Bronwen Maddox
Good morning, everyone, a very warm welcome to Chatham House. I’m Bronwen Maddox, the Director, and I’m delighted to have here this morning Elina Valtonen, Foreign Minister of Finland. Start getting your questions ready. Let – just a few housekeeping things. This is just to make the point, it’s on the record, it is being recorded, and it is being livestreamed, and we have television cameras here as well, taking a feed.
Let me say just a few things before the Minister makes a few opening remarks. We’re obviously in extraordinary times and she has a biography that could not be better placed to talk about all this. She has – is a fourth term Member of Parliament, Deputy Chair of the National Coalition Party. In Parliament she’s served as Vice Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee and in the Defence Committee, the Finance Committee, the Grand Committee, and as Chair of the Finnish delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. And before that, worked in the private sector in various countries, including for ten years in the financial sector in Copenhagen and London, and a former Computer Programmer, I was interested to read. She’s also been involved in setting up various growth companies and is also an author of the bestselling book about some of the issues we are likely to be talking about. So, has the perfect background to be talking about all this.
Please do get your questions coming. We are given, by the hour, more things to talk about, even by the minute, but for the moment, Minister, welcome. Thank you very much indeed and please – we look forward to your opening remarks, before we start deluging you with questions.
Elina Valtonen
Thank you so much, Bronwen. It’s great to be here and I must say, I don’t think anybody has the perfect background for the time we live in, but certainly, I will give it a try.
Bronwen Maddox
Would – if you’d like to, yeah, stand.
Elina Valtonen
Stand.
Bronwen Maddox
Stand up, yeah.
Elina Valtonen
Yes, I will do that. Ladies and gentlemen, it is a true privilege to see you all here today and indeed, to address Chatham House. In this historic setting where great ideas and solid principles shaping global affairs have long been debating, I am honoured to contribute to this essential conversation. And if it’s not today, when great ideas and solid principles are needed, I wouldn’t know when. Today, I would like to speak to you about security and the future of Europe and Ukraine. I will focus on European support for Ukraine, the pathway to sustainable peace and on how to strengthen the role of Europe in writing the next chapter of the free world.
One thing we can say for sure is we, in Europe, have a unique opportunity to take ownership of our own future. This is not to say that we would do it at the cost of our transatlantic tie. On the very contrary, by starting to better pull our own weight, we strengthen the partnership so crucial to both sides of the Atlantic. We Finns don’t usually like to make a big deal of ourselves, but on this matter I must depart from tradition and say that defence and security are topics we truly know something about. Our history has taught us not just how to survive, but how to defend what we held dear.
Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine shattered the post-Cold War ideals of stability in Europe. That aggression started already more than ten years ago with the illegal annexation of Crimea. Now, Ukrainians have fought the full-scale war for three long years and continue to fight for their right to live as an independent nation, free from oppression. Let us be clear, Ukraine is not only fighting for its own survival, it is fighting for all people’s right to choose and to be free. Finland stands with Ukraine now. Finland will continue to stand with Ukraine in the future. Compared to the size of our GDP, Finland is Ukraine’s fifth biggest supporter. We are in constant contact with the Ukrainian Government and Armed Forces to ensure that our support continues to meet their immediate needs and is made available without delay.
On top, we are actively enhancing Ukraine’s long-term strategic resilience. We explore new means and mechanisms, including support for Ukraine’s own defence industry. Ukraine’s rapid innovation in drone warfare is a testament to their defence forces’ resolve and we must ensure that they have the industrial capacity to maintain this edge. The pledge of long-term security assistance for Ukraine announced at the Washington NATO Summit last summer, is one of the key elements in our commitment. We must make sure that the alliance delivers on this pledge.
Ladies and gentlemen, now is the time for European leadership. The day before yesterday, your Prime Minister brought together an important and timely leaders’ meeting here in London, accelerating our efforts to support Ukraine and to seek a just and lasting peace. Europe has momentum and we will use it. The day after tomorrow, the European Council will convene on the initiative of Finland’s Prime Minister, Petteri Orpo. I expect that the meeting in Brussels this week will deliver concrete and sizeable commitments for additional EU support to Ukraine, as well as take decisive steps towards strengthening European defence, or ‘rearming Europe’, as the President of the European Commission has phrased it. We have reached a point where decisions must not be symbolic, they must be consequential.
Let me be absolutely clear, if we do not act now, we will pay a far greater price later. There can be no sustainable peace in Ukraine without a strong and sovereign Ukraine. This is not just the political reality, it is a moral imperative. Rushing to a deal at the cost of its content and without due consideration of the consequences would endanger not only Ukraine, but also Europe and by extension, the United States, for generations to come. We Finns know Russia. Russia shares a land border with 14 countries. Only one of them has constantly remained an independent democracy through the Second World War and the Cold War, and that’s Finland. History has taught us that Russia respects only strength and resolve. Russia’s current war is based on imperialistic ambitions that go beyond Ukraine. The Kremlin’s appetite does not diminish when fed, it only grows. Take it from us, whatever happens in this war, Russia will remain a long-term strategic threat to Euro-Atlantic security. Rather than encourage, we need to keep it at bay.
