Our strength is a path to peace, weakness breeds more war - President Alar Karis

It is my great joy to honor the late Finnish statesman and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Martti Ahtisaari by giving the traditional “Ahtisaari lecture”. President Ahtisaari’s state visit to Estonia took place exactly three decades ago. Estonia was embarking on its journey back into Europe with Finland’s steadfast support. We confirmed our rightful place in a value system to which we belong by nature. The pursuit of Europe’s fundamental values of freedom and peace was something, to which President Ahtisaari dedicated his entire life.

Ahtisaari proved that even small nations can be great on the global stage – substance is what matters. The Finnish sisu, which is the same in Estonian – a concept we understand equally. We are kindred nations, the westernmost indigenous Finno-Ugric peoples, and the northernmost Europeans. We have been connected for millennia and our language has a common origin; our most ancient words are the same. As President Lennart Meri said at a dinner during President Ahtisaari’s 1994 visit: “Viro on suomalaisille ainoa paikka maailmasse, jossa liha on lihaa ja kala kalaa, veri on verta ja vesi vettä, ja pelikuvana tämä koske myös meitä virolaisia.” Our nations also share the same word for peace, by the way: your rauha is our rahu.

Martti Ahtisaari was born in Viipuri, Russian Vyborg, which was seized from Finland by force – might makes right. It is an approach that should have no place in international discourse and is particularly unacceptable to small nations. Ahtisaari was made a war refugee – or, in modern parlance, an internally displaced person. He knew the meaning of war, and that terrible experience equipped him with the credibility and persuasive charisma necessary for mediating peace between hostile parties. As an introduction, I wish to recall Ahtisaari’s instruction for achieving peace, which he himself briefly summarized in his Nobel acceptance speech: “Peace is a question of will.”

Although peace is seemingly our greatest desire and paragon, history is filled with “eternal peaces” that are substituted by subsequent wars with regrettable regularity. The ability, and above all the will, to learn from history requires greater effort. Our desire to live in peace must also encapsulate freedom, for there can be no peace for us without it. It is clear to the nations who exist alongside Russia that peace and freedom are not self-evidently guaranteed for an instant. We ourselves must establish its prerequisites. History is rich in lessons to guide us, the most famous of which comes from Ancient Roman times: Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum. “If you want peace, prepare for war.” The same concept, I might add, can be found in biology: an organism can only survive if it has an immune system capable of eliminating malicious intruders.

To achieve a peaceful world, we have created an international system and a bloodstream of legal frameworks meant to ensure that states’ sovereignty and territorial integrity are respected. We have defense-based unions that underpin lasting peace. We cooperate with like-minded nations to stand up against aggressors while simultaneously expanding members’ individual defense shields. All because we must, unfortunately, perpetually be ready to meet aggression.

Ahtisaari said, “Wars and conflicts are not inevitable. They are caused by human beings. There are always interests that are furthered by war.” His statement contains a warning: war is always a possibility. Sadly, war is a perennial part of human history and creating international structures to avoid future conflicts has not brought about the desired international peace. We saw the League of Nations fall apart as a guarantor of peace before the Second World War, and we see the UN’s obvious difficulties in ensuring peace and security in today’s world. Together, we must work to strengthen the vitality of our international bloodstream. I strongly advocate for the reform of the United Nations Security Council, as we must have a viable structure that can reliably provide peace and security for every nation. We must all do our part to achieve it. The most pressing UNSC issue today is the misuse of veto power, which paralyzes the Council far too often. Unfortunately, we have seen that international structures alone will not deliver peace.

If you ask AI which European countries Russia has engaged in war with over the last 500 years, its opening response is: “Listing all the European countries that have been at war with Russia over the past 500 years is a complex task due to the numerous conflicts. However, a list of some countries that have experienced hostilities with Russia includes Sweden, Poland, France, the UK, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania”. In any case, the list covers the entire Baltic Sea region.

Wondering which country might be attacked next has long been trivial. History has repeatedly shown that all of Europe could be next if only the chance is given. Therefore, European countries have been mobilizing against Russia since the days of Tsar Peter I to a greater or lesser degree of awareness. Europe and its eastern neighbor are engaged in a perpetual value-based struggle, because the European Union’s eastern border with Russia is also the line between the two different systems of values.

