Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.

Hi everyone, it's freend scene.

At the end of our final in the City episode, I promised I'd be back.

So here I am with the taste of a project of mine that launched this week.

It's a new program for Bloomberg Originals Leaders with Francine Lakwa.

Now the show is centered around in depth conversations with Frankly, just interesting and influential people from business, politics, sports, wherever.

They just need to be leaders in their industry.

They need to be interesting to us and they just need to be honest about their journey to the top.

So for the first episode, I spoke to the President of Finland, Alexander stub He's recently become a very pivotal figure in the negotiations on Ukraine, taking on a new importance after he bonded with President Donald Trump over their mutual love of golf.

Yes, golf as diplomacy and according to Trump, still is a very good player.

They competed against each other in a tournament at one of Trump's golf courses back in March.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Trump asked to move for lunch if he could trust Putin and stood in his frank an honest way told him you cannot.

Later, Trump then publicly criticized Putin for the first time over his refusal to agree to cease fire with Ukraine.

So I traveled to Helsinki and May to speak to President Stobe and we had the conversation in the presidential palace in the middle of Helsinki in a beautiful ballroom.

Was very grand Joe's and simple at the same time.

You really get a feeling of what it's like to be president.

There.

I tried to learn more about his motivations and we talked about his life before becoming president.

Ultimately, I just want to know how he'll measure his success at such a critical moment.

I hope you enjoyed the conversation, mister.

President, Thank you so much for joining us.

My pleasure.

Thanks for the invitation.

Talk to me about resilience.

It's something I think we in Finland know something about.

Actually, it's one of our key words.

It's sisu, which is resilience, perseverance, grit, stamina.

So you basically you never give up.

You just have to keep on pushing and grinding through the tough stuff.

And I think a lot of Finns have that ingrained into the system, because remember we're a poor country.

First we are under Sweden for seven hundred years, then under Russia for a little bit over one hundred, and when we gained independence in nineteen seventeen, we were basically a poor, developing country.

And I think then this sort of idea of resilience, let's try to overcome, let's work hard, came very much a part of Finnish DNA, and I think I'm still part of that generation.

What was your hardest time?

There were times at school or in university that I found it quite tough, especially probably the first three months of my university years in nineteen eighty nine at Firmam, because remember that I came from, you know, an essentially liberal Nordic country and went straight into the Bible belt in South Carolina, and that was a bit of a culture shock.

But probably the toughest toughest time in my life, and it's only my own doing.

Was was from twenty fourteen to twenty sixteen, when I was Prime Minister and Finance Minister and chairman of the party.

Probably not in my comfort zone because domestic politics was never my thing, but I know grinded it out for two years, and when I lost an election, I left politics, but I left sort of, you know, with a high morale.

To a certain extent, lessons learned, and my whole idea was Okay, the time was tough.

I learned something from it, and I'll never come back to politics.

And here then, some years later, here we are what made you go back to politics?

Putin I'll be very frank with you.

I had not Russia attacked Ukraine, I would not have run for President of Finland.

My mission had always been to bring Finland into NATO.

And to a certain extent, I felt I failed because I was in a very small minority during the time I was in government, and there wasn't this sort of natural push for membership.

But then I realized that, well, you know, things might happen, and I felt that, you know, I mean, it's almost a little bit corny to say, you know, sense of duty.

But we talked about it at home, my wife, and because we had decided that we're not going to do politics, and she said, well, perhaps because we might become members of NATUM.

Because the security political situation is what it is, you should reconsider.

And then we started reconsidering, and you know, one less than a year before the actual elections, I announced, and then one thing led to.

Another and here am I want to ask about your network, because you have an incredible network internationally because you've been around, but also people warmed to you, people like you.

How do you I've kind of had three different careers and I've gone back and forth.

So first I was an academic, then I was a civil servant, then I was in politics, and then they were back into academia.

So during those times you sort of acquire a network.

And for me, it's been a global, international network and I really enjoy it.

So I try to go into every situation without you know, pretext, without the you know, presumption of someone, and then I'm just myself.

And the nice thing is also I come from a small country, you know, and I don't come from an imperialist country, right, so Finland is kind of inoffensive, you know, people like us, you know, we're okay.

