welcome. interest wonderful to see everyone back. -- it is wonderful to see everyone back. my number is -- name is john allen. i want to welcome the ambassador from sweden and finland. they are here to discuss finland and sweden's path to nato membership and the implications of their two countries as they joined the alliance. russia's unprovoked attack on ukraine had an enormous effect on the european security architecture and around the world. to include prompting of the countries of finland and sweden to reassess their long-held defense doctrine and pose alignment. just last wednesday, finland and sweden officially applied for a nato membership. it came after weeks of internal debate, as it should be in their countries. it was a big risk debates. after significant public opinion following russia's invasion of ukraine, today finland and sweden demonstrate the popular support and parliamentary support of the decision by seeking to join the alliance. this decision has received some outspoken report -- support from our nato countries, including u.s. it should be noticed that the process of joining nato requires the unanimous consensus of all 30 of the current members. by joining nato countries agree, in this case sweden and finland will agree to the defense that is at the heart of nato, which hasn't called article five that attack on one state of the nato alliance is a attack on all states of the nato alliance. it is worth remembering here today that the first time article five actually was instituted was after the attack of september 11 2001. it represents a true watershed moment in the history of the nato alliance. it is our great honor to be here for this moment. it is our great honor for us to give our guests the opportunity to enlighten this audience as to the thinking of both of those countries about their own security, and ultimately the collective security of europe. before the conversation gets underway, i would like to take a moment to offer introductory remarks on our guests. you have seen a lot. prior to assuming her role as ambassador, she served as director general or trade in the sweetest ministry of foreign affairs -- swedish ministry of foreign affairs. it started in 1994 with her first hosting to the swedish embassy in moscow. and at the swedish eu representation in brussels working on european security and defense issues. ambassador became in finland up september of 2020, it has been a exciting time for you as well having just join us. prior to that, he served as the investor to finland in russia. he also served as a diplomatic advisor to the foreign affairs. as well as the you in brussels. at the beginning of his career he served in the embassy of finland in kyiv, ukraine. in a moment we will turn the floor to michael hamlin. our senior fellow and occupant of germany and transatlantic relations. for those of our audience who are not with us, if you would like to submit questions, please do so at brookings -- questions at brookings.edu, or at #nato membership. with that come over to you and thank you for joining us. >> thank you very much. this introduction save us a lot of work. we are not going to get into a lengthy discussion of why you are here. at this point i think are two people on the planet who do not know that russia invaded ukraine . that has changed a o the ed europeans lines. minds. on another note, i want to say something that may be is a little more surprising for americans. all you ever hear about from europeans is the narcissism difference. rights? how we always disagree about everything. can i just say that there are few german children who do not grow up either reading who is one of the greats of european literature. when i'm trying to say here is that we acclimate to each other's cultural abilities through these things as well. there is more cultural commonality then you might thing already. on a slightly more serious level, there has been a neutral affect clause. you can argue about how serious that is. but we are already -- appeared with that, what i want to talk about with both of you is the obstacles that have currently popped up in your way. the first one is a pretty big one. the german president saying he would object up both of your countries into nato. maybe you would like to start us off responding to that. how serious do you think this is ? can anything be done to counter this objection? >> i would say that we can proceed with the that spirit obviously, i think we are still in the face of trying to find out how serious the demand and the problems are. i think it is a serious matter. we intend to discuss it. it means that we will have to take it seriously. we are now doing that and i hope we can find a solution which is sustainable. >> a highly diplomatic answer. you did play last week in a debate organized by our friends. as far as you are concerned, their objection to swedish behavior were all wrong. the ypg who has organizations with the pkk which was instrumental in helping drive out. i will like to bring you in here as well after we hear the swedish ambassador. what can you do to overcome the bilateral swedish and turkish concerns, which also into the pkk living in sweden? >> thank you so much for having us. this is a discussion we are having with the turkish government right now. they agreed to stay in contact and see how this can be resolved. i just want to underline that sweden is a very strong ally in all of the issues that deals with terrorism and anti-terrorism i should say. the european union has had a pkk on its territory since 2002. we have always been there for them. we have been operating in these organizations in syria. as of the united states have done and many other european units have done. we hope we can see i to i with the turkish. i just want to make clear that just as our prime minister did when she was here, we take nato it extremely seriously. we see ourselves as a partner strengthening all of its territory. we are giving our location and gray security into the north. a security