After visiting an exhibition opened on Tsar Peter I’s 350th anniversary, Russia’s present leader President Putin remarked, “Peter the Great waged the Great Northern War for 21 years. On the face of it, he was at war with Sweden taking something away from it… He was not taking away anything, he was returning. This is how it was.” Putin implied that the task of taking back what was important to the country now rested upon his shoulders. Everyone should be concerned by the skewed notion that the principle we broadly adopted after the Second World War – borders will no longer be altered by force – does not apply to Russia. Many countries could claim a right to certain territories by pointing at periods in history, but we have agreed upon a new reality and honor the agreements we have made.

From 1638–1914, Russia expanded its territory by about 142 square kilometers per day. We measure our success as nations by the number of allies, economic growth, and increase of social welfare. Russians on the other hand judge the success of Russia’s leaders by their ability to expand the borders and spheres of influence – in Russia, prestige is perceived through the size of its territory. Russian leaders who increase the country’s area are revered the most. As a billboard recently erected in Ivangorod, just across Estonia’s border with Russia, reads: “Granitsy Rossii nigde ne zakanchivayetsya” – Russia’s borders are endless.

Despite our geographic proximity, Europe and Russia differ vastly in terms of mindset and values. To Europeans, the “state” is for the people; in Russia, the people serve the state. The state primarily signifies power in Russia – its ruling elite, i.e. the regime. Democracy is foremost a threat to Russia’s current regime, meaning that every democratic state poses a threat to it in turn. I can say with deep conviction that even when the current regime changes, Russia’s attitude towards the West will not, as you cannot transform the DNA of a country that has been hardcoded with Western opposition. Russia has never focused on cultivating strong alliances – cooperation with others has been needs-based and confined to certain issues. Constant preparation for war has been ingrained in its people’s mindset and now, it has gone on the warpath again. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine came as no surprise to us. We know that from this point forward, is fruitless to base our strategies on an expectation that any fundamental change will happen in the east in the near future. Russia seizes anything left unguarded.

Russia does not care about having good relations with its biggest trade and investment partner. Throughout history, these relations have repeatedly been sacrificed whenever evil political goals demand it. Remember – the European Union was Russia’s largest trade partner and investor a little over a decade ago. High-level EU-Russia summits were held biannually, and ideas for closer cooperation – even a free-trade zone spanning from Lisbon to Vladivostok – were discussed. In some circles, there was even talk of it being time to move from easing visa requirements to full visa-free travel. Bilateral cooperation bolstered economic growth, people’s welfare increased, and the middle class was more prosperous than ever before. What was the response? The invasion of Crimea, and the rest is history.

To us, alliances and cooperation are fundamental elements for guaranteeing peace. We know that if you don’t deal with problems, then the problems will deal with you. Our present-day Free World Allies established the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to respond to the Russian threat. Maintaining an organization for defense is our united effort. Democracies are not aggressive. NATO’s main task is to keep the aggressor away from Europe, and it has done so successfully for the last 75 years of its existence. This aggressor has a name. Russia, a country with a hostile mindset, is a threat to each of us. However, it cannot be a threat to us all as we stand united.

Estonia has been a member of NATO, the world’s most powerful military alliance, for already two decades. Now, we can finally say that it is together with Finland, a country so close to us in so many ways. A few steps still remain in finalizing Sweden’s membership, but we can basically say that today finally, the entire Baltic Sea region is a unified defense area. Cooperation between NATO Allies is essential in conflicts that endanger the entire Alliance. Here, I particularly wish to stress the importance of transatlantic cooperation. Arguments over whether conflict is possible or when it might occur are unhelpful. Neither is there any use discussing where the situation is most critical, trying to tug the NATO shield here and there, north and south, as if competing over whether the greatest threats to our security lie in the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea, North Sea, or Baltic Sea regions. NATO will defend itself in every direction.

