All Episodes
Previous Next
July 7, 2025 10:30-11:04 - CSPAN
33:53
Finnish President Discusses European Security
Participants
Appearances
a
alexander stubb
fin 04:03
|

Speaker Time Text
unidentified
Proud to be recognized as one of the best internet providers.
And we're just getting started.
Building 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most.
Charter Communications supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
America marks 250 years, and C-SPAN is there to commemorate every moment.
From the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the voices shaping our nation's future, we bring you unprecedented all-platform coverage, exploring the stories, sights, and spirit that make up America.
Join us for remarkable coast-to-coast coverage, celebrating our nation's journey like no other network can.
America 250.
Over a year of historic moments.
Only on the C-SPAN networks.
Finnish President Alexander Stubb discussed the NATO alliance's strategy when dealing with Russia's next moves if the war ended, as well as his relationship with U.S. President Donald Trump.
This was held by the Atlantic Council in Washington, D.C., where he addressed the 2025 NATO summit.
Good morning from Washington, D.C., where I'm in our global headquarters.
Good afternoon to those in Europe and in Finland.
And greetings to those joining us from around the world.
I'm Fred Kemp.
I'm President and CEO of the Atlantic Council.
I'm pleased to welcome everyone to today's Atlantic Council front page, our premier platform for global leaders.
I'm joined today by President Alexander Stube of the Republic of Finland, and he's joining us from his Camp David in Finland, which I think translates Golden Beach.
I'm not going to try to say the Finnish.
So welcome, and thank you for joining us.
Thank you.
It's called Kultarante in Finnish, a slightly complicated Finnish word.
Yeah, that's what I was going to say.
But thank you so much.
So President Stube is here today to discuss a way forward for Europe's security following the NATO summit in The Hague last weekend and at a crucial moment in Putin's war in Ukraine.
I always like to introduce our audience to certain interesting aspects of the global leaders we bring on here.
President Stube was born to a Swedish-speaking father, Finnish-speaking mother.
It's a bi-legal country.
He speaks both.
He went to Furman College, and that is in South Carolina, right, President Stube?
Granville, South Carolina.
That's for sure.
I love that accent as well.
And he may be the only person I know who went from the Appalachian Mountains to the River Seine at the Sorbonne in Paris.
Also studied, got his master's in Bruges and Belgium.
Got his PhD at the London School of Economics.
He's been Prime Minister, Finance Minister, Vice President of the European Investment Bank, and now President.
He's also, pay attention to this.
He's also played ice hockey, soccer, and golf and made it to the national team.
And in our conversation, I'm going to be coming back to a question on golf and a question on hockey.
But I won't start there.
Where I'd like to start is we were both at the Hague Summit.
You stated that we were, and your quote was, we're witnessing the birth of a new NATO.
Can you tell us what you mean by that?
What are the most significant elements of that?
And how will the U.S. and European different roles be different in this new NATO?
Sure.
I mean, I call it a new NATO because I think the summit was historic.
And I know that some people inflate the word historic.
But for me, we saw the birth of a new NATO on three accounts.
One was the return back to its roots.
In other words, being a deterrent to a bigger imperial power in Europe, namely Russia.
So it sort of went back to its main purpose from 1949 when it had done some soul searching after the end of the Cold War and focused more on peacekeeping and other things.
alexander stubb ▲ ● ▼
The second reason is, of course, the defense expenditure, which was hiked up to 5%, 3.5% hard military, 1.5% something that supports defense in general in terms of infrastructure.
unidentified
And then thirdly, because we saw a bit of a shift of a balance towards Europe.
So we're probably witnessing the birth of a more European NATO, which the American and consecutive administrations have been asking for.
So it was one of those summits when you didn't really know where things would go.
And at the end of the day, into one page and five points, you put an extremely important summit that will go down in history as the birth of new NATO.
So there was a lot, talking to my European friends over the first weeks, months of the Trump administration, there was a lot of concern about the United States, would it stay committed to Europe?
Would this summit turn out not to be historic in the sense that you're talking about?
Are people coming away relieved, satisfied?
Does this fix things forevermore?
Or what do we need to watch for in the next six, 12 months to really realize to what extent this is a historic summit?
Yeah, I mean, I think relief is probably the wrong word.
