Western countries are uniting under the EU
May 10, 2026

The reckless war that President Trump has launched against Iran, with support from Israel, is having predictable consequences. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz is forcing countries in Asia to turn to Russia for oil and fertilizer. Indonesia and the Philippines are set to import Russian oil. India is building an urea plant together with Russia to produce raw materials for fertilizer. Thailand and the United Arab Emirates are negotiating with Russia over fertilizer supplies. Russia has also signed contracts with Vietnam and Myanmar for the construction of a nuclear power plant.

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas warned that in this way, the aggressor in the war against Ukraine is being rewarded. But that argument is not resonating in large parts of the world.

Anti-colonial sentiments still play a role. Putin is seen as reliable, especially in former communist countries and former Western colonies. He is viewed as a strong leader who stands up to Western dominance. This anti-Western sentiment should not be underestimated and is one of the reasons why Chinese President Xi continues to support Russia in its illegal war against Ukraine. A Russian defeat in Europe would stand in the way of the global order Xi hopes to reshape. Xi has not forgotten the “century of humiliation” that ended in 1949 with the founding of the People’s Republic. Now is the time, in his view, to challenge a weakened West.

At the same time, other countries are turning toward the EU. At the summit of the European Political Community (EPC), held this week in the Armenian capital Yerevan, not only the spirit of Putin loomed, but also that of Trump. The EPC—an initiative by French President Macron to unite like-minded European countries after Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022—was initially dismissed. But holding this meeting in a former Soviet republic is a blow to Putin.

Aversion to Trump has now become just as important. European Council President Costa said the summit aimed to show that, in a time of geopolitical chaos, many countries still believe in the international legal order—one that Trump is undermining. That is precisely why Canadian Prime Minister Carney attended as the first non-European head of government. For him, the trip to Yerevan was a clear signal that he is seeking alternatives to ties with the United States.

Rutte, Macron, and von der Leyen also could not ignore Trump’s plan to withdraw 5,000 soldiers from Germany. Last year, Trump had already announced the withdrawal of units from Romania. At the time, figures of up to 20,000 troops eventually leaving Europe were circulating. Now, however, the White House wants to present the withdrawal as punishment for Merz’s sharp criticism of Trump’s Iran policy.

This week once again made clear that the world is fragmenting. Trump is accelerating a process that has been underway for some time. He is driving countries into the arms of Russia and China, while also pushing Western countries to unite more closely around the EU. I believe Trump does not realize that this ultimately weakens his own position.

Originally published in Trouw on May 8th 2026: “Westerse landen verenigen zich rond de EU”.

The British understand better than we do what is at stake
May 3, 2026

It makes sense that King Charles III drew attention in Washington to his country’s special relationship with America. It had already become clear that his host, President Trump, had no idea what that entailed. He simply thought the relationship was poor. There was nothing special about it.

I fully understand that the British want to preserve that special bond. Since Brexit, they have been on their own. In one fell swoop, the United Kingdom has become a small country that can no longer properly defend its interests.

Now that NATO is once again brain-dead, the British are keen to resuscitate the organisation. At the same time, they know they must have an alternative. This was evident from the British initiative to establish a multinational maritime force with nine countries that is ‘complementary’ to NATO.

This is in line with an earlier British initiative, the Joint Expeditionary Force. This was intended to provide a guarantee to threatened countries that were not yet members of NATO, such as Finland and Sweden. Now ten northern countries are members, including the Netherlands.

Given that NATO is on its last legs and the southern member states have different security interests to the northern ones, this force, supplemented by a fleet of warships, could well be the first to be deployed for the defence of, for example, the Baltic States or Finland. With these initiatives, the United Kingdom remains relevant to the security of Europe.

Moreover, the British proposal is a typical ‘coalition of the willing’. Many experts see this as a promising model now that NATO is in decline and the EU has no solution due to its sluggish decision-making.

Yet it is remarkable that the European NATO countries cannot join forces to manage their security without America. King Charles made a valiant attempt to turn the tide. But for America, China is the priority, not wealthy Europe, which ought to be capable of ensuring its own security.

Alongside Trump, France is now also threatening NATO. The far-right Rassemblement National, Marine Le Pen’s party, has indicated that it wishes to deploy the French armed forces solely for the French people and ultimately to withdraw from NATO’s military structure.