And I've been fortunate, for instance, when I was a civil servant, most of the civil servants I work with in Brussels, for instance, they are now ambassadors all around the world from different countries.

So it's lovely.

You know, I go to a state visit saying Kenya and Tanzania, and suddenly I find people who work with me in Brussels.

So that's the kind of a network that you end up doing.

Are you people's person?

Yeah, definitely.

So it's difficult to be a politician if you're not a people's Yeah.

I think you have to be quite open.

And I have to admit, you know, at home, Susanna and I would discussed about this.

I'm very much an extrovert, where Susanne is more of an introvert.

So we compliment each other in a good kind of a way, and I do enjoy that part.

I think it's it's an advantage in politics to be an extrovert like I am.

And I know that most Finns are not considered to be extroverts, but actually we are once you scratch the surface.

How has that helped with President Trump?

President?

She well, I mean it helps with everyone to a certain extent.

You know.

Of course, I have a set of people who are in powerful positions or political positions from the past.

So you want to cast the Prime Minister of Norway, he was foreign minister when I was Foreign minister Radixi Korski, the Foreign Minister Poland was foreign minister then when I was Foreign minister, So there are a lot of connections, and then of course it does come.

I think diplomacy is really about two things.

It's about state relations and then it's about personal relations and connections.

And then I think it's my job to try to connect with people, and I hope, I hope I succeed sometimes, you know, I when I was President she I felt we had a very good and respectful conversation.

When I was playing golf with President Trump.

We had a really good time.

And you know, I think that's what diplomacy is about.

You sort of you scratch the surface.

You're able to have conversations.

You don't need to be so formal, you're not in the public eye.

And then it's about social connections.

What was President Trump like on the golf course?

Very pleasant, you know, very yeah, very talkative.

You know, we had a good group of five players that Gary Player was there, Lindsey Graham and President Trump and Trey Gaudi, and you know, golf is a nice social setting.

And again going back to my dad, I remember my dad being very encouraging and saying you know, Alex, even if it don't become a golf profession or golf will be useful for you.

One day and I was going, yeah, sure dad, and sure enough there was on the first team with President Trump, and you know, I had a good time.

And it doesn't you know, the fact that you have a good time with someone doesn't meanly agree with them.

So you know that, especially coming from a small country, what you want to do is you want to you know, nudge things in the right direction.

And that means that you have conversations, which sometimes can be difficult and awkward.

Sometimes they can be good.

And then you know, the rest of it is about getting results, and I hope I get results with my diplomacy.

But if you have a good time, does it mean that they listen to your arguments more?

I don't know.

You have to ask them, so you know, certainly I found you know, if I'm in a context, in a diplomatic concept where someone is arrogant, where someone is aggressive, you know, I sort of switch off.

I don't like that.

I'm not going to tell you when it happened.

But when I was Foreign minister, you know, I had a few conversations where I thought, you know, where's this guy coming from?

And it's like any human connection, you very rarely achieve anything by being arrogant, by pushing someone too hard.

You achieve it by having a nice and cordial discussion.

I mean, same thing at home.

I even wrote a column once comparing child minding to diplomacy that goes through the similar phasis.

Who's a better golfer you were, President Trump?

I think we're pretty much equal.

But to be honest, he's one of the few players that I've seen playing under his own age.

So I was certainly very impressed.

And this is not you know, diplomatic nicety.

This is what I say behind his back as well.

What did you learn about him?

I mean, actually, you know, this is the thing, and I've always said this that funnily enough, and I hadn't really played golf for thirty five years, I mean when I quit, so, but I've always said it.

You learn about the personality of a human being on the first hole of a golf course.

You see if they're edgy, if they are impatient, if they're frustrated, if they're fun, if they're relaxed.

And I have to say I had no uncomfortable moments during that round, and we hit good shots and bad shots, so you know, people are quite different than the golf course sometimes.

What did you talk about?

Oh, we talked about a lot of stuff.

We talked about golf, you know, we talked about finish US relations, we talked about Ukraine, we talked about Russia.

We talked about different personalities.

But in a social context.

You know, yes, you spent seven hours with the President of the United States.

It's not going to be seven hour shop because no one wants that.

Did your dad call to say I told you you had to continue with golf.