People came out quite pleased.
I mean, you know, I come from a country with 1,340 kilometers of border with Russia.
We're a new NATO member state.
So for us, it's extremely important that the alliance is serious about its defense.
And this was kind of the first time since the end of the Cold War when we sort of combine our planning with our operations.
alexander stubb ▲ ● ▼
And the more, of course, our allies spend on defense, the better off we are up here taking care of the northeastern flank of the alliance.
unidentified
But also, I mean, I was never one of those alarmists who said that, you know, the U.S. is going to withdraw from NATO and so on and so forth.
I thought that was more hype than anything else, because in my conversations with the President and with his administration, not once did I hear anyone saying that the U.S. is withdrawing from NATO.
alexander stubb ▲ ● ▼
So I'd say that it's more about burden shifting than full detachment.
unidentified
And burden shifting might be a good thing for Europe and for the alliance right now.
We all have different types of responsibilities.
Let me also say we have a short half hour, but people can send in questions at AC front page, at AC front page.
So please do that if you have any questions, and I'll watch for them.
So what do you think is going to happen?
And was U.S. troop presence discussed?
Whatever happens to military presence from the United States in Europe, what will European militaries need most?
Finland has conscription, for example.
Is that something other European countries might need to consider?
And I should add for our viewers that you joined Finnish conscripts on a 23 kilometer speed march last week.
So you're up to speed on the issue, so to speak.
Yeah.
No, I mean, you know, we're not going to give lessons to other allies whether they should have conscription, in other words, obligatory military service.
We've had that always.
alexander stubb ▲ ● ▼
And of course, you know, we do have one of the largest militaries in Europe together with, say, Turkey, Ukraine, and Poland.
unidentified
And I keep on hammering down that we have 900,000 men and women who've done military service.
We can mobilize 280,000 at wartime.
We have over 60 F-18s.
We bought 64 F-35s.
The first one is going to roll out in December.
We have long-range missiles, air, land, and sea.
We have the biggest artillery in Europe together with Poland.
And I keep on saying we don't have them because we're worried about Stockholm or Sweden, if you know what I mean.
And then, you know, it's kind of self-interest and self-defense.
And we all have different kinds of roles.
Now, when it comes to burden sharing, what I see happening is that Europe needs to sort of focus on a few specifics.
We're not going to see a major shift away from the United States towards the Indo-Pacific, but there will be a rebalancing.
And I'm not so much worried about the headcount.
In other words, whether there is 100,000 or 90,000 American soldiers or military personnel in Europe.
I'm more worried about, you know, do we have enough capacity in the air?
Do we have enough capacity at land?
What do we do on intelligence, etc., etc.
And as long as the sort of burden sharing means slow shifting, then I think we can cope with it.
But every country has its own role.
So the role of Finland will be different from the role of Luxembourg or the role of Spain.
That's quite clear.
Thank you for that answer.
So you've golfed with Donald Trump, and I understand from my friends in the administration that he was pretty impressed with your golf game.
You just saw him at the NATO summit in The Hague.
Have you come away from these interactions with insights about the U.S. President that you share with your colleagues, particularly in terms of his positions on NATO, the war in Ukraine, transatlantic alliance?
And of course, he came to the summit following the U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear capabilities.
alexander stubb ▲ ● ▼
Well, I mean, first of all, the nice thing with golf is that it's a social game and you actually learn a lot about other human beings almost on the first hole when you play.
unidentified
And I have to say that we had a really pleasant round.
We spent the better part of seven hours together, which included breakfast around and lunch.
So you sort of, in a social setting, get to know someone.
And as I always say, you know, a lot of people who are in the public eye, they're never as good or as bad as they seem in the public eye.
As a matter of fact, we're all quite different privately.
And I felt very good about the round and the relationship that I've been able to forge with the President of the U.S.
alexander stubb ▲ ● ▼
And I say this with all humbleness because you have to understand, I come from a small country with 5.6 million people.
So for a president of a small country like Finland to have a relationship with the President of the United States is good.
unidentified
And I always say that in foreign policy, you have to deal with the world as it is, not as if you wish it would be.
And that means that you try to engage.
At the same time, I by no means want to inflate my role.
