Achieving a just peace with the Russian Federation is only possible through force. Europe’s role at this point is to continue to put pressure on Russia to make peace, and to make sure that Ukraine can maintain its defense capabilities and has everything it needs to defend itself. Another way to put pressure on Russia and its economy is to tighten and expand the list of sanctions.
In a exclusive interview with the Guildhall news agency, Finnish Member of Parliament Pekka Haavisto shared his insights.
Mr. Haavisto, we are more often hearing the phrase «peace through strength» in the context of Russia’s ongoing aggression against Ukraine. Despite the stated negotiations between the United States, Ukraine and Russia, in practice we are witnessing a growing military escalation on the part of Moscow, as well as the intensification of hybrid attacks — both against Ukraine and against Western countries, particularly in Europe. What do you think the West’s response to these challenges should be? Is the strategy of «peace through strength» really the most appropriate today?
Mr Pekka Haavisto: From the very beginning, European countries have actively supported Ukraine by providing military assistance. This became an important aspect of policy, especially for countries like Finland, which began delivering aid in February 2022. Many European states supplied Ukraine with weapons and essential materials. Secondly, the European Union made efforts to put pressure on Russia—for example, by boycotting certain goods, closing borders to Russian citizens, and implementing other measures. In this context, Europe has demonstrated a unified stance.
As for the new situation involving President Trump, an interesting point is his campaign statement regarding the need for peace negotiations on Ukraine. He promised to achieve peace quickly. Of course, we support any peace initiatives, but they must be fair and include respect for Ukraine’s interests. Peace must not come at the cost of concessions that undermine justice.
We also hope that the U.S. Special Envoy, Mr. Witkoff who has been regularly visiting Moscow, will be able to deliver tangible results from his visit. Europe’s role in this situation is to continue applying pressure on Russia to achieve peace, while also providing Ukraine with the necessary means for defense.
Do you see any additional instruments of pressure that could be applied to Russia at this moment? We know that there is significant support for Ukraine in the form of weapons deliveries. Europe is now uniting around the defense industry, aiming to assist Ukraine with both military equipment and financial resources. Furthermore, a broad range of sanctions has already been imposed against Russia. However, do you perhaps see any additional measures that could further deter the aggressive behavior of the Russian regime?
Mr Pekka Haavisto: I believe that further tightening of sanctions and exploring new directions for them is possible. We know that discussions are also taking place in the United States, where there is talk that if peace negotiations fail to yield results, the U.S. would be prepared to impose new sanctions against Russia. The oil sector is extremely sensitive for Russia, as oil prices play a crucial role in its economy. Personally, I believe that in the future, when the time comes to compensate for the full damage caused by the war, we should consider creating a mechanism that would allow us to levy a fee or impose a tax on Russian oil exports, so that part of the revenue from oil could be directed toward Ukraine’s reconstruction. I think that while we continue to support Ukraine’s defense efforts, we must also begin to think about the country’s post-war recovery and the mechanisms for financing it.
My next question is precisely about oil. At present, a price cap has been set for Russian oil — approximately $60 per barrel. Some experts believe that this cap should perhaps be lowered — to, say, $30 per barrel. In your opinion, would lowering the price cap on Russian oil be an effective measure, or would it not have a significant impact on the Russian economy?
Mr Pekka Haavisto: Undoubtedly, Russia has largely shifted to a wartime economy: many sectors of the national economy are now working to support and finance the war effort. The oil industry, without question, plays a key role in this structure.
In addition to the existing price cap on Russian oil, we are also witnessing the use of market-based instruments, particularly by the United States. Whether intentional or coincidental, the oil market has experienced high volatility in recent times. Countries like the U.S. and OPEC member states can use pricing policies to influence Russia’s war-oriented economy.
In my view, the international community must act with greater creativity and consider a broad range of tools to exert pressure on the Russian economy that sustains military operations. All such measures should remain on the table — especially within the European Union, which continues to seek ways to intensify pressure on Russia in pursuit of peace. Economic levers, including the energy sector — namely oil and gas — remain among the most effective means of exerting such influence.
So, is lowering the price cap on Russian oil currently on the table?
