Although she has long been involved in completely different subjects in The Hague, she shows no shadow of doubt about the correctness of the decision to supply a limited amount of weapons to Kiev. “It’s also a way to show solidarity.”
What is your impression of your first NATO meeting in Brussels and the developments in and around Ukraine this week?
That literally all allies are very concerned about the situation there. The situation remains urgent and threatening. We have to monitor the situation hour by hour, but unfortunately there is no reason to say that the situation is improving.’
Is there still little talk of de-escalation?
‘Certainly not. We just have to look at the facts. There is a very large, unusual troop build-up from Russia around Ukraine. And that, of course, has been going on for a long time. It is also important to see the broader context of what has happened before. It seems that there is still talk. And that is also what we have reaffirmed: the call for Russia to de-escalate. To seize all the proposals that have been made from different sides to achieve a dialogue. Proposals from France and Germany, from NATO itself, the United States, the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, red.) – the will to walk those routes is there. In those talks with Russia, that’s where it has to happen.’
Critics say arms support is like throwing fuel on the fire.
‘I really don’t think it is. No one denies Ukraine’s right to defend itself. Moreover, we provide this material support in the context of a much broader package of political and economic support measures from the EU and NATO. We see that huge Russian force in Ukraine, we react to that. We would very much like to solve this diplomatically! Everything we do is purely defensive.’
The Russian ambassador in The Hague told news hourasked about Dutch arms support to Kiev, that Russia will defend itself with nuclear weapons if necessary.
‘I think that’s a far-reaching statement. If Ukraine makes a bilateral request to us, we will assess it according to our criteria. It is up to us to make that decision and not to Russia. I’ve taken note of it, and threats like that, I can’t do much with that, to be honest.’
The US and other NATO countries are quickly making public information that normally remains very secret. It may bother Russia, but in Ukraine itself they find it destabilizing.
‘Ukraine has of course been living with the threat from Russia for much longer. With disinformation, with cyber-attacks, ever since the annexation of Crimea in 2014. I can understand why they say: ‘We want to keep peace and calm.’ And reporting, especially in a country that has a lot to do with disinformation, can actually have a destabilizing effect. So I understand. At the same time, no one – least of all Ukrainians – will want to close their eyes to the risks they are currently running.’
Why is the Netherlands withdrawing some of its observers from the OSCE observer mission in eastern Ukraine, just when they are so desperately needed there? Many other countries will stay.
‘Of course it is important that, if at all possible, there are observers there. It’s not up to me to judge that, but it should be possible, with sufficient guarantees for safety.’
In Ukraine, they see this as a sign that the West will pull out as soon as things get tense.
‘We want Ukrainians to be safe, and we contribute to that in all kinds of ways. But it has to be responsible from the perspective of our people who work there.’
Now NATO is united, but what happens if Donald Trump is back in the White House in two years’ time? Do Europeans have a plan B?
“I don’t think you should talk about a plan A and a plan B. We have an alliance with each other, NATO. The US is very important, still. But European countries are realizing, much more than five or ten years ago, that you can’t always get behind the broad shoulders of the Americans. That is why the European defense cooperation is now being pushed harder. It’s not about those things we have NATO for, but about things that Europe should actually be able to do itself.’
One of those things is promoting stability in the Sahel, in Africa. Russians are also appearing there. And the French are leaving Mali, along with European partners. What does the Netherlands do?
“The French have indeed made the decision, and so our two soldiers who are participating in Takuba, the French-led mission in Mali, are leaving as well. The Netherlands also participates in the EU training mission and the UN mission Minusma. We are now looking at what impact the French departure will have on those missions. The situation is very worrying, both the Russian presence and the development of terrorism in the region. We will stay for the time being, but we are in close contact with the Germans, who are also concerned.’
Leave Afghanistan, leave Mali – is the era of distant military adventures for western armies over?
‘It is always important to learn lessons and make a new assessment with each new mission. One thing is certain: the world is changing. You cannot say in advance: we will do this and we will not do this. If 9/11 hadn’t happened, we might not have been in Afghanistan. And see Sahel now. The aim is to stabilize and counter terrorism. That doesn’t change. But we have to reconsider the way to achieve it.’