I have conversations with the president, we message with the president, and sometimes he listens, sometimes he doesn't.
That's the way things go in diplomacy.
And of course, as we all know in diplomacy, it's always two legs.
alexander stubb ▲ ● ▼
One is state to state, so that's about values and interests.
unidentified
And then the other one is personal.
I'm happy that, you know, state to state, we have the same values and interests with the United States.
On a personal level, at least I can say that I get along with the President of the United States.
Thank you so much for this.
Let's shift on that, in that spirit, to Ukraine.
The Wall Street Journal on its editorial page today writes about the administration's denial of Ukraine's much-needed weapons.
Wall Street Journal sources tell them that they're going to include the Patriot air defense missiles, Hellfire missiles, 8,500 howitzers, and other ammunitions.
Some were already in Poland awaiting delivery.
So this is a conscious decision to deny Kiev weapons it was counting on before Russia's summer assaults.
That's from the Wall Street Journal.
It's also been reported elsewhere.
And U.S. officials have said U.S. stockpiles are getting low and therefore they will halt the delivery of some air defense munitions.
How do Europeans feel that gap?
I mean, this is coming now.
It's not coming after one has a lot of time to fill in production.
And how will this move have an impact on how U.S. allies view American commitments, not to NATO in the long term, but to Ukraine over the short term?
Sure.
I mean, a few observations on that.
alexander stubb ▲ ● ▼
Obviously, if and when we want Ukraine to win this war, because it's not only Ukraine's war, this is a war of the West as well.
unidentified
We need to do two things.
One is to continue to provide Ukraine with the weapons that it needs to win this war on the battlefield.
And basically, two is to increase the pressure on Russia, which really at this particular time means more sanctions.
And Europe has done that.
The United States is in the process of doing that.
Second observation is that, you know, the situation on the ground keeps on changing.
Because after the NATO summit, I know that President Trump and President Zelensky had a good meeting.
I happened to have had a meeting with my Nordic friends and President Zelensky right after that.
alexander stubb ▲ ● ▼
And then the language on, you know, the provision, for instance, of Patriots was a little bit different.
unidentified
So we don't know exactly where we stand on this.
But I think the big picture here is that Europeans have to understand that they have to take more of the burden.
So if we look at financial aid, Europeans have given more than the United States, somewhere north of 130 billion, whereas the U.S. is somewhere north of 120 billion.
But the U.S. has provided 70% of its aid in military.
Now, what we're starting to see, and this is my third and final observation, is a shift more towards financial aid, because the Ukrainians are very capable with their military.
Russia and Ukraine have the most modern militaries in the world right now.
They have combat experience.
The example I give is that when the war began, Ukraine was able to produce zero drones.
alexander stubb ▲ ● ▼
Last year, they produced 1.5 million, very cost-effectively, and this year, 4 million.
unidentified
And we know what drones can do.
We saw them take out a lot of the strategic bomber capacity at long range.
So we need to find the right balance where Europeans can help the Ukrainians, where perhaps the Americans are leaving a few gaps.
And we need to do all of this jointly.
And absolutely final point.
Ukraine is doing well on the military front.
You know, President Zelensky showed President Trump a map which shows that Russia has advanced only 0.25% of territory this year.
And this is, of course, at a hideous, colossal loss at about 170 Russian soldiers per kilometer.
So they're not advancing.
They're not making big moves.
Yes, they are advancing, but it's not colossal.
So we just need to continue and grind it out and support Ukraine the best we can.
Thank you for that answer.
I know the war in Ukraine wasn't a big focus at the NATO summit in The Hague, at least not so much in the communique and the focus was elsewhere.
But if you were huddling with President Trump and other NATO leaders right now with the summer campaign coming at us, what would you advise the US and its allies?
But in particular, toward the diplomatic negotiations to end the war in the near term and how to get to a just and durable peace in Ukraine in the longer term.
So you're sitting in the room with the Allies, with President Trump.
You're the one with the long border there.
You know the Russians best.
How are you feeling about the diplomatic negotiations and what it will take to get to a just and durable peace?
alexander stubb ▲ ● ▼
Okay, so the way in which we frame it and all the conversations that I've had with colleagues over the past few months and also with the President of the United States is to say that we have to look at this very much in two phases.
unidentified
So phase number one is a ceasefire.
