Transcription
It is good for us that we have a close uh collaboration with the US in the north, with intelligence, with defense capabilities, with surveillance of vast uh maritime areas. But this is also good for the US because, as I've told Donald Trump, the nuclear arsenal on the Russian side is basically not a threat against Norway, it's a threat against the US. And the fact that we monitor and follow that enhances US security. Thus, the claim that NATO gives nothing back to the US is not right because this is part of what we do as NATO allies.
>> Prime Minister Sto, thank you very much for joining me.
>> Good to be here.
>> Have I got that even remotely right, the pronunciation of your name?
>> It's a strange O with a slash, you know, which is
>> Okay. I won't keep on repeating it because I'll get it wrong. You received a letter from Donald Trump, which I think is worth reminding everybody about, um, in which Donald Trump wrote to you, "Dear Yiannis, considering your country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped eight wars plus, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America." And then he went on to say that Denmark can't protect uh Greenland and that they've done more for NATO than anybody else and it's time that America had Greenland. That letter, when you received it, what did you make of it?
>> Well, let me just say it was not a letter at the outset because Sunday afternoon I texted to Donald Trump on behalf of Alex Dub, president of Finland and myself. We work together on many issues. We are, you know, neighbors in the north, suggesting that ahead of Davos and all the themes now, Greenland, Ukraine, Gaza, we should perhaps talk. It would be good to to talk and we invited Trump to have um a phone call in the afternoon uh at the time of his convenience. So that was the message and half an hour later the answer, the what you call the letter came back in a text back to me. My reaction was that uh, I mean, one is no longer surprised by things that are, you know, unconventional. It was not really a reply to my uh invitation to have a talk. So it was a confirmation of his lust for Greenland. And then uh there was this Nobel Peace Prize entry, which I mean speaks for itself. I I don't feel a need to comment it further. I think people see what it is and they should make up their mind about it. He reiterated again in a press conference uh at the White House just before he came over here and I think he said it up on the stage even that, "Make no mistake, you know, Norway says that it doesn't control the..." I can't even really believe I'm having to ask you this question, but anyway, let's ask the question so we have it on the record. He said, "Norway says that it doesn't control the Nobel Prize, but let's all be honest, yes, Norway does control the Nobel Prize." Can you clarify just for us so we have it?
>> Well, I mean, at the outset, you know, Alfred Nobel wrote his will in the mid 1890s and uh, he he decided to ask the Norwegian Parliament. We were not yet independent from Sweden. The only parliament that had never declared war on any country, that that parliament should appoint the committee to award the peace prize in his name. You know, this is a long time ago and since then there has been a committee with that task and it is a committee that, you know, in my lifetime has been extremely focused on integrity and secrecy. They they get nominations for candidates by the end of January in a year who has in the previous year done most for, you know, living up to what was in that mandate from the 1890s. So you need to do interpretation what it means really to contribute to peace. And if you look at the the awards, there's a big spread of of winners. Early October every year at 11:00, the door opens and it is announced who wins the Peace Prize. And I am waiting as anxiously as everybody else at 11:00. I have no information, no influence. And I've always tried to explain to people because we get these questions from many who who ask, you know, how is this happening? And I'm I'm saying that trying to influence this by working the political channel may work quite the other way around because my impression is that whoever is in that committee is very, you know, focused on integrity. I think Donald Trump knows because I I've told him many times. I've told his the people around him and then I again I I will not add anything. He keeps saying this uh and um he has to take responsibility.
>> You couldn't pick up the phone, call the committee and say, "Listen, do me a favor, nominate the president of the United States"?
>> Absolutely not. Absolutely not. But you know, the the nominations come in. And I think there are many nominations. And I I've also commented that there are bigger problems in the world than having world leaders who would like to work for world peace and to be awarded a prize. But you know, this boils down to the thing that it is politically decided by Norway. So Norway or by me, Prime Minister, both are wrong. And I think he knows.
>> Okay, let's move on because I I almost feel I should apologize for having to ask you those questions. But there we go. That's the world that we live in. I'd like to get your reaction to what happened over Greenland this week and how it unfolded.
