Niinistö, who recently compiled an EU security report, said that democracy still works, and so voters can pressure politicians to make the needed decisions. Niinistö, who was president of Finland 2012-2024, made his remarks in an interview given to ERR which follows.

You have conducted a report for the European Commission on improving Europe's civil and defense preparedness. What were the main developments in European security this year?

Some pretty bad things.

First of all, this was the warmest year on record, meaning climate change is bringing increasingly severe consequences.

Furthermore, Russia's war in Ukraine is ongoing, while the offensives are intensifying.

These are the negative aspects.

On the other hand, in the course of preparing the security report, it became evident that the EU countries, and particularly European citizens, are gradually waking up to recognize that security is a fundamental thing.

Hopefully, this revival will spread across Europe.

For Finns and for Estonians, this is nothing either new or unfamiliar, but even in Central Europe, leave alone Western Europe, the approach has not been the same.

During talks with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, I have also noticed an increasing will.

She seems to take her responsibilities, especially ensuring security, highly seriously. So these are positive developments.

But what about other politicians? The major EU countries, Germany and France, are facing their own issues. Will they have the time and energy to address broader security issues, plus our concerns?

Security will get exactly as much attention as the people demand it does.

I trust democracy to ensure that what people desire will come to pass.

When a greater number of people highlight a lack of a sense of security and demand greater attention be put on it, political decision-makers will act accordingly, so a consensus will emerge.

Once again, I would point to Estonia and Finland, where domestic politics can feature very different and opposing views, yet when it comes to security, a shared vision emerges.

Looking at what has been happening in Slovakia, Hungary, practically in Romania, not to mention Georgia and Moldova, it seems people want rapid, simple, black-and-white solutions — but is this not good for security in the long term?

This relates more to domestic politics than foreign or security issues.
Although, yes, sometimes shocking statements get made.

At times, we will likely navigate murkier waters, only for clarity to return later.

But I believe that Europeans are inherently wise and grasp the importance of security.

These countries also include NATO members. If something happens requiring NATO to act quickly and unanimously, what happens if these countries — and potentially more — have diverging opinions?

Let us call to mind that Europeans have a far-reaching obligation under Article 42.7 of the Lisbon Treaty to provide bilateral assistance.

Plus Ukraine is quite a good example.

Some argue that this level of assistance is insufficient, but I would maintain that EU countries have provided more help than anyone could have predicted.

If any one of the EU countries were in trouble, others would surely help at least as much, and likely more, than they have with Ukraine.

NATO will come to its decisions at its own pace, but I believe bilateral assistance could also come from NATO countries which lie outside the EU.

Despite this, in your report, you identified a lack of unity among European countries as one of the biggest threats.

I would like to see more unity, a type of "single security."

It must be understood that if any EU country is in danger or faces a very difficult situation, the entire bloc and all its member states are at risk too.

This concept of unified security, "single security," has not sufficiently taken on board, nor been deeply understood.

Thinking this way means respecting the EU as a whole also entails respecting the entire union's territory.

An offense against one member state is an offense against the entire EU.

I would like to see more of this spirit.

Europe also seems to lag behind the rest of the world, for instance the U.S., in addressing hybrid threats. We do not act as quickly and decisively as we could. What would help here?

Hybrid threats affect both the public and private sectors.

I find it crucial that trust-based relationships get built between the public and private sectors in every country and across the EU, so that public-sector information and private-sector technological expertise can be combined to counter hybrid threats. And this requires mutual trust.

Work is already being done on this within the EU, preparing to resist hybrid influence.

The problem is that the hybrid world is unpredictable.

We cannot even imagine what might lie ahead — this makes things complicated.

Hybrid influence knows no boundaries or distances.

How should security roles be divided up — what should the EU's responsibility be, and what should be that of individual member states?

The majority of security issues fall under the remit of member states, and it is primarily the state itself which can impact on the security of its citizens.
However, since we are united under the common flag of the EU, it would be good to identify aspects which can be implemented across all member states.

For example, I have talked about a European missile shield, which I believe Estonia also considers necessary.

Should member states finance this by individually taking out loans, or should we finance it collectively through joint borrowing — well this is somewhat a matter of preference.

It must be called to mind, however, that a missile shield like this would serve everyone; missiles can travel far, even to the outer fringes of Europe, so it would make sense for everyone to pitch in in the associated costs.

If we were to conduct the same interview at the end of 2025, what would you like to be able to say — what could be better in terms of security, compared with the situation now?

I sincerely hope that next year will be cooler, by which I mean that the adverse effects of climate change will start to recede, and that the situation will, at the very least, not deteriorate.

My desire is for a greater sense of shared responsibility in this matter.

Plus of course I wish there would be no war in Europe.

Unfortunately, tensions are likely to persist, even if some kind of peace does get achieved in Ukraine.

We will see a Europe under tension for a long time to come, but that is still preferable to a Europe at war.

Can anything positive be said in conclusion?

Europe has woken up.

This is a good sign that there is an understanding that security is the foundation of everything.

So let us hope that action will be taken in the new year.

I am convinced that Ursula von der Leyen takes security very seriously, and it will become a central focus of the union's actions.

Let us play our part in this.

In March 2024 and shortly after leaving presidential office, Sauli Niinistö was tasked with drafting a report for the EU on enhancing the crisis resilience of European societies, per a request from Ursula von der Leyen.

The report was intended to be a comprehensive review of Europe's ability to withstand crises, addressing conventional defense, emerging cybersecurity and hybrid threats, as well as the influence of public mindsets on the collective resilience of European societies to various challenges.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!