Anatomy of penetration: How Kremlin narratives penetrate the Dutch media landscape

Between freedom of speech and distortion of reality

According to the World Press Freedom Index published by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) on April 30, 2026, the Netherlands ranks second in the world.

This high ranking is a source of national pride, symbolizing the absence of state censorship and the right of journalists to cover any topic. However, it also reveals a dangerous paradox: high standards of freedom of speech can sometimes become a shield for the distortion of reality and Kremlin narratives.

When authoritarian regimes destroy independent media, some Western journalists, in an attempt to present an “alternative perspective,” consciously or unconsciously become instruments in Russia’s information war against Ukraine.

Freedom of speech grants everyone the right to speak, but it does not abolish core journalistic standards, including accuracy, the separation of facts from commentary, and precision.

In the Netherlands, significant public attention was drawn to the documentary miniseries “Onze man bij de vijand”, created by Dutch journalist Thomas Erdbrink and director Roelof van Broekhoven, who visited Ukrainian territories temporarily occupied by Russia, including Mariupol, which constitutes a violation of Ukrainian law.

OPEN LETTER OF PROTEST AND CONTROVERSY SURROUNDING THE SERIES

On May 12, the annual Press Freedom Lecture took place in The Hague. Thomas Erdbrink was invited as this year’s keynote speaker.

A number of Dutch journalists, writers, and academics strongly criticized his participation and openly accused him of retransmitting Kremlin narratives.

A group of 15 prominent Dutch media professionals, writers, and experts addressed an open protest letter to the Dutch Association of Journalists (NVJ). The open letter of protest states that “one of his (Thomas Erdbrink’s – ed.) producers is Nikita Sutyrin, a collaborator of RT who glorifies Russia’s war of destruction against Ukraine. In addition, Erdbrink was assisted by Maria Butina, a member of the ruling party ‘United Russia,’ whom the United States accused of espionage in 2019. She was deported to Russia and now, under the supervision of the regime, runs a consulting company aimed at creating the most positive possible image of Russia for foreigners. Furthermore, Erdbrink’s interpreters could not or did not wish to perform their work independently and attempted to influence interviews with passersby. This does not indicate Erdbrink’s freedom of movement, but rather that he found himself in a situation of dependence.

Among the signatories of the open protest letter was Dutch writer Lisa Weeda, who has Ukrainian roots. Her grandmother, originally from the Luhansk region, was deported by the Nazis as an Ostarbeiter to work at a factory in western Germany during the Second World War. After the war, Lisa Weeda’s grandmother married a Dutch man and moved to the Netherlands.

“I think the project was a very ill-informed one, where the propaganda-illiteracy of the Netherlands is shown. It is a lot of propaganda messages disguised as high level human interest. I was especially shocked when I saw that ‘extra documentary footage’ that was used in the documentary series was mostly from RT (Russia today), which is a propaganda-channel mostly,” Lisa Weeda said in an exclusive comment to a Ukrinform correspondent in The Hague.

It is worth noting that RT is banned in many countries around the world, primarily in the EU, the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, due to its propaganda and disinformation regarding the war in Ukraine.

Lisa Weeda also published a lengthy post after watching Thomas Erdbrink’s project, calling for better recognition of propaganda and reflecting on how “real” the people encountered by Thomas Erdbrink actually are.

“I fear, not very ‘real’. Their stories are too convenient for Russian propaganda,” Weeda writes.

For its part, the Dutch Association of Journalists (NVJ) emphasized that it would not cancel Thomas Erdbrink’s appearance, stressing that it does not shy away from critical debate and noting that discussions with journalists and experts traditionally follow the Press Freedom Lecture.

THE SUBTLETIES OF RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA

Russian propaganda employs more subtle, manipulative narratives that, unfortunately, some journalists pick up – either out of naivety or deliberately. This includes ideas such as “the truth lies somewhere in the middle” and “it’s not that straightforward.” This is perhaps one of the most common traps for Western reporters.

Another recurring element is the attempt to portray the “ordinary Russian soldier” or the “average Z-supporter” as a victim of circumstances or propaganda. Without a clear emphasis that these individuals are participants in an act of aggressive war, such materials can evoke empathy among Dutch audiences toward the occupiers, blurring the line between aggressor and victim.

Also, referring to the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine (Mariupol, Crimea, Donbas) as “Russian regions” in reports, documentary projects or describing trips there made with Kremlin permission as “travels through Russia,” gradually conditions European audiences to accept the idea that the annexation is a settled fact.

Dutch researcher and journalist Robert van der Noordaa is one of those who study Russian propaganda and the activities of Russian organizations in the Netherlands, their influence, the spread of disinformation, and the distortion of facts.

In an exclusive comment to a Ukrinform correspondent in The Hague, he explained what concerns him most about the project “Onze man bij de vijand”, created by Dutch journalist Thomas Erdbrink and director Roelof van Broekhoven.