Of course, we need to be open for re-engagement in the future, if Russia started to adhere to international law again, but going forward, it would be a mistake to let go of our deterrents or rebuild strategic dependency on Russia, and this goes for all of Europe. So far, we have not seen any sign that President Putin has any genuine will to negotiate a lasting agreement. On the contrary, a week ago on Monday, on the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion, Russia launched the, so far, largest drone attack on Ukraine. That is not what you would expect from someone who is truly interested in peace.
There is no reason whatsoever to believe that Putin has moderated his demands from those he laid out in December 2021. Demands that if accepted, would roll back decades of progress in European security. Caving to these demands would expose Europe to further aggression. Instead, our objective must be a just, lasting peace that respects international law, including the prohibition of annexation of territory through the use of force. Let me emphasise, peace does not and must not mean submission. True peace is built on justice, accountability and deterrence. We must not mistake a temporary pause for a sustainable peace.
If in doubt, you can ask the Baltic states what kind of peace it was to live under Russian, or back then, Soviet occupation. Deported civilians, missing children, a massive setback in prosperity and sub-par living standards for decades, no political or personal freedoms. You can call that peace, but it’s not something the brave Ukrainians have been sacrificing their lives for or what they, or anyone, would deserve going forward.
Secondly, any negotiations with Russia may not lead to an agreement that changes the European security architecture, its principles and commitments. Europe’s security is not a bargaining chip. Russia will only have an interest in committing to an agreement when they understand that they cannot reach their goal of subjugating Ukraine through military or other means. The policy of Mr Putin and his henchmen is based on the belief that time is on their side, that we, the Western people in general are weak, divided and looking for a way out of the war at almost any cost. They believe that Russia could simply outlast us.
We not only have to prove them wrong. In fact, we already have done so in the past three years. Let’s not forget, Russia thought they would take Kyiv in a matter of days and Europe would just sit still and watch, and continue buying Russian gas. How wrong they were. In fact, the course of action we, Europe, have taken in the past three years, is exactly the right one, provide military assistance to Ukraine and put economic pressure on Russia. The medicine is working, but we are not just done yet. To secure a peace that can last, Ukraine needs a strong deterrent against any future aggression. Without such guarantees, any truce or a ceasefire is only an invitation for Russia to regroup and return. We have seen this time and again. We must not repeat the mistakes made with the Minsk agreements.
The most credible security guarantee would be NATO membership, before that happens, but also thereafter, the required deterrence must be based primarily on Ukraine’s own defence forces. Firmly supported by external assistance and credible security arrangements, provided by Europe and the US. In parallel to supporting Ukraine, Russia’s position must be further weakened. Sanctions must be strengthened and their implementation made more effective. Russia’s war economy is already showing serious cracks. We must also find a way to use the frozen Russian assets, around €200 billion in Europe, to support Ukraine and compensate for the damage Russia’s aggression has caused.
We Finns know from experience that Russia is a skilful, but unreliable, negotiator. One of our foremost Diplomats, and later President Paasikivi, was on several occasions, on the other side of the table from Stalin and Molotov when our existence as an independent country was on the line in the 1930s and 1940s. He summed it up like this. ’The constant policy of the Russians is to get what they can with as little as possible and then come back asking for more. They never sacrifice their immediate interests for future objectives. They are immune to any ethical, human or abstract legal factors.’ This is the Finnish experience.
The Ukrainians know from their own experience that Russia has broken every single commitment they have ever made on Ukraine’s sovereignty. No agreement with Moscow can stand without the will and the means to enforce it. The merits of any agreement that may result from the talks that have been initiated between the US and Russia, or any group of countries for that matter, will not be judged on the day of the signing. They will be judged every day thereafter. To make sure that the deal is a good one, the US will need Europeans.
Dear friends, history has shown that when Europe and the United States stand together, we are an unbreakable force for peace, security and freedom. Transatlantic partnership has historically been strong, and it must remain so. President Trump is certainly right that we in Europe must do more for our own security, but for both the US and Europe to succeed in bringing peace to Ukraine and strengthening transatlantic security, we must build peace through the strength of alliances. This applies to security and defence, but also to the global economic and technological competition.
On the British Isles, as well as on the European continent, we share the same concerns about the future. We are determined to act so that we can shape that future, rather than being shaped by it. The UK’s contribution to European security is not just historic, it is essential. From both world wars to the present day, Britain has stood firm when freedom has been at stake. Prime Minister Starmer’s recent commitment to increasing defence spending is a powerful and timely message. It coincides with similar decisions across Europe. We are stepping up.
