“Peace with justice means stopping Russian aggression and restoring Ukraine’s sovereignty”: An Interview with Todd Huizinga

Todd Huizinga is a Senior Fellow for Europe at the Religious Freedom Institute. He is the author of The New Totalitarian Temptation: Global Governance and the Crisis of Democracy in Europe (2016) and Was Europa von Trump lernen kann (2017). His work focuses on the intersection of global governance, democracy, and religious freedom. Huizinga has extensively written on the political and social challenges facing Europe, offering insights into the role of democracy in the modern world. His expertise also includes the impact of populism and the lessons Europe can learn from political developments in the United States.

Darina Rebro: Diplomacy suffered a major blow after the disastrous Oval Office meeting between President Zelenskyy and President Trump. Could you outline the key disagreements between the two leaders that may have laid the foundation for conflict?

Todd Huizinga: It was actually the lack of respect that President Trump, J.D. Vance, and others showed to President Zelenskyy. It was an unnecessarily personal conflict—one that was completely avoidable.

Now, I want to clarify that I’m a huge Trump fan. I like Trump and have supported much of what he’s done, especially since becoming president. So, I’m not saying this as someone who dislikes him—I’m saying this as someone who does. But I was extremely disappointed to hear what he said last week, or rather, the week before last, before the White House meeting. He accused Zelenskyy of starting the war, called him a dictator, and claimed he could have ended the war already. These statements are not only untrue—they’re outright slanderous. Diplomacy, in this case, became a cover for what was really just a series of personal attacks on Zelenskyy.

Now, Zelenskyy made a mistake as well. He should have ignored it, let it pass, and continued negotiations with Trump privately after the press had moved on. The actual deal being discussed could be a good one for Ukraine.

One other thing this situation highlights is a larger issue: people on both sides, whether conservative or progressive, are becoming incapable of seeing the truth objectively. This is a symptom of a broader cultural problem in the West, including Ukraine. There’s a lack of respect and reverence for truth.

You could predict exactly how Trump supporters would react—they blamed Zelenskyy, just as Trump did. At the same time, you could predict how Trump’s opponents would react—claiming this was the end of the Western alliance, that Trump is aligned with Putin, and so forth. These reactions are frustrating because, at the core, they’re not about truth—they’re about loyalty to one side or the other.

Additionally, I hope it leads to a situation where it is in the U.S.'s best interest to help Ukraine regain as much of its lost territory as possible. Many of these rare earth minerals are in regions currently occupied by Russia. If securing those resources becomes a strategic priority for the U.S., it could result in stronger support for Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Now, the focus should be on moving forward—ensuring that, under Trump, the U.S. remains committed to Ukraine’s security and that this war ends in a just way. A resolution should not reward Putin, as that would only embolden him to go after Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Moldova, Romania, Poland, or other nations.

Is there a breach between the U.S. and Europe? How deep is it, and has it affected NATO? Do political and policy differences threaten transatlantic unity?

I do believe there is a breach between the U.S. and the European Union. The reason is that the EU has made it clear they do not accept the results of the American election. They are entirely aligned with the progressive side of Western politics, and for them, Donald Trump represents the rising populist right-wing parties across Western and Central Europe.

If Europe wants to be tolerant and postmodern, it should also accept that traditional conservatism remains strong in the U.S. Traditional conservatism upholds freedom—speech, religion, and more—and does not weaponize the law to punish political opponents while claiming to "save democracy."

Look at Germany—AfD isn’t even allowed in a governing coalition. The clear center-right majority was ignored, and instead, voters got a grand coalition that includes the left-wing party they just voted out. Take Romania—Romanians elected a populist conservative leader, yet the election was annulled under claims of Russian interference. As someone once said: If foreign interference can justify overturning results you don’t like, the real problem is your democracy, not Russia. And I could go on. In the UK, only Nigel Farage and Reform UK are addressing critical issues. In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders won but had no real chance of becoming prime minister. 

