THE HAGUE — With European elections looming, senior officials in the Netherlands are warning that Russian disinformation represents a threat to democracy as serious as any battlefront in Ukraine. Dutch Foreign Minister Berendsen and German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul met in The Hague for urgent consultations, then appeared before journalists to deliver a coordinated message: Moscow is waging a hybrid war on European societies, and the upcoming electoral cycle is its primary target. Berendsen, speaking at a joint press conference, said the two ministers had spoken at length about Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and the growing hybrid threat to European countries. “With elections coming up in many countries, countering Russian disinformation will be one of the key issues,” he said. The remarks, reported by the online media outlet Ukrinform, come at a moment when multiple European nations are preparing to vote. The ministers’ warning reflects a broader consensus among intelligence agencies that Russia views elections as opportunities to amplify division, weaken support for Ukraine, and undermine faith in democratic institutions. Berendsen stressed that Europe must be able to ensure its own security. The meeting, held at the Dutch foreign ministry, also included a visit to the International Criminal Court, underscoring the link between accountability for war crimes and the defense of democratic order. The Dutch capital, home to the ICC and hundreds of international organizations, served as a symbolic backdrop for a discussion about the rule of law, resilience, and the limits of impunity.
The urgency of Berendsen’s warning cannot be separated from the wider European security environment. Russia has spent years building an influence apparatus that operates across borders, languages, and platforms, using outlets funded by the Russian state, bot networks, hacked emails, forged documents, and increasingly sophisticated deepfake technology. In the context of elections, these tools are designed to do more than spread false narratives; they are meant to erode the very idea that facts can be verified, that elections can be fair, and that governments act in the interest of their citizens. Berendsen called countering Russian disinformation one of the main challenges ahead for European countries, placing it alongside more traditional threats such as military aggression, cyberattacks, and energy blackmail. The Dutch and German foreign ministers did not present new sanctions or specific countermeasures during the press conference, but their language suggested a shift toward a more robust, coordinated European response. They emphasized the need to expose manipulation, strengthen media literacy, and build institutional resilience so that voters can recognize interference when they encounter it. The timing is critical: European Parliament elections, national elections, and regional votes are expected across the continent over the next year, and each creates a new opening for external actors seeking to shape outcomes. The ministers’ joint appearance was also a signal of unity between two of Europe’s most influential countries, particularly as the Netherlands and Germany have become leading voices on the need for long-term security guarantees for Ukraine and a stronger European pillar within NATO.
Behind the disinformation concern lies the grim reality of Russia’s war in Ukraine. Berendsen said Russia had stepped up its attacks on Ukraine, and there were no signs that Moscow was seriously willing to engage in peace talks. That assessment is consistent with months of sustained missile and drone strikes on Ukrainian cities, energy infrastructure, and port facilities. The Dutch foreign minister emphasized the importance of continuing to support Ukraine, not only as a moral imperative but as a strategic necessity. If Russia were allowed to win on the battlefield, he argued, the consequences for European security would be catastrophic and would extend far beyond Ukraine’s borders. The two ministers discussed the military, economic, and humanitarian dimensions of that support, including the need to sustain aid packages, accelerate arms deliveries, and impose consequences for Moscow’s aggression. They also considered how to counter Russian narratives that seek to blame the West for prolonging the war or to exhaust public patience in European capitals. In that sense, the fight against disinformation is inseparable from the war effort. Every false story about Ukrainian corruption, every claim that sanctions are causing more harm to Europe than to Russia, every attempt to reduce support for refugees is part of the same strategy. Berendsen’s insistence that Europe must be able to ensure its own security reflects a recognition that the United States may not always be willing or able to lead the response, and that European nations must invest more heavily in defense and crisis preparedness. The Netherlands and Germany, he said, will work together to strengthen Europe within NATO, including by developing and procuring defense capabilities.
That cooperative commitment has concrete implications for NATO’s future. For years, allies have debated the fairness of the transatlantic burden-sharing arrangement, with the United States pressing European members to spend more on defense. The conversation in The Hague moved beyond spending percentages to a broader question: how can Europe build the technological base, industrial capacity, and operational readiness to defend itself in a rapid escalation? Berendsen and Wadephul discussed defense procurement as an area where European cooperation can yield major gains. By aligning requirements and pooling resources, the Netherlands and Germany hope to avoid duplication, fill critical gaps in air and missile defense, and ensure that European forces have the equipment they need to operate at scale. The ministers’ language suggested a vision of European security that is not anti-American but self-reliant—a stronger Europe inside NATO, able to contribute more effectively to collective defense and to respond to crises closer to home. This is especially relevant given the possibility that the next US administration could shift priorities toward the Indo-Pacific or reassess American commitments to Europe. The two ministers did not openly speculate about that scenario, but their focus on European strategic autonomy was unmistakable. They also discussed hybrid warfare beyond disinformation, including sabotage of underwater cables, attacks on critical infrastructure, cyber operations against government networks, and the weaponization of migration and energy supplies. These threats require a whole-of-society response because many of them target private companies, civil society organizations, and ordinary citizens rather than military forces.
The ministers also turned their attention to the International Criminal Court, which has faced mounting pressure and threats as it investigates war crimes linked to the conflict in Ukraine. Berendsen and Wadephul visited the Court’s headquarters in The Hague, a venue that has become a cautionary and embattled institution in the ongoing struggle for accountability. Berendsen called on the 125 states parties to the Rome Statute to fully protect the ICC, describing the Court as being under pressure and facing threats. His words were carefully chosen. The ICC has long been criticized by powerful countries that are not party to the Rome Statute, and it has struggled to enforce its arrest warrants against high-ranking officials who refuse to cooperate with its proceedings. In the context of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Court has issued warrants for senior Russian officials, but the broader challenges of prosecuting sitting leaders, gathering evidence from conflict zones, and ensuring cooperation from states with competing interests remain daunting. The ministers’ visit was meant to underscore the importance of international justice as a pillar of the postwar order. If the ICC is seen as weak, politicized, or vulnerable to intimidation, its deterrent value diminishes, and the promise that war criminals will face justice becomes hollow. Berendsen’s call for the states parties to protect the Court was therefore not merely a gesture of support for an institution; it was an appeal to the international community to defend the principle that aggression, war crimes, and crimes against humanity do not go unanswered. The Netherlands, as the host country of the ICC, has a special responsibility, and Berendsen appeared determined to mobilize others to share it.
In their joint appearance, Berendsen and Wadephul did not announce a dramatic new package of measures or a revolutionary strategy. Instead, they offered something more durable: a clear-eyed assessment of the challenges ahead and a commitment to confront them together. The fight against Russian disinformation, they suggested, is ultimately a fight for the trust on which democratic societies depend. Elections can be protected with cybersecurity measures and fact-checking networks, but they cannot be made invulnerable to the deeper corrosion that occurs when large numbers of citizens become convinced that no source can be trusted. What Europe needs, according to the ministers, is a combination of vigilance and confidence—an understanding that openness is a strength rather than a vulnerability, and that the best answer to bad information is not censorship but resilient, transparent, and accountable public institutions. The next few years will test whether European democracies can meet that standard. With war at the continent’s eastern border, elections on the horizon, and an adversary willing to exploit every crack in the social fabric, the warning from The Hague is not hypothetical. The Netherlands and Germany have placed themselves at the center of the response, coordinating their diplomatic weight, intelligence capacities, and defense investments. But the broader responsibility lies with all European nations and with the citizens who choose what to believe. The meeting ended without fanfare, yet its message was unequivocal: Europe must prepare not only to fight on the battlefield, but to win a far more contested struggle in the minds of its own voters.