the we are because like, instead of the ukraine says that its recent incursion into russian territory has made a mockery of fruit and red lines, and that the west should go all in to help him when the war. i discussed the options with a finished foreign minister, lina val towed in on conflicts down. finland knows a lot about red lines from russia across one last year when it decided to advance in the decades of neutrality in favor of joining nato. and given its expansive border, defending against aggression from moscow has always been a cor focus. so how does she see the prospect of turning the tide and rushes invasion of ukraine and what other threats the cc on the horizon, for example, in her own back yard, the arctic foreign minister, elena, vault and,

and welcome to conflicts own. thank you so much. i want to begin with ukraine because you are a strong supporter of the country's defense. as ukraine pushes to hold onto the summertime gains and rushes curse region, doesn't it show the pollutants? red lines might not be as red as he wants to west to believe. i think it shows exactly that and i think in the west, in general, we backpacks not just an over the course of the past 2 and a half years with a full scale out of other pools. gatewood that that's brushing is waging any crane, but also before that we have perhaps been too hesitant to believe and stick to uh, values and know what the truth face. um, and that is obviously relying on the international rules based on what and, and the you and job that for instance. and also in this regard, we do see that in some instances, the rhetoric we hear from the russians is much more aggressive than what they are

really intending to pull for it. so given that, how far would finland's be willing to go to support ukraine? because, i mean, you, you've previously said that the finished position is clear. and i'm quoting you here. you've said that we are not right now sending any troops and not willing to discuss that is the day fast approaching when you're going to have to discuss it. as an, as dense has not changed in that regard. but to, for instance, what comes to the military equipment, the defense material, damnation, we have a sense to, to ukraine. we haven't set any constraints on the usage, although then of course, international law and that you and shop. and i think this is very important to keep in mind because us, who are we issue uh, helping ukraine and also your credit. and it has the little full right to, to defend itself for as long as. and while we keep it to be eligible for international law,

then there shouldn't be any red line. and nothing to be afraid about. you haven't put any direct geographical restrictions on the weapon tree, but you know, your, some of your nato partners in an allies have ukraine meantime, is saying that it needs the green light from countries to use their donate a weapons inside russia showed your allies and partners lift to the as bands i can always speak on behalf of payment and payment uh, from the, from the out. so it has not set any constraints on the material. but i do know that some of our friends and allies do have some concerns. but again, for as long as we remain in the area stipulated by international law. and you've been shocked that like we are right. but you've previously said that it's an issue that you're taking up with your fellow nato's nato alliance ministers. a foreign minister has, excuse me, what are other leaders and for investors telling you when you take this up with them as well, i'm not commenting on behalf of the messages clear heads up. i have also taken this

up by actually with, with my colleagues, and i just hope that that, that we will be able to help ukraine in the best possible way. put this into the big picture for us because you've said that you shouldn't rule anything out. and long term, as we've heard, including sending troops is in the risk that at some point it will be too late. yes. well we, of course, that i'm scrutinizing the situation um on a daily basis to get uh with, with the allies in partners. but again, this is not the situation when it would be about sending troops to ukraine. this has been something from interest is considering at the moment, or of causing the long term. it's important that we don't rule everything out. on the contrary it's, it's very important that we speak to

a narrative which is clear. and our strategy that we help you crane to has the low for rights to defend itself. and based on the do and shots, we also have the right to, to help you crane to defend itself it's, it's territory and its sovereignty. so whatever is needed now and in the future, of course, we will have to us to be flexible and at driving off to to see what, what it is exactly that is needed. i'd like to ask you further about um, you know, some of your allies biggest concerns, which is the threat of contagion. we've seen recently, nato members, romania and lafayette. they have just reported russian tros, crashing after breaching their air space. is the risk of drawn nato nations into the conflict increasing right now? well, you know, um, so far, i know just in the past 2 and a half years. and so clean this time. but also years before test only be in russia

to has been responsible for this escalation. ukraine has been trying to co exist with it's much larger, neva and stop and carefully evolving itself into a proper democracy, you know, gets rid of corruption and everything. which of course takes a long time after such a long time in the soviet union and everything. um and uh, i think we should not consider so easily to take this sort of to blame on us. russia, of course, has been using this narrative for, for a just stuff. it's the west to, you know, edge to close on a to was, was always coming to close to close to his board. but at the same time, we haven't been threatening russia. nato certainly does not taking you countries by force, but it's, it's countries who democratically just wants to join. and at the same time that we