in the south is not something you can divide when you join an alliance like this. as you also know, this was not a easy discussion. these countries have been turning underline of neutral. we changed our mind. if we want to become members as soon as possible because we seen what is going on in ukraine and in our region. >> fair enough. we were chatting earlier. maybe mike would like to come here. i am already breaking it up to talk about the political ratifications. mike, we will go into the more in-depth security questions. mike, mi wrong about f-35 and f 100? >> it is a great question. you know, i'm not going to give advice to swedish about compromise on the individuals that they want to protect. i would say that united states can respect what turkey has done in regard to the syrian war in regards than what we do. turkey has welcomed 4 million refugees from syria. the problem would have been so much worse without turkish road. if i were coaching resident biden about how to handle this conversation, i might suggest that he reiterate that message. let's verify here in the united states we are not good as the nordics on refugee resettlement. we have all had very tortured strategies towards the syrian war. even if some aspects have not been very good, i would acknowledge to think the turkish people for what they have done in regards to the refugee. >> let me turn to you and talk about the move in the u.s. we heard biden say sweden has strong democratic institutions, strong military, strong economies and strong moral sense of what is right. that is a ringing endorsement. it is clear that mitch mcconnell is trying to do that with the speed in which he is pushing the gop to propel this entry signing. there is as well a path less noticeable undercurrents of skepticism here, both amongst certain corners of the gop appeared for a variety of reasons. you can find this on the left and on the right of the gop. what is your answer to those americans? have you actually gotten questions to this on your many misses on the hill? -- questions on the hill? are people coming to you and saying you should be thankful for it? >> i think both of our countries are great contributions to nato. we have shown over the years we have taken security seriously. we have an enormous of being -- . we build our own submarines. a lot of our weapons can be seen in the ukraine right now. we are wrapping up military bases, going back to army, we have been in every operation. we have shown what our country can do and also our solidarity. even if we were not a member before. i would say to those americans, that actually we would really contribute something, so that american predecessors in europe is extremely important but also we can sleep better at night. >> is not something that needs to be filled with nato. secondly, it already has five members who have come on board with russia. i think these are the main arguments. i think we really get positive remarks. we have a extremely strong-willed to defend the country. it is by far the strongest. i think our business policies have always been big. that has always been our plan. nonalignment does not mean we do not pay attention to this. it meant that we have to be ready to do everything. it means we are well prepared for that. i think it is a big decision. i think it is actually one of the biggest deals that has been made. for both countries, i do think we do bring additional. so come to us. we have a i, we have quantum, we have a lot of things that are quite rare. >> fair enough. from relatively small countries, 5.5 million. to have the defense militaries that you have and 200,000 reservists in your case is astonishing. my country -- if my country could compete with that i would be very happy. what i want to ask you is, both of you of course have a tradition of total defense, which stems from the past. do you think there are lessons in that practice engaging in business sector, that you have other words experience that you could bring to nato? >> i think we are going to face a lot of economical turmoil. i think in our case it has been in the making for 50 years. and it's a long time. 50 years. it actually means we have to engage, not only the military but policy leaders. we have two educate them. you have to have a mindset in those areas. it does not come easy. we have been doing it for the fourth cold war, after the cold war. germany was basically selling all of its useful technologies. >> the same with us. this was really a part of the cold war era. it has always been in our minds. in the 90's and kind have lost that event but now we have gotten it back. we have just opened a couple of weeks ago a new agency. this is both about preparing the general public about awareness about cyber and also disinformation campaign. but also connecting civil society, companies. the difference in today, i think in cold war days, that were mainly swedish now they are international ones. how do you deal about international companies, providers in a crisis? i think that could be a very interesting discussion. >> that brings me to our last geopolitical question before i headed over to mike which is one that is occupying a lot of people. the current blockade by russia of the plexi is creating massive food -- black sea is creating massive food and securities. it is a war of the west. in which the west is depriving of food security. finland and sweden have long traditions, not just of developing policies. if any two countries are experiencing it in his youtube. what can you bring to the europeans -- you too. what can you bring mesh. --. >> sweden has been given 1.3 geopolitical development in the last three years. i think what we bring to the table is a kind of trustworthiness. this is something that we have done for a long time. we have done a globally. we have excellent contacts all over the globe. i agree with you. this is the narrative we need to change. i do not think we have come to the conclusion on how we can do that. it is fundamentally important. maybe