 Well, that is a good introduction to this next panel, which is Preparedness, Resilience and Global Energy Security during the pandemic. The conversation will be led by Sharon Burke, colleague at New America, who runs our resource security program. She's a former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy Security, and she will be in conversation with Otto Reti, the Senior Vice President of Corporate Affairs and Communications at Forking, who's one of the sponsors of our conference. So thank you for that, sir. He was formerly Prime Minister, Secretary of the Ministry of Defense in Finland, and also Director of the National Defense Policy Unit in Finland, an alternative to Sharon now. Thank you so much, Peter. It is great to be here with this wonderful forum again this year, and especially great to be here with Otto Reti, because Otto has a long military career behind him. He rose to the rank of Lieutenant General and was an important leader in the Finnish Defense Ministry, but he also works on energy security. So we're going to talk, we're going to start by talking about the theme that you just saw in that video, about this confluence between hard security and human security, whether or not we're prepared for it, and I would submit to you that the coronavirus is a case in point. Otto, before I ask you to react to the video, can you tell us something about that background that you have behind you, because it looks like something special? That's actually, I mean, the company's showroom, which has the background of social media wall. Social media is, I mean, it's going to pay much attention to social media earlier. Now it's our daily business. We need to follow carefully what happens around, and this really affects our business and our abilities to operate. I'm not sure that I want all my social media like looming over me like that, but who's this to you? Let me ask you, so about the video, what did you think that, the pitch that we're making for natural security instead of national security, that we've got to balance the two? I must say I really like the video. It's really takes the chains into account. However, for me, it's still missing some parts. And the one is that when we talk about national security or international security or national security or national security, we need to go deeper in our comprehensive approach. Our nation has done it from the 1960s. We have trained and educated our people for this kind of comprehensive approach and security. And I chair the National Security Committee for five years. If I tell you the composition of the committee, it tells you the way we look at the issue. I was chairing, as a permanent secretary of the Defense of Ministry of Defense, the committee which is composed of all the permanent secretary of different ministries. It has the prime minister's office, the state sector from there. It has the state sector from the president's office. All the chief of security officers like the Defense Command, police, border guard, customs and so on. All of them are there. Plus, we have industry. We have NGOs, Secure Supply Agency and so on. So, it's really a comprehensive approach to prepare the nation for any kind of crisis. And I say that I'm from the military myself. I'm a U.S. underage also. So, I have this kind of feeling of military is a key player. However, it's only a one tool in our toolbox. And that has to be improved carefully. Yeah, I completely agree with you. And that certainly was the upshot of that video, is that we need to be able to approach security in a different way at this point. So, what you're saying is Finland's always done it that way as a sort of all of government, as we would say here, comprehensive securities solution. It's fair to say that that's a longstanding approach for your government. Of course, I can say today like that, but it's not really the truth. In the 1960s, the society was building a way that we tried to train and educate our people to support the military defense of the country so that we can take all the powers from the civilian side, all the support to military if the need comes. Because we had the history very close to us. And we, I was still living in the big nation and our Eastern border, who we used to try to attack Finland a couple of times and failed in a way. But in the 80s, I would say 1980s, 1990s, it turned to be more like a total security concept where we actually moved the military into the military box and we took all the other players around the table and realised that we cannot handle any crisis in today's world without involving every single actor in the society. And it's not going to happen in one day, so we need to educate people also. So, we started the National Defence Courses where we take the cream of the society, I mean members of parliament and senior officers from ministries, industry, church, universities, they always have a similar composition of people in the course. So, we have trained from 1960, four courses per year, the main, the major leaders of Finland, from every single sector in three weeks' course to understand what the comprehensive security is. And they have played these table top exercises, as one being the prime minister and president and so on, having these different kind of scenarios and the scenario has changed from the military scenarios to very much civilian crisis, like COVID-19. And I must say that we survived COVID-19 pretty well. Of course, I must say also that even though we had plans, we had the buildings built, it was not 100% success. And one reason is that the Finns have a tendency to grade the wheel always again. They don't follow those procedures, they have studied and learned earlier, they want to create something new always. This happened also when COVID-19 started. I think that's probably not unique to Finland. I think it's human nature to want to reinvent the wheel. But I think that the way that Finland has built a shared sense of security that's then underscored by the way the leadership acts, the way you train people, all of that, I think that's where the United States needs to go. And we've