Hi everyone, I'm thrilled to be here with Jens Stoltenberg, who just finished his tenure as the Secretary General of NATO. Before NATO, he served as the Prime Minister of Norway. Warm welcome, Jens. Thank you so much for having me. I have here a book you wrote, which came out eight years ago and basically covered the period until ten years ago. It has a beautiful picture of you on the front. What are the most important changes in the world since that book came out?

The most important changes, at least related to my task and responsibilities in NATO, is that the world has become more dangerous. That's the bad news. The good news is that NATO has become stronger to protect close to one billion people. Of course, there are many other changes, but seen from a security perspective, we have now a full-scale war in Europe, we have a new, very devastating conflict in the Middle East with risk of escalation, and we have significantly more global rivalry between great powers, United States and China. And then we have cyber, hybrid, terrorist threats as a constant threat to our security. So fundamentally, we live in a more unpredictable, more dangerous world than we have done for decades.

If we cover some of these points there, so how do you think the Ukraine situation will end? What's the most likely? Wars are by nature extremely unpredictable, and therefore I will be very careful predicting how that will end. But of course, we all want this war to end. The challenge is that the quickest way to end a war is to lose a war, but that will not lead to peace, that will lead to occupation of Ukraine, and Ukraine will not be a sovereign, independent, democratic nation in Europe.

And it will be a country controlled by Moscow. So if you want the war to end in a way where millions of Ukrainians still can live in a free, democratic society, then we need to convince President Putin that he will not win on the battlefield, that he has to sit down and negotiate, agree a solution where Ukraine can still be a sovereign, democratic nation. And I don't believe that we can change Putin's mind, but I think we can change his calculus, meaning that I don't think we can change his ambition, his goal of trying to control Ukraine, but I think that by providing military support to Ukraine, we can ensure that the cost of achieving that goal for Russia is so high that they will accept a solution where Ukraine prevails in one way or another.

The decision of not giving more offensive weapons, which was kind of renewed lately, what do you think about that? Well, NATO allies have delivered a lot of also offensive weapons. The reality is that of course we have gradually changed over the years. I remember when I came to NATO in 2014, then some allies, United States, United Kingdom, a couple of other, Canada, they provided some military support, some training, but hardly any little weapons. It was a big discussion for instance about Javelins, the anti-tank weapons, which has proved extremely important on the battlefield in Ukraine. And I think actually we should have done more before the full-scale invasion in 2022.

But after 2022, the full-scale invasion, NATO allies have delivered much more military support than President Putin expected and to be honest, also we expected. We had big discussions on whether we were going to deliver battle tanks. Now allies deliver a lot of advanced, modern battle tanks, including US Abrams Tanks, European or German Leopard Tanks. We deliver advanced air defense systems, Patriots, we deliver long-range artillery, also cruise missiles from for instance United Kingdom and France, and then also F-16s. So the scale and the quality of this military support is much bigger than anyone was able to foresee just a couple of years ago.

I think the dilemma which has, which continues to be discussed among allies, is to what extent will should we allow Ukraine to use all these weapons against military targets inside Russia? And allies have different policy. Some NATO allies have said there are no restrictions, except for also adhering to international law. Others have imposed some restrictions on the use of weapons deep into Russia. What do you think? I think we need to remember what this is, that this is a war of aggression. Russia has attacked another country, that's a blatant violation of international law. According to international law, Ukraine has the right for self-defense. Self-defense includes the right to strike legitimate military targets on the territory of the aggressor, meaning Russia. So therefore, I have argued for loosening up these restrictions, and many allies have done so. And then there is an ongoing conversation among NATO allies exactly to what extent they should remove all the restrictions when it comes to hitting legitimate military targets on the territory.

If Ukraine have to recede more territory, is that more likely to happen, you think? I'm extremely careful, even though I'm now stepped down as Secret General, to speculate, because it can be self-fulfilling prophecies. If you start to say that we believe that Ukraine has to do this and that or seed more territory, then of course it can boost the morale of the Russians and reduce the morale of the Ukrainians. And even though I know that I'm not speaking on behalf of NATO anymore, I think it matters what we all say when it comes to what we believe that Ukraine also may be forced to.

Fundamentally, it is only the Ukrainians that can decide what are acceptable conditions. They are paying the highest price, they are sacrificing people every day to fight for their freedom. And again, I think that the path to peace is to convince Putin that he cannot win on the battlefield. There is a very close relationship between what happens on the battlefield and what can happen around the negotiating table. So if you want some kind of acceptable solution where Ukraine will remain as an independent nation, then military strength on the battlefield is the way to convince Putin that he has to accept that. Then of course, it's for the Ukrainians to decide how much they are willing to give up to achieve peace.

