The timing of this content is spot on. The world is in flames and a sound of reason is needed. Never stop making these videos. Brilliant content.

I was once in sweden and later in finland. Sweds are kinde nice but chill mode and clean cities and attitude in general is so amazing in Finland. This country is just amazing.

You are awesome Sir!!!Thank you for your insight! Slava Ukraine!!

Love the new Stubbalicious analysis. Clear and concise as always, thanks Alex.

So glad to see your listenership growing. Alex you provide a much needed voice.

Thank you. Prof. Snubb. For this great series on Russia, NATO , Ukraine & others involved. It’s an excellent cometary.

It's a great series of lectures. Alexander Stubb is a fantastic communicator!

Very well explained & presented. I have learned a lot in just a few minutes of your lecture !

Alex, I have just found your series and tonight have begun to 'catch up' by watching past dispatches. Thank you for a very intelligent and enlightening series! I am glad that in this video (#9), you FINALLY alluded to the cause and the purpose of NATO's formation (4:10): To provide a secure military deterrent to a beligerent (Soviet) Russia. It is for this that I find it difficult to understand Putin's stated annoyance with NATO's growing presence at Russia's border. Putin and Russia have always been the justification for the existence and the persistence of NATO! Putin has stated that NATO represents an 'existential' threat to Russia. Rather, NATO represents an existential threat to: Putin and his kleptocratic dictatorship which is sustained by the following institutions: a. Oligarchs placed at the head of all major industries; b. a propaganda machine; c. a subservient judicial/police system with the Law of Rule; d. Undivided governance providing zero checks and balances. It would indeed be intolerable for Putin to have a free Democratic/capitalistic European state at his border, demonstrating the strength of the West to Russia's populace.

The Finnish army is huge in proportion to the population. I would say that Finland and Sweden are more than welcome at NATO. Plus, both countries have amazing Heavy Metal bands, which should be mandatory condition to join anything, really! 🤜🤛

Point 1: good job Point 2: thank you Point 3: Greetings :)

Always very clearly explained...hard to get for the Italian Left and Right

As a swede i can clearly say we would not join nato if it weren't for the 24th of februari. Also we would not join nato if Finland would stay out of it as it would put Finland in a bad spot between nato and russia and the political pressure on Finland from russia would escalate. And we stick togeather.

Very well done; he has obviously thought a lot about the topics surrounding the Ukrainian War. His political/diplomatic experience gives a lot of insight!

Pragmatic vs ideological, indeed! In both countries i have seen the rapid and immediate change of opinion after Feb24 although it seemed more decisive early on in Finland while there were more discussions whether or not in Sweden. Nato is for added security, not to show aggression toward Russia. I hope indeed that we can continue coexisting peacefully, as independent countries. It will be a win-win situation also for Russia and Russians.

Enlightening insight. I am enjoying this series! Thank you Prof Stubb. One thing I disagree with, or I would expand on, is the statement that NATO has returned to its founding purpose. To defend against Russian (Soviet) aggression. This is not broad enough a definition. The purpose of NATO remains as the defender of Western values, and that threat has shown itself to come from Russia again. What are Western values? In short (but by no means a concise list): Democracy, accountability, freedom of speech, respect of human rights, respect for the individual, respect for sovereignty.

Exceptional lecture!

Well done Finland and Sweden great decision right time Simple answer for Vladimir putin is that security concerns for Russia stops at Russians borders not beyond. Thefore Putin as no jurisdiction over Finland or Sweden or any other country outside Russia is authoritarian ambition must be stopped right now

Well this week will be interesting here in Sweden and in Finland .

Finland does indeed make Nato stronger. Sweden does not have a large standing army at the moment but on the other hand it has kept it's massive cold war weapons industry going which is already developing Nato-compatible weapons like the now famous NLAW all the way up to gen 4.5 fighter jets. It's a big win-win for everyone but Russia.

the number of views have grown quickly for this series not surprising

Well done!

“It is not a zero sum game”. That is unfortunately the thing Putin is not capable of understanding.

Great respect from Denmark. Very wised ...

