By Yael Velvel, MA Media and Strategic Communication ’23
The Netherlands has historically served as a humanitarian home for political and religious refugees. Following the Second World War, the country recognized the need for a strategic alliance with its neighboring countries in order to preserve this identity, and became a founding NATO member in 1949. Despite the Netherland’s size, it took on an unusually large role in preserving peace and international order for the new alliance of nations.
While Russia portrays the Ukrainians as a Nazi-infested government, the Ukraine’s goal to elicit Western support prior to Russia’s invasion has proven fruitful in the West. Unsurprisingly, the Netherlands’ diplomatic narrative stands in solidarity with Ukraine, the EU, and NATO, and in stark opposition to that of Russia.
As Russia loomed outside of Ukraine in February, 2022, threatening to invade, Dutch Prime Minister of the Kingdom of the Netherlands Marke Rutte met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv to celebrate the upcoming 30th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relationships between the two countries. Together, they expressed ongoing support for mutual interests – a key strategy of Ukraine’s to elicit support and legitimize its democracy in the eyes of the West. In a joint statement, Prime Minister (PM) Rutte expressed his unwavering support for Ukraine in its efforts to combat Russian aggression at its borders, and both leaders emphasized the importance of a peaceful solution. PM Rutte vocalized his appreciation for Ukraine’s allied efforts and supported Ukraine’s EU aspirations.
The Netherlands echoed the EU and NATO’s contestation of Russia’s narrative. In their official statements, the Dutch government framed the conflict as an illegal act of aggression and an attack on Western Europe’s democratic values. It is an open contestation of Russia’s narrative, which argued that their invasion is a strategic military operation to free the Ukranian people of a fascist, Nazi regime, and expressed its desire to re-absorb the nation into Russia. NATO’s official statements framed the invasion as an attack on democracy and internationally recognized borders. In her first statement following the invasion, EU President von der Leyen framed the invasion as an attack on Europe, European stability, and international peace.
The Dutch statement on PM Rutte’s visit with President Zelenskyy underscored the nations’ concurrent values and identity narratives. In their meeting, the two leaders underscored that their alliance is based upon “shared values and principles of freedom, democracy, rule of law and respect for human rights”. These values are part of the Netherlands’ core identity as a liberal democracy, and the statement evidences the Ukrainian government’s commitment to instilling these values into the identity of their own young nation. Even more, it demonstrates Ukraine’s attempt to raise its status in the new global order. Dutch support for Ukrainian resistance to an invading nation also taps into their own historical identity: the Dutch, although swiftly defeated by German forces, were committed to resisting foreign occupation during the Second World War.
When Russian forces invaded Ukraine, the Netherlands joined their defensive allies, the United Kingdom and Canada, in releasing a joint statement. The trilateral statement condemned Russia’s violations of international law and reiterated their unwavering support for Ukrainian resistance. As a member nation of the EU and NATO, the Netherlands’ statements closely resemble the rhetoric and stance of the EU and NATO in combating Russian aggression and supporting Ukraine. The Netherlands underscored in the trilateral statement the importance of humanitarian action to protect Ukraine’s most vulnerable populations: women, children, and the elderly. Its identity as an EU and NATO member nation is also demonstrated in the trilateral statement with its strategic defense partners, the United Kingdom and Canada. The three NATO nations’ shared identities as free, democratic nations and history as cooperative allies during WWII undoubtedly influenced their commitment “to sustain and coordinate the political, humanitarian, economic and defence support that is so vital for a free and independent Ukraine.”
Dutch membership of NATO and the EU demonstrates cohesiveness between national identity narratives and global system narratives. The Netherlands’ joint statements with President Zelenskyy, and the U.K. and Canada, tap into the core qualities of NATO and EU: the importance of democracy, independent sovereignty, and peaceful resolution; as well as NATO and the EU’s desire to preserve Ukrainian sovereignty.
NATO and the EU operate as global peace keepers, and proponents of democracy and liberal society. Following the Cold War, the EU’s primary strategy to stabilize Europe was to expand its membership and encourage neighboring nations to adopt EU values. Although Ukraine is not an EU member, it has made its intentions to join the EU exceptionally clear. The EU has not been unsupportive of Ukraine’s intentions, but has expressed that certain reforms must be put into place before Ukraine has the strength and values of an EU member nation.
Moreover, the Netherland’s individual statements are strategically aligned with the narratives of Ukraine, NATO, and the EU in stark contestation to Russia’s. Given the Netherland’s historic ties to NATO and the EU, it is highly unlikely they will stray from the approved messaging frame, and will continue to be a cooperative player in the war against Russia.
For more on the topic by the author, please click here.