been there before in the Cold War, we had a much more integrated civilian military defense. And I think it's where we need to go now. Is that what you think Europeans want to see from the United States, is that kind of more robust concept of security? Yes, and it's also something we would like to see in the most of European countries. This is not in every country the case. And I would say that one of the issues is the civilian preparedness in the society. And most of the nations dismissed their security supply agencies after the Cold War. We did not. We sustained that. And this was the first time you remind for the career in the military and now five years in the civilian side that we actually took our emergency powers act into use and we opened our national emergency supply agency stores. I've never seen this happening in normal times. Now we did it. So I think this kind of preparedness goes deep into the roots of society's ability to survive has to be reinvented in most countries. And hopefully, the U.S. is doing that also because crises are different. And it's actually as from the military thing and I would say the enemy is already inside. It is also... What do you mean by that? It means that, you know, we are all connected to internet. Cyber security is there. And I mean, it's not something which is behind your borders. It's inside the country. And we have civilian unrest. We have a lot of issues ongoing, not only in the U.S. but around the world. And it's something you can defend by putting the military to the borders. It is something where you can utilize military capabilities if the military is well trained for that. But it's not something you can defend by military only. Military is needed, definitely. We need military forces for national security reasons and for international security also. But it's not the only tool. And so you need societal resilience and that requires more tools in the toolbox. Yeah, I would say one of the issues is that when we took this Immersive Powers Act into the hands of the political leadership and started to, in a way, interfere in the individual rights in Finland, when a very democratic country like Nordic are, it was something special. I think that the history, the education, the conscription we still have has affected in a way that every single person in Finland has some kind of personal touch to security. So there was this kind of acceptance for actions by the politicians in Finland. It was much easier to execute those actions than in many other countries where this kind of history has been fading away. Do you think, do Europeans still wanna see the United States play that kind of role, bringing our values, our societal resilience to the table? What do you think at this point, given where things are, what do you think Europeans want to see from the United States? Of course, I can only speak on my own behalf on that in that case, but... Well, I'll just be your fan, so that counts. I mean, could it be, but what I hear and see, of course, it's something that we want to see U.S. still to protect the democratic values in the world, as U.S. has done earlier. But when it does that, the approach has to be, I would say somewhat redefined, replant, that we have this comprehensive approach. We understand the history of the, of the so-called crisis area. We also want to have U.S. to be transparent, cooperative, and understanding partner. And this is quite natural from our side. And of course, lately, some of the issues have not been like that, as we all know. But at the same time, Europe has its own problems, also. Right, you want to... Well, we'll have time to elaborate on that, and I also want to invite the audience to start submitting questions at any time, and we'll take them as we, as our conversation continues. Well, let's talk about some of the problems that Europe is experiencing. What specifically concerns you the most at this point? Of course, for me, as a main phenomena, what concerns us is kind of extreme its uprise and nationalistic movements. And to defend ourselves from the crisis of today, and to have a good economical situation in Europe, we need open borders, and we need to have a good cooperation between countries. Energy is one of the issues. We have been promoting in this company as a market model, energy-only market. Now it seems that in many countries, this kind of national thinking is growing, which means that the capacity markets are coming in, which means that every nation is building the extra capacity, not sharing. And I come from the Nordic area, where we have this North Pole area for energy, where we share the same market area. We sell electricity in four minutes or four years ahead, depending on the situation in one market. So everything is based on energy security, not based on the capacity we have in our own country. It's based on that one, plus the grid system, plus the transmission system between countries, and the capacity in other countries too. So flexibility is one of the areas there. So I would say this kind of protectionism is one of the key elements I fear. Of course, then we go to the Belarus situation and others where we have problems, but that's in different cases. When it comes to Western countries in Europe, it's kind of a cooperative, non-nationalistic thinking is somewhat fading away. And that scares me. That scares me too. And I think we're seeing a similar phenomenon here in the United States. So it's a global challenge that I hope it's something that our countries can work on together. But you mentioned energy as an area where the Nordic countries for sure are able to cooperate. That's not always, energy security has not always been a unifying theme for Europeans. It's been a somewhat divisive topic over the years. Especially now that you've got that unique perspective of having had a military career and now an energy career. Can you talk a little bit about that in Germany and Germany's energy footprint and how you look at some of these divisive energy dynamics in the region? Yeah, Fortum as a company, we just acquired 75% of a company called Unibrow, which is a big