That's basically when the killing stops.
The war is not over.
alexander stubb ▲ ● ▼
We're still in a state of war, but that's when you don't anymore do military activity air land or sea.
unidentified
Now, of course, we are in a situation where the United States has rightly proposed a ceasefire.
It has been accepted by Ukraine and supported by Europe.
alexander stubb ▲ ● ▼
And there's only one player that wants to continue the war, and that is Russia and Putin.
unidentified
Now, if we were to get that ceasefire, that then means a second phase.
And the second phase is the actual peace negotiations.
That's when you start discussing territorial settlements.
That's when you start discussing compensation.
That's when you start discussing reconstruction.
So we have to do this in two phases.
alexander stubb ▲ ● ▼
You can't sort of lump everything in together.
unidentified
You'll get nowhere.
And a final point on this.
Again, the only thing that Putin understands is power.
So that's why we just have to keep on supporting Ukraine militarily to basically increase the price of the war for Putin.
And on top of that, we have to increase pressure through sanctions to make sure that his war machine will grind to a halt at some stage.
alexander stubb ▲ ● ▼
The Russian economy is in tatters.
unidentified
Inflation, interest rates is at 20%.
The reserves, currency reserves are out.
So they're not going to be able to do this for a long time.
alexander stubb ▲ ● ▼
And there's going to have to be a time when even Russia has to end this war.
unidentified
They can do it, but without pressure, they will not stop.
And it sounds like you're saying Russia is weaker than it sometimes seems.
And obviously, I don't know what the numbers are, but the GDP of the European Union is 30 times that of Russia.
So one has this within our means.
Yeah, I mean, it's obviously, you know, it depends on what you compare to.
alexander stubb ▲ ● ▼
But just to, you know, give a broader picture, the Russian economy is smaller than the Italian economy, a little bit bigger than the Spanish economy.
And the lifeline of the Russian economy is always about natural resources, oil and gas.
unidentified
There are no Russian consumer products in the pipeline.
And they have now shifted their trade eastbound.
And they're completely dependent on China.
And we have to keep this in mind when we deal with Russia.
It does have vast natural resources.
There's no question about that.
But in terms of other industrial capacity, it is very limited.
The only worrying bit here is that Russians are, of course, willing and ready to accept a colossal loss of life for this war.
alexander stubb ▲ ● ▼
Remember that over one million people, according to intelligent estimates, and one million Russians have vanished in this war.
unidentified
In other words, 250,000 dead, 750,000 wounded.
And that is because the Russian soldiers are getting paid well, they have good bonuses, and then there's what we call Putin's maternity package.
So if a Russian soldier dies, the family gets $80,000, which is a lot of money in Russia.
So unfortunately, never underestimate the capacity of Russia and Russians to sustain misery and pain.
And that's actually the biggest overcoming that we need to do here.
President Stuba, I think this is an important message from a Russian neighbor.
I have a question from our audience.
Stephen Shapiro, who's a senior advisor to the Atlantic Council, has made a recent swing through Nordic capitals.
And he said that it was apparent to him during that swing that military planners there have some concern that after the Russian war in Ukraine settles into whatever it will become, Russia is freed up to relocate its forces.
Putin will test the alliance's commitment by taking a quote-unquote free bite, the way he puts it, out of NATO territory to see what will happen in terms of Article 5 response.
So that could be Estonia, it could be the Baltics.
He says, well, it's easy to say Finland would certainly respond if that bite comes.
Would Hungary, Slovakia, Spain?
So he worries about the splintering of the alliance if something like this should happen.
And also not to mention the territory of NATO states.
alexander stubb ▲ ● ▼
Yeah, I mean, Shapiro was here actually at my flagship event called the Kultaranta Talks here at the summer residence a couple of weeks back.
unidentified
And he made that same claim.
And as much as I often agree with Mr. Shapiro, Dr. Shapiro, on this one, I disagree.
So basically, our base case is quite simple.
Within the next five to ten years, two things are pretty much a given in our scenario.
One is that Russia is not going to become a peaceful liberal democracy.
Whoever leads Russia is going to be authoritarian.