The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author. They do not express the views of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.
Great job of highlighting how the EU, NATO, and Netherlands have aligned their narratives related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. NATO and the EU operate, as you said, “as global peacekeepers, and proponents of democracy and liberal society,” and they have created legitimacy through their organizations. Your analysis really shows how that legitimacy is tapped into both at the organizational level and at the country level when member state Netherlands showed its support for a non-member state Ukraine. The narrative alignment between Ukraine, Netherlands, NATO and the EU, as you’ve shown, really played out like a well-choreographed dance. It’s sad that it was needed but it shows how important groups like NATO and the EU are.
You mentioned that the Dutch support for Ukraine really taps into their historical identity around German occupation in WWII. As I was reading your piece, I was wondering if the Dutch regret trying to be neutral during WWII and see the idea of neutrality as not realistic anymore. As a founding member of NATO and, as you mentioned, taking on a large role in the new organization, it seems as though, to me, the Netherlands is signally that they believe neutrality isn’t a realistic public diplomacy stance.
Yael, thank you for this illustrative piece on the cooperative narratives between the EU, NATO, and the Netherlands. What is surprising in all of this is how the Netherland despite its shared identity narrative with Ukraine couldn’t convince other NATO countries about the need to accept Ukraine into its membership given its precarious border position with Russia. This is a Russia with a fractured identity as a former superpower that is opposed to democratic principles of freedom, democracy, rule of law, and respect for human rights. For several years, the Ukrainians were expectant of their new identity and system narrative to aid them as a young democratic nation that has met many of NATO conditions to be accepted as a NATO member and protected from what we now know as the Russian invasion, we can now see that the dilly-dallying over Ukrainians membership has cost the whole world this war.
One question that is on my mind, however, as well as many watchers, is that, outside of NATO’s official statement that framed the Russian invasion as an attack on democracy and internationally recognized borders of Ukraine, NATO, has not gone far enough to strengthen the already weakened military position of Ukraine.
Hi Yael – I think this is a wonderfully written summary of the long history of aligned narratives between the Netherlands and the EU, much of which is rooted in the high value of democracy and liberal societies. I find it interesting that you analyzed this continuation of this narrative relation in real-time as the situation in Ukraine evolved rapidly. I also enjoyed your analysis of how the Netherlands strategically aligns its narratives in external communications with its defense and economic partners.
I would be interested to hear more on how far these cooperative narratives stretch into physical action and assistance to Ukraine – in other words, are the Netherlands, UK, and EU leveraging their shared narratives to promote particular paths of action to support Ukraine’s defense from Russian forces?
Before diving into your discussion of the Netherlands’ stance in the war in Ukraine, I appreciated how you discussed the implications of WWII on the Netherlands’ identity as a country promoting democracy and safety for the citizens of the world. Your blog demonstrates the larger identity narratives surrounding the war in Ukraine such as EU and NATO membership. There has been discussion for some time about Ukraine becoming an EU member state and Russian fear of a Ukraine in NATO. These two possibilities contribute to Russia’s concerns and motivate its narrative as a country being cornered by the West. You mentioned that the Netherlands highlighted vulnerable populations in the trilateral statement. What are actions that the Netherlands is taking to help Ukrainians and what does the ground look like in terms of narratives there? Are people in agreement with having Ukrainian refugees? Do we see the Netherlands taking a more proactive stance in condemning the war in Ukraine?
Yael – thank you for providing such a thoughtful insight into the narratives between the EU and the Netherlands. I especially enjoy the contrast of the historical context with the current events around Ukraine. I would love to hear more about the cohesiveness among global narratives and national narratives and how Zelensky is actively tapping into this.
I agree with Alexis’s comment on how valuable organizations like NATO and the EU are in their mission to keep the peace – and the narrative alignment playing out like a well choreographed dance. I also wonder how the Netherlands support stretches into financial and physical support for Ukraine – do they feel like there is a line that could be crossed that would require for them to ask? Can we answer that question by looking at history? Overall – well done, I greatly enjoyed reading your blog.
I think you do an excellent job at showing how the Netherlands history ties to their current stance and narrative regarding the Russia-Ukraine conflict. I think the examples used, such as the Netherlands being a founding member of NATO, helped support the framing that the Netherlands is predictable, steady and unwavering in their positioning on issues. The framing of the trilateral agreement as not only a way to display the Netherlands democratic commitments, but also their humanitarian efforts, was really interesting. The visual you chose to accompany the blog exemplified the diplomatic spirit that was described. Are there any repercussions that the Netherlands has faced as a result of their decision to support Ukraine? I wonder if there are incentives that would make the Netherlands change their messaging regarding the conflict.