krant’ of 9 January 2006, “EU declares critics fair game”?¹Question 2 Are you aware of Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/2643 of 8 October 2024 concerning “restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilising activities”? Can you confirm that this decision provides for sanctions against natural persons, including EU citizens and residents, and not exclusively against states or foreign entities? How does this relate to the scope of Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), which forms the legal basis for the decision and, as indicated by its inclusion in Title V of the TEU, concerns the Union’s external action and the Common Foreign and Security Policy?Question 3 How do you assess the fact that recital 8 of this decision describes Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (FIMI) as a “mostly non-illegal pattern of behaviour”, and that inclusion on the sanctions list therefore does not require a criminal offence or otherwise illegal conduct? Can you confirm that EU residents who do not engage in any illegal activity may, under this decision, be subjected to far-reaching sanctions such as travel restrictions (Article 1 of the decision) and the freezing of funds and economic resources (Article 2 of the decision)?Question 4 How do you assess the fact that the decision does not provide for rule-of-law safeguards, such as the presumption of innocence, prior hearing of the person concerned, and substantive review by an independent court?Question 5 Do you acknowledge that, if a natural person brings an action under Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) against a sanctions decision, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) generally confines itself to reviewing procedural requirements and conducts only a marginal substantive review? How do you assess this lack of adequate legal protection for those affected?Question 6 Are you aware of Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/2572 of 15 December 2025, by which, on the basis of the aforementioned decision, twelve natural persons and two entities were added to the sanctions list?Question 7 How do you assess the fact that among the persons sanctioned under this implementing decision are journalists, scientists, academics, analysts and commentators, such as Jacques Baud, Xavier Moreau, Fyodor Lukyanov and Ivan Timofeev?Question 8 How do you assess the fact that the “Statement of Reasons” for these persons largely consists of characterisations such as “acts as a mouthpiece for pro-Russian propaganda”, “promotes Kremlin narratives” and “justifies Russian actions”, without there being any demonstrable criminal offences or even any (financial) ties to the Kremlin? Do you acknowledge that, as a result, natural persons can be subjected to far-reaching sanctions purely and solely for expressing an unwelcome opinion that is not a criminal opinion? Do you share the view that this effectively shifts the scope of the sanctions regime from combating an external threat to disciplining expressions and viewpoints? How do you assess this in the light of freedom of expression?Question 9 Are you willing to advocate within the Council for limiting the application of this sanctions regime to persons who are guilty of criminal or demonstrably violent acts? Are you also willing to argue that sanctions imposed on journalists, scientists, academics, analysts and commentators, in particular EU residents, who do not make criminal statements, should be lifted or avoided? If not, why not?Question 10 Can you answer these questions separately and within the prescribed time limit?

large_EU-verklaart-critici-vogelvrij.jpg.webp

medium_EU-verklaart-critici-vogelvrij.jpg.webp

small_EU-verklaart-critici-vogelvrij.jpg.webp

thumbnail_EU-verklaart-critici-vogelvrij.jpg.webp

Questions from Member Van Meijeren (FVD) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the EU sanctions regime

