 Welcome, everyone. We have two very distinguished European statesmen with us, the Foreign Minister of Finland, the Finance Minister of Sweden, to discuss what is really a central historical issue that I think most people haven't realized how central and how historical it is. So I'm going to ask you, Minister Danberg, Sweden has been neutral for 200 years, maybe more. This is a big deal. Do Swedes think of it in those historical terms? This is a break with centuries of neutrality? I think you have to understand that Sweden has been non-aligned for 200 years. Last time we were at war was the Napoleon Wars. That brings some perspectives to it. So no ordinary family in Sweden has experienced war themselves. They might have contacts with Finland, with other countries. People have fled to Sweden with experience in war. But Sweden itself has not experienced war. So for us, the non-aligned politics has been very pragmatic. It's been a way of not getting involved in war. So for us, changing this policy is quite big. It's a huge thing. It's a generation of Swedes that have grown up. It has not been the same for 200 years, but still basically had a political position not getting involved and being non-aligned. But it has changed. The last couple of decades, we've joined the European Union. We have a broad cooperation, not least with Finland, our closest ally, but also a very strong partnership with NATO. So of course, this has changed over the years, but this is a big historic event for Sweden. And for you, this Russian aggression tells you you're in a new world, you're in a new security environment? Yes, totally a new world. And also, we think it's a long-term change. It's not just the war right now. This is a new Russia. This is a new environment. So for many Swedes, I think this really brought the debate to a different level. So we had a debate in Sweden, but it was quite cautious. It was quite respectful. You could have different opinion, but in the end, most people, the population, but most political parties agreed. This was the time to see that we are more secure within NATO than outside NATO. And we want to go hand-in-hand with Finland. Mr. Javisto, tell us from Finland's point of view, you also have a long history here, and it's been one where you've been very careful not to provoke the Russians, because you share that border in a way you're almost a suburb of St. Petersburg. What made you change? Well, of course, we have 1,300 kilometers common border, and we want to maintain that border peaceful. And how we, in Finland, think about Russia is a long perspective also. We look 100 years backwards and 100 years forward. And when we look backwards from the Tartine, Lenin, and Stalin, after Stalin, Rudshev, then after Rudshev, the turn to Brezhnev, then from Brezhnev to Gorbachev and Yeltsin, and then to Putin. And we have seen, we have been witnessing all these changes. So we have a neighbor that has been performing quite a big political changes even in the last years. And when we look towards the future, we don't know what's coming after Putin. Is it something better, more democratic, or is it something worse? And we have to be prepared for all different scenarios of Russia. And we have had, actually, this has maybe a difference with Sweden that we have had in our security white paper since, I think, 2004, this kind of what we call a NATO option. That means that if security environment changes around the Baltic Sea area, we might consider applying NATO. And now it's the question that, has it been changing enough? And we think that when Russia, by military force, tries to change the government and leadership of the 40 million country, Ukraine, in the neighborhood, this is a major change also in our security environment. And that made the fundaments that we decided to apply for the NATO membership. Russia's immediate reaction was to threaten you and then to cut off energy. Do you worry that there will be more Russian actions? Well, our feeling is that, yes, Russia did not like the idea that there's an enlargement of NATO and particularly that NATO is coming closer with the Finnish border, Finnish-Russian border and so forth. There were critical comments on that. But at the same time, my understanding is that it didn't trigger any military action against Finland or Sweden. It might trigger something on cyberspace or on hybrid format and so forth. But, of course, we have been all the time saying that we are not provoking. We want to keep the border peaceful. We want to keep the bilateral cooperation what is needed, even in these circumstances on the border, on the professional basis. What about, how do you feel about that? You know, the Russians have been saying, as Minister Havista says, NATO is being provocative. It's moving closer and closer to us. This doubles NATO's border with Russia. Is there something to that, to the idea that NATO is moving eastward in a way that threatens Russia? No. We wouldn't have this discussion if Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine. Then the discussion wouldn't have been there in Finland and Sweden. This is a reaction on Russians' way of acting in Europe. They made that choice and that made us, as sovereign states, we make our own security decisions. We're not dictated from Moscow. We make our own security arrangements. And now with this environment we find that we are more secure inside than outside and made this change in our history and our perspective. So you can't use that argument. I think it's not valid because Russia invaded Ukraine. Was Swedish neutrality in part because of your relationship with Finland? I would say not the whole question because we have a very pragmatic history on this, trying to avoid being involved in wars. But the Finnish history is important for us. Sweden and Finland was the same country. We were the same country for hundreds of years. My mother comes from Finland. Actually, she came to Sweden the first time where she was four years old. She fled when Russia, the Soviet Union, bombed Helsinki. And she was 1939. My