I've met many Finnish politicians of the last couple of years since Finland now had joined NATO. I think we even have the president in Oslo today. Yeah, yeah, you're absolutely right. And Alex Stubb, the president of Finland, they always or they often and and many other Finnish politicians have in a way shared with us the history of Finland. It's different from Ukraine, but there are some parallels. They were invaded by the Red Army in 1939, and they were able to as a small country to inflict much more heavy losses and pain on the invading Russian or Soviet forces, so the Red Army didn't achieve their goals. But to end the war, Finland had to accept to give up to seed roughly 10% of their territory and their second biggest city, Vyborg, which is now part of Russia.

But of course, in return they gained borders and security that has lasted for decades. I'm not saying that this is the parallel for Ukraine and a NATO membership. What's been the most important advice you've given your successor, Mark Rutte? First of all, I've been very careful giving any advice because I just don't think that, you know, people are leaving a position should be to, especially not in public, to explicit on advice and so on. I have great trust in Mark. He's a great leader. He has been prime minister for I think it's 14 years, and of course, just to lead coalitions, to find compromises, I think is the best way to qualify to become a Secret General NATO to know how to reconcile different views.

But but I I cannot hide that of course the most important task for any Secor General NATO is to keep this big family together. And we are 32 allies, and we don't always agree on all issues. So his main task is to ensure that despite these differences, that we are able to rally around the core task to protect and defend each other.

You have over the last few years become more vocal about China. What are the concerns you have? First, I would like to say that if you instance read that book, so I read it twice, yeah, yeah, love it. I know I was a great believer in China for many years. And I was extremely impressed. I remember I visited China in '85 or '86, the middle of the '80s, and I was extremely impressed by the changes that Deng did and how they were opening up their economy, how the economic growth of China changed the world, partly for the people in China, lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, but also actually important for the rest of the world by creating a big new market, by providing a lot of products to the global economy. Norway benefited, we sold a lot of energy, oil, gas, into the Chinese market or global market, and then we bought a lot of things from China, good price. So that has been a great success story for China and for the rest of the world.

Then I cannot say exactly when my views started to change, but I remember I was very disappointed the way China reacted when the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize committee awarded the Peace Prize to a Chinese dissident, I think it was in 2010, and then they actually imposed heavy sanctions against Norway and behaved very, they wanted us to apologize, and that behavior was quite shocking. And then of course, after I arrived in NATO and over the last years, we have seen a much more assertive China trying to dominate, control the South China Sea. They have lost actually in the International Court in The Hague, so what they do there is a violation of international law, threatening neighbors, threatening Taiwan, and China is investing heavily in new advanced weapons, including nuclear weapons, without any transparency.

And then of course, in Ukraine, what we see there is that security is not regional, security is global, because China is the main enabler of Russia's aggressive war against Ukraine, by providing the microelectronics, the components for Russians to build the bombs and the missiles they're using in Ukraine. So the closer and closer alignment between Russia and China, of course, is one of the reasons why we are concerned.

Let me add one more thing, and that is that when I was Secretary General NATO, I remember very well that we didn't say that China is an enemy or an adversary. We need to engage with China on issues related to climate change, they have to be part of the global economy, of course, and in the future, hopefully also arms control. But we, but we have to be not, it's important that we're not naive and not make the same mistakes as we did for instance when it comes to Russia being over dependent on gas from Russia, we should not be over dependent on specific commodities or technology from China.

The fact that there are stronger and stronger links between the autocrats in the world, what are the what are the implications for the Western world? That we have to be together when we see that the autocrats are more and more aligned. And then of course, that's partly we, meaning partly NATO allies, so 32 nations on the both Atlantic, but also with other countries which at least don't want to be part of kind of autocratic alliance. And again, Ukraine is perhaps the clearest example. Russia is responsible for war aggression. The main providers of weapons and enablers of that war is North Korea, Iran and China. And this is not rhetoric, this is this is this is real and makes a difference on the battlefield. And we also also see how Russia and China are exercise you more together, also around Japan, and parts of the world. So so this is really a global picture that makes it even more important that of course NATO allies stand together, but also that we work with partners all around the world, including South Korea, Japan and many other countries.

How do you read them the activities around Taiwan just now? Well, I we see that China again and again repeat different threats, both in rhetoric, but also with these very high-profile exercises. We actually exercising how to invade Taiwan, and that will be extremely dangerous, and the rhetoric is is dangerous. Therefore, it is important that we that military force is not used to change status quo in and around Taiwan. There are millions of people living there. NATO allies recognize that, and Norway recognize that there's one China, but but we also support the idea of people having the right to live in a democratic and opposite society. We had the same idea with Hong Kong, that was two systems in one nation, that Hong Kong should be some kind of democratic part of China. That didn't last for very long, and of course it will be a tragedy of millions of people living in Taiwan experience something similar to what the people of Hong Kong has experienced over the last years.