The EU, too, faces the threat of further paralysis. For instance, the German conservatives want to curtail Brussels’ power by establishing a special body with a veto over Brussels legislation. If the aim is simply to drive reforms by dismantling excessive regulations, I can see the logic in that. But as it is currently formulated, there is a fear of further paralysis of the European Commission.

What is happening in the transatlantic world is the opposite of what is needed: strong leaders and strong leadership. For geopolitical struggle does not only lead to military confrontations. Geopolitics and the free-market economy are also at odds with one another. For the economy is increasingly becoming a means of political pressure. This requires a European industrial policy aimed at becoming as autonomous as possible from America and China.

Forced by Brexit, the British are aware of this. But the Member States of the European Union are still living in a bygone era.

Originally published in Trouw on May 1st, 2026: “De Britten snappen beter wat er op het spel staat dan wij”.

NATO can do it on its own; we just need to get a move on
April 26, 2026

Ten to twenty years and roughly one trillion euros—that is the mantra of politicians who want to make it clear that European NATO countries cannot realistically do without the United States for the time being. The trillion-euro figure comes from a study by the respected IISS in London. It represents the cost of replacing all American capabilities, from the roughly 100,000 U.S. troops with their equipment and support to American command-and-control systems and intelligence networks.

In doing so, they overlook the fact that Ukraine has already been holding out for more than four years against those same Russians without relying on many of the American capabilities that are supposedly essential to keep them at bay.

The calculation of the cost of a “European NATO” ignores the military revolution currently taking place in Ukraine. Russia is struggling to break through the Ukrainian drone “kill zone,” which in some places is up to 50 kilometers wide. These drones are cheap, replace traditional munitions, and destroy any multimillion-euro tank that enters the zone.

The main European shortcomings—shared with the United States—are in electronic warfare to jam enemy drones and in experience with a fully transparent battlefield where anything that moves is eliminated.

The absence of the much-praised American command-and-control system has been compensated by the Ukrainians with their own superior Delta system. Moreover, France now reportedly provides two-thirds of combat intelligence.

The United States is currently withholding ammunition for key weapons systems such as ATACMS and HIMARS. Ukraine, however, compensates by producing its own weapons capable of striking targets deep inside Russian territory.

The most significant shortages lie in air-defense missiles for the Patriot systems. These have been expended in excessive numbers during the U.S. war with Iran. A shortage now looms not only for Ukraine but also for European NATO countries.

The way Ukraine is defending itself serves as a model for NATO. Recently, I saw firsthand in Lithuania how a similar drone defense system is being built. Speaking with military personnel on the ground, one hears that defense against Russia can indeed be organized with relatively limited resources.

Even in the nuclear domain, progress is being made now that France has indicated it is willing to deploy its nuclear capability for the benefit of European allies.

The real challenge lies in the European defense industry, which has yet to truly get up to speed. In the Netherlands as well, defense companies become bogged down in regulations, meaning it can take years, for example, to obtain an environmental permit. In this way, we risk losing to Russia because we are paralyzed by excessive procedures.

Yet behind the scenes, taboos are being broken at a rapid pace—especially now that Chancellor Friedrich Merz has changed course. He recognizes that a European-led NATO is necessary because the United States has become unreliable. As a result, a debate that has been simmering behind the scenes for a year is now accelerating. Experts everywhere are being invited to contribute to the discussion.

A consensus is emerging that “that trillion and ten to twenty years” is exaggerated. It can be done quickly—provided that politicians, like Merz, are willing to acknowledge that such speed is essential for our own security and that unnecessary procedures are swept aside.

Originally published in Trouw on 23 April 2026: “De Navo kan het alleen; als we maar opschieten”.

Trump has abandoned the traditional role of a superpower
April 12, 2026

Ceasefire or not, the world has come to know President Trump as a rogue president, with his Hitlerian statements about letting Iranian civilization perish and his threats that amount to war crimes. The consequences of this go beyond the ceasefire.

Trump has abandoned the classical role of a superpower, namely contributing to a stable world by upholding international law and adhering to basic norms of conduct. After all, only a superpower can impose the rules of the game and create order in the anarchy of international relations. Only a superpower can compel other countries to cooperate in the interest of some degree of global stability.

What happens when leaders abandon norms can be seen on a smaller scale in the Netherlands: Wilders rose to prominence through his attacks on Islam, the media, the judiciary, and parliament. Those who do so contribute to polarization and the coarsening of society, ultimately destroy the rule of law, and give others a free hand to do the same. This is how anarchy emerges and civilization disappears from a society.