Let me ask a thing I never understood since I moved to Sweden in 2009. Russia kept (and keeps) harassing Sweden with air-space or marine-space violation of all kinds: with submarines, jet fighters, ships, etc. Swedes are russiaphobic for this reason, but I never understood why Russia is so fixated with harassing Sweden. Why is that?

Make this as a podcast version as well

Putin made the desicion for us in one day.

The polls just hit 76% for nato

I am really enjoying you series. Very enlightening. I have a question, though. Has NATO ever tried to sign a non-aggression pact with Russia?

Hoping still possible to stop war, rebuild damaged, pay compensation of victims of war, displaced persons return to their homeland, become friendly. As our Greatest Leader said :" Love your enemies." and be "forgive one another. " Let peace and security will prevail over the wicked war.

I am really enjoying your series. I would like to hear you weigh in on the future relationship of Finland, Sweden, and Norway. Do you think that Canada and the United States will be close partners with the Nordic countries?

Thanks for this insight I think it is important to join Nato if it is only for security reasons.

Thank you

I'd be interested in some mention why those former Soviet Block states chose to join NATO, instead of continuing historical ties with Soviet Union before its break-up. . I would also be interested in a comment or mention on what I read in a Wikipedia summary of "Foundations of Geopolitics..." 1997, by Aleksandr Dugin, which I believe stated Finland should be absorbed into Russia-did this text have influence in Russian geopolitical thinking and Finland's thinking about Russia? I would be interested in Alexander Stubb having a public discussion with John Mearsheimer about NATO and the causes of the war in Ukraine. His lectures on the Ukraine war or Russian relations with the west are at variance with others.

I still wonder why they called it "North Atlantic treaty organization" with Italy as a founding member. Last time I checked Italy was in the very center of the Mediterranean sea 🤷‍♂️

How big of a role the natural resources found in Eastern Ukraine play in this conflict?

Swedish neutrality during the cold was was more or less non-existent. The level of cooperation between NATO (especially the US) and Sweden surpassed that of many NATO members. For example, Sweden got the newly developed Sidewinder air-to-air missile before the UK did. Of course this was done so that the Soviet long range naval strike aircraft could not reach the north Atlantic and sever the supply lines to Europe.

I think, sir, that there is an another factor rarely spoken of. Namely: the war in former Yugoslavia. That was a shock for the Europe - the fact that the fall of Soviet Union and similar states just unfreezed a lot of old grievances and local competitions (the elephant in the room was e.g. Hungary which had territorial grievances towards almost all of its neighbors and was speaking about it pretty openly) and also consequences of this like the genocide during this (Balkan) war. Which on the other hand hastened reactions later in the case of Kosovo. For some extend the NATO serves (or served) as a container putting all these, often growling on each other, countries in one basket of an alliance: "you cannot kill each other while being in the same happy family with Uncle Sam. Behave kids". ANd there was this Central-European+Baltics factor which today, after the invasion on Ukraine might be called "I told'ya so!" moment.

Sir could you make a video possibly looking at the cartel issue? I'm just curious on your analysis on the cartel and corruption with 🇲🇽 Government and possibly corruption with U.S. Department of defense via border control? I'm not sure if your any interested in it but I see your outside perspective of subjects is brilliant. I think of myself as a open minded individual but you can elaborate better than me I believe. I'm no professional in anything but I'm Interested in the whole process of breakdowns and analyzing issues.

I understood that Sweden is looking for Nato membership when the Swedish government announced that they will increase the defense budget too 2% and that is what Nato want the Nato members to spend on their own defense 🤔

Out of curiosity - Does anyone know what happens if they get attacked between the time their application has been lodged and when it is approved? EG do they become a protectorate of NATO during this period or would the attacker have a small window to attack them and take control of their government to withdraw the application before it ratifies? Or if they are 'at war' does this then make them an illegible candidate (because they have an 'ongoing conflict').

oh stubb.. that himboy... greetings from helsinki

use the screen to put up illustrative stats. e.g. you mentioned 12 founding NATO member states, but dont list them. put it up beside you on the screen maybe

So I reckon that in the end the 1000+km of new Nato border with Russia comes out as even or winning situation due to compability rather than plain strenght

Lets see those 3 points.

Ratification by end 2022 sounds slow considering that this is a dangerous phase. Why is a "fast track" of two "up to NATO compatible and level equipped" candidates so slow? I am ignorant of the process.