“The first one is that Erdbrink illegally entered Ukraine with the Russian army. Another concern is that a totalitarian regime such as Russia killed or imprisoned many journalists and many media companies left the country. Doing a project like this is extremely complicated and is likely almost impossible to execute,” said Robert van der Noordaa.

He emphasized that “as journalist should not be commiting a crime such as illegally entering Ukraine.”

According to him, “Erdbrink does not speak Russian, so he uses a translator. The way this project is done is asking questions and the interviewed person answers. The problem here is that this formula isn't a real interview and people are hardly asked for explanations, there is no real discussion. In essence people just tell their story without any explanation. This formula should not be used. Erdbrink could have done a far better job if he had been speaking Russian or if his translator had really helped him doing an in-depth interview with critical questions. Now the interviewed people can share the most bizarre propaganda and no questions asked.”

He also pointed out that, in his view, one of the most illustrative and at the same time troubling episodes is a scene in Mariupol, where one of the interviewees states that they do not know whether the theater building was destroyed by a Russian or Ukrainian missile. When the author of the project says that “the truth is not so easy to catch,” some Dutch journalists interpreted these words as an attempt to sow doubt about a well-documented Russian war crime, drawing parallels with the denial of the MH17 tragedy.

“Yes, the series contain a lot of propaganda. One of the most shocking ones is that a man in Mariupol says that he doesn't know whether the theater that was blown up was hit by a Russian or Ukrainian missile. There are several investigations which prove it was a Russian missile. In the voice over Erdbrink says that the truth isn't always clear. He basically claims Ukraine might have done it, this is beyond shocking,” said Robert van der Noordaa.

He also draws attention to the involvement of a Russian production team, which, according to him, is linked to RT. Such cooperation, in his view, raises serious ethical questions. In addition, he mentions the appearance in the project of Maria Butina, whom he describes as a controversial figure in light of her past activities and international reputation.

“There is no information how this series was financed as far as I know. However the team that accompanies him is Russian, it is a team that works for Russian RT. RT employees are not allowed to work on anything which puts Russia in a negative daylight. It is extremely irresponsible to use a Russian team of a state-owned propaganda channel. Did Erdrink pay RT or if they didn't charge him the series is also basically financed by RT. He also meets Maria Butina, she is a well known Russian spy who was imprisoned in America and then deported to Russia. Why not confront her? Why portray her as a credible source? She even promoted the documentaries on Vkontakte, if the series would potray Russia in a negative way she would never ever promote it,” Robert van der Noordaa says.

 FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT IS SAID

Honorary Consul of Ukraine in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Karel Burger Dirven, stated that it is unacceptable to illegally visit the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine (TOT), in particular Mariupol, as this constitutes a violation of Ukrainian law.

“This is an illegal visit, and such violations must entail accountability,” emphasized Karel Burger Dirven in an exclusive comment to a Ukrinform correspondent in The Hague.

According to him, “the Ukrainian Prosecutor’s Office, including the illegal border crossing from Russia into the TOT and making a (by Russia approved propaganda) documentary on Ukrainian territory without any Ukrainian press accreditation, should assess the actions of the creators of this miniseries.”

He also noted that the miniseries “Onze man bij de vijand”, created by Dutch journalist Thomas Erdbrink and director Roelof van Broekhoven, is broadcast on one of the most popular commercial television channels in the Netherlands, RTL 4, as well as on the streaming service Videoland, and is presented as a “journey through Russia with official Russian press accreditation.”

“Erdbrink demonstrated that it is impossible to state with certainty who bombed the theatre in Mariupol, as neither his subject nor he himself was present there. By presenting this in his project, Erdbrink becomes an ideal instrument for Russian propaganda in creating confusion,” Honorary Consul said.

He is convinced that the response to such cases should not be only societal or professional, but also legal. According to him, the Ukrainian Prosecutor’s Office should assess the actions of the creators of this miniseries.

“The Kremlin found the right formula for making propaganda by inviting journalist into the TOT, and telling that this is a unique visit into the new territories of Russia and in this way claiming this is Russian land. Therefore, it is even more important to prosecute Erdbrink and Van Broekhoven by Ukrainian public prosecutor to make an example to other “journalists” that might have the same idea of visiting Ukraine illegally,” he emphasized.

An expert in international criminal law and Executive Director of the International Bar Association (IBA), Mark Ellis, said in an exclusive comment to a Ukrinform correspondent that holding journalists accountable for illegally entering occupied Ukrainian territories and disseminating pro-Kremlin propaganda is a complex issue.

According to him, journalists who illegally enter the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine together with Russian military personnel and distribute materials supporting Kremlin narratives may face criminal prosecution, sanctions, and professional restrictions imposed by Ukraine, the EU, and individual European states.

“Consequently, such individuals could face significant legal and professional repercussions from multiple jurisdictions. From Ukraine, the most immediate consequences would be an entry ban and the initiation of criminal proceedings in absentia, which would create an international arrest warrant. In their home countries, such as the Netherlands, they could face severe professional and reputational damage, including public condemnation and official censure from journalistic associations for violating core ethical standards of impartiality and truthfulness,” he said in a comment to Ukrinform.