grandfather was killed in the war. And my mother was sent to Sweden alone when she was four years old, taking care of a Swedish family. A lot of war children came to Sweden. This is my history. So we belong to each other in a special sense. And we have also created a unique security arrangement between Finland and Sweden, planning, working together in a most advanced way. So for us, the Finnish decision was also important because we didn't want to separate from Finland in a security arrangement system because that would also hurt our security. So for us, going together was one part of argument. Finland has had a war with Russia. And what lessons did you take? What lessons has Finland taken from that? I think there are many lessons and it might be that the different people have different lessons from that. But first of all, I think the lesson or the first lesson is that you have to defend yourself. Now we are hearing from Russia that when Ukraine is defending theirs, as they are prolonged in the war, we feel a little bit guilty. We also prolonged the winter war a little bit by defending ourselves. In 1941. Yes, and in 1939 when Russia was attacking us and 1940 when peace was made. But I think that is our recommendation, of course, to Ukraine. You have to defend yourself. We can help you, but it's your responsibility. The second lesson is probably that we have feel a certain time respect by Russia on that people say that Russia respects when you are powerful and so forth. Of course, as a small nation, we are maybe not so powerful. But I think there has been a certain respect in our relations. People are actually asking that why didn't you apply NATO when Russia made its tricks in Georgia, 2008? Or why didn't you apply NATO when the 2014 happened in Crimea, the occupation? I think we are totally on the other level of violence. Totally at the level of behavior of Russia at the moment. And Russia was well-calculating maybe 2008 and 2014. Now they are ready to take huge risks losing their own soldiers, losing their material in the war against Ukraine. This looks very scary. And also, I think the issue of the tactical nuclear weapons have been, I would say, ever discussed in Europe that somebody would use this type of weapons. And people at the streets stop me and ask, hey, Pekka, we have a good military force. We have 280,000 in our reserve. But what do we do if we are threatened by tactical nuclear weapons? This is a new type of phenomena. So let me ask you about that, because you, your government and your president in particular knows Putin very well. And I think many of us, I met him several times. I always thought he was calculating, rational. Always seemed to me very anti, certainly anti-American and in some ways anti-Western. But now you seem to see somebody who is emotional. It's difficult to understand what cost-benefit analysis took place here, Russia is suffering huge costs for seemingly very little benefit. Do you think Putin has changed? Of course, you can have a speculation on this psychology, but the issue is also, it might be that your decisions are based on the wrong information. That the intelligence in Russia didn't work properly or people wanted to feed up to the leadership, something that maybe the leadership wants to hear. This is something we don't know. It's actually up to the historians then to find out what really happened. But this is surprising also from our perspective, to take such risks and come to the situation where you are cornered almost the entire world against you. This is not certainly a calculated risk. And I think how to get out of this is very complicated because there are, of course, those who want to now find a peaceful way, then some people who say without this regime we cannot find a peaceful solution. I hope still there's a chance for the peace because sooner or later, of course, some kind of negotiations have to be there. What do you think about that? You know, the Italians reportedly have put forward a proposal that says, look, let's find a way to start negotiating an end to this conflict. Ukraine declares no neutrality. Crimea and the Donbass remain in essentially Russian control. But they have to withdraw from certain territories. Do you think that we should be moving in that direction? I think we should be very careful for putting these arguments to another people that are under attack. Our response now must be supportive and solidar with Ukraine. And of course, there might be a time where the Ukrainian leadership comes to a conclusion and wants to make a decision. But it's very clear that they should have our backing all the time because Ukraine didn't do wrong. They defended themselves. And they have the right to their territory under international law. So I think, of course, there might be a time where there will be a diplomatic or a political solution to the question. But this does not take away the responsibility from the Russians. And I think the international community should be very careful to put that pressure on Ukraine. Do you think Europe can continue and even expand the economic pressure on Russia? Or are there going to be voices in Europe saying, look, we're paying too high a price for all this? I think, first of all, there's been unique unity among Europe and together with the US. I just remember six months ago, or a year ago, everyone was talking about Europe being splitting up. Will the EU survive the split within? And when I came as Minister of Finance to my first meeting talking about the sanctions, the Minister of the Ministry said, we will not bring out our calculator now. We will have to make substantial sanctions on Russia. And we managed to put five package so far. I think we will come to six package. And that will be very important. And it is historical. Although for us, it's very important to say that for Sweden, we are not linked to the energy system with Russia in any way. So for us, it's very easy to have a very principal position. But we also see that some countries in Europe are very linked to their energy system to