major energy company in Germany and in many other countries too, also in the Nordics and in Russia. And Germany has a challenge at the moment because they are dismissing their nuclear capacity by the end of 21. Same time they are closing their coal power plants. So they need to secure their energy supply and gas will play a major role in that one. And then comes the question of gas pipes coming from Russia, where there are seven of those coming. And now of course the question is about those too. That has been in the discussions and I'm sure you will ask it anyway. So I took the top nine. Well, you saved me the trouble. Okay, that's good. But let's just to push a little bit on why Germany is in the bind that it's in because Germany has a very laudable commitment to promoting renewable energy and making a big step forward into the energy transition. And I know that as a company that also invests a great deal in renewable energy that you support that, but with an industrialized country such as Germany, it doesn't add up, does it? Not right now. So that's why you're saying natural gas has such an important role to play. It could play several decades, an extremely important role, especially in the center of Europe, where gas is not only for the industry because the heating is taken care of by gas also. We don't have, we have a cash heating distribution network in our country so we can use any kind of source for heat. Is it excess heat from the data centers or gas or nuclear or whatever? But in Germany, gas plays a very crucial role in heating houses also. So for them, gas and making gas cleaner, then we come to height of the trend. And that's one of the reasons why we actually bought the company, the Uniport, they have a massive gas trading, the global commodities business where the gas trading is the major issue. They have gas storages, they have a gas transmission, they have a gas fire plant. So they have the knowledge of gas and they also extremely well into the hydrogen business which is the future step for gas becoming cleaner. We all know that at least in Europe where the trend is now very strongly closed coal plants. And of course we all also understand that the next one will be gas because that's fossil too. But understanding is also there that there will be, it's a long transition phase. When it comes to energy transition, I would say there's three issues which we need to take into account of keeping our minds. One of them is that the energy has to be cheap enough for individual customers or industries or societies and has to be made in a sustainable way. And the third one is that there needs to be a secure supply guaranteed in every step we take. And that is something we need to consider carefully. And there needs to be a grand plan behind the energy transition and how companies now having this one of the key elements in our policies to be one of the major players in the energy transition in Europe. So we have the knowledge, we have every single kind of production in our genes and we have a very strong will to make the world clearer. So that is worth celebrating. I congratulate you, but I just wanna ask you as a pragmatic matter too. You know, going through a long energy transition that involves reliance on gas, it's gonna be really problematic. And certainly when you look at the trend lines, the global economy is still about 80% dependent on fossil fuels and global emissions of greenhouse gases have really not declined. So we're not getting to where we need to go and a continued reliance on gas is also not gonna get us there. So, and again, you come out of a very pragmatic tradition as a military officer, are we gonna get where we need to go? Are we gonna succeed in the energy transition in making a transition away from greenhouse gas generating fuels? It's something I have to believe on. Otherwise, I wouldn't work in the company where I'm at the moment. And this is the only way to go because we need to do energy transition in the whole world. I know that there will be a long delay when it comes to Asia, for example, when it comes to Russia. I mean, look in Europe, we have a 90 gigawatts of care goal at the moment. China has 1,200 and they are building 200 gigawatts more at the moment. So it's two times more they're building at the moment and Europe has at the moment. And every single plant, coal plant in Europe has a year when it's gonna be closed, already decided. So it's from, for us, I think it's possible. And I also believe that there will be new technologies a lot during the next, I would say, 15, 20 years. And hydrogen is one of those which is maybe there as an industrial product in 10, 15, 20 years. So I believe... You believe it will happen. Okay, I mean, I do too, but I also... Yeah, I mean, like you said, what choice do we have? It's because if we fail the consequences for societies all over the world are extreme and it would be very hard to build a defense for that world. So I agree with you that we have to believe it's possible and then make the investments in the plans and getting there. You and I have talked, I'm gonna make a pivot here. So bear with me. You and I have talked a number of times now and one of the points of discussion that we always said that's always very interesting and where we don't always agree is Russia. And you mentioned Russia, so you brought it up. It's hard as an American and I see that we have a couple of questions and one of them is about the role of social media and seeing that as a virus in of itself. And of course, as a former defense person, for me, that's all about Russia and the way that Russia is attacking my country. But you have a... The Finland shares a very long border with Russia and you have a different point of view. I think it'd be interesting for our audience to hear what you have to say about that. So let me put you on the spot and is it possible to get along with Russia and also reject the president's approach to promoting his own version of security? That's a very tough question to answer but let me put it this way that we have been living here all the time and we had Russia as our