12 min read — Analysis | Ukraine | United States | Netherlands | Populism | Elections
Wilders to Trump: The Dutch and US Populist Approaches to the Ukrainian Conflict
The United States and the Netherlands, both key Western allies, have played significant roles in supporting Ukraine following Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. As the U.S. recalibrates its stance on Ukraine—debating military aid, economic support, and long-term strategic commitments—populist movements on both sides of the Atlantic are influencing the conversation.
By Ximena Lopéz Pérez — Correspondent for the Netherlands
Edited/reviewed by: Francesco Bernabeu Fornara
March 27, 2025 | 15:00
Setting the stage
In the Netherlands and the U.S., populist rhetoric has shaped public perception of the war, one underpinned by nationalism, economic concerns, and skepticism toward foreign intervention. This article explores how populist leaders and movements in both countries are framing the Ukraine conflict and what this means for future policy decisions. And setting the stage for this framing’s scope, rhetoric, and strategic priorities lies the infamous meeting between the US president, Donald Trump, and the Ukraine president, Volodymyr Zelensky, where they met and discussed the next steps towards peace.
In pre-Trump America, the US, as a global superpower and traditional backbone of the Western alliance, had naturally led international efforts in the Ukrainian conflict with extensive military aid for Kyiv and strong diplomatic pressure on Moscow. Meanwhile, the pre-Wilders Netherlands, as a smaller European nation and EU member, had aligned itself closely with NATO and the EU’s collective response, emphasizing European security interests and adherence to international law.
But since both countries’ last elections, both Washington and the Hague have faced notable foreign policy shifts. This comparison explores how domestic politics, public opinion, and the relationship to Russia—particularly the influence of figures like Donald Trump and Geert Wilders—have shaped each country’s approach to the ongoing conflict.
Populist coherence, divergent impact?
Donald Trump and Geert Wilders both pioneer nationalist, right-wing populist movements in their respective countries, advocating for policies that purportedly prioritize domestic interests over international commitments.
When it comes to American domestic policies, current president Donald Trump has made his stance clear with his motto “America First”, emphasizing a skepticism towards foreign aid and shaping his approach based more on personal perspectives rather than a fixed geopolitical strategy. In his current term, Trump has slowly evolved through his personal perspectives. Trump has previously been critical of extensive U.S. financial and military support to Ukraine, arguing that European nations, particularly NATO allies, should bear more of the burden. But while being frustrated over European allies’ reluctance to increase military spending isn’t new for a US president, it’s the actions he has taken because of it that mark a turning-point in American foreign and security policy.
During his first presidency (2017–2021), his reluctance culminated in the 2019 Ukraine scandal, in which he temporarily withheld nearly $400 million in military aid, allegedly pressuring Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, leading to his first impeachment by the House of Representatives—the US’ legislative lower chamber. Back then though, Trump was notably guardrailed by establishment centre-right conservatives in his administration. Today, however, Trump has brought in a plethora of far more controversial individuals to senior positions related to foreign policy.
Geert Wilders shares a similar nationalist perspective but faces stronger constraints due to the Netherlands’ integration within the EU and NATO and his need to cooperate with more moderate parties. Wilders has criticized Dutch and EU financial support for Ukraine, arguing that the Netherlands should not bear the economic burden. His PVV (Party for Freedom) has previously opposed military aid and sanctions on Russia, advocating instead for a more neutral stance.
Indeed, while both leaders oppose extensive foreign aid, Trump’s position is more influential globally due to U.S. military dominance. Wilders, on the other hand, is imbedded within a different type of government, compelling him to cooperate with other parties in a coalition were he to salvage any political influence. But in doing so, he must navigate the Netherlands’ deep involvement in EU decision-making, limiting his ability to drastically shift policy unless he gains significant power, not least due to the primacy of EU law over national policy.
Public opinion as a populist constraint or driver?
Considering the different influential size in the Ukraine conflict, it shouldn’t be underestimated the extent to which each nation’s public opinion can significantly impact policy creation on the conflict and hence on the success of populist rhetoric.
In terms of the US, Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to weaken or even withdraw from NATO, arguing that European countries should pay more for their own defense. His rhetoric raised concerns about U.S. commitment to European security, hence directly impacting Ukraine’s war effort. U.S. public opinion on the nation’s approach to the Ukraine conflict has been characterized by evolving perspectives and notable partisan divisions. As such, both political parties became the major barrier for a unified public opinion, which showcasing a complex interplay of support levels, partisan affiliations, and perceptions of international responsibility, all of which influence the country’s policy direction—a partisan divide on US foreign and security commitments that was notably largely absent pre-Trump
While we tend to view the influence of public opinion on politics as a largely bottom-up relationship within democracies, top-down influence should not be overlooked. Indeed, the partisan landscape among political parties in the United States directly molds public opinion, with media, party leadership, and ideological affiliations playing a crucial role in determining the national consensus on pressing issues.