No, But there was a little bit of a fun episode there because I had mentioned when we had breakfast before the golf round to President Trump about my dad and oh, let's call your dad.

But then something came in between it.

We didn't call him, But there you go.

I wanted to ask about your father.

He was someone that had a huge influence on your life.

What was he like, Yeah, definitely still is.

He's ninety years old.

He was the chief talent out of the national Hockey League in Europe, so very much an ice hockey family, if you will.

My dad was a big influence in the sense that he taught me a lot of things.

He's tried to teach me patients.

I don't know if that good.

He's always taught me curiosity.

He's a very relaxed guy.

He's a lot of fun to be with, and he's full of life still at a tender age of nineteen.

So you're naturally curious but not naturally patient.

Yeah, I think that's what my wife would probably say.

Always curious and with an open mind and trying to understand things and learn something new every day.

And I think that's something that my dad certainly taught me.

You have two children.

What do you think about parenthood?

Well, parenthood is really cool, especially now the kid's twenty one, twenty three and studying in the UK.

But I mean, obviously, with Susanne, we sort of split the job.

But I've always said that it's seventy five percent her and twenty five percent me, basically because of my job.

But we've tried to install a certain set of value used to the kids and you know, make them good citizens if you will.

But most of all, it's a lot of fun to be with them, and we're very proud of what they do.

We're very proud of what they've achieved in life so far.

And we used to have these four things that we told them, you know, dream, believe, work hard, and succeed and dreaming meant you know, dream big, don't worry about it, Believe, believe in yourself, work hard always.

But success for me and to the kids is about meaning, not about societal status, about money or titles.

It's about leading a meaningful life.

And you know, if the kids come out of this life with that set of values, I think they'll be good.

And what's a meaningful life to you?

For me, it's about helping others, I think, you know.

It's of course we all strive towards happiness.

I mean, that's kind of an Aristotelian thing to do.

But happiness comes with meaning.

A meaning comes usually from being kind to someone else.

And I've found that in my life, perhaps not so much in politics, but in other lives, that I find myself getting meaning if I see that someone has, you know, changed their behavior or gotten something from something I've said.

And for me, that's a meaningful life.

Were you always like that a sense of no, No, not at all.

I was very much into sports when I was a kid, you know, first I wanted to become a professional ice hockey player, but my dad probably saw that that's not going to work with that one.

Then I want to become a professional golfer.

That's why I actually went to study in the States.

And my sort of mission or academic life or meaning purpose only started pretty much at the age of twenty one.

I mean before that, I lived in a you know, teenage abyss, I guess, and in many ways, and if you had asked my friends in high school elsewhere that, you know, will Alex go into politics or will he become president?

They would have probably laughed.

What changed, I don't know.

It was probably just this sort of idea of learning.

And you know, I was okay in school, you know, in the lower grades.

But then when I went to Furman University in Greenville, South Carolina, you know, I had professors that inspired me.

They became mentors, you know, Brent Nelson, Arist Testitor, Don Gordon and many others, and they sort of nudged me in the right direction.

And I must admit that when I get excited about something, I get sometimes a little bit over excited.

But it was good because from nineteen eighty nine to nineteen ninety three at university.

I was over excited about studying and that sort of you know, Furman changed my life.

Has the US changed since you were at Furman?

Yeah, I mean it has definitely changed.

I mean for me, of course, as an avid pro American, the US was always the guaranteeror of, you know, security and peace in Europe and the world.

And of course there was an isolationist moment of the US before World War One and we saw where that led.

There was an isolationist moment before World War Two, and we saw where that led.

But then after World War Two, it was America essentially that created the current structure of global institutions that we have, and it's been a world police for better and for worse.

You don't have to agree with everything that America does, but it has led the world, and it certain led the Western world.

And now it's a question of is it going to sustain that position?

And usually these are long range things.

These are not you know, four years or eight years or twelve years.

And I also think that there's always a president in the United States that changes future presidents.

You know, Franklin D.

Roosevelt, the New Deal, you know, that led to an American policy which lasted for decades.

Reagan and Reagan nomics that led to an American policy which lasted for decades.

And remember that Reagan was talked down when it's started, and at the end of the day he became the savior of the free world and free markets.