And this was the lecture which John Mearsheimer missed out on.

I've already posted this comment elsewhere, but it fits well under this title too: It's sad to say I really don't feel the security in Finland has increased since we joined NATO. Quite on the contrary. The reason is simple: NATO is the arch enemy of Russia, and thus Finland has now after a long period of friendly relations officially declared that Russia is our enemy. As Russia needs to protect itself from NATO, this eventually will bring Russian military hardware along the whole Finnish 1300 km long border. If Finland stupidly wants an U.S. military base and American troops on the ground, it will be considered as a rude move by Russia and will probably have serious implications in turn. The biggest insanity would be to allow nuclear weapons to be installed on Finnish territory, since this would be a direct threat against Moscow and St. Petersburg. The Russians would hardly allow this to happen.

Canada is a founding member of NATO. Not sure why everyone seems to forget that.

Will there be a national vote on this matter or will the governments decide on their own?

I live in Russia and watch your channel trying to understand this war. But I still don't ((

I would have liked to know more about Nato’s situation in the Kosovo war. This gets brought up a lot nowadays as an example why Russia sees Nato as a potential agressor. Would have loved to hear your view on this.

12:01 - 12:12 👏🏾🙏🏾

I think that the speaker committed an important oversight when he did not mention the bombings carried out by Nato on Serbia without ONU support in 1999. Regardless of the bombing justification (I think it was right) that event would have serious repercussions. Putin would justify 22 years later the Invasion of Ukraine with that NATO action intervention. A "peace intervention" to protect a minority from genocide.

I woud like to hear a talk on Turkey, at the southern flank of NATO. Turkey is in an interesting situation because of the Bosporus, a maritime chokepoint at the entrance to the Black Sea. Russia, I think, has been striving militarily to ensure its commercial access to the Black Sea, but Turkey is in a position to make this a moot question. Right now Turkey is behaving like a neutral state with regards to Russian activities, but will that change?

Hei Stubb, ootko käyny Dialogia Lavrovin kanssa? ;)

I think you forget about Spain, if I remember well we entered in 1986. Y, po cierto, es posible que su país, Finlandia, y Suecia, ingresen en la Alianza, es decir, que se apruebe su ingreso, en la cumbre de la OTAN en Madrid el próximo mes de junio. Saludos desde España 🇪🇸 y bienvenidos al Club OTAN.

Are you trying to understand through this series of videos or are you trying to make all others understand what you think?

Would Finland still have conscription even if they join NATO?

Can you make a video about 🇹🇷 and nato? You’re talking about values and everything members have in common, but 🇹🇷 doesn’t seem to fit in. 🇹🇷 today is clearly a dictatorship quite similar to Russia. Moreover, no one in nato seems to care about Turkish incursions in Syria and Iraq. Maybe it’s a hot topic for a former Finish prime minister given Erdogan’s recent attempt at blocking Finland’s application for nato membership. Nevertheless, I would love to hear your thoughts on Turkey’s role in the alliance and the current situation.

Just a thought, Enjoy all your videos’ The failure of the Soviet union may be echoed By the failure of the Russian federation

KFOR is still active in Kosovo. And is still needed as a peacekeeping force.

Well, Nato was formed as a response to the soviet threat. It's natural for them to call Nato a threat considering they are the actual threat to others. It's almost like bullies never factor themselves into their own logic. Must be lonely.

I’m really curious on if this could happen. It seems to me that both Finland and Japan (maybe others) could apply extra pressure on Russia by demanding their annexed territory to be returned under threat of military action. It seems that if Russia thinks it’s okay to annex what they think is theirs then why couldn’t other countries annex back territory that Russia stole? Thoughts?

NATO were collapsing and failing to elicit support without a war so a war with Russia will help to save NATO from collapse and finally be seen to be needed.

"In response to NATO considering Russia a threat merely by it's existence, Russia began to perceive NATO as an existential threat." Well said Prof Stubb

Wouldn’t you think that when the Soviet Union collapsed back in 1991, that if NATO had designs of conquering Russia as its reason for existence, that it would have done so then?

Turkey and Hungary will see about that timeframe.