Every week hundreds of illegal migrants cross the English channel in inflatable dinghies. Even though they are breaking the law and are transported by criminal gangs, when they arrive they are politely escorted by police, lodged in hotels and given allowances until their asylum applications are processed. This scandal has been going on for decades – at least since the creation of the border-free Schengen zone in the mid-1990s. But when the Dutch political influencer, Eva Vlaadingerbroek, wanted to travel to the UK this week, she was refused entry. She had recently published an X-post critical of the UK prime minister, so she appears to be a victim of the same totalitarian mentality which has imprisoned British citizens for inappropriate tweets and sanctioned European citizens in the EU. But this is not the first time Britain has refused entry to a Dutch conservative: in 2009, the prominent national politician Geert Wilders was turned back at Heathrow airport,&nbsp; even though he had been invited by members of the House of Lords to give a private showing of a film he made about Islam. FVD parliamentary party chair, Lidewij de Vos, has put down questions to the Dutch government about the implications for free speech of such treatment of Dutch nationals by one of its most important neighbours.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/lidewij-de-vos-questions-minister-on-uk-entry-refusal-of-eva-vlaardingerbroek-and-broader-free-speech-concerns">Read about Lidewij’s questions here</a><img src="/uploads/image_04f05835ec.png">The decision about Eva was taken in the name of the (undefined) ‘public good’ and it cannot be appealed. This is an example of the ever greater retreat of the rule of law, as the sanctions against Jacques Baud and Xavier Moreau have also shown. (These sanctions, which we discussed this week on&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYFG1zQCxeA&amp;t=3s">The Forum &amp; Friends</a>, include travel bans, just as against Eva). But the same is happening at the international level too.&nbsp; Power politics has returned with a vengeance under Donald Trump, with the spectacular Venezuela operation to seize Nicolas Maduro and the demands on Greenland. But was it not ever thus? We have known since the Peloponnesian war that the strong will do what they can while the weak will suffer what they must. Ralf Dekker described international law – on which the EU and NATO have staked their entire reputation for decades – as little but a ‘castle in the air’. As the so-called ‘international order’ (did it ever exist?) is exposed as an illusion, we are reminded of Prospero’s speech in ‘The Tempest’: ‘like the baseless fabric of this vision, The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces, The solemn temples, the great globe itself, Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, Leave not a rack behind.’<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/international-law-is-a-castle-in-the-sky">Read Ralf Dekker’s speech in parliament here</a><img src="/uploads/image_7c308462b7.png">Thierry Baudet has&nbsp;<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/thierry-baudet-temporarily-steps-down-to-lead-fvds-municipal-expansion">announced</a> that he is temporarily leaving Parliament and that he will be replaced by Tom Russcher. Thierry has been an MP since 2017, the year after FVD was founded. Shortly before announcing his decision, Thierry republished a long post from 2024 in which he expresses his utter amazement at the conformism of political and intellectual life in Europe today. ‘The Closing of the American Mind’ was published in 1987 but we can safely say that the European mind has closed very severely, especially in the last decade. It is absolutely essential to break out of this ever tightening straitjacket or else we will have no collective mind left to open.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/what-are-they-thinking-are-they-thinking">Read Thierry’s post here</a><img src="/uploads/image_91a2404370.png">The most obvious illustration of this closing is the attack on free speech, of which the sanctions against European citizens for wrongthink is the latest terrifying example. We discussed this on The Forum this week with Roger Köppel, former Swiss member of parliament and now owner of a major media outlet,&nbsp;<a href="https://weltwoche.ch/">Weltwoche</a>.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYFG1zQCxeA&amp;t=2s">Listen back to The Forum here</a>