>> Well, I think, you know, the let's start at the outset. You know, for a country to make claim of another country's land, uh, it doesn't belong to our the age we live in. And an ally in NATO to say that, "I just need and I want a piece of your land." Same category. And that's why I think, first of all, issues between the United States and Greenland belongs inside the framework of discussion between the Kingdom of Denmark and the United States. And that should go in that channel. And we now know there is a dialogue between Secretary Rubio and the Danish Foreign Minister. Any issue between these two countries should be handled there. But what we heard yesterday from President Trump is that NATO should do us this favor. Hand us Greenland. But this has not been practice and it has not been acceptable for, I would almost say, centuries that that you deal with territory in that way. So I think we have seen over the last couple of days, weeks, that Europe has been very firm and robust on this to say here there are principles, um, uh, and to support Danish position that anything concerning uh the Kingdom of Denmark and Greenland has to be decided by the Kingdom of Denmark, people in Greenland and in Denmark. And they've had our support for that. And then, you know, over the weekend when he announced he would impose tariffs on um, eight NATO allies who uh had sent a few uh military people to uh Greenland to plan future exercises inside the framework of NATO. Uh, that is also unacceptable. Uh, you know, just thinking that me sending two officers to another Nordic country to plan for future exercises would result in punishment from the United States. So he stepped down from that yesterday. I think that is was high time.
>> Talk a little bit more about that step down. I'm interested in how it happened. Um, I kind of cover Washington and my understanding is that Republican senators were in contact with the White House to say there was no Republican support for this operation. We saw the markets and the market reaction to the prospect of some sort of seizure of Greenland, however that was going to work out. American companies didn't want this to happen. But talk about the European end. Give me some sort of sense of the tick-tock of how Europe, you said Europe was firm. How exactly? Because I'm imagining this was more than just words saying these are principles. Did Europe present any retaliatory measures? What what were the steps that Europe took to push back against the United States?
>> Two steps here. First, you know, very clear on the issue of seizing land from another country. Uh, even opening up for using military power to do so. Very clear on that. So that was, you know, in in recent weeks. Then over the weekend when the threat of tariff came, um, um, you know, and this comes half a year after uh there was a conclusion between the United States and Europe on tariffs that settled that issue. I think that led to the reaction that, you know, in the coming days, the European Union, UK and Norway would have to consider, you know, what will be our response if that happens. So that was in itself, you know, pointing towards some kind of escalation. And markets don't like that and markets reacted. And I had the same impression than you have, Katy, that um, on the American side, there was also pushback, both on this Greenland project, which I see is is not a favored issue in in public opinion in the US, not among decision makers in in in business industry. Um, uh, so both from industry and from the political um environment, I think that reaction came. So the speech we heard again, he spent a lot of time on wanting Greenland, but he made the reference that he would not use military force. I think that was even that it is a theme is a special thing, but you know, he made that clear. And then in in the aftermath, he had a discussion with the Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutte, who was working to channel the discussion about security in the Arctic into the right channels of how NATO works because NATO should help for security in all of NATO territory. And I worked on this for 20 years as a Norwegian politician, former Foreign Minister. It belongs in the NATO framework. And as a part of that discussion, um, Trump made it clear that he would let, uh, in the tweet that he would drop these tariffs.
>> Sorry to push you on this, but did European countries at any stage say to Donald Trump or Donald Trump's representatives, "Listen, if you go ahead with this, this is what we plan to do," whether it's supply chains, whether it's retaliatory tariffs, whether it's farmer, whether it's whatever it is?
>> You know, Norway is not a member of the European Union, but you know, the European Union is the main actor here because he was then hitting six, seven countries of the European Union and not the others, but they have a common commercial policy. So Europe would react as Europe. And you know, Norway and the UK, I think we would look very attentively to what the European Union would do. And that was a question about, you know, how would we respond in retaliation? And Europe has prepared also, you know, pretty hefty measures to defend its economic security where that to be needed. So there was also indications that that would be a theme. And you know, the European leaders are meeting uh this evening in the European Council. Now, that issue is off the table, but I think, you know, the message that they were ready to take measures, I think send signals into the marketplace here at Davos, where the key economic operators are side by side. And I guess the White House may have picked up some of that.