Together, the EU and the UK have a GDP almost ten times the size of Russia. We have the means. Whether we have the political will is a question of priority and no priority is higher than keeping our citizens safe and free. By doing more as Europe, we also show with actions our value as trusted, indispensable, transatlantic partner. Sir Winston Churchill once said, ‘To each there comes a moment when they are figuratively tapped on the shoulder and offered the chance to do a special thing unique to them and their talents. This is Europe’s moment; we must rise to it. I thank you so much for your attention [applause].
Bronwen Maddox
No, so thank you very much, indeed, for those remarks, very wide-ranging. Let me ask you a few things, then I will come to the wider questions, not yet. But well done you and well done online, Raphael Maretto, for firing for – a whole list. Let me start. Finland joined NATO two years ago, a bit less. What is the alliance, you think Finland has joined? Is it one that is going to stick by its Article 5 commitment?
Elina Valtonen
I’m sure that NATO will stick to its Article 5 commitment and also the US. We have heard nothing which would be contrary to that. Indeed, President Trump and his administration have also ensured that they stick to NATO and its commitments. And in any case, I guess Finland and its own history show that we never relied on outside help anyway. We have always put our own defence first and again, we joined NATO only two years ago, together with Sweden, and we know that, well, we are net contributors to the alliance and we would very much like to be that, also, in the future. But having said this, it’s very important that all of our European partners also step up in this.
Bronwen Maddox
What would you like to see from them? Finland is obviously making a much greater contribution to defence. You’ve got now firm plans for 3.3% of GDP by 2032, but that isn’t where the whole of the EU is. What would you like to see from them?
Elina Valtonen
I think the EU is already doing a tremendous job and Ursula von der Leyen, the Commissioner, President, she published today the ideas on how we, as the European Union, will be stepping up in terms of defence and deterrence. The commitment is there, and it will happen. Everybody just has to understand that it takes some time. You can’t build an army overnight, right? And we are, of course, happy to share the burden and I think the course of action, which has been there in the past three years already, is exactly the right one, we just have to continue. And I’m saying this because there’s been so much Europe bashing in the past weeks, but I think what Europe has done is exactly the right thing. We have aided Ukraine, we have put economic pressure on Russia, and we have, perhaps too slowly, but still, started as individual countries to ramp up our defence industries and our defence.
Bronwen Maddox
Do you think Europe can defend Ukraine on its own? We have now the US pausing its – the Trump administration’s word, ‘pausing’ its aid to Ukraine, obviously, in an attempt to bring Ukraine to the negotiating table. Can Europe fill that gap? “’
Elina Valtonen
I think we need the Americans, we need the Americans militarily, but especially also to keep up the sanctions pressure, because the worst thing that could happen now is that the US let’s go of the sanctions and starts engaging with Russia economically, because that would be exactly the wrong course of action now, where we see that Russia’s economy clearly is not sustainable as it is now. They are allocating 8%, or even more, of their GDP into the war economy. The inflation is well above 30%. Their domestic banking sector is in serious trouble, with interest rates of also, north of 20%, even much, much higher for smaller businesses. It’s not sustainable, so if we just, you know, waited for at least some months, we would be in such a much better place.
And also, what is – what has to be noted that also, on the battlefield, Russia has not really been advancing in the late – in the recent months. They have been advancing only very – or in – or taking very small steps and at very heavy losses. So, this definitely shouldn’t be a moment where we given – give in, or especially not that we surrender Ukraine, because well, that’s certainly not something what the Ukrainian people wanted to have for their future.
Bronwen Maddox
That is undeniably correct and there are a lot of people, I suspect a lot of people here, who would agree with you, but we don’t have that time, in that the US is very much changing the timetable of all this, separate from what is happening on the battlefield. President Trump says President Putin wants peace. Is he making a mistake? You’ve got – you had some pretty tough words about what Russia wants over the years.
Elina Valtonen
Well, look, I think President Trump is exactly right in demanding peace. Who wouldn’t want peace? But I guess the only one not wanting peace is Putin, who invaded in the first place. So, you know, the analysis just has to start at the, you know, realisation of the facts and the thing is, I mean, if Russia started their peace now, they could do that by withdrawing their troops, or at least stopping those heinous attacks on civilian infrastructure and on Ukrainian military. But if Ukraine did that, then probably you wouldn’t have Ukraine any longer.
Bronwen Maddox
You were – you put a lot of weight in those – in your remarks on the notion of a sustainable peace…
Elina Valtonen
Hmmm.
Bronwen Maddox
…which Europe wants. Do you think the US has the same notion of peace?
Elina Valtonen
Well, I’ve – our message to our friends in America is that history will judge us by the developments after the signing of the agreement, not just that moment when any possible agreement is being signed. And unfortunately, the experience we have, as Europe, from the Russians, is that especially now, during Putin’s rule, they are not willing to make any compromises. They have only been advancing, if you look at where – you know, in Georgia 2008, illegally annexing Crimea 2014, then, you know, the fighting in the eastern parts of Ukraine, the Minsk agreements, which agreed on a ceasefire, but Russia violated the ceasefire almost immediately and just kept on advancing, slowly but surely.