As for NATO, there are tensions. However, during Trump’s first term, he actually strengthened NATO. He was the only leader Europe took seriously when he told them, "You need to contribute more to your own security." They believed him and increased defense spending.

Now, with the Russian threat, Europe knows it needs the U.S.—regardless of what it says publicly. NATO won’t collapse unless Trump decides to leave, and he won’t. So, is there a breach within NATO? There are tensions, yes, but Europe now understands NATO is indispensable.

How do we remind Westerners—Europeans and Americans—that International scope of law, including Geneva conventions, is what they agreed on and that they are now failing to uphold their own principles with regards to the Russian aggression in Ukraine?

The best approach isn’t to argue about the law of war but to focus on what’s clearly right and wrong. The Geneva Conventions are well-thought-out agreements to limit war’s damage, but the argument shouldn’t start with: “Look, Russia is violating international law.” Instead, say: “Russia is murdering Ukrainians. Russia attacked a country that gave it no reason to attack. Russia has kidnapped Ukrainian children.” If there’s one act that stands out as shockingly evil, it’s the kidnapping of Ukrainian children. It’s unbelievable.

In other words, you don’t need to frame it as a legal issue. That’s a European way of thinking. I’m not necessarily criticizing it, but it is a European approach. If you want Trump to respect the international laws of war, don’t focus on law itself. Speak in a language conservative Americans understand—the language of right and wrong, justice and injustice. Talk about how we all want peace, but peace only comes through strength, as Trump himself has said. Aggressors don’t respond to appeals for peace and goodwill. They respond to strength, and part of strength is the willingness to use it.

Now, why is international law discredited in the United States? Because it has been misused in so many ways. Look at the ICC indictments against Netanyahu and Gallant—absurd. When Americans hear “international law,” they don’t think of justice. They think of global governance being used to undermine the sovereignty of democratically elected nations.

There's an old tale of blind men describing an elephant differently—one says it's a rope, another a pillar. Similarly, everyone talks about "peace"—Putin, Trump, Europe, and Ukraine—but each envisions it differently. Can you briefly outline the "flavors" of peace they each believe in?

Putin is using the word peace as a propaganda tool. He wants peace, but he wants peace on his own unjust terms. He wants to force a false peace on Ukraine and the world, in which Russia basically controls most of Ukraine, or as much of Ukraine as he can, and ultimately all of Ukraine. Now, you could go really far and put yourself in Putin's shoes and think, alright, there is the traditional Russian idea about the baptism of Kyiv and Ukraine being the cradle of Russian Orthodox civilization, etc. And Russia's understandable desire to have security along its borders, especially along its western borders, for good historical reasons. You can say all of that, and you can understand Putin's thinking better because of it. He really does believe that Ukraine is kind of the cradle of Russian Orthodox civilization, and thus belongs to Russia. But understanding where he's coming from doesn't mean you think that where he's coming from is factually or morally correct. It's factually and morally wrong. Because if Ukraine, for its own reasons—very, very good reasons—wants to be independent of Russia, then that's the right of the Ukrainians to be independent of Russia. 

I think that Ukrainians define peace as peace with justice—peace where Russia has been prevented from wreaking havoc in Ukraine by attacking Ukraine in an unprovoked manner. Ukraine has been pushed back, and the status quo ante has been restored.

I think Trump defines peace as this: America is strong, America is under good leadership now, and no one is going to make trouble in the world because there's a new sheriff in town, and his name is Donald Trump. I do believe that the Trumpian definition of peace, so to speak, and the Ukrainian definition of peace end up at the same goal. So, that's what people should be concentrating on: that the United States and Ukraine have the same goal, and that goal is to restore the sovereignty of Ukraine, stop Russian aggression, stop people from dying. Stop all the death and suffering, and restore a situation where Ukraine is a sovereign country that is respected by Russia, and restore a Russia that is less of a threat to the entire region of Europe and to the entire world. That's the undeniably common goal of peace, as thought of by Trump and by Ukraine.