>> The kind of perception amongst Americans that I speak to, and I spoke to a senator about this just yesterday, was that Europe had kind of found its spine,
>> in a way that it hadn't done in the first year of the Trump administration because of this crisis.
>> I think, you know, in in politics, you have to find the right tone to get your message through. And uh, you talk differently at different phases in life, but when you represent the government, you have to find the right uh level when you communicate to get your message through. Europe um is a group of countries. They they have been, you know, better at coordinating their positions on main issues. And although Norway is not a member of the European Union, we are closely integrated in the European market. And what we've seen over Ukraine, for example, is a remarkable unity of purpose among European states and um uh also with the UK outside EU, but also very coordinated on this position. So finding its spine, perhaps, and I think uh Europe has been robust and consistent, and that is good.
>> I do want to get to Ukraine and Russia in a second, I promise you. Um, you said that this crisis has been taken off the table as European leaders are meeting in Brussels. Has it really? Yes, the issue of Greenland for the moment seems to be less at fever pitch. Who knows what happens later, but it does seem that Greenland is resolved. But has something more fundamental shifted in the relationship, as Mark Carney suggested, as Ursula von der Leyen suggested, in the relationship between Europe and America because of what Donald Trump did? Because he went, as he does, he asks for 100% and then he settles at 50%. In asking for 100%, has he fractured something? Has he risked something in the relationship that it's going to be hard to repair?
>> Well, um, many issues here. I mean, first of all, I don't think this is off the table. I think we can say that the tariffs have been taken off the table, but you know, beware, they can be put back. We've seen that, so that has to be followed. I think the issue about using military power was clearly stated he would not do that. I think that is obvious, should be that way, but you know, could be followed. But the whole idea of making a claim on Greenland is still there. So that has to be followed very carefully. And I've been open to say, I think this is damaging trust across the Atlantic. And I think the whole MAGA approach to talking about Europe started with Vice President
>> is not exactly complimentary about Europe in his speech.
>> It's what we've heard, you know, since Vance spoke in Munich in February last year, that Europe is um a bad place and and everything is defined in that way. So this is part of, I think, of a political message coming out of that political family. However, you know, when you talk to business here, the integration and the uh competition and what happens in the marketplace with AI, with new energy, and a number of areas, things go on. And if you look at the security side of it, speaking for Norway, you know, in the north of Norway, we neighbor Russia.
>> We have the biggest arsenal of nuclear weapons 100 km from our border. So we track and monitor this as part of our responsibility of being an ally with the US and with NATO. We work alongside the US very very closely and that goes on. And if anything, during this last year, it has been deepened. So uh last summit at NATO in the Hague back in July was a remarkable good summit for NATO. Trump was there. It was moving ahead. We are investing more in defense from the European side. High time, should be done. This Northern Command for the Nordic countries and the UK is located in Norfolk, Virginia. It's being built in a record short time. It's operational. It's working. So these are two different layers, I would say. So I still believe that that alliance has so much mutual benefit in it
>> that it is still strong. Trump's story about NATO giving nothing to the US, US giving everything to NATO is simply not true because uh, I mean, the only time Article 5 had been invoked was 9/11. And in the daily operations, you know, collaborating with about 30 European states gives the US remarkable strength. Uh, and I think, you know, when I talk to US commanders, military senators, and you know, broader range of politicians, they see this. But um, it's not exactly the message you got from Trump.
>> No. No. I mean, I think you look, we all, everyone breathed a sigh of relief that the Greenland issue was off the table. But he was so rude and scathing about Europe. And I I guess a question sort of specifically on Norway, because you have increased your commitment to defense spending. I think you've more than doubled your commitment to defense spending in the last couple of years. You're now at, I think, a commitment of 3.3% for 2025. Am I right? Something around that. Which is a big step up from where you were, which was something like 1.4% just a couple of years ago. So, in a way, has Donald Trump done Europe a favor? Done Norway a favor in saying, "Look, something I've been thinking for years, Europe can't carry on calling 911 America every time there's an emergency and say, 'Come to our rescue.'" Barack Obama said that, but it took Donald Trump with his bellicosity, the kind of tone he used here in Davos to actually, and with even maybe the threats in Greenland, to to give a sense of urgency that European leaders like yourself need in order to go to their populations and say, "Sorry guys, we may have to cut other things that you like us spending money on in order to boost our own defense spending."