Mr Pekka Haavisto: It is certainly one of the ways to impact the Russian economy. In my view, it is crucial to keep the full range of available tools on the agenda and to carefully assess which of them could prove most effective. Among the measures under discussion is also the confiscation of Russian assets held in Western countries, with the aim of directing not only the interest generated but the capital itself toward Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction. All possible approaches must be subject to thoughtful consideration, weighing their strengths and weaknesses—only in this way can we develop a comprehensive strategy of economic pressure on Russia in the current circumstances.
The problem is that even if European countries decide to lower the price cap on Russian oil, there is the so-called «shadow fleet» that allows these restrictions to be circumvented. This indeed creates loopholes in the sanctions mechanism, and the price cap is not working as effectively as it was intended to.
Mr Pekka Haavisto: Yes, you’ve correctly identified one of the key problems: the use of third countries to facilitate trade in Russian oil. For example, oil is purchased via India, even though the original supplier is Russia. These kinds of sanctions evasion tactics are indeed a serious challenge, and we need to find effective ways to block them. This is a very important issue.
Trump recently commented on the Nord Stream 2, suggesting selling Russian gas as American gas to European countries. It seems as though he believes Europeans don’t understand what’s going on. However, I hope this situation does not come to pass.
Mr Pekka Haavisto: Although we are not directly involved in the issue of Nord Stream 2, which connects Saint Petersburg to Germany, we were quite surprised by the idea of its restoration under the current circumstances. As you know, in the Baltic Sea, we are facing the consequences of damages not only to the pipelines but also to the energy and communication cables located on the seabed. Russian «shadow fleet» vessels are damaging important infrastructure such as cables and connections with their anchors. This is undoubtedly part of the hybrid warfare against countries supporting Ukraine, and we find this especially concerning.
My next question concerns the Russian state corporation «Rosatom», which is involved in nuclear energy and several other sectors. This company, while actively cooperating with several European countries, also participates in the production of weapons for Russia. Despite these facts, international sanctions against «Rosatom» remain quite limited and fragmented. In your opinion, should sanctions against this company be strengthened in Europe, or is this difficult due to its close ties with partners in the EU?
Mr Pekka Haavisto: I will start by saying that one of the most serious risks brought by this war has been the threats to nuclear facilities, particularly in Ukraine. The issue of nuclear safety is always an extremely important and sensitive one, which cannot be taken lightly or treated carelessly. This has been our approach in Finland, where the operation of nuclear power plants and ensuring their safety have always been of paramount importance.
Equally important is the issue of nuclear waste disposal. Nuclear energy should be used solely for peaceful purposes, with adherence to all stages of the nuclear cycle, and this is significant not only at the national level but also internationally. In this context, it must be noted that a certain level of cooperation with «Rosatom» has been and remains inevitable, especially when it comes to nuclear power plants that were built with their involvement or where their equipment and materials are used for maintenance.
However, this issue must be approached very carefully if future boycotts against nuclear producers and companies are being considered. In Finland, this issue has not been a subject of wide discussion, but I understand that, unfortunately, there is a direct connection between the peaceful use of nuclear energy and the development of nuclear military technologies, which often go hand in hand.
This is also a matter of how «Rosatom» uses civilian nuclear energy as a tool of pressure on various countries. We see the example of Hungary, an EU member state, which is building a new nuclear reactor in partnership with «Rosatom» and Russia. This could become a real threat to European countries because it is not just about civilian nuclear energy, but also about other aspects. That is why I asked whether European countries should introduce more coordinated and comprehensive sanctions against «Rosatom»?
Mr Pekka Haavisto: This is an extremely important issue. In Finland, for example, we suspended the construction of a nuclear facility in partnership with «Rosatom». Due to the war, this project was shut down, and as a result, it will not be realized. The reaction in Finland was very decisive. However, it is important to note the following. I maintain close ties with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), with Mr. Grossi and other experts, who, as I know, have also visited Ukraine, including the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. They expressed serious concerns about the risks related to Chernobyl and other facilities in the context of the war. This is exactly the situation where international responsibility for nuclear safety becomes crucial. We cannot afford to increase the risks in both the military and environmental spheres, especially when it comes to attacks or military actions near nuclear facilities.
Let us continue the discussion on the topic of the Russian shadow fleet, which poses a serious environmental threat to all European countries. In your opinion, how can the European Union use the environmental threat as part of a broader strategy to counter the navigation of Russia’s shadow fleet?