In all of history, there has been danger and conflict somewhere in the world. We must be prepared to counter every possible threat from every corner of the map and fully recognize that the Alliance’s security is indivisible. Therefore, whatever happens on the Mediterranean or the Black Sea greatly concerns Estonia as well. We contribute to the Alliance’s security and can be found wherever our Allies are: Estonia’s soldiers participate on missions in Iraq, Lebanon, Mozambique and we are present on the Mediterranean, participating in Operation IRINI.

Yet in addition to alliances, the bedrock of every state’s security are its independent defense capability and its will to defend. Estonia has seriously improved its defense capability over the last ten years. Per capita, our reserve army is the same size as Finland’s. Our defense budget has been 2% of GDP for the last decade, and has now risen to 3%. Over this period, we developed a rapid-mobilization reserve army system, established a whole-of-government defense concept and we are purchasing world-class defense- and attack weaponry. We regularly exercise our defense plans. For us, readiness is crucial. In addition to holding regular planned exercises, we also organize frequent snap exercises where a reservist receives a signal and is required to literally drop everything and rush to their battalion at extremely short notice. Now we are also building a line of defensive infrastructure on our borders jointly with other Baltic neighbors. All so that Estonia will be defended from the very first meter and at the very first minute.

You don’t have to convince someone who has lived under occupation that freedom is a value worth dying for. It’s another thing to cultivate the will to defend among those who have enjoyed peace and freedom their entire lives. We must consciously nurture and develop the populations’ will to defend so that it endures from generation to generation. For this, we must teach history and boost knowledge, an education aimed at shaping that critical mindset.

For the historical blink of an eye, a mid-20th-century an Iron border was drawn between the value systems shared by the Nordic and Baltic countries. It was installed by force and fortunately did not last long enough to cause our longing for freedom to buckle. That border has been crushed, and it is a reality that must finally sink into every analyst’s consciousness. Cooperation with close neighbors is crucial in the event of any conflict because we are integrated in very many respects. It is this cooperation between neighbors that I’d now like to focus upon.

Cooperation between Estonia and Finland, nations as close as brothers, is simple. We have carried ourselves through history and always helped each other whenever possible. We have suffered similar trauma, if you will, from the similar experience of Russian subjugation, albeit at different points in history. We both know the meaning of Isoviha. Finns were acquainted with the idea from 1713–1721 when occupied by Russian forces, to use a modern term. Finland was fortunately spared this Isoviha experience, which plagued Estonians during the Great Northern War as well, after the Second World War. It was then that true Isoviha gained momentum in Estonia along with deportations and imprisonments – in the wakes of 1940’s.

Our strength and invincibility are rooted in even greater integration and common pursuits. It’s something we’ve known for centuries. Estonians and Finns stood side by side in the name of freedom first in the Estonian War of Independence, then in the Winter War and the Continuation War. Estonia and Finland were subjugated by a single state for nearly 300 years of recent history. We were annexed by the Swedish Empire, then conquered by the Russian Empire from 1809–1917. You could say that our first joint collective-defense experience dates to the Swedish era. For many years, Finnish soldiers served in the Swedish Army on the territories of present-day Estonia and Latvia. In the 1620s, military colonies overwhelmingly composed of Finnish soldiers were established in Põltsamaa and Tartu. In the late 17th century, two- to three-thousand, and at the peak, even more than seven thousand Finnish soldiers were stationed in Estonia and Livonia, constituting a minimum of one-third and a maximum of two-thirds of the entire Finnish military force.

Though we would all be in a rather perilous situation if we were to face Russia alone, we are invincible when united. Defense circles have recognized that the Baltic Sea region is a conceptual whole in terms of security. We must proceed from this knowledge in every area, as we are a quite a harmonious ensemble in other aspects as well, particularly economic cooperation.

The Nordic and Baltic countries cannot be held separate in the field of security. From Russia’s perspective, the Baltic Sea region is a single strategic focus and area of potential warfare. It is a danger that all nations bordering the Baltic Sea share. Our response can only be united. Given the realness of this danger, we must prepare a common defense against it; one that is taken seriously. This primarily entails strong cooperation between the Nordic and Baltic states, but also, and crucially, throughout the broader Baltic Sea region and particularly with Germany and Poland. The danger and our sense of it are common to every Ally, and not one country on the Baltic Sea can regard Russia as a mere abstract threat to others. We are all already in a hybrid war with our giant eastern neighbor and are engaged in that conflict daily. This isn’t merely my opinion. Everyone has realized it in the wake of Russia’s attack on Ukraine.