large_Eva_Vlaardingerbroek.jpg

medium_Eva_Vlaardingerbroek.jpg

small_Eva_Vlaardingerbroek.jpg

thumbnail_Eva_Vlaardingerbroek.jpg

The Weekly Forum - 16 January 2026

The geopolitical situation is no longer merely confusing. It is openly contradictory and increasingly irrational. With Donald Trump’s statements on Greenland, a line has been crossed which had until now been regarded as untouchable, even in periods of the most severe transatlantic tensions. The threat to bring Greenland under American control, if necessary by force, is neither a diplomatic slip nor a failed negotiating style. It is a taboo breach. This approach exposes the true logic of Trump’s foreign policy and, by extension, the real interests of his administration. It exposes less “the West” than the United States itself.The political context is particularly perfidious. While Europe has for years been urged to defend a “rules-based order”, territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders, Washington has now effectively declared that these rules apply only so long as they do not obstruct American interests. For Europe, this is a political confession of bankruptcy. Anyone who, after Greenland, still speaks of “values”, “partnership on equal terms” or “shared security” makes a fool of himself.Even more serious is the strategic dimension. NATO is not a loose alliance of convenience, but is formally based on collective defence and mutual loyalty. If one member state openly considers territorial violence against another member state, then NATO as a community of values and security is, in effect, dead. What remains is an alliance that functions only so long as it serves the interests of the strongest. This is precisely the image Russia has always ascribed to NATO. With the Greenland threat, Washington now delivers the proof on a silver platter.It is obvious: rules apply to the United States only so long as they do not conflict with its own interests. That European states reject this approach has been expressed unambiguously in the recent reactions from Copenhagen and Nuuk. Greenland “chooses Denmark”; a takeover by the United States will be accepted “under no circumstances”. At least here, after all the contentious issues of recent years, there is a rare clarity in Europe.For Europe, this episode marks a historical turning point. By now at the latest, it should be clear that the transatlantic partnership no longer represents a security guarantee, but a relationship of dependency with built-in blackmail potential. Yesterday Scotland, today Greenland, tomorrow security-policy dictates and “protection rackets”, all always under the guise of “shared interests” that in truth are exclusively American interests.This raises a central question: what do the interests of the United States officially look like, and what does Trump’s deal-making foreign policy mean in practice? Officially, a possible incorporation of Greenland is justified in the name of “national security” in the Arctic. This is not strategically fabricated. Greenland lies on a key axis between North America and Eurasia, is relevant for early-warning and defence systems, for surveillance, maritime control, and is gaining further importance through new Arctic routes and resource issues. This is openly acknowledged in Western analyses.Trump’s operational logic, however, is different. It is transactional, resource-oriented and designed for maximum leverage. In this logic, foreign territory is not viewed as a partner space from a geopolitical perspective, but as bargaining material. The pattern is clear: build pressure, erect a threat backdrop, declare resources and strategic positions as a “deal”, and then offer security as a counter-service. That Trump simultaneously speaks openly about control over land and oil reserves in Venezuela is not a side note in this context, but a vivid example of this mindset.From this methodology arises a politically explosive question that must at least be examined as a hypothesis: has the United States already held discussions with Russia on the Greenland issue, or sounded out which positions Moscow would accept? There is no public evidence for this, and one should not make a factual claim out of it. As an analytical assumption, however, it is plausible that Washington would probe expectations, red lines and possible concessions in an Arctic matter. That Denmark and Greenland were forced at all into so-called “crunch talks” in order to de-escalate shows how serious the situation already is.From this follows another supposition: Washington’s unusually accommodating course on Ukraine could serve the purpose of softening Russia elsewhere, for instance in the Arctic. That would be classic package diplomacy. One buys room for manoeuvre by offsetting pressure and concessions across different dossiers. This logic fits Trump’s transactional policy. For Europe, such an approach would be strategically disastrous, as it would definitively become an object whose security and prosperity are negotiated in American package deals without its having any say in the matter.This leads to yet another unavoidable conclusion. It is delusional to assume that Russia could accept an annexation of Greenland by the United States. For Moscow, Greenland would not be just any old territory but a massive gain in American forward control in the North Atlantic and the Arctic, with direct effects on reconnaissance, early warning, freedom of movement and deterrence logic. Even if Russia pursues hard interests in Ukraine, such a precedent would represent an unmistakable risk. Precisely for this reason, Trump’s threat is geopolitically explosive. It generates not only outrage but also structural insecurity.Here the moral imbalance lies plainly on the table. In the Ukraine conflict, Russia invokes security arguments, NATO eastward expansion and years of deficient strategic communication. These points have been documented areas of dispute for a long time, without deriving from them a free pass for war. In Greenland, by contrast, the issue is a claim to foreign sovereignty against the declared will of those concerned. Reports which are critical of Trump refer to self-determination and the lack of any basis for his threat narrative. It is therefore analytically understandable to say that what Russia puts forward in terms of security-policy demands appears, in comparison with the Greenland logic, more legitimate in the sense of classic security dilemmas, while Trump’s Greenland approach directly attacks the core of sovereignty.Anyone who believes Europe can rely on Washington to use power only against adversaries ignores the empirical evidence. Trade coercion has long been a reality. Trump’s meeting with Ursula von der Leyen in Scotland resulted in a trade framework that made asymmetric pressure the norm and was perceived in Europe as capitulation. Venezuela shows the next variant of this policy. Resources first, sovereignty second.At this point, an inevitably wry but necessary question arises: who, in fact, is the actor with the God complex here, Donald Trump or the United States itself? The answer is uncomfortable but clear. Trump’s behaviour is not the cause of this thinking, but its uninhibited manifestation. The assumption that rules are to be accepted only when they do not conflict with one’s own interests, the self-ascription of a global ordering power beyond international law, and the notion that foreign sovereignty becomes negotiable as soon as it is strategically or economically relevant are not the personal quirk of one president. They are a structural component of American, and particularly neoconservative, power politics. Trump merely dispenses with the usual rhetorical disguise. Where previous US administrations spoke of “responsibility”, “leadership” or “values”, he speaks openly of control, ownership and deals. The supposed God complex is therefore not individual misconduct, but the expression of a hegemonic self-conception that regards itself as an exception to the rules it imposes on others. It is precisely in this that the real danger lies: not that an unpredictable president undermines the order, but that a power openly declares itself above that order.The conclusion is uncomfortable but unavoidable. The United States will pursue its interests, if necessary, even against Europe. Greenland is the litmus test. If a NATO state threatens another NATO state with violence, this is not a strategy, but the renunciation of any self-restraint on which Europe’s security has rested for decades. It calls the North Atlantic Alliance into question as a model approaching obsolescence.Europe must now take a clear position. An unequivocal rejection of any threat of violence, legal and political consolidation of the Danish-Greenlandic order, expansion of its own Arctic capabilities, and above all a clear statement that European territories are not negotiable in any American package deal. Otherwise, the exception will become the method. It is time for the United States to adhere again to its own doctrine and to keep out of European affairs accordingly.Those who ignore this development engage in political self-disempowerment. Those who relativise it make themselves complicit. And those who morally justify it bid farewell once and for all to any credible criticism of imperial, monopolistic power behaviour worldwide.The threat against Greenland is not a slip-up. It is a symptom -&nbsp; a symptom of the erosion of Western self-restraint, of the transition from a rules-based order to open power politics, and of Europe’s dramatic inability to respond to it sovereignly. If a NATO state threatens another NATO state with violence and Europe remains silent, then it is not only the alliance logic that is damaged. Then the entire Western narrative of law, order and partnership is definitively obsolete.