neighbor. We have been in a war with Russia in the past and we have been able to sustain good relations even though things are not always something we like in Russia. And I learned good principle from one of the... I think it was President Arthasari who said it earlier that when you do peace negotiations, agreeing that you disagree is already an agreement. And I personally believe strongly that the only way to operate with Russia is to be tough, clear with your message. You can disagree. You have to disagree in certain issues. At the same time, you need to cooperate. You need to talk. Isolation of a nation you don't like or political leadership you don't like is never a solution in my mind. And of course, we have to live with Russia and when it comes to energy, the argument that Russia is using energy as a political tool, I can say that some other nations are nowadays using energy as a political tool also, not only Russia, from individual nation point of view. What could you possibly mean by that? Let me continue. I'll let you think about that. No, but we have had the Germany, for example, has been using Russian energy for decades with no problems. And I personally believe that the business between Europe and Russia is extremely important from the security point of view. As long as we have connections and as long as we have discussions and as long as we are depending in one way or another on each other, it makes sure that we have some kind of interaction on call. And when it comes to gas, I'm not defending no stream to anything else like that. I just say that the gas pipe has two ends. The other one brings gas. The other end brings euros. And I think in today's world, if the one matters more, that's the euro end at the moment. Russia needs the money. And that makes Russia to behave in a certain way when it comes to energy. In gas supply, Europe can also have many sources, as we all know. And we have 21 LNG terminals in Europe. Germany is building two more. At least the political decision is that there will be two more. So there's another option too. So then actually the price dictates where the gas is bought from. We have a problem also in Europe about, the new stream too is about 50 PCM. The same amount is fading away from the European production by 2030. So we need to fill the gap somehow because we need the gas at the moment. LNG, if the price is correct, will be the one. Pipeline will be, the bypass will be the one if the price is correct. So there's so many options at the moment. I'm just looking at a question that came in and I've been weaving the questions into the discussion but I'm trying to figure out how to pose it. But the person who's asking the question is talking about the unbridled, technocratic neoliberalism is politically toxic and how do we transform to an economy that enhances global and national security based on equity and the greater good for all? And I think to some degree, you started to answer this question already when you were talking about the energy transition but bring it all home for us to round out the discussion about if you said that the rising tide of nationalism, the sort of crumbling commitment to democratic values, the pressure that's coming from places like Russia. Well, I'm saying that you didn't really say that. The challenges, okay, then we both agree on that. The challenges of the energy transition and of even if we succeed in the right timeframe, which we don't have very much time, we have about 12 years I think is what the United Nations says. We still have to deal with the consequences that are locked in. So, how do we bring that all together into a more constructive vision? Again, you said before you were optimistic. You're still optimistic when you put it together like that with a question like this that's inherently skeptical. Yeah, I'm optimistic when it comes to climate change. I'm hoping that people must realize where we are heading to. That's something people must realize. There's no other option existing. However, I know that there are nations where this will take much longer time than it should take. The only solution is this kind of, it's nice to say, the only solution is a strong political will and cooperation across the borders because climate change is a fight which cannot be fought inside the country. It has to be fought together. And then technical solutions. US, for example, is full of new ideas of factory technology, SMRs, small and medium-sized, small modular reactors. So these issues like this, when they are in the market and they can change the energy climate, but at the same time, I'm only talking about energy here. That's all 20% of the total emissions. Then we need to talk about agriculture, infrastructure, transportation, and so on, industries. So there's a lot to do in that sense. And I think Europe has the possibility because we have a high ambition level to show the example to the world in that sense. And I think the European Commission's latest decisions show that we are trying to do that, to be carbon neutral by 2050 and having a 55% reduction by 2035. And that's an aim I also want to support. With full full heart. Well, I think you see a lot of progress across the United States will be able to join you in that. And I just want to finish on a note too, to say that I understand the question that we got was kind of hostile to technology, but I think innovation is going to be a really important force for change here for the better. And we just have to make sure that we're harnessing it in that way. And I think you've laid out a compelling vision for how the United States and the nations of Europe and Finland in particular can work together for our security interests. And especially if we're defining security more broadly than just as force of arms, but as something that comes from a whole government as we would say here. So Arthur, I want to thank you very much for the conversation. Every time we talk, I learned something new and a new point of view that I think I need to take on board. And I'm glad that you could share that experience with our audience. Thank you so much.