Major concerns over rising tensions with Russia, FVD asks parliamentary questions

The war in Ukraine appears to be escalating rapidly: NATO chief Stoltenberg has reiterated that Ukraine will join NATO; the Netherlands, like Britain, Germany, France and Denmark, plans to sign a 10-year security agreement with Ukraine; and French President Macron as well as the Dutch Commander of the Armed Forces do not rule out sending ground troops. Russian President Putin has responded that it "brings closer a conflict with nuclear weapons and with it the destruction of Western society."

The Western world seems obsessed with unconditional support for Ukraine. Increasingly pressing is the question of what Western - and particularly Dutch - interest is served by this unconditional support. What interest do the citizens of our country have in unconditional support for Ukraine if it could spark a war at home? The rising tensions have prompted FVD party leader, Thierry Baudet, and FVD MP Pepijn van Houwelingen to submit written questions to the government. You can read the questions below.

Forum for Democracy wants to prevent any further escalation at all costs. For us, the Dutch interest is paramount. We do not want our men, women, sons and daughters to be sent to the Ukrainian front or the Netherlands to be targeted by Russian missiles. We must reach a diplomatic solution now. In two weeks, the Lower House will debate the state of the war in Europe. Make sure we can make our voice heard there as loud as possible and sign our petition for peace.

Sign the petition!

Questions by Thierry Baudet to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Defence on the bilateral security agreement between the Netherlands and Ukraine

1. How do you explain the high degree of similarity between the four bilateral security agreements of Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Denmark with Ukraine? Do you think, or are you aware, that these countries cooperated or were coordinated in drafting this agreement? If so, to what extent, in your opinion, is this still a "bilateral" security agreement? If not, how do you explain the high degree of similarity between the four agreements?
2. Do you consider it appropriate for a caretaker Cabinet to enter into this bilateral security agreement with Ukraine for "at least the next 10 years"? Could you please explain your answer?
3. Why was the Lower House not consulted about the fact that the caretaker Dutch government is about to conclude a bilateral security agreement with Ukraine for at least the next 10 years?
4. The agreements concluded by Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Denmark contain little to no obligations for Ukraine: what will Ukraine's obligations be in the Dutch agreement - or will it be a unilateral agreement and thus de facto "carte blanche" for Ukraine? Can you explain your answer?
5. How do you assess the following statement by NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg: "Unless Ukraine prevails as a nation, as a democratic nation in Europe, there is no issue to be discussed about security guarantees or membership in NATO at all"? So why are bilateral security agreements now being concluded between NATO countries and Ukraine? Does that not imply NATO involvement? If not, why not? If so, why are these agreements being concluded? Are these agreements symbolic politics or do they have substantial consequences, such as funding or sending troops?
6. What is your position on the perpetrators of the attack on the Nord Stream pipeline? How large was the Dutch financial interest in this pipeline? Is it true that one of the four pipelines is still functional? If a country is involved in the attack on the Nord Stream, do you consider this country (also) an enemy power? If not, why not? If yes, why do you enter into a 10-year treaty with a country that is in the picture as a possible perpetrator?
7. Can you answer these questions separately and at the latest before the debate on the state of war in Europe?