According to a Pew Research Center study, there are ample divisions within the political opinion. The dominance of a bipartisan government like the United States considers the bigger parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. The Democrats have always been more liberal versus the Republicans more conservative. When it comes to public opinion, Reuters informed that most Americans’ concerns lie predominantly on the closeness Trump has been developing with Russia, or more specifically, its president, Putin. Although public opinion should remain objective, the presence of partisan divides is a significant factor in interpreting these results.
In the case of The Netherlands, Wilders has been historically skeptical of organizations such as NATO but has never openly advocated its dismantlment or the country’s exit from it. In March 2025, after a public dispute between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Wilders publicly expressed support for Ukraine, in line with many other mainstream leaders. His specific take though was an emphasis on the importance of U.S. involvement in peace negotiations and cautioned against anti-Trump sentiments, highlighting the need for diplomatic engagement. Wilders’ fluctuating stance has contributed to a polarized public opinion. His supporters appreciate his focus on national interests and cautious approach to foreign entanglements, while critics argue that his positions undermine solidarity with Ukraine and broader European security.
Russian rapprochement
The relationships between Russia and the United States under President Donald Trump and the Netherlands under Geert Wilders exhibit both parallels and distinctions, shaped by each leader’s political stance and their nation’s geopolitical context.
In the U.S., during his first term, President Trump expressed admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin, advocating for improved U.S.-Russia relations. Despite this, his administration-maintained sanctions against Russia and provided military aid to Ukraine—likely due to the establishment figures he surrounded himself with. This time around, however, Trump has halted military aid to Ukraine, engaged in direct talks with Russia, and echoed Kremlin talking points, signaling a significant policy shift.
Meanwhile, Geert Wilders has exhibited a relatively Russia-friendly position compared to other Dutch political figures. His victory in the 2023 Dutch parliamentary elections was lauded by Russian state media, reflecting Moscow’s approval of his stance. However, he has kept his distance from the Russians, asking for constant transparency in their foreign relations.
In all: when populism is constrained, and when it’s not
As head of state, Trump had the authority to directly influence U.S. foreign policy, leading to tangible shifts in U.S.-Russia relations during his tenure. In contrast, Wilders, as a parliamentary leader and as a politician within a country legally bound to EU policy, has limited capacity to unilaterally alter Dutch foreign policy, though his perspectives do indeed contribute to shaping public discourse.
In addition, both leaders have demonstrated inclinations toward fostering closer ties with Russia. For both nations, fortifying ties with the Vladimir Putin, the leader of Russia, could avoid a prolongation of the Ukraine conflict. In the American case it could mean counterbalancing China, its primary geopolitical rival. If the United States were to improve ties with Moscow, it could potentially weaken the growing Russia-China partnership and prevent a stronger anti-Western bloc from solidifying.
This is compounded by the fact that for some U.S. political factions, there is a growing skepticism towards the long-term military aid to Ukraine. Indeed, a significant faction within the Republican Party advocates for prioritizing domestic issues over foreign engagements which allegedly aggravate internal challenges, such as economic obstacles and border security.
For The Netherlands, rapproachment with Russia could mean going back to EU-Russian relations pre-Ukraine full-scale conflict, or even pre-Crimean annexation, which means revitalising economic ties with Russia, particularly in energy (natural gas) and trade. Like much of Europe, the Dutch faced rising energy costs due to reduced Russian gas imports. Some voices argue that re-engaging with Russia could help stabilize energy prices and reduce dependence on alternative, often more expensive, suppliers. The Netherlands is a lot more limited due to its ties to the European Union and NATO.
In all, the extent and implications of their relationships with Russia differ, influenced by their respective political positions, the powers they wield, and their countries’ roles on the global stage. Traditionally, both the U.S. and the Netherlands have broadly aligned in supporting Ukraine but differ in their motivations and limitations. The U.S. takes a more interventionist role, shaped by global strategic interests, while the Netherlands follows the EU line but faces domestic economic considerations. Backed by a like-minded alternative worldview, however, populist factions in both countries are questioning these long-term sustainability of military aid, but their influence varies—more pronounced in the U.S. and more restrained in the Netherlands due to public sentiment and European political norms.
Disclaimer: While Euro Prospects encourages open and free discourse, the opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or views of Euro Prospects or its editorial board.
Write and publish your own article on Euro Prospects
Subscribe to our newsletter – stay informed when we publish articles on pressing European affairs.