Russia. That's a different situation. And we have to find a way of getting rid of this. So I think this is a very also relevant security policy issue to actually not talking only about climate when we talk about energy, but actually talk about this as a new argument for making an energy transition and away from fossil fuels. What happens if the Russians continue to just cut energy off from Finland? Can you handle it? Actually, we can handle it. We have been all the time calculating that if the gas like now, there was a cut of the nature gas and if the electricity connection will be cut, we have an alternative for that. That's part of our planning. The issue actually in some European countries is that households are connected to Russian gas. And when you cut the gas from the kitchen or the heating or so it's affecting direct to the people. We have actually majority of those users are from the industry and we can replace the gas. And we have made arrangements to LNGCPs coming to Finland and so forth. And we have the Baltic connector, which is now helping us a little bit, we invested into that. So it has been planned. But I fully agree that this is the moment for the green transition actually giving this kind of foreign policy reasons also for this and doing the climate things a little bit ahead. And this is something where Europe has probably been a little bit weak to coordinate the energy systems earlier and now comes the moment of truth that you have to find ways to survive without this Russian gas, Russian oil. And I also actually agree what you said that how united Europe has been has been a surprise. It's been united on sanctions issues so far and it has been united to send even weapons to Ukraine. And I think European Union has really done its role at this crisis. All right, we are talking about membership in NATO as if it is essentially fit or complete. And certainly that is how the Secretary General of NATO talks about it. That is how the President of the United States talks about it. But there is one NATO country that does not talk about it that way and that is Turkey. The President of Turkey has made clear in his view, this is not going to happen. He accuses both your governments of harboring terrorists by which he means Kurdish separatists. How big a stumbling block is this? Of course all NATO countries have the possibility of putting their opinions on in this process and there are three or four moments when you can pull the brake and push the brake and so forth. So it's like a situation where you really have to answer to all questions, whichever NATO country has. And this is where we are now. I have had a very good cooperation with the Turkish Foreign Minister, my colleague Minister Savusokla, I have been visiting Turkey twice this spring and we have had many, many telephone calls on variety of subjects including by the way the Turkish role in Ukraine, Russia, probably solving the conflict. So they are doing a lot on that front. But now it's of course our time to convince that our legislation is appropriate regarding the PKK and so forth. PKK is also forbidden organization, terrorist organization on the European level and that is also in Finland and Sweden. So no doubt about that. Our delegations, first diplomatic delegations will be in Ankara tomorrow and on Wednesday and this debate will continue. But of course timeframe is very difficult to decide because it's up then to Turkey also in what time table things can move. Are you confident that you... I have one question. Sorry, this is a press conference and members of the press also now to ask questions. Sure, let me ask the Swedish minister to respond to the same thing and then we can... Do you think the Turkish objections will be dealt with? I hope we will reach a conclusion. We had initial contacts with all 30 membership countries and there were positive signals. So of course I think we talk about now that the Finnish and Swedish situation will be better off with the NATO membership. But I think NATO will be stronger as well with Sweden and Finland joining NATO and that's also perhaps relevant for all the other members on NATO to actually have that in the question and hopefully that also plays a part in the end. Sir. We just have five minutes left, sorry. Go ahead. Like one hour ago or two hours ago, Mr. Timmerman said on the panel, he said Putin cannot cut off gas to EU member states without hurting himself. Nevertheless he has done so. He has done so in the case of Poland, in the case of Bulgaria and now in the case of Finland. So where is the truth? Is it just what he did? Was it just symbolic because you are relatively small customers or where is the truth? Can he cut, do you think he can cut off gas to the EU member state or not? Or maybe to some... Sounds like an economics minister, finance minister should answer that. I would argue that he has done a lot that we didn't think he would do. So I think there has to be an option for him and there is an option. It would cost Russia a lot to do it but of course he could do it and I think we should be prepared. That's why we're working very hard in Europe to repower EU, to actually have a stronger energy cooperation, not only in Europe but also with international partners but also to increase the pace in the transition. So I wouldn't say no to the question but perhaps it would cost him too much, I don't know. Maybe you want to add to this issue that you can cut the gas actually only once because after that you have also cut the trust that you could deliver it in all conditions in the future and that leads countries of course to build and choose other energy systems and other providers of energy. So there's a bigger price than he may even realize. There is a big price because this is a major change of course then in the energy system. When you once cut the pipeline, that's it. Who relies after that to the... And one other thing to it, he cannot deliver the gas to someone else in a short period of time. So the gas will be worthless. He couldn't transform it to Asia or somewhere else in a