And I actually think that Trump already in twenty sixteen changed American policy to America first, and then it just you know, we have to look at where America first leads.

I of course hope that it's at least Europe second.

But we're doing when do we know where America goes?

You know, we don't.

We can, you know, we can decades, It'll take a while to know exactly.

And you know, we Thins are very pragmatic.

So what we tried to do is to influence the things that we can influence.

You know, we cannot change the mind of the President of the United States or the administration.

That administration has been chosen in democratic elections by the American public, and this is a policy line that they have chosen.

It has some good elements which you like it as some elements which you like less.

But we try to influence the elements which for US are important, like finding peace and ceasefire in Ukraine, you know, like keeping America engaged in Europe and in NATO, and making sure that America has a strong voice in the world.

So to Kissandra's very good question, if I need to speak to Europe, who do I call?

What's your answer today?

There are quite a few numbers for France press one for two.

Yeah, exactly.

But I do think that, you know, we are seeing strong European leadership, you know, from the UK, from France, from Germany, and also from the EU institutions.

I think the President of the European Commission is very strong.

Remember that the EU has exclusive competence on trade, on competition, on monetary policy, so we don't have like one European leader, but we have a triumvirate at least that is leading Europe.

You feel like a true European at heart?

Is that fair?

Yeah?

Very much so.

I mean, of course, in the heart of my hearts, I'm finished, then I'm Nordic, and then I'm European.

So I always that I kind of, you know, have my roots in Finland.

My my sort of tree trunk or stub like tree stub is European.

And then I hope that my my sort of branches are global, so I think very internationally about things, but I'm very adamant about my Finish roots.

And it's you know, it's probably different for someone who's not different, but I come from a country where there are two minority languages, Finnish and Swedish, and and when you have those languages, they are a very strong part of your identity and that sort of you know, brings it home in a different kind of way.

But do you worry about society splintering, the rise of populism?

Yeah, talk to each other.

Yeah.

I mean.

One of the things I keep on talking about here in Finland as well, and I did in my New Year's speech as well, is to say that, you know, what we have to avoid is the polarization of society.

We have now the technological instruments to polarize as much as we can, because we can kind of start living in not only alternative realities, but in alternative truths.

And that's very dangerous for democracy because if you don't have basic agreement on what facts are, say, on science or otherwise, then you cannot have a democratic discourse.

And we have to try to avoid that.

We're seeing some of it obviously in the United States, but it's not only in the United States.

We're seeing it in many other liberal democracies.

Finland is a small country, you know, we can't have that, and that's why I try to say that, you know, try to tone down the language a little bit, try to avoid polarization, communicate, have dialogue rather than judge.

But what's the solution, especially for politicians that want to make a difference, that want to I guess bring people together.

Well, I mean for politicians, I think, to be honest, it's politicians and media, because media has a lot of power today and media freedom is the foundation of any democracy and freedom of speech.

But politicians, they have to think about how they express themselves.

What kind of a role model do they show, Because say, if the President of Finland would start cussing on Bloomberg and condemning and pointing fingers at people, then that kind of gives a carte blanche for other people to do it as well, and probably easy for me to say, as you know, the president of Finland.

But in parliamentary debate it's okay to clash a little bit, but think about how you clash.

What kind of an example do you set?

What is the behavioral pattern that you're trying to communicate, And you know it goes to social media as well, but it's changed completely.

It does.

You grew up in an era where you know globalization was an opportunity and how people are looking more inwards.

True, but you could say that I was born into a world the Cold War where there was a clear ideological split between the East and the West, between hypothetically or really communism and capitalism, you know, authoritarian regimes and freedom.

So the world was very polalized on a global kind of a set.

And then we sort of had this holiday from history.

And I'm a big fan of Fukuyama and the end of History thesis.

And remember I started studying in nineteen eighty nine when the Berlin War fell in November, and then the Soviet Union collapsed in nineteen ninety one, and there was this sort of basic assumption that, hey, the whole world is going to be a combination of liberal democracy, social market economy, and globalization.

Then of course, at some stage we sort of woke up and smelt the coffee and realized that actually the world was not going to be all about green fields and you know, rainbows and peace signs.

And for me, of course, the sort of turning point was not only ninety eleven or the financial crisis two thousand and eight, but probably a Russia's attack on Ukraine in twenty twenty two.