obviously we have seen that. so. so doing this for a now, especially in a well recently, in the past weeks and, and even days um, some of 5 rushes material has landed basically in, in nature conference. so this is extremely important that we take the seriously, we investigated these mattress and then we react to decisively. let's talk a little bit more about that reaction because there are calls for nato to act and jointly to counter such air in persians. i'd like to take it to something that poland has previously said, that in other countries bordering ukraine, have a duty to shoot down incoming russian missiles before they enter their aerospace. so nato has rejected this proposal. it has said it risk the alliance becoming part of the conflict which showed nato do. is this something we are carefully uh, now uh, investigating, uh and nature will of course and comment when,

when the time comes, but so far, this is indeed the case. but at the same time, each nation is also responsible for protecting its, its own age as space and, and, and the security of, of, i don't see defense. so in this regard, we really need to take this situation very, very seriously. but it goes back to, you know, the joint approach and, and you know, how much on the side and how united nato nato allies are in any potential response . um and, you know, nato allies have said previously, we have to do whatever we can to help you crane and whatever we can to avoid escalation. and you know, the question is, is that still a realistic approach given the current set of conditions on the ground, that certainly is still land remains the, the approach that a also a finland is, is supporting. but of course, what is debatable and is debatable every day. also, as the conflict evolves,

is that what should be counted as a step towards escalation? because a said, it is not to do a crane and not us. the other countries who have been helping ukraine in, in these 2 and a half years to have been responsible for the escalation, it's been russia. i'd like to ask you briefly about the sense of resolve about supporting ukraine among your nato allies. you are a member of the us, we mentioned you're a very strong supporter of ukraine. we have seen some cracks emerge in the united states and uh, you know, uh, presidential candidate trump has suggested that he could hold american aid. there's no guarantee. meantime that harris can continue biden's policies on ukraine if she were to win the election. how could the europe maintain the level of support needed if necessary? because here in europe, you also have

a situation where germany appears to be waiver and amid a budget crisis. how concerning is that for you? well, it's very concerning. and also in the middle, of course, we have been uh over the years, paying a high price for a security and defense. and now of course us as members and they to, we are investing in even heavy yeah. into it, in order to know to not only keep safe ourselves, but also to be able to protect the entire alliance if need be. but the burden is, of course there. but at the same time, we need to understand that now citizens need to understand that there is no such thing as put us too many euro. so too many dollars for the security and for being able to protect the values which we at the end of the day, i want to be protecting. so it's democracy, the freedom rule of law and human rights effectively,

and perhaps in finland because, well, we have been invited by russia in the past. and unluckily, after the 2nd world world war, we were able to remain independent and, but we do see what the difference is behind the border quotes and none of these values that we hold to um, uh, sake for it. so therefore, we know that we, you know, want to keep things as, as the on and therefore, so we feel very strong sympathy with the ukrainians who unfortunately haven't been independent for too long yet to really i have decided to, to war the way that they become a proper democracy, you know, that they of people kind of kind of live in freedom and according to the european way of life and so, and so forth. so as i think it's actually my duty to keep on helping ukraine. so let's take it to you. you know, your own security and the threat,

the rush surprises because any pilot there the, the fact that finland is taking this whole of society approach and that you have a high level of readiness. you, you know, how to, you have done it for, for many decades. to deter the threat from russia, you've got this 1300 kilometer border. in fact, with the country, your intelligence agency is now saying that russia's actions remain the greatest threat to finland's national security. russia is trading finland, doesn't unfriendly states, and as a target for espionage and malign influence and activities. how do you see the challenges of living in this new system? now, we're poor relations with russia appear to be the, nor. unfortunately, it is russia who is responsible for, for the prostate and all of a fab relations. indeed with the full scale invasion of ukraine. um, well there's, there's no way that we can for a go back if i have that, but definitely not easily to, to any relations whatsoever. of course,

the men just like any other european country in the past, say, 2 decades, we hope that russia would finally also become a true democracy. we wanted to engage in trade and investment and we did that. unfortunately, nothing of that helped. and that is also very important that we realize what truly happened in the past 20 years. it was not us who was responsible for, for the increased or the retail realtors or the or the or autocratic evolution in, in russia. but it was very much putting himself um, so certainly fealand has never threatened russia, not as a neighbor well and not in nature or without nato. we have only invested into our defense into terrance in order to stay safe as wells. but be that as it may, i mean you are, are, you are faced with these current conditions. you and your lithuanian neighbors meantime, or a warning in particular,