Mr Pekka Haavisto: Certainly, this is a serious issue. First and foremost, attention must be paid to the condition of these vessels. Many of them are outdated and not designed to handle modern chemical or oil cargoes. Moreover, a significant portion of the crews lacks sufficient experience for operating in northern waters. Winter conditions in the Baltic Sea are particularly dangerous, as ships encounter icy surfaces. These concerns are already being actively discussed in Finland, as some incidents have led to damage to infrastructure — for example, anchors tearing underwater cables.
This issue is widely debated, and closer cooperation has been established among the Baltic Sea countries on matters of maritime safety. Of course, we adhere to international maritime law, but at present the main focus is on developing measures aimed at protecting the environment, as well as ensuring that the insurance of these ships and their operating companies covers any potential damage or losses in the event of an accident. For example, in cases of infrastructure damage or oil spills. This is becoming an increasingly pressing issue in the region, as the risks of major accidents are undoubtedly rising with the growing number of vessels in Russia’s shadow fleet. The Baltic Sea is a highly vulnerable ecosystem, and a single major accident could cause serious harm to the entire region.
The current state of relations between the United States and the European Union — key partners in the democratic coalition — remains dynamic, shaped in large part by the policies of the White House. In your view, what role should the European Union play in maintaining Western unity in confronting authoritarian regimes?
Mr Pekka Haavisto: First of all, I want to emphasize that all of Finland felt deep sympathy for your President Zelensky when he visited the White House. We were appalled by the way he was received, considering he is a man leading his country in a time of war and calling for continued support in this just struggle. The way he was treated in Washington was unfair, and we sincerely sympathized with both him and Ukraine.
Our position, which we voiced in Washington, is that we must remain a steadfast pillar of support for Ukraine. In this struggle, we must act together — Canada, the United States, European countries, Japan, South Korea, and others. We are working to strengthen this coalition and continue our efforts to build what is being called a «coalition of the willing», which could continue to support Ukraine in the future. We also hope that the United States will remain part of this process.
We view the initial efforts by the U.S. in pursuit of peace positively. It is important that a country capable of influencing the parties involved in the conflict strives for peace. However, that peace must be just for Ukraine, as a country that has fallen victim to Russian aggression. This must always remain at the core of the discussion. We continue our dialogue with the United States on these issues. Naturally, there are other matters in our relations with America as well. For example, the issue of Greenland, which is a serious concern for Denmark — one of our northern neighbors. There are also issues surrounding tariffs and customs duties, where we must protect our own interests.
All of this creates a complex situation. And our main concern is that we must not allow ourselves to forget the issues related to Ukraine amid all the new challenges and problems. It is crucial that we continue to focus on resolving the conflict between Russia and Ukraine with a view to long-term stability — and, of course, on securing a just peace for Ukraine.
We are deeply grateful for this, because we understand how many challenges exist within each EU country. But you are not just a country or a union — you are far more powerful than you realize, because a united European Union possesses vast resources — human, natural, and military. All that is needed is to remain united and act together.
Mr Pekka Haavisto: I believe that, at this moment, the EU is the last hope of the democratic world. Yes, it’s true that reaching a consensus among 27 countries can be more difficult than in a country with a single leader. But I must say that I was very proud in the spring of 2022, when we swiftly began supporting Ukraine, welcoming Ukrainian refugees, and quickly established a support mechanism for Ukraine through the European Peace Facility. In times of crisis, my experience shows that the European Union comes together. And now as well — when we see that the United States is not as actively supporting Ukraine’s NATO membership, which we, on our part, do support — we are currently speaking about Ukraine’s membership in the European Union. I believe that this European perspective is very important for Ukraine.
Moreover, within the EU, there is the issue of Hungary under the leadership of Orban, who has essentially become a kind of «Trojan horse» for the European Union. I’ve heard some politicians from France and Germany speak about the possibility of invoking Article 7 of the EU Treaty to restrict Orbán’s veto power in matters of foreign policy and sanctions, since his actions are effectively undermining the unity of the EU. This could become a serious challenge for Europe’s coordinated policy.
Только главные новости в нашем Telegram, Facebook и GoogleNews!
Tweet