And we're now starting to see the change of a world order.

But you say, in two thousand and eight you saw Russia change.

Yeah.

I mean so for those of you who didn't follow the world politics very closely at the time, I was Foreign Minister, chairman of the Oversea and Mediating Part one of the peace mediators or ceasefire negotiators in Russia Ukraine the war, and I gave a speech right after the war we had gotten a ceasefire in five days, where I said, you know, we should wake up and have a look.

Power politics is back, fears of interest is back, Russian imperialism is not gone, so start adjusting.

And of course, you know, it wasn't a very kosher thing to say at the time, and I'm you know, I'm not happy that I was right, but that's what happened.

But no one listened.

Well, I mean some people listen, some didn't, you know, I think kind of a lot of Eastern European countries were right about Russia at that time, but I think we were all sort of in this wave of yeah, you know, Russia is going to become a democracy.

We're going to think in China is going to become a democracy.

And you know, if there is technological advancement, if there is freedom, people are going to use it.

There was Arab spring et cetera, et cetera.

But my um big argument is that right now we're living in a nineteen eighteen, nineteen forty five or nineteen eighty nine moment in world history.

In nineteen eighteen, after World War One, the leaders at the time created the League of Nations.

It was a good idea, you know, the Wilson's fourteen points, et cetera, Woodrow Wilson, but it didn't work out.

We ended up in World War Two.

Then in nineteen forty five there was a creation of the UN and the current international structure that we have with the WTO, with the IMF, with the World Bank, and of course a bipolar world with Soviet Union and the US and that sort of contained power.

We didn't end up in World War three.

And then in nineteen eighty nine, which said, okay, that's it.

The US won the Cold War unipower moment, everyone's going to become a democracy.

And now we're in a semi situation.

We just don't know where the world is going to go.

And my argument is it's going to take about five to ten years for things to settle.

I would prefer to see the rejuvenation of the international system, but that means that we need to give agency to, for instance, a global self.

But where do you see Russia going.

Oh it's not looking good, you know, very honest with you, of course I believe in change, but with the current regime and with President Putin, I don't see big change.

You know, nations that don't have a capacity to deal with their past, they have a very difficult time to look into the future.

So in many ways, you know, there is this you know, imperialist DNA and undertone in Russia which doesn't seem to go away.

You know, Russia is built on empire.

That's why Putin talks about Ruskimi Great Russia, borders they hundreds, which has you know, one language, one Russia, one religion, and one leader himself.

So I'm not very hopeful about the future of Russia right now.

I was at some stage, you know, I thought we saw a lot of progress, But until it sort of quenches its imperialist thirst, I don't see Russia advancing.

And remember that Russia's economy, it's the biggest country in the world.

Right its economy is smaller than Italy and just a little bit bigger than Spain.

It had the chance to modernize.

In nineteen ninety the size of the Chinese economy and the Russian economy was the same.

Now China is over ten times bigger, so it hasn't been able to modernize.

So so in that sense, and of course having oney three hundred and forty kilometer border with Russia, I want to see a rich and prosperous and democratic Russia, but I just don't see that in the cards in the near future.

You've also said that Europeans live in la la land that they actually don't want to see.

I guess what they have in front of them.

Why is it too difficult to see?

Yeah, it's it's one of these things.

I think sometimes it's very it's very human, you know.

We want to deal with a world that we want to see, and we are not dealing in the world which it actually exists and what it's like.

And I think the La La Land thesis is pretty much the idea that, you know, we thought that the Russia and many other countries in this world would just automatically revert to some form of liberal democracy, but it didn't happen, and now we tried to find convincing ways of doing it.

My big thesis though.

Is that in this new world order, you know, you have kind of you have the global West, which is us.

We sort of want to preserve it us, you know, in and out, we don't know yet.

Then you have the global East, which is about twenty five countries led by China fall of our Russia, they kind of want to change the current system.

The one that's going to decide is the global South, you know, the likes of India and Saudi Arabia, South African, Nigeria, Kenya, you know, Indonesia, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico.

So these are the sort of swing states or future big powers.

And my humble advice to my Western friends and colleagues is that, you know, we need to work with the global South if we want to have global institutions.