As in the Netherlands, this process has been underway internationally for some time. It accelerated when President Putin launched the attack on Ukraine in 2022. Prime Minister Netanyahu then responded disproportionately to the horrific Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. And now Trump against Iran.

In all three cases, the military interventions spiraled into an inferno in which all rules were abandoned. The laws of war, which provide for a strict distinction between civilian and military targets, were ignored. In rhetoric, the opponent was dehumanized, and violence was glorified in the name of God. Human lives were reduced to statistics.

When major countries like America and Russia—and a small country like Israel, which emerged from the Holocaust and therefore carries the moral obligation of “never again”—throw off all restraints, the entire world is thrown off course.

Crucially, if America is no longer the benign hegemon that provides “public goods” such as peace and stability, only anarchy remains. Other countries will follow Trump’s example. The result is that, thanks to Trump, the world is fragmenting at high speed, and countries will act solely in their own interest.

Moreover, his aggression provokes predictable reactions. Iran, Russia, India, and China see America as an adversary against which cooperation is necessary.

Even for Europe, America has ceased to be an ally. A problem for Europe is that we are still seen as America’s allies and therefore as parties that must be reckoned with. This requires European leaders to take a firmer stance against a rogue American president and to articulate a clear moral message. 

But the most important voice in this debate was Paul Leo XIV, who repeatedly stated that Jesus does not stand with those who start wars and then behave reprehensibly. This fits within the tradition of his predecessor Leo XIII, who in the nineteenth century developed a moral framework for war, peace, and justice. That pope believed that war could sometimes be justified, but that excesses required a moral response. That is no different today. Ceasefire or not.

Originally published in Trouw on 8 April 2026: “Trump heeft afstand gedaan van de klassieke taak van een supermacht”.

We should now ask Trump to actually leave NATO
April 5, 2026

For the umpteenth time, President Trump threatened the Europeans last week. He advised them to “have the courage” to enter the Strait of Hormuz and “take the oil.” And: “you need to learn how to fight for yourselves, because the U.S. is no longer there to help you, just as you were not there for us.”

In The Telegraph, he then threatened to withdraw from NATO. Legally, Trump cannot withdraw from NATO on his own, but as commander-in-chief he can suspend the defense of Europe.

An ally that does not want to protect us, posts violence-glorifying videos on the website of a pro-Russian White House, refers to the war with Iran as a “lovely stay,” and has a secretary of defense who prays for crude “violence” against enemies who deserve no “compassion,” is of no use to us anymore. Moreover, morality has left the White House, and the transatlantic community of values is over.

Europe stands alone.

When less than six months ago in my latest book, I wrote that America should leave NATO and that Europe can take care of its own defense, I was met with condescension. But by now, a debate about a “European-led NATO” has emerged. I notice among colleagues that they are slowly changing their minds. We should now seize Trump’s remarks to ask the Americans to indeed leave NATO or suspend their membership. Right now, we still have a chance at an orderly separation. Later, it will become a messy divorce.

But in European politics, wishful thinking and disbelief still dominate, hoping that everything will turn out fine and that things won’t escalate that far. Meanwhile, a nightmare scenario is rapidly approaching.

This scenario becomes reality if Trump does not stop within the announced few weeks, if the war escalates further, and if pro-Iranian militant groups refuse to back down. The Houthis have already resumed their attacks. If they turn against the EU-led Aspides mission in the Red Sea, Europe will also become involved in this conflict.

The risks for Europe increase even further if all Patriot missiles in the Middle East are expended, or if America decides to stop supplying advanced weaponry—beyond the Patriot system—to Ukraine. Trump has already threatened this.

If Trump puts more pressure on President Zelensky to hand over the rest of the Donbas to Russia without a fight and actually turns his back on NATO, this will create not only a dire situation for Ukraine but also for other European countries.

Putin would see this as a victory that invites more. He could then set his sights on the Baltic states, which he believes belong to Russia. Trump might then tell the Europeans: “you’re on your own—I haven’t forgotten that you didn’t support me in the Strait of Hormuz.” And if things really go badly, Trump could choose to supply his oil and LNG to others instead of those unwilling Europeans.

An unthinkable scenario? Certainly not. That means Europe must stop engaging in wishful thinking and begin preparing a war economy.

Originally published in Trouw on 20 March 2026: “We moeten Trump nu vragen de Navo inderdaad te verlaten”.

