[Interview] Alexander Stubb: ‘Ukraine will not lose the war’ but Europe must build its own defence

First published in Respekt.

Interview with the Finnish president, one of the most prominent European politicians.

Mr President, is Nato falling apart?

No.

A few days ago, Polish prime minister Tusk wrote on social network X: “The biggest threat to the transatlantic community is not its external enemies, but the continued disintegration of our Alliance. We must all seize every means to reverse this catastrophic trend.” So you do not agree with this analysis of what the North Atlantic Alliance is currently facing?

My first reflection was that I thought the world order was changing, much as it did after the Cold War. My second thought was that the most serious security threat to Europe remained Russia. The North Atlantic Alliance had been strengthened by Sweden and by us Finns, giving Nato one of the largest armies in Europe. And we are a provider of security, not a consumer of it.

The third point I would like to mention is that at last year’s summit in The Hague in the Netherlands, we, as allies, took the decision to increase our defence spending to five percent, which are historic figures we have not seen since the Cold War. At the same time, the defence burden is shifting from America to Europe. I actually welcome that. But our security is not an either-or: both sides are still contributing to it. I believed the US would remain engaged, but its role would be different from before.

What follows from that?

We should be able to look beyond all the noise and realise that, at this moment, the North Atlantic Alliance is actually quite strong.

Not everyone sees it that way. Is the US announcement that within six to twelve months it will withdraw five thousand troops from Germany, because, as president Trump claimed, Berlin in his view did not help him enough in the war with Iran and with the crisis in the Middle East, not proof that Tusk’s words are justified?

The United States needs European bases and it needs European allies. It would not be able to conduct its operations without European bases, and there is only one country that denied it the right to use them, and that is Spain. Without Ramstein in Germany, the US cannot be active in Iran, or in Africa, or elsewhere. Without the hospitals there, the United States cannot take care of its soldiers. As I said, we must look through all the noise and loud statements and understand that there will gradually be a controlled shift of the security burden from America to Europe. Five thousand soldiers change nothing fundamental. So please: let us be calmer.

You are one of the few European politicians whose arguments Donald Trump listens to. Have you had the opportunity to talk to him about the withdrawal of US troops from Germany?

In the past few days, no. I spoke to him some time ago, I also wrote to him some time ago, but we did not communicate about this. If I spoke to president Trump after every one of his posts on Truth Social, I would be speaking to him quite often.

Do you have any idea where the US troops from Germany might be moved? Could it be to the Baltic states, which border Russia?

I have no such idea. We have two documents that can guide us in thinking about how Americans see security. The first is the US National Security Strategy from late last November and the second is the US National Defense Strategy, which was published this January. In both of them, attention naturally shifts to the Indo-Pacific and now, with the war in Iran, we see that they are in fact focusing much more on the Middle East. I am not overly concerned. The Finnish way is to keep a cool head and stay calm. I recommend everyone to take a sauna and a nice bath and then calmly reflect on what is happening around them and why.

Not everyone in Europe has a sauna at their disposal like you Finns.

There are plenty of saunas in Europe. I know of one here – it is on the way from your international airport to the centre of Prague.

Did we in Europe not make a mistake by not helping Trump in Iran? Greater engagement might have shown him the importance of European allies.

I think this war was not necessary; it was a war willed by the United States and Israel, and nobody consulted Europe about it in advance. Now we are trying to help as best we can. That is why Finland was part of a declaration by more than twenty countries a few days after the start of this war, which underlined the importance of free navigation and of keeping the Strait of Hormuz open. That is also why Finland was part of the coalition to ensure the security of Hormuz: it includes roughly fifty countries, that is a quarter of all the states in the world, which came together under the leadership of France and the United Kingdom. Once the war ends, I am certain we will do everything in our power to help the Americans keep the Strait of Hormuz open.

Are key leaders of European countries, under pressure from threats by the US president, working on plans for a “European Nato”? In this context, Ukraine’s ambassador to Nato, Alyona Hetmanchuk, said that any new European defence alliance should be built on Ukraine and its combat experience. What do you think about that?

We are all part of this, because we see how the defence burden is shifting from about 60 percent for the US and 40 percent for Europe towards a fifty-fifty ratio. The question is how we carry out this transformation. And then, of course, the biggest defence powers in Europe will bear the biggest burden, and Finland is clearly one of them. But I would, again, slightly de-dramatise this. I genuinely think the Americans are right when they ask Europe to focus more on its own security. Given that I come from the north-eastern flank of the Alliance and that with our entry into Nato the Alliance’s border with Russia has doubled, I see it as important that everyone plays their part when it comes to increasing and improving their defence capabilities. So again, in this sense I am not worried about the direction in which Nato is heading.

‘I do not believe Russia will test Nato’

Different European countries are working with the possibility that Russia might try an attack on Nato. What scenarios are your intelligence services considering?

In the case of the Finnish security intelligence service or military intelligence, I am not going to go into detail. But I will say this: if you prepare for the worst, you can avoid it. Personally, however, I did not believe that Russia would test Article 5, which binds Nato allies to mutual assistance in the event of an attack.

What is this based on?

Look, the Russians have been waging a total war in Ukraine for four and a half years, in which Nato has not been involved. In World War II, the Soviets advanced 1,600 km to Berlin in less than four years. Now, over a longer period, the Russians have advanced sixty km in Donbas… They now have losses of 250 dead per square km. If they continued advancing at the current pace, it would take them another two years and cost them 800,000 soldiers before they took Donbas. Moreover, they are not able to recruit as many people as are dying on the battlefield – between 30,000 and 35,000 a month. The ratio of killed Ukrainian to Russian soldiers is one to five. I simply do not believe that, in such a condition, they would have the nerve to test the strongest military Alliance in the history of humankind. Against Europe they will continue hybrid attacks, sabotage, cyberattacks, but they will not get to a full-blown test of Article 5.

A lot will depend on the level of deterrence. Finland is steadily increasing its defence spending. This year, Czechia is at around 1.8 percent of GDP, which is one of the lowest figures within Nato. What is your lesson for us when it comes to defence?