Brilliant explanation. I believe abstain is correct. ( UN vote) Many countries has no clue about Ukraine war including myself. Ukraine’s historian gave me an explanation Who created Ukraine war & why ? What was a problem in Donbas & Crimea ? Konigsberg became Kaliningrad because Germany attacked the USSR in 1941 killing more than 20 million civilians. There figures hide a variety of types of violence nowadays. This has been repeated since 2014 in Ukraine. Where on may 2014 nationalists from western Ukraine came to Odessa & buried 48 local residents alive.for expressing their own opinion in the city square.( with the help of UK & USA) After the 2014 coup in Ukraine the influence of nationalists ( Nazis hooligans) the name has no matter.but only their crime has intensified among these nazis hooligans & There descendants of those who served Hitler This for an example This Galitchina detachment with their crime Volyn massacres against civilians. After 2014 Ukraine began to distort its view of the history of the Second World War. This expressed in the fact that in the best case an equal sign is drawn. Between the attacking Germans and the liberated soldiers of the USSR Such a sign of equality is a betrayal of those who thanks to whom we are alive. This was a reason that Donbas & Crimea do not want to be with Ukrainian. In response for 8years Ukrainian mines and shells have been falling on the heads of Donbas residents. So many adults and children were killed & torn apart. MSM will not show this to west world & 3rd world audience. Therefore Putin hesitated for a long time whether to take a active action. Because it already happened in 2008 when Georgia attacked Ossetia & Russian soldiers stood up for Ossetia.-squeezing Georgian soldiers back into Georgia. but the MSM did not show part of the conflict. When Georgia attacked Ossetia MSM began to show the conflict. Only after Russia joined.at the same time they showed the Ossetian city of Tskhenvali destroyed by the Georgians during the offensive & at the same time they said that it was the Georgians city of Gori. Russia is most maligned country and the most conscientious country in foreign policy through the prayers of despair of people from God gave Russia a good president. I asked my final question to Ukrainian historian Who do you support? Ukrainian or Russian He mentioned to me that our generation escaped from Hitler & settled down in Canada. Therefore I support Denazification.

In this Nr 8 there's nothing new compared to ur past lectures. Pls add concrete fact or delay the lectures until there's something note worthy. I'm a big fan of yours - very well spoken

Thank you again for the clarity. Am I wrong in thinking that all? Most? members of NATO are not actively against anyone, Russia included. We just pray that demonstrating we are united to protect all members from attack by others , will give potentially aggressive entities pause for thought? Though I understand why Finland and Sweden have to emphasize this point just now. Is it true that Russia with the kind of government it endures, needs something like NATO, to scare their own people into accepting the governance they have. The existence of NATO is used as a tool, a threat to keep their people afraid of what is outside their borders , rather than fear of what is within their own borders?

read the thumbnail title and was "why would the world health organization be joining NATO?" :)))) rofl