Bronwen Maddox
This is, in my view, absolutely right. Yeah, that was one of the points that President Zelenskyy put to President Trump in the Oval Office, and it didn’t go so well after that point. Do you think it’s fair to say that we’re dealing with an American administration that just sees it very, very differently?
Elina Valtonen
I guess President Trump – well, it’s difficult to know exactly how he sees the situation and I said, it’s easy to agree with the objective of finding peace. But I think what is important to realise is that this – you know, attempting to have a normal political and business contact with the Russians is exactly the course of action everybody was engaged in up until, effectively, 22, right? Four years ago, Europe was building a gas pipeline with Putin, still, I mean, less than four years ago. So, this – you know, hoping for the best and engaging with the Russians, this was the mainstream course of action, and only in the past three years have we, individually as European countries, and this is also important to note to our friends in Washington, and Europe is not one country, right? So, we are making decisions individually.
Even as the European Union, it’s a union of 27 sovereign nations, but even so, in the past three years, democratically elected leaders have decided more or less on the same thing, that we must keep Russia at bay. So, why not continue with this? It’s only been three years.
Bronwen Maddox
Hmmm, and I was thinking, as you were talking, I just want to explore your sense of what the European Union can do. Because as you say, it is a group of many very different countries, some of them quite close to Russia, others very, very different view. What do you think it can do as an organisation, the EU itself, or are we really talking about ‘coalitions of the willing,’ to use Keir Starmer’s phrase?
Elina Valtonen
I think this ‘coalition of the willing’ thinking is exactly what we need and this is what it will end up with, anyway, and this is exactly what it’s been the past three years. Because, of course, it’s not just been the European Union, it’s been the UK, it’s been, say Norway, Iceland, also, Türkiye doing its bit, and of course, the US and Canada. So – and, of course, many, many of our partners in the Indo-Pacific, as well, who are – who have been on the right side of history in this. So, I’m sure this will continue, or I hope it will continue, but also, as the European Union, we can do so much. And I think these new arrangements for how to credibly and strategically ramp up our defence and our defence industries, at the same time, is exactly what we should be doing and now we’re talking numbers which are also credible, so in total, say 800 billion.
Because let’s face it, the European Union has also, in the past, been very powerful if faced with outside crisis. In the Euro crisis, well, we can all have our own…
Bronwen Maddox
Well, in the literal sense…
Elina Valtonen
…ideas about whether…
Bronwen Maddox
…the making of it, yes.
Elina Valtonen
Yeah, whether it was the right thing. As a former Banker, I have my own feelings about it, but anyway, so we put a lot of money on the table and the ECB did its bit. And also, during the COVID crisis, it was a package of 750 billion. So, surely, if we wanted to, we can do it and I guess this is an existential issue.
Bronwen Maddox
Hmmm. I just – I’d just like to just get your sense of how big the coalition of the willing is likely to be, because at the end of the Lancaster House talks, there were only two clear members, it seemed like, the UK and France. The UK had not invited the – some of the Baltic countries to that, which I think is mystifying, but anyway, the countries coming out and saying, ‘We will contribute,’ perhaps to fighting in Ukraine, seems small. How big do you think that group might get?
Elina Valtonen
Well, I think we are making a mistake if we only concentrate on the capabilities as defined in boots on the ground, because arranging security guarantees, or certainly in the – using the wider term, security arrangements for Ukraine, it’s a combination of so many things. And of course, whilst it is in our common interest to have the best security guarantees and arrangements possible for Ukraine, we must, at the same time, take care of the entire NATO territory and NATO defence plans. And certainly, without going too much into detail, the defence plans rely on the capabilities of the allied countries and for instance, Finland having 1,340km of border with Russia, even though we are the fifth biggest contributor to Ukraine’s military assistance, it’s very unlikely that we will be the ones sending all of our troops over.
Bronwen Maddox
You need…
Elina Valtonen
And that’s not even…
Bronwen Maddox
…it for your…
Elina Valtonen
…required.
Bronwen Maddox
…own border, yes.
Elina Valtonen
Yeah, well, I guess that’s understood by everybody, but there’s a lot – I mean, it’s not even so much the boots on the ground. I mean, let’s face it, Ukraine has probably the cap – most capable army in Europe as we speak.
Bronwen Maddox
Yeah.
Elina Valtonen
And its size is tremendous, so the capabilities that Ukraine needs for their aid now and in the future, it’s not just that. And while I say this, I have no disregard whatsoever for U – the UK’s and France’s plans to do that, but as the coalition of the willing, we will, of course, figure out the best package of different capabilities and then, you know, work based on that.
Bronwen Maddox
And if the US says, ‘No,’ its current position, ‘Europe, go do it yourself’?