I’ll give just a few examples. The recently published Danish Defense Intelligence Service intelligence-based assessment of the external conditions for Danish national security and interests can be briefly summarized as saying it’s been many years since the country’s threat landscape was as complicated as it is now. The dangers include Russian misinformation campaigns and other hybrid tactics attempting to weaken the West and Western unity. Then, there are cyber attack threats posed by countries like Russia and China. Although the prospect of war is seen as indirect, the report separately describes the threat of a Russian military attack. For instance, Russian intelligence has focused on critical Danish infrastructure, and the aggressor is likely drafting plans for sabotage on Danish territory in the event of an escalating conflict or war. This is mainly due to Denmark’s role as a transit country for NATO troops.

Thoughts expressed at a recent security conference in Sälen, Sweden confirm the same. “An armed attack against Sweden cannot be ruled out. War can also come to us.” Alas, many still cannot conceive of war truly reaching Sweden, Denmark, Norway, or Germany, drawing mental lines between the eastern and western Baltic Sea. Let me assert that if a conflict does break out, then there will be no mental line dividing the eastern and western Baltic Sea, and we must factor that into our plans.

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius’s recent statements and decisions on regional security show that the Germans’ analysis confirms the same – we must establish a credible deterrent, because we live near an unpredictable neighbor. The security of the Suwałki Gap, Gotland’s defense, keeping the Baltic Sea open, and functioning energy connections and critical infrastructure are absolutely crucial to us all in order to guarantee lasting peace, freedom, and stability in every state.

All Allies’ defense capability, including that of the Baltic States, must be directed towards both national defense and Allied protection in the event of a military attack. It must be all-encompassing and grounded in the ability to view Europe and the North Atlantic as a common arena along with a complete military logistics chain and leadership structure. This entails cooperative capabilities between Allies and the compatibility of leadership and communication systems. We all share common responsibility in the credibility of the Alliance’s deterrence.

Our eastern neighbor appears gigantic, and is furthermore a nuclear power with a population of close to 145 million. This in and of itself stands as a warning. However, the knowledge must not paralyze us. One fine lesson from history comes from former Finnish foreign minister Eljas Erkko: in a message to Paasikivi prior to the Winter War and negotiations with the Russians, he said, “Forget that Russia is a big country.” Indeed, there’s no point getting overly intimidated by a mindset that stresses the country’s size.

It also helps to take a look at the bigger picture and scrutinize our corner of NATO. Russia has a declining population, and the average male life expectancy is below our pension age. Its GDP is approximately 1.8 trillion euros, most of which comes from the unsustainable sale of natural resources. The Baltic Sea region has a combined population of around 154 million and our average male life expectancy is a decade more, meaning a better standard of living. We have an overall GDP of about 6.7 trillion euros. We number slightly more and are remarkably wealthier. Do we ourselves understand the possibilities and capacity that come with this? Do we realize with total clarity that everything each of us does to further our country is also incredibly necessary and beneficial to our neighbors?

Throughout history, the Baltic Sea states have been one another’s greatest trade partners. Our mutual exports total over 550 billion euros – the approximate amount the European Union imports from China. To endure through crisis situations, we must ensure the supply of critical raw materials, necessary goods, and services, in addition to cooperation in the banking sector, financial stability, a functioning business environment, and trade with the greater world. United, we can guarantee these things for each other; working together, it is simpler for us.

Closer cooperation must also be our strategic goal to ensure the functioning of critical infrastructure and operation of critical cables and pipelines. The recent Balticconnector incident serves as a warning. It’s good that we have a variety of infrastructure connections, though we certainly do not yet have enough. Particularly in the energy sector, we need additional unseen networks that keep our connections running uninterrupted. It is crucial not only for the stable operation of critical systems, but to ensure economic stability. We must bridge this gap together to establish common energy infrastructure that provides cheaper electricity to the entire region.