OK ------ 4:! The M-777 155mm Gun could be Ukraine's SUPER WEAPON to WIN this WAR!!! But the current American M-777, 155mm gun only has a short 39cal. Steel barrel that is even inferior to the 42cal Steel barrels in most of Nato's inventories... Giving the Short barrel M-777 a projectile range of only 23 miles with the standard M-795 round. But the M-777 gun America is giving Ukraine could have a range of over 43 miles (instead of just 23miles) with the same M-795 round using a new High Tech long 58cal Barrel (replacing the M-777 old tech steel short 39cal barrel) that is now being field-tested by a Battalion of M-109 Self Propelled Superguns (that truly look beautiful with their long barrels). The new high-tech none steel barrel is a Composite Carbon case, Titanium sleeved long 58cal Ultra High-pressure Marvel of American Engineering... The high-pressure 58cal (30 feet long) barrel using supercharged propellant (that would blow up the average steel barrel) gives the M-777 155mm Super Gun a range of 60 miles firing the new XM1113 projectile... and over 150+ miles with the new subcaliber Hypervelocity GPS guided projectile. Making the M-777 a terror for all Russians in Ukraine... Allowing Ukraine to finally take back (freeing) the Crimea and the Donbas without suffering massive Ukrainian casualties... K ------- America needs to send the Battalion of new M-109 Super Gun, long-barreled 58cal guns to Ukraine for testing in real combat (instead of blowing craters in the Texas desert), which would be followed by the new high tech SUPER BARREL Kits for Ukraine's M-777 guns (the new lightweight composite 58cal 30-foot long barrels {same weight and balance as the 39cal steel barrels in both the M777 and M109} simply slide into the gun carriages of both weapons, replacing the original 39 cal barrels without any major modifications). That could number 1,000 M-777 Superguns deployed to Ukraine in a short time if they are pulled from American storage Depots that are waiting to be scrapped... (in addition to the measly 90 the US is sending now...) Giving Ukraine the Numbers to finally have a chance against a Russia that has thousands of big guns more than Ukrain but lack the range of the M-777 SUPER GUN that would be able to sit back and safely SNIPE the Russian big guns and their ammunition depots into oblivion no matter how many Putin sends...!!! Finally giving Ukraine an advantage they Desperately need...!!! As the Russians both outnumber Ukrain in weapons and manpower...!!! Ukraine has been refused modern fighters but with enough M-777 and M-109 guns, Ukraine can make up for what they cannot do without new fighters they can not get!!! Win this WAR!!! K1 ----!!! Please call and write President Biden and your Congressmen in the House and Senate to demand that Ukraine get the thousand M-777 and hundreds M-109 guns from our storage depots NOW, with the SUPER GUN 58cal upgrade kits following as soon as they are produced on the production line now making the test barrels for the M-109 Supergun...!!! That will stop the Russians in their tracks from taking any more Ukraine cities to torcher innocent local civilian men, Rape women and children then murder and bury them in mass Graves...Thank You...!!!!

Russia for the time being is trapped by the "Russian Soul" but even more so by a fascist religious right. The younger generation was very much exposed to western culture and adopted many mind frames, so should Russia collapse and a new government emerge that is actually willing to find its own way somewhere between communism and capitalism, Russia may find that the generation taking over in 10+ years may very well seek to be part of Europe and work towards this goal in a time frame of 25 to 30 years from then on. Provided Europe can hold on to the ideas and doesn't destroy itself.

NATO, an alliance or a dependency? Collective or reliance on USA? Please discuss the extent to which the USA has really carried the burden of blood and treasure for NATO and whether this is sustainable. I.E: Why is the USA the primary guarantor of the borders of Lithuania? Should not the Europeans carry more of the load of a European collective defense?

There are people all over the world that are blaming NATO for the war in Ukraine. I would be interested in your opinion

If my country of Sweden joined nato we have protection of Nato and Nato's Article 5 is like this "Collective defence means that an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies" Sweden is an EU member at the moment at least we have eu's article 42.7 which is a mutal defence clause. From Eu's article 42.7 is like this "This clause provides that if an EU country is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other EU countries have an obligation to aid and assist it by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations"

The Swedes don’t bring much - the Finns yes but not the Swedes. They have gone from an 800,000 man army organized in 21 brigades [a flexible and powerful combined arms combat organization] to an army of 6,000; they call it a "professional defense force" . They spend a meager 0.93% of their GDP on defense and have divested most of their military assets on the world arms market much of it to the UK. Sweden would be a drag on NATO, not an asset.

Around point 2….Actually Russian December 2021 request to NATO was to get back at 1999 extension … thanks Mr. Stubb for your views

Professionalism of Putin’s army is questionable

This point of view on NATO can hardly be supported by all the actions it took in Serbia and Iraq. That was not legal in the language of international law. Surprised to see such week arguments by such high government official

Er, applictions are open to all European states (REAL definition of "European" btw, NOT just states that are EU members) who are willing to take on the conditions of membrship. That does NOT mean membership follows automatically. The existing NATO members must still agree to accept the candidate.

if Russia withdraws from all of Ukraine and battles for all the destruction they have inflicted on the country. And starting to behave like a civilized country, then Russia has nothing to fear

Why NATO enlarged

Do you think Nato is good organisation for Europa or you are calling the war to comme to Europe ?