short period of time. So it will be stopped. It will be not sold anywhere else. My name is Adifemi Akinsanya with The Rise News. It's a small Nigerian network. But my question is actually about Turkey. Their hesitation for Finland and Sweden to join NATO has been quite strong and though not to underestimate the power of conversation and negotiation, it seems as though their dismay at the prospect of you joining NATO was quite strong. So what has changed? I understand that Foreign Minister Tavisholu has confirmed and you've already said that starting tomorrow there will be a delegation in Ankara, but is it just conversation that has made Turkey go from saying the both of your countries, harbor PKK terrorists as they call them to just, well if we have a conversation everything will be smoothed out. So do you have PKK representatives in your country or not? But as I said, we have a very strict rules on any terrorist acts or any terrorist preparations in our country and we take very seriously those limitations and rules that are put also by European Union. That's very, very clear. On other issues of course, if there are any requests of individual citizens or something like that, then we follow our rule of law practices. Our legal system is very clear on this issue. But I think this is also, this is of course a question to Finland and Sweden, but this is also a question to NATO, is the NATO Open Door policy valid or not? If there comes a moment when the Open Door policy is no more valid, that's a big change also in the NATO. Do you have anything to add? No, I think it's very hard to speculate about the motives because we got signals in the beginning in the process before we went for application, had positive signals. So what changed in between, I don't know. So for us taking this concern seriously, we should. We should do our homework and hopefully that could resolve the situation but also think that other NATO countries seize the benefits of Sweden and Finland being part of it and perhaps that also plays a part. So it's very hard to say, but it's not the first time that there have been these kind of processes in different sets of forums. So we'll see. Anyone else? We have time for maybe one more question if someone has one. Let me ask you both then, it feels like this conflict is going to go on for a long time. The economic crisis that comes out of it seems like it's only going to spread, food crisis because Ukraine is the bread basket of the world. Are we in a, I mean, you're a finance minister, are you, what kind of world do you imagine we're going into for the next few years? Because it feels like it's going to be high energy prices, food crises all over the world, presumably then migration crisis that come out of those food crises. It feels like a very different world than the last three years. It is a different world and it's more dangerous, it's more unsecure, but it depends on what's happening. Both in the war, what Russia actually does in Ukraine, how it continues, but also how we help Ukraine now. They have a lot of harvest that actually could be brought to market. How do we help them with that? So they also get their income from what they have done so far, but also what can we do on the energy side, we already talked about it in Europe and with international partners, and then also how international actors act now. When it comes to trade, when it comes to food, for instance, we know when countries actually make export restrictions, the prices are going up. So this is what's happening in some countries around the world. So we have to also have an international debate and discussion on how to handle the situation so we don't increase inflation and create problems for ourselves. Final thoughts on this? No, I think, of course, this is a global crisis now vis-a-vis the energy prices and food security issues and others. And I've met here also several African ministers and of course there's a major, major concerns what's going on and how this is influencing to the stability of those countries. And this is maybe something, again, little bit unpredictable consequences of this crisis or how to get the food products out of Ukraine and the shipping and so forth should be organized. And I have also the feeling that all this happened very rapidly in a couple of months time, but to fixing this will take a long time and maybe trying to look different solutions. But of course, what is obvious is that when we look, for example, the voting in the UN more than 140 countries, you know, condemning what Russia has been doing. So at least understanding is there that the major, major global rules has been violated and that there has been a strong global reaction. One big unpredictable element of this could be that Russia invades Finland. Do you think that's a serious prospect and are you prepared? We have always, of course, due to our history being prepared for that. We have been prepared for the military action. We have been prepared for the violation of our airspace, our land, our territory. We have been prepared for actually cyber and hybrid threats and so forth and that has been, that's in our DNA and that's a part of our defense mentally. Whoever wants to try to harm us will face the consequences from our side. And of course, when we are a member of the European Union, when we look how much solidarity there has already been for Ukraine, which is not a member currently of the European Union, how much more solidarity there would be for a country that is attacked, which is a European Union member. And then, of course, the NATO members would also increase the security. But I also add to that that we want also to be the security provider. We are looking also situation in the Baltic states. We are looking at the situation around the Baltic Sea and so forth. And I'm sure that Finland and Sweden as NATO members will contribute to the regional security as well. Final question. I think we have enough time. No, I'm sorry. They make the rules. Ministers, thank you so much. Pleasure to have this conversation. Thank you.