Elina Valtonen
I would say that’s very unfortunate if that’s happens, but still, I think it’s unlikely that it happens, because it’s in, very much in the US interest to have a stable Europe, because certainly, if only viewed from a business angle, fif – 40% of the trade is – basically, in the world, is transatlantic. So, why sacrifice that? And certainly, there’s a lot to gain from overall the stability and the prosperity of the free world, which all of us have gained massively from. So, also in that, plus I know from a – well, America, traditionally, and, you know, at the end of the day, it’s the American people who decide, and if somebody wants to have – or really has freedom written on their hearts, it’s the American people. So, I’m sure at the end of the day, they will stick with Europe.
Bronwen Maddox
You put yourself, in your remarks, very firmly on the side of those saying, ‘Take the frozen Russian assets and use them for the benefit of the Ukraine.’ Do you think there’s a lot of support behind that, as Europe has been very divided on that in the past?
Elina Valtonen
Well, see, there’s already been some – I guess the damage that Russia has caused, if only counted in euros, or pounds or dollars, whatever, roughly €500 billion, and we’re talking frozen assets of the magnitude order of 200 billion. So, already, typically, you would consider war or reparations for the aggressor to have to pay at some point, so surely, there would be also a legal way of, you know, using those assets. You wouldn’t even have to confiscate those, if that’s an obstacle, politically, to somebody. But I wouldn’t even see an economic downside to this so much, because, of course, property rights, which are extremely important in any market economy and certainly here in the free world, are extremely crucial to us in the sense that we want to be a credible, you know, place to make investments, also, in the future. But surely, if you are engaged in a war of aggression against us, then there’s also interpretation in the international law that your property rights probably aren’t the same.
Bronwen Maddox
Hmmm. Let’s come to wider questions now. I’ve got many, many more, but let’s see, let’s start here in the front. A microphone will come round [pause], and if you could say who you are, please.
Edward Lucas
I’m Edward Lucas and I’m one of the authors of the proposed Rearmament Bank. But my question’s actually on something different, which is that you said the worst thing that can happen is that the Americans relax their sanctions. I think it could get worse than that. There are people in Washington who say Russia should have a free hand in Europe. That the – they want to win Russia as a friend against China, and they even say that they don’t want American weapons, American made weapons, used in what they call a ‘border skirmish’, some border skirmish with Russia. So, where does that leave countries like you when you’re placed a huge bet on buying the JASSM, the vital deterrent missile that you have, and ordering the F-35, if you try and use these American weapons and a sign comes up saying, ‘Software update needed’ and they don’t work?
Elina Valtonen
Well, I’m more than convinced that America is not only interested in the future of the free world, but also in the future of the arms industry, and again, the business ties with Europe, as well. Europe, certainly, as a trading partner and as a market, if only looking at from the economic perspective, is not only much bigger, but also much more reliable than anything that Russia can offer, whose size is a tenth of our GDP and also, I guess, the experience of companies trying to operate in Russia in the past 20 years, has been – it’s been quite a rollercoaster ride.
Bronwen Maddox
Thanks. James.
James Nixey
Thank you, Bronwen. Good morning, Minister. My name’s James Nixey. I run the Russia and Eurasia Programme here at Chatham House. Minister, you’ve talked a lot this morning about the ‘Finnish experience’ and the ‘Finns know Russia’. Could you elaborate a little bit more on the specific experiences of the 1939-1940 Winter War and how that has affected your present-day security thinking? Thank you.
Elina Valtonen
It, indeed, still has a massive influence on how we see the world. And in the Winter War, where we were illegally invaded by Russia, but fended the aggression off, we had to give up some territory for our independence, but it certainly taught us the lesson, and of course, this wasn’t the first time that Russia has been trying to invade Finland or its neighbouring countries, that we simply have to invest into our own defence and deterrence. And during the Winter War, nobody came to Finland’s help, so perhaps the Finnish mindset has always been that we can do this alone, which is, of course, well, not just the – well, it’s not the best scenario anyway. But also, probably not the most realistic one, also, in this world.
But it – that was certainly very much in the mindset of people who thought that we wouldn’t need NATO. I mean, it wasn’t that Finland would’ve been against NATO, whilst we had not, for a very long time, not joined NATO or applied for membership. But that certainly changed with the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. But yes, Finns take pride in saying that we, you know, can pull out and wait and we have – and indeed, even though the country is fairly small, we have one of the strongest reservist based armies in the wor – well, not in the world, but in Europe. And we also like to think that we are net contributors to NATO, which we are. And the reason, together with Sweden, we wanted to join, was not only in order to improve our own security, but also to contribute to the prevalence of our values, because essentially, the European way of life, that is what is at stake now.
Bronwen Maddox
Thank you. Let me come here in the front. Right in the front, yes, thanks.