>> Well, I think you sum it up well. Uh, and this started before Trump. You know, there have been presidents as long as I've been in politics who have been saying that Europe has to scale up.
>> But Trump is the only one that actually got Europe to pay attention.
>> And if you talk to Jens Stoltenberg, who was Secretary General of NATO and who is now my Finance Minister, he would confirm that, you know, during Trump, this came on the table in in pretty or unorthodox way. So call that the wakeup call. And and I I give credit to President Trump for that. The challenge now is that that money should be spent wisely. It should be spent in a coordinated way about what it takes to enhance European security. And obviously, I can understand from the US side, they are focusing gradually more on Asia, and Europe with its competent state should take more responsibility, as we do. If you look at the funding of supporting Ukraine, uh, the US has almost come to zero, and it is now mainly European. And if you look at Europe, it is mainly northern European. And at the same time, we are scaling up our defense. You know, I'm about to implement the long-term defense plan where we basically revamp the entire defense system. And we do that as we take all these lessons coming in from the war in Ukraine to make a relevant defense and do it in an integrative way. So for my country, it is a question of close integration with the Nordic countries, especially Finland and Sweden in the north, a strategic partnership with the UK across the North Sea, and a strategic partnership with France, Germany, and Poland, uh, and the Nordic states. So this is happening. And uh
>> how much political pressure are you under from your own population when you tell them that you're going to commit more of the Norwegian budget to defense spending, which presumably means less of it to other things that they would like you to spend on?
>> Correct. And that's why, you know, I'm I'm happy and I'm a bit proud that we've been able to bring all parties in parliament behind this plan, which is scaling up investment substantially, knowing that that will be, you know, what I say, less more to other sectors. It doesn't mean that we have to cut in healthcare, but you know, had we had that money available, we could have done more in healthcare or more in education. So I think it's clearly understood now that in in this situation, which I think is the most complex, serious situation since the Second World War in security terms, we have to invest more in our defense, but also in our preparedness at home. So, you know, when are we in the security crisis? You you can talk about war and peace, but you know, in modern times, if you lose electricity, if your data systems are knocked out, if if things start to stop to work, or if you have with climate change, extreme weather knocking out daily life. Investing in defense is expensive, but we've done it before. So it is logistically quite known. But investing in preparedness is really hearts and minds of people. You know, you have to understand that you should have some extra in your household if something happens, and in your local community, and with your local business, and in with your um civil society. You have to be more prepared and more organized, and you even have to exercise what you do if something extreme happens.
>> Yeah. I mean, and look, Norway is in a luckier position than many other European countries because you do have a healthy fiscal situation. Obviously, I was up in Bergen. We met last November at a very interesting conference in Bergen, and I remember listening to um, PE figures from the military, figures from your energy sector, and I think I asked you at the end of that day whether Norway was on a war footing, because really what I heard that day was a country that was looking at these threats from Russia. How much pressure is Norway under from Russia already? I think there was a dam that was taken over last summer for a few hours, and the suspicion is that this was taken over by Russian operatives for a few hours. How much pressure is your country already under in ways that we might not see from the threat of Russia?
>> Well, let's start with the fact that we neighbor Russia. We have 200 km common border. Finland has 1,300 kilometers. And you know, Russia has many neighbors, but not necessarily one policy for all neighbors. And Norway has been at peace with Russia for a thousand years. You know, we're probably the only neighbor with whom they have not been at war. And we don't see in our, you know, outlook that there is a um emerging military threat directly against Norway from Russia. But we are under what I'm
>> Glad to hear it. Yeah, but you know, when when what you experienced visiting Norway was that we are more under a kind of a hybrid threat, and we are more in kind of in intelligence operation pressure, as many countries in Europe. So what you refer to with this dam, it wasn't taken over, but you know, most advanced services in a country like mine is run by data, is run by advanced technology. And if if some of that is is hacked or attacked, you become vulnerable. So that's what I mean, you you really have to go through all that preparedness work
>> to be more more consistent. And then, you know, coming back to the US, it is good for us that we have a close uh collaboration with the US in the north, with intelligence, with defense capabilities, with surveillance of vast uh maritime areas. But this is also good for the US because, as I've told Donald Trump, the nuclear arsenal on the Russian side is basically not a threat against Norway. It's a threat against the US. And the fact that we monitor and follow that enhances US security. Thus, the the the claim that NATO gives nothing back to the US is not right because this is part of what we do as NATO allies.