Second, Russia is going to ramp up its military.
alexander stubb ▲ ● ▼
So it has now roughly 1.2 million soldiers.
unidentified
And when the war ends, those soldiers, some of them will, of course, retire and go to other jobs, but some will have to be replaced.
So when the war began, four brigades were moved from the Leningrad military district to Ukraine.
Most of them have already died.
They start now to build up infrastructure by the Finnish border in different places, much like they did during the Cold War.
And that's quite natural.
But for Russia to start testing Article 5 when they're now in a war for over three years where NATO hasn't even showed up, I don't think it's a good idea.
What we'll probably see is a continuation of hybrid testing.
So it could be undersea cables, it could be general sabotage, you know, assassinations even, that sort of normal Russian type of activity.
So I would not hype up the idea of Russia testing Finland or the Baltics for that matter.
Thank you for that very clear answer.
President Trump seems to like your icebreakers.
So let's talk about that.
He praised your expertise when it comes to icebreakers.
Can you talk more about ongoing cooperation?
This is a question, by the way, from Jason Moyer, a non-resident fellow with our Transatlantic Security Initiative.
Could you talk more about the ongoing cooperation between the US and Finland on developing icebreaker capabilities?
He also referenced buying up to 15 icebreakers from Finland, as well as potentially buying one in the very short terms.
And so he gives you thanks for the answer in advance.
Sure.
I mean, if we put things into context, Finland builds 60% of the world's icebreakers and it designs 80% of them.
alexander stubb ▲ ● ▼
We're the only country in the world that can churn them out between two to three years and very cost-effectively because we simply have the know-how.
unidentified
Now, President Trump has stated correctly that the alliance, including, of course, the United States, needs icebreakers because you kind of have zero.
And Russia has over 40.
And the battle of the Arctic, of course, is really about Russian and Chinese dominance.
So I think as an alliance, we need Arctic know-how.
And for that, you have countries such as Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, and Canada.
And what we are now discussing with the President and the administration is how quickly we can provide the US with icebreakers.
And of course, the negotiations and discussions are ongoing.
So I'm not going to preempt what's going to come out of there.
But suffice it to say, we would be very happy to provide a few icebreakers to the US administration before the end of Trump's term.
alexander stubb ▲ ● ▼
And one possibility is to sell a used icebreaker and then combine that perhaps with building a few new ones.
unidentified
But we'll see what comes out of it.
And we're going to work on this together as allies.
Thank you so much.
So high degree of interest in this conversation is reflected by the number of questions coming in.
Let me turn to James Bacchuk.
He's asking, in the president's view, what should be the role of the EU in Europe's defense?
Does Finland support the move to borrow money through common debt to finance defense projects on the continent?
Let me add to that.
I mean, you've been a finance minister.
You're at the European Investment Bank.
The EU in the past has set up big targets for digital spending, for green spending, and in many cases, it hasn't produced the goods.
This defense is a new area for the European Union.
And we have an 800 billion Euro aim over the next four years.
Talk about that.
Is the European Union ready to get into the defense business?
And this is a lot of money coming to budgets as well.
You've had to balance budgets.
Can one do 5% defense spending even with 1.5 defense related and make this work within budgets?
Lots of questions.
Yeah, I mean, I'm a bit of an EU nerd.
alexander stubb ▲ ● ▼
Believe it or not, when I started studying at Furman University in Greenville, South Carolina, what got me going was Professor Brett Nelson's course on the European Union.
unidentified
So I always go back to the big picture.
And I think the European Union always works on one big project at a time.
So in the 80s, it was a single market.
In the 90s, it was a Euro.
In 2000, it was about enlargement and competitiveness.
And then, of course, the financial crisis, which deepened integration in the financial markets and financial regulation.
COVID brought in an element of a health union.
alexander stubb ▲ ● ▼
And then, of course, Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine brought a sort of more geopolitical or military twist to what Europe does.
unidentified
And I think the next big project for Europe is going to be in defense.
alexander stubb ▲ ● ▼
And then it's a question of how do we pool our sovereignty in that field.
unidentified
When I say this, I want to stress that this is not about replacing the alliance.
This is more, I would argue, about military and defense industry.
And there we're starting to deal with procurement.
You mentioned the issue of the mutualization of debt.
That's something that different governments in Europe will be dealing with.