Isabel Hilton
Thank you very much. Isabel Hilton, Journalist. Over the weekend, Mr Hesketh [means Hegseth], the US Defense Secretary, order the Pentagon to cease aggressive cyber operations against Russia. This at a time when Europe, and all of us, are experiencing all manner of grey-zone warfare and cyberattacks from Russia. How do you explain this and how concerned are you about this withdrawal of an effective defence of US allies against a constant grey-zone warfare?
Elina Valtonen
Well, of course, I’m a little bit concerned, but I would imagine this is probably part of this grand strategy that The White House has chosen, which is to see if this course of action can lead to peace, that, effectively, appeasing Russia and putting some pressure on Ukraine. In my personal view, it should be exactly the other way around, but I’m sure that – and I trust President Trump and his team are – will notice in due course that this probably doesn’t work.
Bronwen Maddox
I just want to just take that point a little bit further, because I’ve been listening to many of the things you’re saying and many supporters of Ukraine would think, look, that would be great if this were the case, but it isn’t. It isn’t the view that the US is taking; it isn’t the approach. Do you have a view on why the US is trying to bring Russia in from the cold?
Elina Valtonen
I’m not guessing any motives behind that. You see, I think the objective – I think President Trump is truly following two objectives, which I can fully agree with, and the first one is finding peace for Europe and in Ukraine. And the second thing is having Europe pull its weight better when it comes to security and defence. Our message is that what comes to peace, appeasing Russia has not helped in the past and it probably doesn’t help now, either. So, let’s work together on a strategy how we can put an end to this killing on the battlefield and especially targeting civilians.
I was – the last time I was in Ukraine, I was in Kyiv in January, and I visited the Children’s Hospital, the largest in Ukraine, in Kyiv, the Okhmatdyt one, which was hit by a Russian missile last summer. I remember that situation vividly, because I was on my way to NATO Summit in Washington and then the news came that they had – or this missile had hit the Children’s Hospital. So, yeah, I went to see it and of course, it was devastating enough to see the building which had been destroyed, partly. But, you know, the most devastating experience was to meet those children, those children, patients who had perhaps, you know, lost limbs, who had lost family, and really to see the sorrow in their eyes. And those children, if somebody wants peace, it’s those children and who deserved peace.
So, I guess our message is that, you know, let’s work together on a strategy which really brings peace to the people and especially to the civilians. And a suggestion to President Trump is also, as part of this process, is to have Russia show goodwill, for instance, by bringing back those deported children. Russia has deported 20,000 children from Ukraine, taken them from their parents and, of course, a horrendous war crime, one of the worst things you can do in a war. So, let’s start with that, and I’m sure President Trump would agree that let’s start with the children, right?
And the second thing that Europe needs to do more – fully agreed, and this has been the Finnish position all along, and I guess our message to Americans is just that, please let’s do this together. It takes some time and things will work out well.
Bronwen Maddox
Thanks very much. Here in the third row.
Gérard Regar
[Pause] Oh, thank you.
Delegate
And you’ll need it.
Gérard Regar
Okay.
Delegate
It’s online.
Gérard Regar
My name is Gérard Regar and I’m a member of Chatham House. In the wake of the UN resolution…
Chatham House Staff
Sorry, if you could use the…
Gérard Regar
…where…
Chatham House Staff
…microphone, please.
Bronwen Maddox
So that people can hear you online.
Chatham House Staff
If you could use the mic…
Gérard Regar
You can hear me, can’t you?
Bronwen Maddox
I can hear you.
Chatham House Staff
No, but online…
Bronwen Maddox
But online, they can’t.
Chatham House Staff
…you’ll need to use the mic.
Gérard Regar
Hmmm, oh. In the wake of the UN resolution, where the US and Russia voted together, the global picture of NATO is under a cloud. Now, focusing on a smaller subject, which is that of the Ukraine situation, I ask, what can the willing expect from the United States in terms of co-operation to their cause in that particular part of the world? Does anything remain in place in the light of the recent decisions by the US Government?
Bronwen Maddox
Thank you.
Elina Valtonen
Well, again, I think this incident what we saw at the UN the other week…
Bronwen Maddox
This was an extraordinary moment. Twice…
Elina Valtonen
Yes.
Bronwen Maddox
…voting against Europe on a matter of European security, for the first time since 1945.
Elina Valtonen
I guess it’s also linked to this strategy, which President Trump probably has in terms of simply putting his entire weight and strength, and certainly all his cards, on getting a peace deal. And certainly, it could sound logical that in order to achieve that, you would try to get the entire world onboard, also those countries who typically aren’t your allies. This is the only way I can explain this to myself, and certainly, I think it was also a powerful message that the General Assembly vote was so strongly in favour of Ukraine and European security, and especially the UN Charter, which this, at the end of the day, is about. Because we haven’t spoken so much about how this space is actually being watched everywhere in the world, because if we allow for moving borders with the use of force, or subjugating another country or taking away its sovereignty, again, by the use of force or by threatening force, then certainly, we can forget about the entire UN Charter.