Rutte Can't Keep Being Trump's Spokesperson
March 29, 2026

At a rapid pace, the European Commission is concluding trade agreements with like-minded countries. This week it was Australia’s turn. Prior to that, agreements were reached with the South American Mercosur countries and India.

It is no longer about gaining an extra percentage point of economic growth, but about cooperation to protect the economies of the member states against China and the United States. The agreement with Australia therefore provides for trade with no or lower tariffs than those imposed by Trump, as well as access—crucial for the EU—to scarce raw materials.

The successive conclusion of agreements that took years to negotiate is a response to the loss of the United States as a reliable partner.

Fear of Trump is giving way to a sense of realism. Vague statements, such as expressing “understanding” for the war, seemed like an attempt not to offend Trump. But that understanding is quickly disappearing.

There is no doubt that Iran poses a threat to the Middle East, but when domestic economies are affected and people demand compensation for high energy prices, politicians quickly withdraw their “understanding.”

G7 leaders, excluding the United States, now describe the war as “unlawful” and “unnecessary.” In Australia, Von der Leyen called in unmistakable terms for the war to be stopped as soon as possible.

The first casualty of this cautious shift appears to be NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. His flattery toward Trump may previously have been somewhat justifiable, but his unconditional support for the war in the Middle East is now putting him in a difficult position. With that support, Rutte did not speak on behalf of the entire NATO—yet that is precisely his role. For instance, Spanish Prime Minister Sánchez has always been firmly opposed to the war.

This undermines Rutte’s position, which had already been weakened when he responded in the European Parliament with “keep on dreaming” to the legitimate question of whether Europe could become more independent from the United States in the short term. For many in the European Parliament, that moment transformed Rutte from a Trump whisperer into a mouthpiece for the American president.

The shift in the debate is also evident in the fact that it initially focused on regime change and the Iranian threat but now centers mainly on the economic impact of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

If the war continues, there is little willingness to sail through the strait, despite Iranian authorities having informed the International Maritime Organization (IMO) that countries not aligned with the United States could be granted safe passage.

This may also include countries such as Australia, Canada, Japan, the United Arab Emirates, and several European countries including the Netherlands, which in a joint statement condemned attacks on ships in the Gulf, called on all parties to respect international law, and pledged to work toward ensuring free passage through the strait.

A new “coalition of the willing” of more than thirty countries now appears to be taking shape to achieve this. But, just like the coalition for Ukraine, security guarantees can only be provided once the war has ended.

The significance of this initiative is that like-minded countries are drawing closer together. This demonstrates that Trump is increasingly isolating himself—and that the United States will ultimately pay a price for it.

Originally published in Trouw on 20 March 2026: “Rutte kan geen spreekbuis van Trump blijven”.

Trump turns against his own supporters – including in the Netherlands
March 22, 2026

If President Donald Trump had taken over Greenland, there would be no more NATO. An attack on an ally is something NATO cannot survive. Recently, Trump said that NATO faces a dark future if European countries do not help him keep the Strait of Hormuz open. What Trump is doing amounts to outright blackmail and reckless gambling with European security. The only winner is Russia.

Blackmail has become a hallmark of the American administration. Last week, he pressured the government of Zambia by threatening to cut off HIV aid unless the United States gains access to raw materials. By blocking oil supplies, he is also attempting to force Cuba into a corner.

Trump appears uninterested in the prosperity and security of others, focusing only on American power. His goals are partly materialistic, such as gaining access to raw materials and energy reserves. At the same time, he is driven by revenge and a nationalist ideology rooted in extremely conservative values that do not align with the views of most Europeans. That ideology does appeal to the radical right, including in the Netherlands. But Trump’s supporters should realize that this president is steering the world toward a disaster of historic proportions.

Some economists predict an economic crisis worse than the global financial crisis of 2008. Under Trump, an explosive mix has emerged: an AI bubble, wars threatening the supply of energy and raw materials and driving up prices, and geopolitical dynamics that could ultimately lead to a Chinese attack on Taiwan. If that happens, it will constitute a global conflict, and chip production would largely grind to a halt.

There is also clear incompetence. Trump is known for making decisions within a small circle, excluding real expertise. He is driven by baseless hubris and extreme overconfidence.

This was once again evident in his Iranian venture. Any expert could have told him that Iran developed a doctrine of asymmetric warfare in the 1980s in response to its weak position relative to Iraq, with which it fought a prolonged war. In those same years, an asymmetric maritime doctrine was developed and applied during the “Tanker War.” The top U.S. military officer, General Caine, rightly stated last week that any member of the Revolutionary Guard or militia can attach a mine to the hull of a tanker or warship from a speedboat and thereby close the Strait of Hormuz. There is little that can be done to prevent this. European leaders were therefore right to reject Trump’s request for support. This is not our war.