All I can say is that the more Europe spends on defense, the better for a country like Finland who has a long border with Russia.
So we are going to start seeing bigger projects happening on defense and then a rebalancing, I think, of the defense balance sheet, which is a good thing.
And then Fran Burwell asks a question that's related to this, which is what role does the EU have in developing the European defense industrial base?
How should it cooperate with NATO on this?
I'm talking to people, and on the one hand, one needs Europe to produce more, innovate more, create more.
But on the other hand, you'd hate to lose US-European defense cooperation.
And of course, what the U.S. has in terms of defense is also quite important.
How do you see this playing out?
Yeah, it's not a zero-sum game.
alexander stubb ▲ ● ▼
So if we look at the purchase of industrial military goods, Europe buys double the amount that the U.S. buys from itself.
unidentified
So of course, Europe is a big market.
Having said that, we have one big problem in Europe, and that is that we buy things separately.
And that, of course, increases the price.
You know, we buy different systems.
And also, if you just look at our, for instance, tank systems, we have a few 10 different systems, whereas the U.S. has just a couple.
So we need to rationalize a lot of this stuff.
A final point is that we also have to remember that modern warfare is changing.
And that means that I'm not saying we're moving away from big, traditional industrial defense products, but AI is coming to the game, drones are coming to the game.
It's a completely different ballgame.
So we have to learn from what Ukraine has done and how quickly they were able to ramp up their military.
As commander-in-chief here in Finland, I talk a lot about with the commander of our armed forces, and we discuss about the different tenets of modern warfare.
Do we have the capacity?
What do we need to do?
Because sometimes when it comes to just building your industrial base, you need a lot of propeller heads, a lot of startups.
It's not the public sector that's going to be able to do this anymore.
So I think the whole field is moving.
And in the next five, ten years, we'll be smarter and we'll understand what we need.
And then, of course, we have to ask the question, why do we need it?
Well, we need it because the number one threat, security threat in Europe is still Russia and will continue to be that.
So let me close on that.
And this will be my hockey question to follow my golf question.
Putin appears to be trying to decouple diplomacy with Russia from the issue of Russia's war in Ukraine.
For example, he recently offered to help broker a deal between Iran and Israel, which the U.S. did not take him up on.
Before that, in a phone call in March with President Trump, he proposed a series of ice hockey games between NHL players and players in the Russian Hockey League.
I know ice hockey is a national passion with Finland, personal passion of your own.
Should the U.S. and its allies be open to decoupling diplomacy with Russia regarding its war in Ukraine and on other issues?
And if you'd like to comment specifically on the idea of a hockey series with Russia, please feel free to do so.
Well, my answer is absolutely not.
alexander stubb ▲ ● ▼
Remember that Russian soft power is linked to things such as ice hockey.
unidentified
They have their own league called the KHL.
And I don't think there's any space for that kind of diplomacy.
And I'm very glad that all sensible people have rejected that.
I'm also glad that President Trump saw through the veil of smoke when President Putin wanted to deviate his efforts towards mediating peace in Iran.
And Trump's answer was, well, we've got an old war to deal with.
And on the hockey question, I'll refrain from it in general, but I think the NHL is, of course, the greatest league in the world.
alexander stubb ▲ ● ▼
And I say this not only because my father has been the chief scout of the NHL here in Europe for the past 40 years, but because I'm an avid fan of the game.
unidentified
So let's not tarnish and make the game dirty by bringing the Russian league into it in any which way.
Well, President Stu, we've touched on the NATO summit, the threat from Russia, geopolitics, and golf and hockey.
So I thank you so much for your time.
Thank you for your leadership.
And thank you for joining and dining Council front page.
My pleasure.
Have a good day over there in Washington.
Thank you.
C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
We're funded by these television companies and more, including Mediacom.
This is binging, that's roughering.
This is a meetup.
That's a freeze-up.
Power home, power struggle, security detection, no protection.
You can have this or you can have that.
This is Mediacom, and this is where it's at.
Mediacom supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
From the beginning, C-SPAN was there for every word of debate, every vote.
C-SPAN was there, giving you around-the-clock coverage through all-nighters into the early morning hours with record-breaking back-to-back votes in the Senate.
We're going to press on until victory is won.
I yield back.
▲
Export Selection