We need to give agency to the global South.

They cannot be created in the image of the global West.

Are they listening Some of them are, some of them are not.

Remember that diplomacy and foreign policy is never static.

There is no end state.

You know, we're not going to end up with the fantastic world government.

It's always diplomacy and trying to work in different directions.

Right now, the pendulum is going towards transaction, towards nationalism, towards bilateral relations, and at some stage it'll start swinging back.

But when it starts, we have to make sure that everyone feels that they're part of it.

I mean, when you are saying this is actually China's moment that present, she could benefit from this chaos or splintering also of Western alliances.

Could be You know, if the twentieth century was the American century, it's the twenty first century going to be the Chinese center.

We don't know.

But my point is that, you know, we can't be spectators in this.

We have to try to influence, and the best way to influence is by showing example.

So I think open societies, free societies, liberal democracy, market economy is the best model of society.

I mean, we seem to be doing well.

If you look at all the rankings around the world about not only the happiness country in the world, but but you know about development, about environment, about no corruption, about openness, about press freedom.

They all taught democracies that are are there in a lot of the Nordic countries.

So we must be doing something right.

But my point is also that we can't go and preach about this.

You know, we can't go to You have to be like us to be happy.

Now.

You know, people find their own models.

But that means a lot of flax.

Until you find one that faits you could be years.

You can be unhappy for many years, but usually fortunately at the end of the day.

You know, countries do develop, I mean, and you know, for me, the best solution is democracy.

But if I said that only democracies developed, I'd be lying.

I mean, you know, look at the UAE, you know, look at Saudi Arabia, look at Katar.

You might not like their model of society, but to say that they are not advanced rich countries would be wrong.

They are, so you know, you have to find a good balance always in this some models work better than others.

We're talking about the fact that actually Fineland's very resilient and it feels like the population has been prepared for potential war for the last decades.

Is you're prepared to go to war?

Well, I mean our mentality is that the better you're prepared, the less likely you're going to end up in a war.

And and in my mind you kind of you fight wars on a battlefield, but you win them at home.

So that's why we look at this concept of comprehensive security.

So you know, we have one of the largest militaries in Europe.

Right we have obligatory military service and nine hundred thousand men and women have done it.

My son just finished his.

I did mine in nineteen eighty eight eighty nine.

We have two hundred and eighty thousand that we can put out a wartime from reserves.

We have sixty two F eighteens.

We have long range missiles, landca and air We just bought sixty four F thirty fives.

We have the biggest artillery together with Poland, and as I always say, we don't have them because we're worried about Stockholm.

So you know, it's a question of preparedness.

So you want to kind of have a return to show that you guys don't come here.

And the other side is the civilian part and that is as important.

So we have this huge network of civilian shelters.

We can house four point five million people underground out of five point six and of course, you know in peace times we use them for parking and for sports facilities and recreational links.

Then we have this Security of Supply Agency which is very prepared and flexible.

So it basically deals with crisis ranging from weather, catastrophes to war.

So their contract with energy companies that they have to have this in this much in stock, or with farmers they have to have this in this much in stock, and then the icing of the cake.

For our general preparedness are these sort of you know, defense courses that you have four times a year for the general population, and it builds a glue of kind of being prepared.

And our argument is that the better you're prepared, the less likely you end up.

But the rest of Europe is not prepared well.

I think many of them are, many of them are waking up.

So of course you have big militaries in Turkey, in Ukraine, in Poland, in Finland.

You have a lot of measure now to increase defense expenditure in the rest of Europe.

And you know, again you have to give credit to the US.

They're pushing Europeans to increase their defense expenditure, but not only that, to increase preparedness.

If you go to these civilian shelters.

I talked to our guys there.

In the past two years, they've had five hundred visitors coming from abroad.

So basically, every king and Prime Minister and president and minister that comes to Finland, we take them to these shelters to show so you know, we are increasing our preparedness in order to avoid the worst.

Do you think every European country should have compulsory military service?

No, I can't.

You know, I can't say.

First of all, I can't give advice on that.

But put it this way, the security situation, say in a country like Portugal or Luxembourg, is a little bit different from the security situation of a country like Finland and Poland.

So there are different degrees of preparedness.