>> Let's talk about Ukraine. We have a few minutes left. You mentioned that America is no longer really supplying any funding to Ukraine, but they are still supplying intelligence, and it's very useful to the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians have not been able to wean themselves off the dependence that they have on that American intelligence, is my understanding. Scott Bessant, the Treasury Secretary, over the course of last weekend made a kind of veiled threat to Europe that they would pull back their support on Ukraine if Europe didn't give them what they want on Greenland. The Greenland issue may be off the table for the moment, but how confident are you that America will continue with the level of support it has at the moment on Ukraine? Because if Vladimir Putin thinks for a moment that the Western support, including the American support and this intelligence support, is going to be pulled out, it gives him an enormous amount of impetus to carry on the war even longer and keep pushing against Kyiv. I mean, it seems to me that the only hope Ukraine has is if Putin believes that the Western support is solid. Are you confident that the Western support, the American support is is solid?
>> I think we've found um a quite strong collaboration here between what we call the coalition of the willing on the European side and the US. And I think, you know, if you were a Ukrainian, if I were a Ukrainian politician, I would know that to get this done, you need the US. And I given credit to President Trump that, you know, when he came in, he said, "This war has to stop. There has to be talks with Russia. We have to engage them, although difficult." And the fact that, you know, that is still happening is good and important. So what we have now is the work which we was really on a steady process in the late part of last year, early part of this year, with security guarantees. Should the peace come, there will be security guarantees for Ukraine for their own defense and for their own security. And there would be a prosperity plan to help rebuild Ukraine.
>> This peace is not going to come very soon because Vladimir Putin is not going to accept this plan.
>> No, but you know, you need to get these pieces together between Europe, US and Ukraine on how that could look. Then you have to deal and bring in Russia. And I think that has to be done through more pressure on Russia. So what is my concern is that we were on a good footing in December on this, from the mid-November, good work, serious work between Americans and Ukrainians into the new year. Then came Venezuela, then came Greenland, which is taking away attention. So that's why I said, you know, Davos this week, in big policy terms, should be about Ukraine. I heard that the president, Zelensky, was weighing, "Should I go?" He's coming now. But you know, he comes from a capital where 5,000 households live in the cold, minus 15, and no electricity. So that is a really urgent thing. And I think still, you know, for American operators, um, this is Europe, but still, you know, if this goes wrong, uh, uh, from a security point of view, it has huge ramifications far beyond Ukraine, uh, in signals it will send to, uh, to Asia and to all parts of the world. So I think, um, in a way, we who are leaders now, we own this, including President Trump. Uh, and, when I talk to him, I I sense that he has a genuine will and dedication to help stop killing, you know, that people are killed. And the way to do that is to to get this process going. And we are not that far away, you know, I think there is something here that can be, uh, can be delivered.
>> He doesn't seem to have a genuine will and dedication, or at least a sustained will and dedication, to put pressure on Vladimir Putin.
>> It goes, it's a bit back and forth. I mean, he keeps, every time he speaks, he speaks about his good relationship with Putin, his respect for Putin. And with C, he did the same thing yesterday. And I don't think you should have, you know, um, I don't call for disrespect of all the leaders, you know, but what Russia is doing here, what they are putting into this war, I think, and with all the lessons from, uh, what it means to deal with Russia in in the international system, you need to be consistent, firm, and there need to be, you know, um, a hard stop at the
>> Why do you think Donald Trump isn't consistent and firm?
>> I will not speculate on that. You know, I I think, uh, they are in now on working on Ukraine, and and it's our job to keep Europe and and the US as united as possible.
>> Prime Minister, thank you very much for joining me.
>> Thank you so much.