Gérard Regar
We know that…
Chatham House Staff
No.
Gérard Regar
…military exports…
Chatham House Staff
[Inaudible – 46:54].
Gérard Regar
…to Ukraine have been suspended. Does Starlink – is Starlink still available or has that been cancelled, too?
Elina Valtonen
We are due to find out the – all those details and certainly, what is also important is that the US has a possibility to continue providing that aid, also very soon. So, we are talking about the suspension, I guess, and I’m convinced that this is linked to President Trump trying to have the mineral’s deal with Ukraine and some sign that he expects that Ukraine would be willing to approach some sort of a peace deal.
Bronwen Maddox
Here, here on the aisle. John.
John Peet
Yeah, John Peet from The Economist. You mentioned the UK a number of times and you also said quite a lot about the EU building a bigger role in defence, including in defence procurement and possibly defence spending. Not all members of the EU, one in particular, share the idea that the UK should be more closely involved if it’s an EU matter. Do you think there will be a way found of including the UK, even though it’s not a member of the EU and not a member of the single market, and do you think it would be sensible to build a bigger EU defence role without the UK?
Elina Valtonen
I don’t think it makes any sense to do anything in relation to security and defence without the UK and if you ask me, we – well, of course, Finland would be more than happy to have the UK back in the single market and in political decision-making in the European Union, to get some sense back. Well, a little bit exaggerating, but we, of course, have always been very likeminded countries and think very similarly, for instance, what comes to the freedom of trade, the need to really base everything we have on a as free as possible market economy. And at the same time, also make sure that we have militarily and politically, the weight that we deserve as Europe in the world.
And certainly, I think this time really calls for not really innovations as such, but resolve and strong alliances and the UK and also the leadership that Prime Minister Starmer has shown is more than welcome. And also, I should add, I mean, those countries, say Norway, Iceland, Türkiye, it’s not just the European, right? Everybody who wants to join in this effort, it’s effectively about, again, you know, protecting the free world, so everybody who wants to do that should be invited.
Bronwen Maddox
Yeah. I’m just going to take one from online, from Chrisine – Christina DeCoursey, who’s a Canadian living in Kazakhstan, a Chatham House member. Glad to have you, and she says, ‘What are the realistic chances of Canada joining with the EU in some kind of way in this kind of’ – and I think she means support of either European values or of Ukraine.
Elina Valtonen
Absolutely, and why not the European Union, too? I mean, well, again, I think in this effort, we need the coalition of the willing and this is not really anything new, because this is how the aid to Ukraine and also, our sanctions, have functioned thus far. For instance, the sanctions that we have imposed on Russia has not only been the G7 or the EU sanctions, but well, the G7, that says it all. I mean, it’s not just the EU, of course. And, for instance, the UK has been extremely active in, for instance, fighting the – Russia’s shadow fleet, which is a massive problem in our neighbourhood here. So, effectively, a massive threat to the environment, to start off with, but also, like we’ve experienced, also a threat to critical infrastructure.
Bronwen Maddox
Hmmm hmm, and the undersea cables and so on.
Elina Valtonen
Yes.
Bronwen Maddox
Here on the aisle.
Samir
[Pause] Samir [inaudible – 51:30], member of Chatham House. Minister, the question I – there are so many questions to ask, but I’ll choose one. In relation to what you stated earlier, that $750 million Russian asset which have been frozen for some time, you claim to pay for the reparation of the war, to seize them and pay as reparation for the damage caused by Russia. Now, are you seriously considering there will be ever peace between Russia and Ukraine with the current situation taking effect now by the European nations?
Elina Valtonen
I’m not sure if I understood the question, but if there’s a…?
Samir
Shall I repeat it?
Bronwen Maddox
Really briefly…
Samir
No, the question is…
Bronwen Maddox
…‘cause I didn’t understand it, either.
Samir
…are you seriously considering that Russia will allow you to seize the funds they have and then subsequently, to have a peace with them?
Elina Valtonen
Hmmm, okay.
Samir
Oh, and…
Bronwen Maddox
Yeah, that…
Samir
…will they return their lands they seized?
Elina Valtonen
Well, that’s a very, very important question, indeed. Well, so far, the damage that Russia has caused in Ukraine, in monetary terms, if we just forget about all the lives lost, which is, of course, the most horrendous bit of this war, but the economic damage is around fif – €500 billion so far. And the frozen assets, which Europe holds, or which are more or less in the European Union, is 200 billion. So, I guess based on international law and its interpretation and in – or what is also being used for the sanctions legislation which we have in place, so effectively, as a counter measure against Russia’s illegal war of aggression, then certainly, there’s also a legal way of to seize those assets. Now and especially in the future, or conditional to further aggression by Russia, this all can be figured out.
But what is important is that, of course, that the killing stops, the pea – I mean, that we get to peace. That’s what, certainly, Ukraine and Europe want, but also, that there’s fair accountability to the war of aggression and towards the aggressor.