the increase in hybrid attacks and recent months. we're talking cyber attacks force migration acts of sabotage. a few months ago, moscow laid out a plan to unilaterally withdraw its maritime borders in the baltic sea with both you and let the way nia. it quickly retracted that, but it's being seen as an attempt to so fear how much of a danger just briefly, due to hybrid attacks pose from russia for finland. i think the hybrid attacks and it's rich from those a very, very relevant and unfortunately we're not only talking about the rent and bucks, but also the really incidents of such attacks. but that's the only thing that, i mean we observe these attacks, not everywhere in europe. and if you really look at it into, into, or in more detail than you would see if that also happening in the u. s. and in africa with the military coups that, that russia is organizing. we have seen acts of sabotage. we have seen poisonings

around, you know, just in the recent months, but in the recent years. so effectively we have all affected by this aggression by russia. and therefore, i think it was extremely important that the summer and the washington stomach, we were able to find very strong woods and also in, in the hybrid domain in, in the, in the proclamation of nature, effectively saying that, that such attacks could also, i want to focus lead to the notion activation of optical 5, right? but i want to focus on filling them particular because the instrument of instrument, instrumental, ization, excuse me, of migration is just one example of a hybrid attack. you have accused rush of force migration in your border. and now to counteract that move, there is this new finish law, which is said to allow finish border guards to force migrate to an asylum seekers back into russia. you told the telegraph that it would only be used against microbes who have been quote, weaponized by moscow. how can you be so sure that it won't affect genuine asylum

seekers? finland takes international law and obligations extremely seriously. well, the, the slow we, we talked to, uh we, we had to withdraw state and, and implemented because we didn't have the tools sufficient to count this instrument allies migration as russia is organizing at that border. but at the same time, also this new law only allows for temporary closure of the, of the, of the sort of border asylum seeking processing stations. and also a, it's a geographically limited. and like, you know, did we have a very long border with russia and we would always keep here. um, some states gaping for, for asylum seeking. here's what the credit is saying. i'd like to, i'd like to ask you to respond to it directly. you know, critic said that the law violates international migration law. it's, that's a dangerous precedent. you know, undermining access to asylum. ultimately,

we have the u. n. h c r. in a joint statement as the international council of europe, all issuing statements of caution against you. this is finland your your country. the prides itself on rule of law and values. you spoke about it earlier. have you come down a slippery slope here? it's not the slippery slope at all. on the very contrary, unfortunately, international is you little haven't been dropped it in a time where there was such a phenomenon, like instrumental ice migration and all countries of the pot, this and allies, i've spoken to about this phenomena. everybody knows that finland and other bordering nations with the, the brochure of bella release in a very difficult situation. and in fact, not only those countries who directly share border with, with russia, bella roost, but it's obviously the entire shang and area that is affected. and at the same time,

these are exactly the same concerns shed by my colleagues also installed in europe . because what we see with the destabilize ation acts that, that russia is organizing, in, say, west africa. one of the intention to say is exactly to instrumental ais migration also towards, for example, let's take it back to finland. yeah. again, so that we can, we are in this invoice, right. which is yeah, the st. lynn again, because i mean here's what's being said specifically about about this law. it's been, it's been said that the russian objective is to make feeling look bad to basically present this dilemma where you have to choose between immediate border security and the values and the rules and the basis of your society. they've essentially been successful at this happened the day they have made finland look bad. yes, but um i, i wouldn't be so worried about this because i do know that the julian organizations have to, of course, to rely on the existing conventions. but for instance,

what we are now doing to get up with the, again, positives and allies is that we want to look into whether there was not perhaps a way to change in your or the international conventions. because that doesn't happen quickly. but the interpretation so that it could be um, in cases where, you know, if this plan is a, really a, a strong, a case of instrumental us migration that, that, that it could be treated as a fact that if a whole style country is trying to send people over that immediately and in a geographically lead me to a location that could go there was not the right to seek asylum, but we would remain, or we would keep those stations open for seeking asylum somewhere else. and this is also the claimant would be doing. we have the law now in place,

but we haven't used it yet. and for using the law or. oh, really allowing our border thoughts to um, to not people seek asylum. there is a very, very high head of for taking that into use. and secondly, countries like norway or, or some of the baltic countries at poland. all of these countries have been issued or have been a subject and the victim to this phenomenon over the course of the g. s. and to every country has been treating it in, in some way. and the norwegian model for us. this is very similar to the finish one . we thought it would be just better if we had to one model for, for every, every country. okay, we have, we have to move on unfortunately, because i want to get to the situation also in the arctic where there is fear of a potential spillover of rushes more in ukraine. a rush is making up nearly half of