one that is ending the war and suffering is important. this is one of the more important issues we need to tackle. when we talk about this, we are one billion out of eight. we are not that many of in economic force. we need to change this. let me ask you. do you have any suggestions on western alliance based? economic humanitarian intervention to come to grips with the humanitarian crisis at a time where it appears to be practically impossible for all secured reasons to do anything about the naval blockade? what do we do? >> you cannot do anything about the naval blockade. if i remember possible it is 10% of global wheat. i think you should be able to fix that. i think we can be helpful of that. let's be frank, and does not solve problematic. we have to have a global focus on this and on all of the institutions. i think we have to get together and have discussions on it. it has to be something practical l. >> what do we do about the ukrainian blockade? >> i wanted to get your take on how to understand why this war happened. we are not here fundamentally to discuss that question, you may want to pass on it, which you have the right to do. to make my question specific is to ask, is this just putin's war, or is there something about russian strategy, russian thinking that you could see this coming that you can look back to benefit the hindsight of knowing what tragedy has upon us. is this in one guys head fundamentally and one huge mistake? >> i think it is both. i think it is in one guys head. my own observation for moscow was the idea that russia has gained a lot of acceptance. i think much of theactually is . if you read putin's article, it is all very clear. if ukraine is denied of the right of being an independent country, how much can you actually say? this is thinking, it is when without is fully realizing the potential. we also it, we concluded that it may lead to something. almost none of us find it. it will actually create war. i think there are deeper reasons for that. you see that us out, i think he has responsibility for this. there is a wide acceptance among the population. this idea, it is said that we need help from sweden. everybody would simply think this is population. this is a problem that we must tackle. >> that is a very illuminating answer. anything to add? >> back when -- the soviet union had fallen. we thought it would be another russia. a developed -- if developed, it is full of fantastic people and culture. i agree with him, it is because we are so close by. we were given so much intelligence by our american friends and you should be proud of that. how you have cooperated with us. at the end of the day, we did not want to see that it could happen. and then it did. that shook us in a way. it brought us to take this decision so fast. russia is to blame for this, no one else. >> if i could ask you both a follow-up question to that, it is regarding your application for nato membership. why did your country change your mind our nato membership? i will let you put in your own words, you will feel a risk in a military or geographic term? or is it where the russian strategic culture has gone that may present are beyond putin? >> we have slightly different policies in our country and nato membership was not on the table in sweden. it did not mean we would never apply. we did everything we could to cooperate with others without 28 military alliance. i will not give you the whole story, it is ingrained in our dna and how weight look at our own situation. this kind of middle of the road where we are not a member but incorporate as closely as possible without the cabinet member. we have seen the buildup in russia, the military forces. i was a bit worried, i can completely understand the focus on china. i was worried you are not as focused on european security as we would like. we saw the buildup of the military capabilities in russia. we saw it as a threat. you and i together spent a lot of time talking to the administration and members of congress on what we saw. we understand the focus on china but we have to focus here as well. it is a dangerous place. we have seen that now. i think when you look back, it was a gradual process. we do not want to renege that. that changed it for us because we thought the brutality. we saw that this is completely changing security architecture forever. that is what made it happen. >> in your case, the last big war it was against russia in some form or another. in your case it was 200 years ago and in your case, a century. honoring the 1940 finish war. you found a way to make your peace with them. or at least to get a long throughout the cold war. what changed in finland that led to your reassessment? >> we had three reasons for that decision. it was already putin's demands in december. >> yes. >> he was trying to define the european order in a way that would have left us sweden and others permanently outside of nato. outside of nato for us means you are within their sphere of influence. he was clearly -- before that, putin said that it is your decision to join. we will be against but it is your acceptance. we have free choice on the matter. he was trying to deny that. that was the first shock. we concluded that if we do have no we act this attempt, we could live with that. we could not live with that. i think the attack in february was a trigger. it was not the only reason or the -- it was the trigger. you cannot do this without somebody pulling the trigger. in the u.s., people define if you are neutral or if you have made a history of composition. it jumped from the neutrality after the alliance. we have been integrated with nato for almost 30 years. we decided to buy u.s. fighter jets right after the cold war in 1992. we have been fully integrated with nato for more than 20 years. here is a small difference, we have had formal doctrine saying that if a situation changes, we may apply for nato membership. we have always kept it as an option. we have always made sure that we are as close to nato as you can