Bronwen Maddox
Okay, thank you for that and let’s get in one or two more. Yes, here in the third – yes, you. Yes, you go. Microphone.
Chatham House Staff
Mic.
Phil Goff
Yeah, thank you. Phil Goff, New Zealand High Commissioner. I was re-reading Churchill’s speech to the House of Commons in 1938, after the Munich Agreement, and he turned to Chamberlain and he said, ‘You had the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, yet you will have war.’ President Trump has restored the bust of Churchill to the Oval Office, but do you think he really understands history?
Elina Valtonen
I will limit myself to saying that in this time, and I did it myself, I quoted Sir Winston Churchill, and I think he has made very timeless remarks.
Phil Goff
Thank you.
Bronwen Maddox
Thank you both on that. Armida, in the front, here.
Armida van Rij
[Pause] Thank you. Thank you very much, Minister. Armida van Rij, I head up the Europe Programme here at Chatham House. Thank you for making the time for us. You described the challenge for Europe as, essentially, being twofold, one maintaining support for Ukraine and enabling them as much as they can to do deter Russia, and the second is to restock and rearm Europe themselves for their defence. Even if the European Commission is successful in all its initiatives that it’s planning, even if on a national level, countries plan for rearmament, we still face a situation where stocks are depleted. And it takes time for those initiatives to bear fruits, five, seven, ten years, if not longer, so what do we do in the short-term? What’s the, kind of – beyond sanc – pressure on Russia through sanctions, etc., what do we do in the short-term, right now?
Elina Valtonen
Well, during the Second World War and certainly in history, there have been times when if there’s a massive need to ramp up the defence industry, then it can happen, also, pretty quick. But we are not at a phase where we need to be panicking or anything. That’s not the thing, but we certainly have to make room for, also, private investment into the defence industry, because this is not only something which the taxpayers have to be funding, on the very contrary. I guess, and this very much applies to the European Union, we should recognise that funding a strategic defence industry is within the sustainability goals of our societies. Unlike in some of the regulation we had imposed prior, where our defence industry was considered contrary to ESG.
So, letting go of that, at the same time, also through the EIB, making room for investments into the defence sector, is important, because that will also send a message to private, both equity and debt investors, to participate in the effort. And I’m sure there’s a lot of private interest around, because of course, investors see that the demand is there now and it’s going to be there in the future. So, we just need a better strategy for that and what the European Union is doing now, there will be, in two weeks’ time, the white paper on defence coming out, which will focus on exactly this. But of course, we need public funds for that, too, but this will be an effort which, certainly, we will be able to do.
But it’s a very important remark that you’re making, because it’s not sufficient if we only raise our defence spending, because if we end up just, you know, paying for massive inflation on goods which are not there, on military goods, then it doesn’t help so much. So, instead of focusing only on the share of GDP, that defence spending is – or how high that is, we should certainly focus on the GDP and its growth as well, so competitiveness of Europe, and including the UK, if you ask me. And the second thing is that we truly are able to produce those capabilities, along with NATO’s capability targets, and not just, you know, a share of spending.
Bronwen Maddox
Hmmm. I’m going to squeeze in two questions on NATO that are online, with apologies to the many hands that have begun going up in the hall. And the two questions are, one, ‘Can you just tell us a bit about how integrated Finland now is in NATO, in this short time you’ve had?’ And the second one of whether ‘Turkey has a useful role to play in this,’ this is from Tana Sellar. Turkey, obviously, a member of NATO, on the other hand, as its Finance Minister has said in public at Chatham House, ‘not observing the sanctions because it can’t afford to and doesn’t suit it.’ So, what do you think of – you’ve got one more descriptive one and then your view on Turkey?
Elina Valtonen
Well, Finland had been 30 years a peacetime partner of NATO and our military was almost 100% interoperable with NATO on the day we joined. So, in that respect, we were partly already in there and now that we have been using these two years, together with Sweden, to really integrate into NATO’s command structure and also, ramping up our capabilities, which were, I must say, good in – to start off, but still to really integrate, also, in NATO’s defence planning. I think we’ve come a very long way in these two years. And of course, Finland has also been participating in NATO’s presence in places where there’s need for it, for instance in Romania and Bulgaria last year and Iceland this year. And yeah, so I think we are proud mum – proud member NATO.
When it comes to Türkiye, they certainly have an interest in peace and stability in Europe, too, and I’m more than convinced that they are willing and able to do their bit, and I think they are a fantastic partner and ally to the coalition of the willing. And I’m so glad that, also, Prime Minister Starmer invited Türkiye on Sunday to this gathering.
Bronwen Maddox
With that, we are going to have to stop. It’s not as if the questions are stopping and this is going to be so much part of what Chatham House is talking about in the coming days and weeks. But for now, will you join me in thanking the Minister, okay [applause].