Sweden became neutral in the 1800 after a census revealed its population was only 1 million and the King at the time thought its was 5 million. he realised they couldn't win another war and became neutral after centuries of being a waring state

What is it that I like this guy I think what it is I just like Finland so I guess anybody from Finland I like unless they’re from Russia that emigrated to Finland I don’t like them I don’t like rush at all I mean at all I just I think there are bastards

I am 99.9% sure that NATO members do not have to respond if a NATO member initiates the attack. Is that right? A good example, IMO, would be the Iraq war where countries like Canada did not take part.

Slava Rossiya! Sori siitä!

Was founded because of Josef Vissarionivich Dgushvilli. Ask his ghost.

Good. Keep the proxy wars in Europe. I hate the words "pivot to Asia". It's definitely not for peace and prosperity.

Well presented video! I wish NATO'S primary goal wasn't defense against Russia but simply the defense of Europe and member nations. People seem to think that NATO just kept us safe from the USSR when really it stopped European nations from attacking each other as well. Well if you look at the last 70 years its not been Europe who has started all the wars. Yes Europe has helped in some wars / sent troops or supplies to some wars, but its not been Europe starting them. In fact since NATO Europe has stopped fighting itself and stopped starting wars, so part of NATO is stopping Europe from eating itself and going to war again. Like anyone who knows the history of Europe knows that Europe has had thousands of years worth of warfare, until the point that virtually every nation in Europe has fought each other, more than once. My guess is without NATO we would have seen more wars in Europe by now as some idiot leader would have got in power and tried to delete their neighbors. Defending against Russia is a possibility but should not be the focus or prime mission. I also think NATO should give Russia some guarantees not to attack / not to launch nukes unless fired upon first ect. I'm not sure if they have already but NATO could even promise to come and help Russia in case of major natural disaster, things such as massive earthquakes, asteroids and so on. The prime mission of NATO shouldn't really be defending against Russia, in fact maybe the prime goal should be to befriend Russia / heal wounds with Russia / work with Russia. NATO has made some mistakes, NATO has expanding further than promised, Russia does have concerns so they should be addressed by NATO and not ignored. I like NATO, I see the point of NATO, but honestly NATO is a bit crap if its only real mission is just to protect against Russia. I would be looking at a total rethink / reorganization of NATO and its polices, along with addressing Russia's security concerns properly. I do welcome Finland and Sweden to NATO however if Russia doesn't want large NATO forces or missile sites in Finland then maybe NATO need to look at honoring that and telling Russia. NATO was suppose to be about Europe where at the moment it just feels we are fighting a proxy war because the USA doesn't like Russia. That should not be the aim of NATO.

Why do you not address Russia's legitimate concerns about Nato expansion eastward? Why was there a necessity to keep expanding Nato eastward when the better option was to keep a better power balance between NATO and Russia?

Stubb should appear holding NATO coloured pom-poms. He's such a shameless cheerleader for the west.

If NATO is 'open to any European country who wants to join and follow the rules', then WHY was Ukraine not admitted when it has wanted to be? Even now with Ukraine's recent application for expedited membership, I've heard retired Generals and different people say it was doubtful Ukraine could join. NATO has never said that before about a country and it is upsetting to me. Yes, they border Russia but so does Finland and Estonia. I think it is because NATO is afraid still that it would be a provocation to Russia. I say Hogwash! By virtue of Russia breaking the unspoken Gentleman's Agreement of the UN that border disputes are only to be settled by dialog and then to threaten that they were very willing to use Nukes, Russia has lost any hope for a seat at the table. IN fact, the countries that NEED to join NATO the most are those that DO border Russia because Putin has shown that Russia can NOT be trusted to keep its word or adhere to treaties. Had Ukraine been a member, Putin would never have invaded or if he had and article 5 had been invoked, this war would have already been over and done!

Smart dude, Alex please consider Finnish presidency when Sale retires, thank you.

Considering that Putin said West promised Nato wouldn't expand (and he repeatedly mentions it). Please could you be so kind to let us know what you think about it? I know it is complicated, but I guess it is worth to understand better Ukraine war

I hoped Alexander had addressed the risk that Finland's movement towards NATO membership increases tensions in the region to the point where it sparks a greater war.

You mean Putin was friendly with NATo at the time😂I doubt it was whole of Russia

He is not an independent Profesor. He is a member of the finish pro-EU party Kansallinen Kokoomus and former ministerpresident of finland.