Any expert could also have told him that Iran’s power structure is designed to withstand external attacks. The Revolutionary Guard and the paramilitary Basij are large, cannot easily be destroyed, and will continue to suppress the population with increased intensity. Trump has walked into a trap from which it will not be easy to escape.

This is the moment to stop appeasing Trump, to sideline the United States within NATO, and to make Europe more economically autonomous. And Trump’s supporters must be made to understand that their hero has turned against them.

Originally published in Trouw on 20 March 2026: “Trump keert zich tegen zijn eigen aanhangers – ook in Nederland”.

With the attack on Iran, international law dies and autocrats are given free rein
March 1, 2026

For years now, the war in Ukraine has strongly resembled the stalemate halfway through the World War I. From 1914 to 1917, there was a hopeless trench war that was only broken when, in 1918, the Americans threw their weight into the fight. I do not see how the current stalemate can be broken. America could do it but does not want to. Because Trump has more sympathy for the aggressor Putin than for the victim Zelensky.

The stalemate has existed since the end of 2022, when Ukraine successfully drove the Russians out of the north and parts of the southern front. Since then, the front has shifted so little in Russia’s favor that it is barely visible on the map. At this pace, it will take until the second half of next year before the last piece of the Donbas becomes Russian.

Whether that will truly succeed is doubtful. What began as a traditional war of maneuver, with Russia invading Ukraine using large, mechanized units, ended in late 2022 in a static war in which the parties entrenched themselves in trenches and behind minefields. In 2023, drones appeared on the battlefield, but the real revolution took place in 2024, when Ukraine introduced drones controlled via kilometers-long fiber-optic cables and applied AI to guide them independently to their targets. As a result, their drones became immune to electronic warfare. Ukraine has partly lost this advantage.

What is certain is that drones represent a revolution. Small drones are an alternative to scarce ammunition and compensate for Ukraine’s shortage of manpower. At the same time, drones are not, as is commonly thought, a game changer. Like the machine gun or the tank, they are the product of an industrial revolution. We are in the midst of a revolution of rapid data transmission, AI, 3D printing, advanced chips, miniaturization, and robotization.

So far, however, the parties have been unable to use this new technology to force breakthroughs and achieve their war aims. On the contrary, the front has remained static. I do not speak to a single military expert who thinks this will change anytime soon. The reason is that drones have turned the front into a kill zone of 10 to more than 20 kilometers in which everything that can be observed is destroyed. Large-scale operations then become suicidal.

Last Tuesday evening, during an impressive event organized by Protect Ukraine at the Amsterdam venue Paradiso, front-line soldier Vadim Bryginets explained that months can pass without a single enemy soldier being seen—only drones.

Because Putin cannot break through this way, from his point of view it is a good tactic to gain control of the rest of the Donbas by having Trump exert pressure on Zelensky to relinquish that territory without a fight.

And so, we are entering the fifth year of war, with no prospect of military breakthroughs unless a miracle happens. According to the American research institute CSIS, Russian casualties have now reached 1.2 million, including 325,000 killed. On the Ukrainian side, the figures stand at five to six hundred thousand and one hundred to one hundred forty thousand respectively.

Nothing is to be expected from America. Because Trump likes Putin and now sees the war as a revenue model to supply Ukraine with weapons using European money.

Originally published in Trouw on 1 March 2026: “Met de aanval op Iran sterft het internationaal recht en krijgen potentaten ruim baan”.

Stronger together with the US? That means conforming to the MAGA agenda
February 22, 2026

After being showered with applause in Munich, U.S. Secretary of State Rubio traveled on to Hungary. There it became clear how undeserved that applause had been. His warm words addressed to Prime Minister Orban instantly made it clear that in Munich he had not been standing on the side of the applauding mainstream politicians.

In Budapest, Rubio promised the Hungarians a new golden age as long as Orban remained in power. He pledged financial support should the country run into trouble and stated that a successful Hungary serves the American national interest. Rubio’s performance amounted to shameless support for a prime minister who could lose the elections in April. Moreover, he clarified what he had meant in Munich. There, in more polished terms, Rubio repeated the dark worldview with which Vice President Vance had so offended Europe a year earlier.