4ccbad52-59d3-43c1-aec2-f94f4040dc4f_1200x675.jpg

large_4ccbad52-59d3-43c1-aec2-f94f4040dc4f_1200x675.jpg

medium_4ccbad52-59d3-43c1-aec2-f94f4040dc4f_1200x675.jpg

small_4ccbad52-59d3-43c1-aec2-f94f4040dc4f_1200x675.jpg

thumbnail_4ccbad52-59d3-43c1-aec2-f94f4040dc4f_1200x675.jpg

USA Shows Its True Colours: Greenland And The Logic Of Power

On 14 January Lidewij de Vos submitted parliamentary questions to the Minister of Foreign Affairs regarding yet another violation of freedom of expression by our neighbouring country, the consequences for Dutch nationals in the United Kingdom, and the diplomatic actions to be taken.Questions from MP De Vos (FVD) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs regarding reports that a Dutch opinion maker has been denied entry to the United Kingdom because of her views<ol><li>Are you aware of the report that Dutch opinion maker Eva Vlaardingerbroek has been denied entry to the United Kingdom because “her presence is not considered conducive to the public good”, just days after she posted a critical tweet about British Prime Minister Starmer? &nbsp;</li><li>Do you agree with the questioner that freedom of expression is a fundamental value, and that we also expect our neighbouring countries and allies, such as the United Kingdom, to uphold and protect this achievement? If not, why not? If so, do you acknowledge that denying a person entry to a country because of an expressed opinion, whether or not about the prime minister of that country, constitutes a flagrant violation of freedom of expression? &nbsp;</li><li>Do you consider it compatible with the principles of the rule of law that the person who was denied entry, in this case Ms Vlaardingerbroek, has no possibility to lodge an objection against the decision taken? Please explain your answer. &nbsp;</li><li>Have you already requested an explanation from the British government and/or the British ambassador regarding why Ms Vlaardingerbroek was denied entry to the United Kingdom? If so, what was their response? &nbsp;</li><li>If the answer to question 4 is negative, why have you not yet done so, and are you prepared to call the British government and/or ambassador to account on this matter? &nbsp;</li><li>Do you expect that this entry restriction will have consequences for other Dutch nationals who have expressed critical or non-positive views about the government of the United Kingdom on social media? If not, why not? If so, what action will you take? &nbsp;</li><li>Are you aware of recent reports that British police arrest many thousands of people each year, approximately thirty per day, for expressing their opinions in allegedly offensive statements on social media and other platforms? &nbsp;</li><li>What does the situation described in question 7 mean, in your view, for (the freedom of expression of) Dutch nationals who are staying in the United Kingdom, are there on holiday, or live there for reasons such as work? &nbsp;</li><li>Do you believe that the travel advice for the United Kingdom should be amended, now that we are seeing freedom of expression increasingly restricted and people even facing or receiving prison sentences for expressing their opinions? Please explain your answer. &nbsp;</li><li>Can you answer these questions as soon as possible and separately from one another?</li></ol>

large_newsreleasecover.png

medium_newsreleasecover.png

small_newsreleasecover.png

thumbnail_newsreleasecover.png

Lidewij de Vos Questions Minister on UK Entry Refusal of Eva Vlaardingerbroek and Broader Free Speech Concerns