this zones geographically, but now it's encircled by 7 nato members on your front end security policy. this year says that military activity in rivalry has intensified in the region. your, your government has also highlighted the growing importance of the region in strategic competition. so in other words, the countries have their eyes on mineral resources, new shipping routes, especially as temperatures rise. the ice receipts, russia and china seemed to be teaming up more and more especially in this region. to what extent are you seeing this as a flash point, a site for intensifying well, for right now between the west, russia and china. yes, you know, the optic is becoming more and more important by the day, unfortunately, mentally with a, with the climate change which is extremely well visible up and up in the north. so we appreciate it and welcoming very, very much that so then that nato is taking

a very active approach in these matters as well. because the optic will play a significant role, not only for trade routes, but also for military activity. unfortunately. and we do have seen that russia and china, i have increased their corporation over the course of the past years and especially months. we were very strongly cool on china to do everything in the power to have russia and the war in ukraine because effectively, china could achieve that if russia could not trained to so actively with china, especially in key components on technology, they couldn't, they couldn't be waging this war any longer, but what incentive does china have to do that? because i mean, it's reported for example, and which i'm just gonna bring it back to the arctic right now, that the time has been trying to promote the region as a global call, commons,

to sort of shifting governance in its favor. it's in describing itself as mere architect um it wants to build the polar silk road. how much of a danger does china pose and is putting the face that you just put in it now to potentially help with the negotiations on ending the war and ukraine. so, you know, what sort of hope is there for that as well. i know that's doing the china to um, facilitate any negotiations because they could just, you know, call putting on say, withdrawal your troops because, or just the into the intensified to trade with, with russia then in the will wouldn't. because um, this is not the, not that like a balance situation where there was something really to negotiate about it this, about having russia ended separation and go back to prospecting international law. but yeah, i do think we as europe,

we do have significant offering for china. of course we do interact with the china . we have a significant markets of us. yeah. and we have very much, well, a lot of business going on in china. but in the future we of course, and even now we need to scrutinize this, this ever so carefully a more carefully because that's what china is allowing russia to do is directed against the basic principles of our security and our way of life. so that, of course we can't just do, you know, i see this happening and unfortunately, well, no longer we look into the future. i don't see any huge performance potential for, for rochester economy and therefore flash a future for that matter. but it will be very much china who will be deciding this just briefly before we go. feelings president has said that when we look at the

current world order, the post cold, cold world war era has died. the world is changing, but we do not exactly know where it is going yet. how do you see global power being being shared in the future as i still do think and hope that in the future, the main power lies with the people that to walk this year. we've seen a record number of elections. not all of them have been fair, but this happening 1st of the event as a way lights. it's devastated. but at the same time, the power that lies with people who are able and for you to decide on their behalf, they will always, if you give them the charge to decide they will rather live in a free democracy than somewhere else. and this is the power we should be relying on independent of what happens. finish for administer, elena felton, and thank you so much for joining us on conflicts on thank you so much. the

3 distinct estimate groups. 3 religious one divided states. a fragile peace in bosnia and had some multi estimate quote in the state wants to join the you know, national publications. and to prevent this from happening and how to go from the just in 75 minutes on dw the

someone else to see the highlights of selected for you. you every week in your inbox, subscribe. now cost about why does that? because like now i'm leave them on to the new host. join us for an exciting explanation of everything in between. this is a video and audio production, 5 d w, i hope video with you and then sometimes it's hard to find what you're looking for . but we've got something for you living independently,

rise to society is full of contrasts and inequality is a big challenge. many problems can only be solved by working together. yes, i think i pretend isn't misleading. what is home? then they will not go such a roof over your head. you must have a place to rest. let us in a refuge from the world's key. the most important thing you can have and for he has seen how do we tackles and major issues about time? let's talk about the system. there is a significant risk of human extinction from advancing our systems and changes the new frontier of sofa and according to our series continues on sense. on w the

. this is the, the, when the news life runs on and us versus digest, fits of presidential debates. republicans, donald trump times democrats, cumberland, harvest flash for 19 minutes. what could be that only time devised contents will look at the forehead from that tv show. also on program us secretary states and pressures foreign minister arrived in ukraine than on hundreds of millions of dollars in new. a pledge to reconsider key is request to lift restrictions on the use of western supply. when we examine non seeing a safety.