Alexander Stubb. Foto — Gatis Rozenfelds, Picture Agency
Alexander Stubb calls on Latvians to calm down. Russia is currently suffering the greatest strategic defeat in modern military history in Ukraine and will not dare to attack NATO, our neighbor's leader is convinced
Finnish President Alexander Stubb arrived in Riga two days before his official state visit on September 16 and 17 so that he could watch Finland and Greece play for the bronze medal in the European Basketball Championship on Sunday, September 14. But on Monday, he arrived for our interview at the Kempinski Hotel right after playing golf with the former Latvian NHL star Sandis Ozolins.
Sports are important to Stubb (57). As a child, he dreamed of becoming a professional hockey player (much to his parents' horror, as he himself says). He later became fond of participating in Ironman triathlons, which he last did this July. But he is better known as a golfer, especially after playing with US President Donald Trump.
Stub has said that he no longer really likes domestic politics. He has been not only his country’s Prime Minister, but also its Minister of Finance and Minister of Foreign Affairs and European Affairs. He left politics in 2016 and became Vice President of the European Investment Bank in 2017. But Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 prompted him to return to politics and run for president in 2024.
Note: This interview was originally published in Latvian by Ir magazine on September 18. Text has been lightly edited for clarity.
You were in Kyiv a day after Russian drones violated Polish airspace and NATO forces engaged Russian targets for the first time. Do you think this incident will change the attitudes of some of Ukraine's allies with regard to a possible military confrontation with Russian forces?
It’s not about military confrontation, just about preparedness. I think there's a clear sequence here, if you look at the arc of the war — not since 2014, but since 2022 —, the pattern is clear. NATO enlarges, Finland and Sweden join. NATO increased its defense expenditures from two to five percent. And then, when there is potential sabotage or hybrid attack on undersea infrastructure, as there was in Finnish territorial waters or close by, NATO establishes the Baltic Sentry. This is a serious naval operation which has provided deterrence, because since that attack we haven't seen others. And now when 19 plus drones enter Polish airspace, we establish the Eastern Sentry. So I think it strengthens NATO's preparedness. I'm not saying I'm relaxed about it, but I think it just shows that NATO works. And I think the response of NATO has been the right one.
So you think the response has been strong enough to deter Russia from trying to escalate the situation?
I think Russia will continue to test us. They've tested us now in the sea, they've tested us in the air. We don't know where they're going to test us next. They test us with cyber attacks. They test us with different types of sabotage, but the key is to keep the level of deterrence so high that the incentive for Russia to act is limited.
Is it high enough right now?
It's the biggest military Alliance in the world that has never been attacked. In my experience with the Russians, just maximize your deterrence, so they won't attack.
I think a lot of people are hyping up that attack. Just think about it. There are three possibilities in such a drone attack. One is malintent, so they do it on purpose. Two is incompetence, so they don't do it on purpose, but they do it by mistake. And three is a combination of the two — malintent and incompetence.
Russia has failed strategically on all accounts in its attack on Ukraine in the past three-and-a-half years. It is one of the biggest strategic failures in recent military history. So, do you think they dare start attacking NATO? The answer is no.
The US president Donald Trump said two days after the attack that it may have been just a mistake. You know him better than most European politicians, you have played golf with him and you call each other. Can we still count on the United States as a NATO ally in case of a military conflict?
Definitely. Remember that the United States has 100,000 troops in Europe. Remember that the crux of American military material — sea, air and land — is in Europe. Remember that it is in the strategic interest of the United States to have a secure Europe. So, yes. I mean, Finland has just bought 60 F-35s from the United States. We have just joined NATO. We have just forged a defense cooperation agreement with the United States. We have one of their biggest US military ships, which is visiting Finland right now. We have a minimum of 2500 soldiers in rotation from the United States in Finland, doing military exercises. So I have seen absolutely no signs whatsoever of America withdrawing.
Again I come to this, that sometimes in Europe people just get too heads-up about stuff, you know. That’s exactly what Russia wants us to do. They want us to be shaking. Just stay calm. We're absolutely fine.
It's obvious that Putin doesn't want a ceasefire or any peace agreement. Neither sanctions nor weapons shipments to Ukraine have made him change his goals. How can he be forced to stop the war?
I think we need to change his strategic game. Remember that his strategic game from the beginning is — number one, to restore Russia's superpower status. Number two, to deny the independence and sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. And number three is to prevent NATO from expanding. And then you look at what Russia has achieved. Certainly not a superpower status. Well, an economy which is smaller than that of Italy is never going to be a superpower again. Certainly not [denying] the independence or sovereignty of Ukraine, although it does have 20 percent of its landmass right now. And he has achieved the expansion of NATO and the doubling of NATO's border with Russia.
So we need to change his strategic game. In order to do that I think there are only two ways. Number one — to provide as much military equipment as possible to Ukraine so that it can defend itself. Air, land and sea. And number two is to increase the economic cost of the war, because he doesn't care about human costs. He's a cynical human being who doesn't care about human cost, so increase the economic cost of the war. Which basically means what, for instance, Donald Trump is suggesting right now. Don't buy any oil or gas from Russia. And then think about secondary sanctions on those who buy. And then he has to change. He has to understand — okay, I'm not going to be able to conquer Ukraine. And then he will hopefully come to the ceasefire.
Do you think that diplomatic negotiations can still bring peace?
Yeah, I mean in the history of mankind all wars have ended at some stage. And right now we have had in the past 30 years fewer wars than in any time in human history. So the human mind is a little bit warped in these things, we don't look at facts. But of course, right now, it is about strengthening the military power of Ukraine. That's the best way to get to peace.