Meanwhile, his boss, President Trump, made clear whom he supported during the negotiations that also took place this week with Russia and Ukraine. Zelensky complained about the “unfair” Trump, who is forcing him to give up territory in exchange for peace, thereby making clear that he wants to reward Putin for his war.

I still have the impression that European leaders are allowing America to pull the wool over their eyes. If America stands on Putin’s side, then NATO’s Article 5 guarantee is not, as Secretary-General Mark Rutte said, rock solid. It is therefore no surprise that both Commission President von der Leyen and Chancellor Merz argued for operationalizing Article 42.7 of the EU Treaty, which is an even stronger collective defense clause than that of the NATO Treaty. You do not do that if you have unconditional faith in NATO and America.

Moreover, Rubio poured oil on the fire by stating that we must grow strong together—provided we align ourselves with American wishes. But is that what Europeans want? In concrete terms, this means adopting the MAGA agenda, which assumes that the West is in decline. That decline, according to this view, can only be reversed if all borders are closed and gender equality, inclusion, and secular liberal values are abolished.

To restore the Western world, democracy must be curtailed. The media must be restrained, universities must purge leftist and “woke” ideas from their curricula, and strong leaders such as Orban must be embraced.

Europeans would also have to accept that America dominates the Western Hemisphere, including Greenland, and that the rest of the world is divided into spheres of influence. Ukraine would belong to Russia. We would have to accept American protectionism and boost the wallets of hardworking Americans by agreeing to U.S. import tariffs—because it is all about America First. For that reason, the EU must also disappear, as it is an inconvenient power factor for the United States. In short, European countries would be reduced to resource territories or colonies.

If you think this is a good plan, then embrace America and let your interests be represented by politicians of the radical right. If you do not think this is a good plan, then resist and support every effort to become militarily and economically independent of America as quickly as possible.

Originally published in Trouw on 19 February 2026: “Samen sterk met de VS? Dat betekent schikken naar de Maga-agenda”.

Even India Knows: the Relationship with the US Has Fundamentally Changed
February 15, 2026

Because of Trump, not only Europe but also India has run into trouble. What support can India expect from America if things go wrong in a part of the world through which the main trade routes pass? Probably very little.

The loss of trust in America was already evident in India when Trump imposed additional tariffs on the country because of its imports of Russian oil. Export duties on goods to the United States were suddenly raised to fifty percent. In response, Prime Minister Modi traveled to China, where he strengthened ties with Xi. This was remarkable, since as recently as 2022 India and China were still engaged in a border skirmish. Yet now Modi and Xi speak of a “partnership,” although it is difficult to give real substance to that term given China’s highly competitive stance.

Trump’s swift withdrawal of the additional tariffs could not undo the damage. As in the EU, the conclusion in India was that the relationship with America had changed structurally. Because of Trump’s fixation on China and the Western Hemisphere, Europe and India hardly seem to matter anymore.

So new partnerships must be forged. The one between the economic giants EU and India is undoubtedly the most interesting.

For the EU, new partnerships take the form of trade agreements. After Mercosur came the agreement with India. A treaty with Australia will follow. For the EU, this is a familiar approach.

For India, however, the trade agreement is a game changer. The country is fairly protectionist and cooperates relatively little with foreign partners in the military sphere.

Moreover, India has pursued a policy of non-alignment for decades. Delhi sought good relations with both the West and the Soviet Union. That course seemed to be reaffirmed after the outbreak of the war in Ukraine. Even then, Delhi did not want to choose between Russia and the West. But because of Trump, this approach no longer works.

That is why India is now supplementing its policy of neutrality and non-alignment with power politics to organize a counterweight to America. New partners must therefore be found. That amounts to nothing less than a small revolution.

Last weekend in New Delhi, I heard a senior Indian official say that we may soon no longer need to speak of the Indo-Pacific, but of the “Euro-Pacific,” as a counterweight to America and even to China.

The mood in Delhi was optimistic, because such a partnership offers enormous advantages. India is growing rapidly. By around 2030, it will be the world’s third-largest economy. India needs markets for its goods, and the same applies to Europe. The trade agreement could relatively quickly lead to a doubling of exports to India.

When it comes to defense cooperation, the possibilities are substantial. There is a shared interest in protecting trade routes through the Indo-Pacific, especially if the Americans continue their withdrawal.

I saw great enthusiasm for jointly developing weapons and military equipment. This would give the EU greater autonomy vis-à-vis America, while allowing India to increase its exports.