Whereas our eastern neighbor’s children learn in kindergarten that their homeland is to be defended, aspects of civil defense have been overlooked in Estonia and several other states in the region. Here, Finland is a role model. We must work to boost citizens’ awareness of how to act in crisis situations. Every person should be capable of getting by independently for at least a week. I know Finns don’t need to be told how crucial it is to maintain the will to defend for as long as possible. You have the sisu for it in spades. Nevertheless, it is a topic that must be addressed in most European countries to strengthen our defense shield.

Cyber security matters in the Digital Age, especially seeing as how we are all highly digitalized societies. The NATO Center of Excellence in Tallinn runs the biggest cyber defense exercises in the Alliance, and actually, in the entire world: Locked Shields. Estonia is one of several Allied countries that has pledged its cyber capabilities to the Alliance for both defensive and, if necessary, offensive operations. On a personal level, young Estonians are well-versed in basic cyber hygiene. Raising awareness of this topic is an eternal process that should start from an early age.

General Sun Tzu states in The Art of War, “The ultimate achievement is to defeat the enemy without ever coming to battle.” We should, therefore, aim to be an Alliance that is powerful enough to achieve peace without battle. It is crucial to understand that weakness does not guarantee security. Only our strength is a path to peace, while our weakness breeds more war. We have an ambitious goal, and it requires firm actions. The deterrence we create must be convincing enough for any enemy, and also must be clearly communicated. NATO has been good at deterrence, but we need to strive to keep it just as strong in the future.

Europe unfortunately cannot carry on in its casual peacetime rhythm – we have to accelerate, because some steps must be taken faster than what we are accustomed to. Here, I primarily mean boosting the defense industry’s production capacity, resolving supply-chain problems, and necessary standardization. Finland has surpassed others and managed to bring its own industry up to speed with today’s reality more rapidly, increasing the production volumes of 155-mm ammunition to an outstanding degree. European defense budgets and procurements have grown in terms of numbers, but it is still far from sufficient. One outcome of the next high-level summit in Washington D.C. could be a pledge to quickly fill the most pressing shortfalls in our armories, especially when it comes to ammunition and air defense. European Allies should play a major role in this project to underline fair burden-sharing.

There is another important issue to resolve in addition to developing readiness and capability. Once again, Europe is witnessing a land being liberated by blood and the price that Ukrainians pay for their and our freedom. War is being waged in Europe and above all, this war must be won for our peace and freedom to endure. I wish to stress three important aspects: Ukrainians’ longing for freedom, our moral obligations, and our need to continually fulfill these obligations.

Ukrainians are capable of winning – they have proven this by resisting to military aggression for nearly a decade already and they have maintained control of 80% of their territory. Ukrainians are bursting with the will to defend and to regain their occupied areas. They have already demonstrated that a smaller country can defeat a bigger one if its friends assist in the fight. This assistance is based on moral principles and it is every country’s obligation in any case, as there can be no neutrality in honoring the values upon which we have all agreed in the UN Charter.

Peace and freedom always have a price. Estonia has calculated that Ukraine will be victorious if every European country contributes just 0.25% of its GDPs towards assisting it in the coming years. It isn’t actually a large amount. The slice of sausage on our sandwich won’t be much thinner because of it. Ukraine’s defeat, on the other hand, would have a drastic impact on our security, and thereby on our welfare. Plus, for us it is a bargain compared to what fighting a war would cost. For example, according to some estimates Russia plans to spend over 10% of its GDP on the war in 2024. Therefore, our aid to Ukraine should be seen as an investment into strengthening our own freedom and democracy. I cannot agree thus with the various voices claiming that our support to Ukraine comes at the expense of our own citizens’ welfare or security.

Putin has not only decided to conquer Ukraine, but has issued a challenge to all democratic nations on behalf of the world’s other dictators. Thus, he is also fighting for North Korea and Iran. We now have enough evidence to confirm that Russia is fighting with weapons supplied by those two countries. If we as the Western community shrink away from the challenge those dictators have cast upon us, then the world order, and our future, will be drawn up by Putin and others like him. It is a decisive crossroads in our history; a moment of truth and courage for our generation that will impact the generations to come. Ukraine is fighting the good fight, suffering enormous human sacrifices, losing its best young men and women, and confronting human tragedy on a massive scale. Our task is much simpler: we only need to provide Ukraine the means to win. Failing to do so will indicate that democracies are weak. And weakness always provokes an aggressor. It is not evil, but rather our silence and weakness that pave the way for the greatest terror.