You have proposed the Finnish model for the settlement of the war, so Ukraine gives up…
No, no, no!
It was at the White House…
…No, this is an absolutely wrong interpretation. I have said that after World War II Finland retained its independence, unlike Latvia. Finland lost its sovereignty, because we were not able to join NATO or the European Union [during] the Cold War, and we lost ten percent of our territory. I have said from the beginning — please read my interviews and look at my speech on the 24th of February in Kiev [this year] — that we must assure that Ukraine doesn't lose any of the three — not independence, not sovereignty and not territory. All I said in Washington D.C. was that we survived the war and that wars end at some stage. I've never proposed the Finnish model. That is simply a distortion of the facts.
That’s good to hear for the record. So you don't see any solution in which Putin would be content with getting some territory and would stop the war?
I think we need to do the [following] sequence. First, you get a ceasefire, and that ceasefire begins at the line of contact where we are right now. And when we have a ceasefire, then we begin the negotiations of a peace settlement. And I cannot imagine any scenario where Ukraine or any other NATO ally would ever de iure accept the loss of territory of Ukraine. Crimea is Ukrainian. Donetsk and Luhansk are Ukrainian. So, in that sense, my answer is no — I mean, Putin is Putin.
President Trump is suggesting that the ceasefire should come after the peace agreement.
I disagree with this approach, and I have talked to him on countless occasions. I think that first you get a ceasefire and then you go sit for a framework of peace.
There are some disturbing indications from Moscow lately. Not just drunken tweets by former president Medvedev, but also by some other officials. For example, the head of the Defense Committee of the State Duma Kartapolov said that Finland is about to attack Russia. The same rhetoric they used 86 years ago. Do you see the possibility of military aggression against Finland?
No. There is no military threat against Finland. Finland has one of the largest armies in Europe, together with Turkey, Ukraine and Poland. We have 900 000 men and women that have done military service. We have 280 000 that we can pull out from the reserves in wartime. We have over 60 F-18s and we just bought 64 F-35s. We have long-range missiles, land, air and sea. The strongest artillery in Europe, together with Poland. So my answer once again is — calm down. Don't use parallels from history that don't exist. And don't listen to delirious Russian politicians. I mean, people have to understand that's exactly what Russia wants us to do. So the more you hype up the ideas that come from Russian politicians— drunk or not — the more space you give them. So, just use your common sense. They're not going to attack Finland.
Is there a political consensus or decision in Finland about the degree of involvement of the Finnish military in case Russia attacks any other country in the Baltic region? Latvia, for example.
Yes, of course. I'm one of the few people in Finland who sits on all the key information, military, civilian or otherwise. And Finland is part of NATO, we are a part of Article 5. And there's no question — it’s absolutely clear that, were there ever to be an act of aggression, Finland as part of the alliance would first be involved in Article 4 consultations and then invoke Article 5 if necessary. But I just don't see that case. And I come back to it again — calm down. We're okay. There's a reason we are in a military alliance, and there's a reason why we have high military expenditure. So I'm not worried. And I think people are hyping this up too much. That's my message.
People in Latvia certainly are worried, because they are concerned that nobody would help us.
You probably wouldn't have thousands of Canadian soldiers here otherwise. How many Swedish soldiers do you have?
I don't know the exact number, a few hundred, I think.
You have one of the biggest militaries in Europe next to you — in Poland and Finland. Don't worry.
In a recent interview with Bloomberg you said that you are not very hopeful about the future Russia, which has imperial DNA. Can there be a peaceful Europe while Russia is an empire?
It's a really difficult question. Since the 1300s, Finland has had around 30 wars or skirmishes with Russia as part of the Swedish empire and then as an independent state. The Baltic states, including Latvia, have had their own experience with Russian imperialism. But there have been periods in Russian history when it has not been imperial — from 1991 to 2008…
But the Chechen Wars, Moldova?
Yes, I think you're right. It is difficult, and that's why the question is, how do you contain an imperial power? And I don't think anyone has an answer to that.
Maybe we should help them to disintegrate?
You know, I'm a rational Finn. I'm not in the business of disintegrating or attacking anyone. I'm just in the business of making sure that Finland is the happiest country in the world and the most secure place in the world as well. And we have succeeded in the sense that one of the biggest differences in GDP per capita in the world is on the Finnish — Russian border.
That's a very nice ending to the interview — you've mentioned that Finland is the happiest country. For the eighth year in the row. Is it just saunas or…
Because we're good friends with Latvia!
Thank you! Maybe it's that you have a 1340 kilometer border with Russia, which gives you the opportunity to compare life in your country and on the other side.
I put our happiness down to education, to nature and the general quality of life. But I do think there is this element that if you live next to a security threat and yet you establish a society which is so resilient that you're not overly worried about that threat, it gives you a sense of comfort.
Of course, the success story of Finland from 1917 to today is of a country which was a developing country, dirt poor, and became one of the most successful countries in the world. And I see the arc is going to be the same with the Baltic states. It's just that you had a really difficult patch in history as part of the Soviet Union. After you regained your real independence in 1991, only the sky is the limit.
So I think the same thing is going to happen in Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania. Which I think is an example of the power of open and democratic societies, of European integration, of cooperation.
I believe that cooperation is always the best way forward. Latvians are proud of being Latvians, Finns are proud of being Finns, but that doesn't mean that we don't share. I'll give one example of cooperation — The Nordic-Baltic Eight or NB8. The Nordic states and the Baltic states are closest allies, right? Why? It's because we have the same values, the same [choice of] civilizations, and we understand that we have the same threat, which is Russia. And that's why we need to stick together. And that's why I'm quite calm about it as well.