According to him “оn a European level, while they may not be sanctioned individually at first, the EU has already sanctioned numerous Russian propagandists and media figures for their role in the “systematic, international campaign of media manipulation and distortion of facts in order to enhance its strategy of destabilisation” of Ukraine. If a journalist’s work is deemed to be a key part of this Kremlin-directed disinformation machine, they could be added to future EU sanctions lists, which may result in asset freezes and travel bans across the bloc.”

During the Press Freedom Lecture debate in The Hague, Erdbrink defended himself by arguing that Dutch audiences are sufficiently intelligent to distinguish truth from propaganda on their own.

However, many members of the Dutch professional community took the opposite view. A journalist cannot leave inaccurate statements made by their subjects “for the audience to judge.”

A journalist cannot present unverified or knowingly false information about war crimes without clarification — this is not freedom of speech or a balance of opinions, but the dissemination of an aggressor’s narrative.

The Netherlands Association of Journalists Code of Journalism Ethics (NVJ Code) clearly requires fact-checking. In particular, the NVJ Code explicitly states that a journalist “seeks truth based on facts,” provides balanced and verified reporting, clearly distinguishes facts from opinions, and corrects errors.

THE MAIN TASK OF A JOURNALIST IS TO GET TO THE TRUTH

Dutch journalist and political scientist Hubert Smeets also signed the protest letter. He has been studying Russia and the Russian political system for many years, as well as analyzing how Russia influences the European information space and political processes.

According to him, not all signatories of the letter called for the cancellation of Erdring’s participation as the main speaker, recognizing journalists’ right to freedom of expression, but instead proposed inviting a second speaker to provide an alternative perspective on freedom of speech in Russia.

“There are serious arguments about press freedom in Russia in 2026, because almost everyone said they could not travel and work without interference from the Russian authorities. There is also the experience of Dutch correspondents worked in Russia. But Thomas Erdring argues the opposite and did not seek help or advice from colleagues. However, this is his claim, so we said: fine, but invite a second speaker to briefly present another point of view on press freedom in Russia today. But the union did not agree and said no, we will not do that because Thomas Erdring is a well-known journalist and we stick to the program,” said Hubert Smeets.

He also noted that the professional community had raised serious concerns about the project’s methodology. In addition to the involvement of individuals linked to RT, as well as the appearance in the project of controversial figures such as Maria Butina, the criticism also concerns the work of translators.

According to him, “although they are barely audible in the series, in several conversations they can be heard, and significant discrepancies in translation have been recorded. Thomas Erdring does not speak Russian, nor does his Dutch team speak Russian. In several cases the translators are audible. For example, in one translation, when Thomas Erdring uses the word ‘war’ in English, the interpreter translates it as ‘Kashmar’. That is completely different.”

Hubert Smeets, it should be noted, speaks Russian.

During a public lecture in The Hague, Erdring defended his project, stating that his aim was to show the lives of ordinary people in an authoritarian system, and emphasizing the journalist’s right to choose his own focus.

“In his speech he spoke for about 35 minutes about his experiences in Iran, Afghanistan, and Russia, and about his desire to tell the stories of ordinary people. But the main point was that those who asked the union to invite a second speaker were not journalists but activists. He called himself a classical journalist who always seeks the middle ground, neither the left nor the right side, but grey tones. And he claimed that we were criticizing him as activists, not journalists. He was very offended. I counted that in his 30–35-minute speech he said ‘I’ 73 times and ‘my’ 25 times. So he took it very personally. Almost his entire speech was a response to our criticism,” said Hubert Smeets.

He added: “We, as journalists, have two tasks: to tell stories and to get as close as possible to the truth. In today’s information environment, the problem is not only propaganda, but also the erosion of the very idea of truth.”

Ukrinform also asked Dutch journalist Thomas Erdbrink about the purpose of his project. He responded that his “main goal was to show how people live under an authoritarian regime and against the backdrop of a war that most of them, in fact, do not want.”

When asked why the film did not include the voices of victims from Mariupol, including those currently living in the Netherlands, he explained that the format of the series was limited to Russia and Russian-occupied Ukrainian territories, and therefore no interviews were conducted in other countries.

As Dutch researcher and journalist Robert van der Noordaa noted in a comment to Ukrinform, “the main task of a journalist is to get to the truth and convey the truth.”

The Netherlands should undoubtedly continue to remain among the global leaders in press freedom. At the same time, freedom of speech is truly strong only when it is combined with high standards of accuracy and responsibility. Otherwise, the openness of democratic societies can become a vulnerability in the face of information attacks.

Russia’s full-scale war against Ukraine is not a conflict between two equal sides – it is a war of destruction unleashed by an aggressor state with the aim of eliminating Ukrainian statehood and destroying the Ukrainian people. That is why precision in wording is critically important.

By Iryna Drabok, The Hague