How should the Business Leaders and we as investors think about engaging with China? This is extremely difficult question, but I think just to be aware that there are dilemmas and to be conscious about those dilemmas helps. I have been and I continue to be a strong believer in free trade, and most of my political life I really worked for free trade agreements, including the open European market, and I believe that globalization, free trade benefits us all.

Having said that, freedom is more important than free trade, and sometimes you have to recognize that you cannot have free trade if it, if the cost is that you actually undermine freedom. And one example is Russian gas. Until 2022, many European governments meant that buying gas from Russia was a commercial issue, it was not a political issues. Politicians should stay out of a commercial deal between commercial companies in Europe with commercial companies in Russia. That proved very wrong because to buy gas from Russia is not a commercial issue, at least much more than a commercial issue. It was a security vulnerability that Russia utilized after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. They tried to coerce European allies from supporting Ukraine by using the gas, and we should not repeat the same mistakes with China.

It's quite amazing that we ended up in that situation actually with Russian gas. Yeah, yeah, it wasn't amazing, but I think we need to remember that it was quite common European view that that we that that trade with that all kind of trade with Russia was a good thing. And again, I have been partly part of that that view. I have been in favor of trade with Russia, I've been in favor of trade with China, with very little restrictions. Then gradually I saw how especially Russia, but also to some extent China, has used trade as a political tool. And therefore the politicians have responsibilities to put in some regulations, laws, to ensure that we don't make the really big mistakes. But within those regulations, there has to also be judgment by each and individual private commercial company.

And and the dilemma is that the the extremes will not work. We cannot have absolutely open and free trade. There has to be some security considerations part of those decisions. But on the other hand, we cannot isolate China. So to find this balance where we have some trade, some economic relations, but without making ourself too vulnerable. I cannot give the exact answer, but the dialogue between governments, companies on how to find this balance is the best way to try to at least find the best way forward together.

Last hotpot, Middle East, how do you think that will play out? It's difficult to predict Ukraine, even harder to predict the Middle East, and what we see now is a tragedy. It's dangerous, and there is risk of further escalation, and especially with Iran, which has destabilized the region for many years and continue to do so.

As a Norwegian, I think it's important to remember that in 1993 we had the Oslo Accord, which has been heavily criticized since for many years, but I still believe that that's in a way the only way that can create some kind of lasting solution, and that's a two-state solution. You need a state for the Israelis, and you need a Palestinian or state for the Palestinians. It's not easy, but the alternative to continue as we do now is absolutely not viable. So therefore, sometimes crisis creates the momentum to find new solutions, and hopefully at least one thing that can come out of what we see in the Middle East now is a renewed effort to find a two-state solution.

There are some voices that want the EU to play a more important part in defense policy, what is your view on that? My view is that if it's done in the right way, it's very good. If it's done in the wrong way, it's very bad. So what's the right way? And the right way is that EU should do more, and they and and they have started to step up when it comes to for instance strengthening the defense industry, meaning overcoming the fragmentation of the European Defense industry, to increase defense spending, and to and to in general strengthen European defenses, meaning that that that will also strengthen NATO.

96% of the people living in the European Union, they live in a NATO country, so that will be more or less the same. What is not good is to create alternative and competing structures, and to and to underpin the idea of the European Union defending Europe. But can you see that some people are in favor of this given the US position? Yes, but I think that's that's dangerous. I think that any attempt to in a way split or divide Europe from North America will undermine our security because we live in a more dangerous world and and if we go alone, we will be weaker and more vulnerable.

And the European Union cannot defend Europe. 80% of NATO's defense expenditure comes from non-EU NATO allies, that's of course United States, but also Canada, a big ally, the United Kingdom, the second biggest defense spender in NATO, but also this is about geography. Turkey in the South, extremely important for fighting ISIS, fighting terrorism, bordering Iraq and Syria. In the North, Norway in Iceland, perhaps not the biggest NATO allies, but very important for the transatlantic link. So so so geography and resources makes it clear that this idea that EU should develop some kind of independent defense will just undermine and duplicate the NATO structures, and the NATO structures has to North America and Europe together is the only way to defend Europe. We are together, we are 50% of the world's military might and 50% of the world's economic market. So as long as we stand together, North America and Europe will be safe.

Yeah, a lot of issues. Yeah, well, there are so the world is so complex, right? It is, it is. What's going on in space from a Warfare point of view? So first, I think what we see is that is more and more weaponization of space, and what happens in space, space matters more and more for what's going on on the earth. That's obvious for communications, GPS, cyber, and then of course, targeting a lot of military operations in Ukraine are dependent on satellites in space, and any future conflict, space will be important.