But what we need to do is to have synergies so that we can sort of compare and combine these things.

And that's the way, that's the best way to do it.

I mean, there's so much you know, we're so connected the modern life.

Is it more difficult to go to war in twenty twenty five, twenty six, twenty seven than it was fifty years ago?

Well, I mean again, one of the big problems, I guess is that the line between war and peace has been blurred.

So you have conventional warfare, which we're seeing now in different formats in Ukraine, but then you have hybrid warfare.

And you know, so the things that we're supposed to bring us together, like trade, or like information or energy or even currency, they are now being suddenly used as instruments of war or even migrants.

I mean, the reason we've closed our border with Russia is they're using human beings as weapons.

So, you know, we are sort of in this age of one piece right now that we're trying to grapple with and I think preparedness is a key here.

And of course what we're all trying to do in diplomac is to try to calm things down.

Number one, we try to get a ceasefire in Ukraine.

Number two we try to get a peace agreement, and the number three we try to make sure that Russia doesn't attack again.

In all of your working life, have you ever thought of quitting?

Have you ever just had enough?

Probably though the only time was when I was Prime Minister and Finance Minister.

I mean at other times, never not really quitting.

That wasn't part of it.

Otherwise I wouldn't have, you know, continued to run as party chairman, and so I never kind of quit.

But I'm also really good at losings.

You know, if I lose, I sort of take it and stried it and and move on.

But no, there haven't been those moments.

And I must say that, as tragic as the world situation is right now, I have never felt more empowered about the situation in which I am, and I feel that every day is a challenge.

But at the same time, I sleep very well at night.

You know, I feel I'm very well prepared.

And I have to also add that as the President of the Republic, probably the best informed person in the country in terms of our military planning, in terms of our civilian preparedness, in terms of our societal resilience in general.

And there's a reason I sleep well.

I look at the way in which our authorities work and I feel very calm.

Just give you one example.

There was a ship called the Eagles on Christmas Day that was tearing its anchor and cables in the Baltic Sea.

Our authorities dealt with it like this, and this is what gives me sort of courage and strength to continue.

A president's job is not that lonely.

You have a pretty good team dealing with it, but.

It's lonely at the top, because at the end of the day, the buck stops with you.

Yeah.

I mean, my leadership philosophy is very simple.

I try to give as much as much sort of power and responsibility to the people I work with.

If they screw up, I take the responsibility.

If they succeed, I give them credit.

And I think in a small country, also with foreign policy, it's very much about teamwork.

And this is where I come back to my sort of you know, ice hockey thinking that you know, we're team Finland, and that's why I as president want to work very closely with the government to make sure that you know, we speak the same way language, and we we you know, play the puck into the same zone, and that we have a strategy and and I've always had that philosophy in my life, which I know is counterintuitive sometimes for people in politics, because for them, you know, it's it's a very obscene struggle.

The life is nasty, brutish and short.

But you know, in my mind it's completely the opposite.

I think you have to work together to try to find the solutions.

And I also have to say that, you know, for some people who don't know the Finnish model, it's the president runs foreign policy together with the government.

And I'm the only living person who has been in Finland who has been both prime minister and president and foreign minister, so I understand the reality.

So I feel very strongly that no matter what the color of the government is, it's my job as president to help the government to succeed as well, regardless of their ideological take.

So you feel you make a difference, I hope so, But you know, I'm very bad at judging it myself.

I just try to do my best every day.

And for me, you know, remember again we come from a small country.

You know.

The difference was when I was Prime minister, and this is to all prime ministers.

A lot of people want you to fail for ideological reasons, right, that's what democracy is about.

But when you're president and dealing with foreign policy and foreign policies for a country like Finland's existential everyone wants the president to succeed, so you can imagine, you know, when now we go up in the morning, I get messages and encouragements and well where wishes.

You know, you're all on fire, you know, doing your job and it gives you a lot of energy and also humility to deal with the task ahead.

Presence, don't thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thanks for listening to my leader's interview with President Alexander stub Be sure to check out the full originals show and you can see the Palace the Palace of Mirrors.

It's beautiful and simple at the same time.

It was a scene out of Frozen.

If you enjoyed the episode, also please share it with friends.

We'll have more leaders interviews soon