It may be too early for a true “Euro-Pacific,” but the EU’s trade agreement with India clearly shows that, spurred on by Trump, global power relations are changing at high speed.

Originally published in Trouw on 5 February 2026: “Ook India weet: de relatie met de VS is structureel veranderd”.

For both Putin and Zelensky, the situation is becoming untenable
February 8, 2026

As transatlantic relations have fallen into crisis and the United States is tightening the screws on Cuba and Iran, Russia and Ukraine were required by the U.S. to strike a deal in Abu Dhabi.

Progress has been made. According to Ukrainian President Zelensky, agreement has been reached with the United States on security guarantees. For months there has been talk of “Article 5–like” guarantees that would come into force if Zelensky were to voluntarily give up the entire Donbas and Russia were then to violate an agreement.

According to the Financial Times, Ukraine would have to absorb the first blow with an armed force of 800,000 troops. If that fails, primarily European forces would come to its aid, and if that still has no effect, the Americans could step in. It sounds interesting, but first a ceasefire would have to be reached.

How complex the negotiations is becomes clear from Russia’s persistent demand that the root causes of the conflict be removed. What those causes are varies depending on which senior Russian official is speaking, but it is certain that Ukraine is seen as a NATO vassal state, with both Ukraine and NATO posing a threat to Russia. According to Putin, that threat must be eliminated. But this will not succeed if Europeans are not allowed to have a say. Russia does not want that and believes it can make agreements with Trump over the heads of the Europeans on spheres of influence and limitations on NATO’s military power. In recent weeks, Putin has therefore done everything he can to get Trump on his side.

Putin has reluctantly agreed to direct negotiations with Ukraine. Here too, he is trying to play Trump. In doing so, he makes clever use of Trump’s fickleness and impatience. Putin continues to emphasize the results of “Alaska.” What those results exactly are is unclear, but it is certain that during his meeting with Putin in August last year, Trump said that in exchange for peace, Ukraine would have to give up territory. But Ukraine does not want to relinquish the rest of the Donbas, which at the current pace would only be conquered by Russia around August next year.

Via Trump, Putin wants to obtain that territory without having to fight for it, in order to sell at least some form of victory to the Russian people. After all, his war propaganda is built on the alleged “Ukrainian aggression” against Luhansk and Donetsk, which together form the Donbas. Moreover, Sloviansk, located in the unoccupied part of the Donbas, is of symbolic significance. It was here that Putin encouraged the pro-Russian separatist uprising in 2014.

In Abu Dhabi neither Putin nor Zelensky were willing to budge. Yet the situation is becoming untenable for both sides. Zelensky, due to the suspension of U.S. weapons deliveries, is now dependent on European arms purchases in the United States and on suppliers within Europe itself. But all these European efforts are far from guaranteed.
For Putin, the losses are too great, too little territory is being conquered, and the economy is increasingly groaning under a war that costs roughly €170 billion per year. Oil prices have collapsed, and Russia’s shadow fleet is being targeted ever more aggressively.

The solution is a ceasefire along the existing front line, followed by negotiations on a final settlement. Zelensky is open to this, but Trump would have to put pressure on his “friend” Putin. So far, Trump has shown no willingness to do so.

Originally published in Trouw on 5 February 2026: “Voor zowel Poetin als Zelensky wordt de situatie onhoudbaar”.

If the U.S. leaves NATO, Rutte will be blamed
February 1, 2026

According to the Russian government spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, whoever bows to Trump will keep on bowing. European government leaders appear to share Peskov’s conclusion. This became clear last week when they defused the Greenland crisis by threatening economic retaliation if Trump were to actually seize the territory.

Precisely for that reason, NATO Secretary General Rutte was sharply rebuked by allies this week over his “daddy diplomacy.” “Trump is not my daddy,” responded Charles Michel, the former President of the European Council.

Rutte was also taken to task over his remark that Europe cannot do without the Americans. According to him, defense budgets would then have to rise to 10 percent of GDP.

I understand Rutte. He has to keep NATO together. If America withdraws, he will get the blame.

Yet a number of allies appear to be reckoning with a separation. The French foreign minister was outspoken: Europe must take charge of its own security. The Spanish Member of the European Parliament Sánchez Amor wondered whether Rutte had not become the American ambassador to NATO.

Politicians must acknowledge that we are in the midst of a transatlantic divorce, but they find it harder to accept than I do. That is understandable. They—not I—are the ones who will have to clean up the mess of the separation.

