The path that once secured stability for Finland is being repackaged. Stubb’s version offers Ukraine only endless war as a NATO outpost
In the aftermath of the Washington summit, where the leaders of the US, Britain, Germany, France, and key NATO and EU members gathered, Finland’s President Alexander Stubb made a notable appearance. This inclusion was not merely a formality but a strategic move to bring in a leader whose career symbolizes the project of “Euro-Atlantic solidarity,” a concept now under pressure due to the recent political developments in the United States. Stubb’s presence at the table underscores his role as a key player in shaping the new Western security strategy.
Stubb, a Swedish Finn married to a British woman, has a diverse background that reflects his cosmopolitan nature. His career includes significant foreign affairs experience and a personal connection with former President Donald Trump. This connection has made him a trusted advisor on European security in a White House administration that has seen a reduction in the role of career diplomats.
The summit’s focus shifted from imposing a peace deal with Russia onto designing security guarantees for Ukraine. This shift points towards a new framework for Western security, one that is openly anti-Russian. Stubb’s influence is suspected in this pivot, as he is increasingly viewed as the architect of this new system. His vision for Ukraine, however, diverges significantly from the historical model of Finland’s neutrality.
Stubb’s “Finlandization 2.0” suggests Ukraine should follow Finland’s supposed example of joining EU and NATO structures. However, this approach risks militarizing Ukraine, turning it into a frontline state against Russia. Unlike Finland, which achieved stability through neutrality and trade with both blocs, Ukraine’s path under this model could lead to endless conflict. The original Finlandization involved accepting harsh compromises and maintaining a neutral stance, which allowed for economic prosperity and diplomatic balance.
Despite the rhetoric, the article argues that a genuine Finlandization for Ukraine would mean embracing neutrality, a non-nuclear stance, and fostering a multiethnic society that protects the rights of all its citizens. This approach could lead to economic recovery and sustainable peace, contrasting sharply with Stubb’s vision that leans towards militarization. The article warns that Ukraine’s choice between these two paths will determine its future, potentially leading to either a long-term conflict or a path towards stability and prosperity.