possibly be without being a full member. for us, instead of being a giant leap from one to another it is actually a final step on a long path to becoming a member state. it was explained to us that this is something we have been discussing for the past 30-20 years. we thought the is -- we thought it is possible. if this does not constitute the need to change, we have been talking about, then what does? it was fairly easy and simple in this situation. three reasons, integration made it easy, it made us ready than the russian had to defy the order in the way that pugin left us in a trigger. >> i agree. one of the fundamentals is every country's sovereign decision on his own security policy -- its own security policy. not a dictator from moscow. everyone has rights. what is your fundamental. swedish security is very tight finish -- tied to finnish security. if you think finland 20 and not sweden, we would be completely alone in this. we would probably have to increase our defense spending even more. if we would be completely on our own. that is also an issue that was discussed. once an nato membership we have to do it as well, even though it is our own sovereign decision. our security is so closely tied to each other. >> it could raise the question for sweden, not that you are going to have this debate, if you need nuclear weapons. if you are the only nuclear -- neutral country left, russia will start targeting you. >> we have been making plutonium but we started sending them to you. we have started our own nuclear started in the 50's. >> we need to have some of the conversation for due diligence before ratification. what kind of help you would need from the rest of the membership and a second question is going to be how can you provide us? especially for the baltics, which are exposed, the three or the five countries that you mentioned are bordering russia in the case of lithuania and the other two with the main rush landmass -- russian landmass. what would you need from us in terms of nato deployment on your territory, air cover, based in more southerly europe. in terms of intelligence sharing, are there at 1-2 areas you would imagine the greatest help may be needed and to what magnitude? we need to send a division to be stationed in finland? a couple of air wings in sweden? sketching out the range of plausible debate as you would see it. >> is not something we have discussed yet. as i said, we are a successful nation on our own and we have been allowed for a long time. as i have seen, there is no debate on what will be stationed in sweden. i do not think anything right now. that is how we are going into the alliance. the most important part is operational planning. that is crucial. when you become a nato member that is what happens. we know how we can operate together. we already have quite deep planning with finland. it is not as deep as it would be within the alliance. i have not seen that there is no discussion on troops or things like that. we are quite capable and we are already collaborating very closely with our finish -- finnish friends i norway and denmark -- and norway and denmark. we hope we bring good knowledge about our region and given how intelligence services operate. we see a road in the baltic sea. we have quite strong navy, a very strong navy. we have submarines, new submarines that are tailor-made just for the baltic. we are also ripping up our air force. i think together in the nordic region we will have 200 planes or something like that. we are forceful. how do we contribute? >> helpful answer. >> i am also flying solo because there is no decision around that. basically, we have armed forces. we are not taking decisions out of the military desperation that we need to fill the gap. there is no debate at all. a lot of the need depends on what the situation looks like down the road. if the russian reaction is muted, as it has been so far, we do not have an interest in it. we have to -- we have what we need and it is sufficient for the moment. if it increases, we have to have a discussion. you mentioned the baltic area. obviously, are our allies will play a role there. i would be careful not to discuss any kind of regional blocks within nato. the european states, i think that would be wrong. as allies we have to think the nato security is 360 degrees. we have to be committed. even if our problems are in the north. we expect the same for the southern member states of nato. we have to be careful not to be a regional area within nato. everybody has to take care of everybody. that is not the alliance. >> the war in ukraine. i would love to hear those words , i am hoping that ukraine not just bias but also getting back into territory. i would also say for us to help it reconstruct. revise. >> we are all in this together and assume to be allies, twice the size of the nato was before the end of the cold war. those of us who have fought the good fortune to visit your countries understand the geography, you are pretty big. the terrain is pretty tough. as a baltics are -- the politics are wonderful, tough people. a look of open fields, but eastern ukraine. there has been a problem for members of nato since 2004. it means it is solidifying nato's path to the baltics is a potential contribution of the sweden and norway -- finland could decide on. to the extent we can establish a reliable logistics pathway to the baltics, i think that is an important contribution to a holistic nato defense. do you agree? what steps may help? we may work together on an island or some other kind of specific preparation, solidifying nato's ability to defend the baltics. >> operations allow them, the alliance has one contribution. >> there has not been any detailed discussion because we just pitted in our application -- handed in our application. look on the islands we have in the baltics, as you can take part in air policing. operational planning is key. that is what needs to start very soon. >> i sometimes have been a critic as how the nato enlargement process