Speech given to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Second Chamber of the Netherlands’ States-General, 9 January 2026Chair,The direction of the United States in geopolitical flashpoints such as Ukraine, Gaza and Iran has so far been somewhat ambiguous and confusing. On the one hand, strong statements and financial and military involvement; on the other, good diplomatic contacts and cordial conversations.The National Security Strategy published a few weeks ago provided some direction, certainly with regard to the Western Hemisphere. But the question remained how this would be put into practice.The recent American action in Venezuela appears to demonstrate that the US is serious in its own backyard. President Maduro and his family were forcibly removed from their palace in Caracas by a special military unit and taken to the United States to stand trial for terrorism, drug trafficking and weapons offences. According to reports, dozens of people were killed during the operation, mainly among Maduro’s bodyguards.For the time being, the current Venezuelan vice-president has taken over leadership with the approval of the US, and the present government has largely remained in office.A remarkable formula. Much remains unclear. It is not an invasion, not even a genuine regime change, but a forced change of personnel. How this will develop is uncertain and highly risky.This spectacular American action is, of course, incompatible with international legal rules as laid down in the UN Charter and the associated body of international jurisprudence.Much can be said about the Maduro government, but Venezuela did not constitute a serious threat to the United States. The United Nations was not involved in this matter in advance. Although the UN Security Council did convene in an emergency session afterwards, this is of merely symbolic significance given the US veto.Chair, these events show that international law, or if you prefer “the rules-based international order”, is ultimately subordinate to international power politics, the law of the strongest. In words, this power politics is now being articulated quite openly by the Trump administration. In deeds, it has so far been limited to restrained military interventions.As the Netherlands, we have no significant influence on the geopolitical dynamics described. But for our country these events are nevertheless important for several reasons. First of all, Venezuela is our neighbour in the Caribbean, particularly with regard to Aruba, Bonaire and Curaçao. Disruptions in Venezuela quickly affect the situation in the Caribbean Netherlands. In this context, it is wise for the Netherlands not to take a strong position immediately, but to await further developments, to advocate stability in the region, and, where possible, to remain on standby in various fields to support the local Dutch population.Secondly, these geopolitical events once again confront us with reality. Dutch authorities have traditionally been passionate advocates of international law and order. In recent years they have therefore presented themselves more than ever as ideological frontrunners within the EU and NATO.Now that the Trump administration is intervening in Venezuela and is also seriously considering annexing Greenland, it appears that the EU and NATO, along with their elevated moral and ideological framework, may well be castles in the air. It also becomes clear that developing our own strength and maintaining constructive foreign relations with all parties must ultimately form the basis of Dutch foreign policy.Realism, a sober focus on national interest and foresight are essential in foreign policy. These are matters to which we must once again give the attention they deserve.Thank you.

medium_Trump-CC.jpg

small_Trump-CC.jpg

thumbnail_Trump-CC.jpg

International Law Is A Castle In The Sky

Forum for Democracy International

Articles

Subscribe to our international newsletter

Defence Wants More Personnel: What Does This Mean for the Labour Market? | Van Duijvenvoorde (FVD)

🏛 The Forum &amp; Friends: Trump's Foreign Policy with Pascal Lottaz and Mark Sleboda

The Rise of Barbaric Behaviour in Society - Maiden Speech by FVD MP Tom Russcher

🏛 The Forum &amp; Friends: Mao Tse Tung 🇨🇳 with Carl Zha

'Time for Reflection and Renewal Without Taboos' - Ralf Dekker MP on Rising Global Tensions | FVD

🏛 The Forum &amp; Friends: The EUSSR with Slobodan Despot

🏛 The Forum &amp; Friends: Free Speech in Europe with Roger Köppel

🏛 The Forum &amp; Friends: The Causes of Wars with Michael Yon

'This Has Never Happened Before' - Gideon van Meijeren on Asylum Law Controversy | FVD

Government Spending Without Parliamentary Approval? Pepijn van Houwelingen Raises Questions | 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