That we are in a divorce was also evident from the recent American defense strategy. Telling is the comparison of the GDP of NATO member states without the US versus Russia: 26 versus 2 trillion dollars. Conclusion: Europeans can defend themselves. If Europeans can do that, America and Europe no longer need each other. That is why Europe must prepare for a NATO without America.

To me it is crystal clear that in the short term we can continue militarily without America. It is a matter of will. But time is running out. 

Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen asked in Berlin how long America can still be an ally. That is a legitimate question.

Why should one keep a proper distance from ideological adversaries such as Russia and China, but not from America?

It is painful to have to conclude that America is ideologically drifting away from us because Trump has traits reminiscent of the Italian fascist leader Mussolini. Like Trump, he saw himself as an infallible, totalitarian leader. Like Mussolini, Trump is extremely nationalist, anti-democratic, and anti-liberal. Like Mussolini, Trump is imperialist. The equivalent of Mussolini’s corporatism is the kleptocracy that Trump forms together with the tech companies. Autarky is also the goal under Trump. ICE is emerging as the equivalent of Mussolini’s Blackshirts, cracking down hard on political opponents. See Minneapolis.

The direct consequence is that Europe is also economically disentangling itself from the US, without severing ties completely. The trade agreement the EU concluded with India this week is a step forward. More agreements will follow.

Whether Trump will accept this remains to be seen. This means that Europe must scale down the relationship while simultaneously threatening devastating import restrictions if Trump seeks to prevent this. He can do so through additional tariffs, by halting exports of LNG, or by cutting off our access to American data centers.

This requires recognition that the world is fragmenting, a clear strategy, and greater European unity and leadership, both at the European and national levels.

If that does not happen, Peskov will be proven right.

Originally published in Trouw on 29 January 2026: “VS uit de Navo? Dan krijgt Rutte de schuld”.

The situation in Europe is far more serious than many think
January,25 2026

Will we in Europe ever move beyond the stage of believing we live in a world we wish for, rather than the world as it actually is? In that desired world, values matter more than interests. Populations seem more concerned about the suffering of people in Gaza or Iran than about their own security, which Trump is putting at risk.

The situation in Europe is far more serious than many realize. Trump has abandoned Ukraine and has taken Russia’s side. Ukraine does not interest him in the slightest. The same applies to the defense of allies against an increasingly aggressive Russia.

In Davos, he reiterated his desire to acquire Greenland, thereby further increasing the threat to Europe. The dominoes could begin to fall: if Greenland is forced to become American, NATO will fall as well. If NATO falls, there will be no reason at all for Putin to restrain himself from committing aggression against, for example, the Baltic states. If that happens, Europeans will have little choice. They would then have to abandon Ukraine and focus entirely on defending their own territory.

At the same time, Trump is trying to dismantle the EU. Economically, the bloc is a superpower that stands inconveniently in Trump’s way.

How insane the current situation is becomes clear from the fact that Greenland is a NATO matter—after all, it concerns the security of the Arctic region—yet it is the EU that must deploy its economic instruments of power. NATO’s impotence makes clear that, just as during Trump’s first term, the organization is effectively brain-dead.

If institutions such as NATO and international law collapse, there is little left to protect smaller countries against great powers. The necessity of such protection was made clear by the devastating First and Second World Wars. That lesson has not been forgotten in Europe, but Trump, Putin, and Xi simply don’t care.

The current situation is reminiscent of the run-up to the Second World War. Like Hitler, Trump is overturning our worldview. And just like the British prime minister at the time, Chamberlain, Europeans are trying to calm the situation around Greenland with deals and diplomacy.

Leaders keep insisting that we cannot do without America and that this country is our ally. But they forget that, just as before the Second World War, we are dealing with a new kind of imperialism in which the law of the strongest prevails and new spheres of influence are being defined.

After the Second World War, European countries realized that cooperation was necessary. The threat from the Soviet Union was too great. This led to the creation of NATO. The same applies today. Without a stronger EU, the individual member states will lose. That decline would then not be caused by Trump, Putin, or Xi, but by the failure of our own political leaders.

The WEF in Davos was a litmus test. Did leaders remain stuck in a bygone world, or did they set power against power? Most leaders were hesitant, but those who actually had to deal with Trump—the Canadian Prime Minister Carney and the governor of California, Newsom—called for a hard-line stance.

Originally published in Trouw on 23 January 2026: “De situatie in Europa is veel ernstiger dan velen denken”.