has happened and did not support the idea of operant membership to ukraine -- offering membership to ukraine. that was before any kind of food or debate. it is important to have the texture you have provided today to understand that you have a strong military's and you will be able to help the alliance protect existing members. understanding a bit of that debate is important for a general american audience. we have millions of viewers watching us. this is a great opportunity to bring the message to the contrary. i will give the time back to her to wrap up. we will do a round from the audience. we give it back to you. i see three hands. we take all three together. each answer one or two you like. identify yourself if you could, as well. >> my name is laura, i cover foreign policy with the hail. -- hill. on turkey's protest of your country's 20 nato, could you talk about cooperation you think you could achieve with perky or -- turkey or any agreements you could not agree to? >> retired foreign service request on turkey. what do you think is the endgame considering all of the items in play? russian antiaircraft system handling of refugees, what do you think they will be willing to prepare to settle for? >> stanley, as general allen mentioned, we were in afghanistan, article five we lost the war. we left last year. that is not mentioned. i am puzzled why you do not seem to be concerned that nato just lost a war? thank you. >> over to you. >> i do not want to speculate on what the president's endgame is about. i can only talk about the discussions we are having. that is what you have seen in the media on terrorism. those are topics that are covered in the discussion that we have with the turks. i do not want to speculate on that. i hope we can solve it. we want to be members of nato. we think we are contributors. >> any other comments? >> of course, yes, we are lost in afghanistan. we also had to leave head over heels. that was something we have to contemplate what went wrong. what could have been done differently. we look at our own national security and the security for the population. we think that joining nato is the alternative to giving ourselves and our neighbors and alliances as much security as possible. that is the reasoning behind that. >> obviously, on the endgame, i do not think anybody knows how it will play out. we have to focus on what we were actually talking about. i think there are certain items including political issues, terrorism issues, i would simply say that i am sure that there are things that could be done. interrupting cannot be done. anything that would somehow jeopardize or put in question our role as a rule of law country or question our feeder -- freedom of speech or political opinion. i think that would be impossible. finland is finland, it is going to stay finland, no matter what. there are things that can be denied and there are no-go areas. on the winning the war, i think when we look at nato, i think afghanistan was a loss and a large undertaking. you understand why it became so difficult, why it became so long-standing. one has to not forget, nato has been the most successful alliance in history. it has made sure that the cold war and results are won. without a single shot being down in europe. i think the deterrent of nato and article five is strong. i do not have any doubts all of the countries outside of nato respect that. and it has been successful. i think afghanistan is my feeling of the relevance of nato in any way. >> one final question. my question does focus on the endgame. your interest is the next few months. i wanted to offer you the chance to comment on behalf of your cells or the government about -- of yourselves or the government about the endgame. an interesting debate where he and secretary blinken visited at the end of april at austin said our objective is to weaken russia so that they cannot do this again. that led to a debate if our long-term goal is to weaken russia indefinitely or if this is a means to an end. what is the long-term goal was the war is finally over? is there a way you can think about this debate that secretary austen provoked about the long-term objective in regards to russia? >> i think what is important that we safeguard european security and the right of everyone to choose their own security. that is not think for russia to have any fuse about. this expansion for us going into russia -- nato is not controversial to russia. we are not going to be more threatening to russia then we have ever been before. we have not been a threat to russia. may be we were 400 years ago? we must make sure that we do everything that we can, that russia does not do this again. the swedish politicians have been talking about being in it for the long haul. making sure that russia does not get the possibility to do that again. how do we do that? this is something we need to look in and look at going forward. >> i would say we can russia -- weaken russia is one way to put it. it is also dangerous because throughout all kinds of opportunities, difficulties, it is regular for finland. russia has been a problem. it is basically a political software. the optimum outcome of all of this, i do not have the faintest idea how or when it is going to end. it is a surprise wrapped in a mystery. i do not think anybody can see it. down the road, before the european secretary -- security can be rebuilt, we need a russia whose population sees this kind of policy of land acquisition as an act of war. it does not bring a successful future. i think if it is not learned, as a problem will -- the problem will keep repeating itself. i do not know how to unlearn that. it has to be the goal and that -- we are not looking for an unstable russia. we want to see an economically prosperous, politically stable russia. to deny these kind of policies. > thank you. >> thank you. >> >> it is really important to keep explaining to the public why we are doing this. it is nothing to the price that the ukrainians are paying. nvades taiwan.