Talk:Mark Rutte

Addition of the fact that most experts consider the US-attack on Iran illegal?

Rutte praised that very illegal war-strike in a private message to Trump, which is already mentioned in the article.

As we have a lot of serious sources that show that the vast majority of legal experts consider the attack illegal I find it relevant. I find it even misleading NOT to add this info as people will wonder why that was remarkable at all. It was illegal for two reasons: Constitutional US law wants the support of the congress and international law does not like preemptive strikes if the very threat is months or even years (CIA: 3 years) away.

My proposal, addition of ... "whereas most legal experts consider the Israeli and therefore also the US-attack on Iran illegal."

Sources to be linked to that could be: "“The founders expected the United States to comply with international law and for Congress to check a president’s lawless rush to war,” said Mary Ellen O’Connell, a University of Notre Dame law professor and an expert on international law. “Without a discussion and vote in Congress, this restraining mechanism is lost.” https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/18/opinion/trump-iran-war-congress.html

But also: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/23/us/politics/trump-iran-war-powers-constitution.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/23/opinion/international-world/trump-iran-strikes.html https://www.dw.com/en/israel-iran-attack-legality-international-law/a-72952324

If we leave it uncommented we motivate a further erosion of law.

Edwin -07:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC) 2001:16B8:C3C9:B00:AD66:94F8:236F:D78F (talk) 07:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

daddy?

Is it worth mentioning that he called POTOS "Daddy"? https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/white-house-video-embraces-trump-daddy-after-nato-chiefs-remark-2025-06-26/ CONFIQ (talk) 08:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

no 62.166.201.131 (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Unless we start an article about the relationship between Rutte and Trump, but I am not sure it is notable enough..Lova Falk (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Vision

The quote about vision is pretty outdated, see this Dutch chapter about this topic Dajasj (talk) 10:11, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Furthermore, what he says about his vision is not the same as him having no vision. He definitely has one. Lova Falk (talk) 09:46, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Infobox image update

The current image is from three years ago, a year prior him taking up his current position as NATO Sec Gen. I propose the infobox image should be updated and depicting him in his current position as Sec. Gen. There's also some solid options from Wikicommons from 2025 to 2026 so to say there's a lack of images/we're forced to settle with the 2023 image shouldn't be an issue. Here are some options:

• 
  Option A (2025)
• 
  Option B (2026)
• 
  Option C (2026)
• 
  Option D (2025)
• 
  Option E (current; 2023)

Personally I'm leaning towards Option A or B. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I would go for option A, he leans a bit weird in B Dajasj (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2026 (UTC)