If we are reluctant to show force and determination, we would be seen as weak and this is not a road to peace. It is a highway for even bigger wars, as history has shown on countless occasions. That is why I have also advocated to dispose of every taboo we harbor when delivering our assistance to Ukraine. We must get past this self-deterrence. Our Cold-War-era thinking and restrictions cannot render us impotent when history calls upon us to act. We must remember that the greatest achievements in world history began with great, bold leadership. If we fail, then this failure will bear our names. Every now and then, we come to a crossroads where we must decide if we have the courage to choose the path pocked with obstacles and thereby achieve greatness. Ukrainians have made this choice, and it should be easy for us to support them in this.

I would like to end on a positive note. We should actually see opportunity in the problems we’re facing. Uncomfortable situations usually encourage us to act. The European Union evolves in crises. Close cooperation between the Nordic and Baltic countries, as well as the entire Baltic Sea region, plays a part – together, we can strengthen the EU’s security architecture and NATO. We can only win if we take the next steps towards bolstering common deterrence and ensuring resilience over the coming years.

Firstly, for the European Union to persevere, we must increase the defense capability of our hopefully expanding area of peace and direct more resources towards defense, as the “end of history” is far from being at hand. The European Union and its individual member states must increase defense investments and defense-industry capability, as well as strengthen their own armed forces. Being the world’s most powerful economic union, the EU has a powerful role to play here. I support the ideas of establishing a position of Defense Commissioner, revising the EU’s defense strategy, and adapting the European Investment Bank’s rules to the new challenges, as we must have a source of funding that also permits investments into military development. I support an ambitious solution to boosting the European Peace Facility, as it is the only EU-level mechanism that jointly provides military support to Ukraine and our partners. We need greater defense investment, as well as investments into protecting the external borders of the EU. And naturally, we must also review and strengthen our critical supply chains.

Secondly, I believe it is essential to conduct even closer cooperation in every area between the Nordic and Baltic states primarily, but also all other countries engaged in the security of Baltic Sea region, like the US, UK, France and others. We are connected by a similar mindset, a longing for peace and freedom, our respect for democracy, and, why mince words – a common tangible enemy. Together, we must make NATO’s defense plans realistically applicable by tying them to specific forces, capabilities, and command structures. In Nordic-Baltic cooperation, we must guarantee that these plans are fully adequate to counter military threats in the Baltic Sea region on a tactical level as well. And most importantly, we must constantly drill these plans – from continental and transatlantic logistics all the way to defensive and offensive operations. The Nordic and Baltic states should be examples to our NATO Allies, calling on others to invest at least the agreed-upon 2% of GDP into national defense, as well as to develop the military capabilities and weaponry that future warfare and Russia’s threat require.

We have the possibility to benefit remarkably from closer cooperation in every field – it was, of course, right here on the Baltic Sea that we achieved prosperity back in the Hanseatic era. We have stitched this region together with dozens of threads, but more connections can still be made, especially when building infrastructure for green energy and establishing new transport corridors. I dream of the Rail Baltic project developing even further northward one day – we should have a train that runs from Germany through Poland and the Baltic States, up into Norway.

Finally, I am one who is firmly convinced that there is no alternative to transatlantic cooperation. Therefore, I appeal for greater transatlantic cooperation to ensure the global survival of democracy, peace, and security. Together, we must be advocates for breathing new life into every project that binds this great common democratic value system in the next European Commission – from negotiating a free trade agreement to cooperation in an alliance of democracies and defense projects. No matter who the United States’ next president is, our collective proposal to them must be too good to refuse.

Peace is a question of will, as Ahtisaari said. Today, it is above all a question of whether we have the will to take the inevitable, necessary steps towards guaranteeing freedom, welfare, and security.

Kiitos!