What we also then see is that again, Russia and China are developing capabilities that can actually be used as offensive weapons, and this is a dangerous development. And again, there's a need for transparency, there is a need for Arms Control, and there is a need also for for allies and partners to stand together to address these issues together.

In a way, a bit related to that, AI, what are the issues surrounding that when it comes to Warfare? Some people in America say that we should build AI into everything we do, into all the weapons, all the cars, everything, right, to beat the Chinese in this kind of fight. What how do you see AI impact Warfare? Also, I have to admit that I have read and and listened to many experts explaining about AI, and and and I still struggle to fully understand the full implications. But I think what is obvious that AI has and will even more so in the future change nature of warfare, perhaps as fundamental as the Industrial Revolution did.

Because you have to understand that if you go to if you go to the from from from from Caesar to Napoleon, the soldiers could actually participate. The the the the soldiers participating in the Roman Empire or part of the Roman Empire, they could actually make a difference on the battlefield during the Napoleonic War, because they had they had the technology that actually was applicable also at that time. Then from Napoleonic war to the first world, everything first world war, everything changed with the Industrial Revolution being implemented into Warfare. I think we see something similar now, a fundamental shift where we don't fully understand, but but but autonomous systems, facial recognition, drones, cyber attacks by using also AI is has the potential of changing Warfare so much that it's very hard to fully understand the full implications.

We have we have already seen it on the battlefield in Ukraine. It's not the secret that some of the drones and the surveillance systems that NATO operates also uses AI to process information. So this is a this has already started, but we only seen the beginning of a fundamental change of the natural Warfare. Interestingly, the two Nobel prizes that were won over the last week in chemistry and physics, you know, have AI underpinnings. So it is really changing a lot of things.

But the fact that we regulate AI so much in Europe is that holding back our defense capabilities? So far, I've not heard the defense industry complaining about that, but but it maybe. And and I think the challenge, the dilemmas every time we we we approach new technologies is that in one way we want ethical standards, we want transparency, we want regulations to prevent the misuse of important technology. On the other hand, if we only impose restrictions on ourselves, being Europe or or North American and Europe, Western Alliance, but but our adversaries, they have no restrictions, then of course, we can just make ourself more vulnerable.

Fundamentally, this is very much the same dilemmas we have faced with nuclear weapons. Of course, nuclear weapons are extremely devastating, the potential to really destroy human life in the way we know it today. So in that way, it's very easy to be against nuclear weapons, and and and I would like to have a world without any nuclear weapons. The challenge is that as long as they exist, I think we are safer when we have nuclear weapons to deter the adversary of using those weapons against us. So unilateral disarmament is dangerous.

What it is good and what you should strive for is balanced, transparent, multilateral arms control that applies for nuclear weapons, but fundamentally, it also applies for all other technologies, for instance, AI and cyber. Well, in one way we have all touched upon it because cyber and AI is interlinked, and it just demonstrates that warfare conflicts can take place in many domains. In the old times, we had in way air, sea and land, but now we have space as a domain and cyber as domain. But do we have strong enough offensive capabilities in cyber or are we just continuous attack and defend?

No, again, these are sensitive issues, and I know that some some countries are very reluctant to speak too much about it. But I know and it's not the secret that NATO allies also have offensive capabilities. I think we call them National effects, but it's only different word for the same. And I had the the very interesting experience when I actually saw in one of the allot countries how they used, I was actually in the kind of Command Center, cyber Command Center, where they actually used cyber offensive capabilities to attack ISIS. This was back in 2016 or 17, and that was extremely effective, how NATO Ally used cyber to take down the Cyber networks of ISIS in Iraq and in Syria.

Then of course, that's perhaps the most not the most advanced adversary that you can face, but of course there are offensive capabilities because cyber is now a domain as air, sea, land and the other domains are and a truly global domain. There are some problems. One problem is that attribution is harder in cyber, so one of the first challenge you will face with a with a full-fledged Cyber attack is to actually decide who is attacking you.

Second, the other challenge is that is that um it's it's it's there's a much more more much blur more blurred line between conflict and non-conflict. When when when do you have to trigger Article Five? When do you have to declare war when you have a Cyber attack? Because Cyber attack is something that's goes on almost every day in different ways. And when when do you surpass the threshold of something which which will trigger a full response from yeah from the armed forces, from perhaps or or NATO alliance? So the French statesman Clement S. said war is too important to be left of generals, and you have paraphrased this by saying business is too serious to be left to Business Leaders alone. What do you what do you mean by that?

I mean by that that um I believe in free trade, I believe in private business, but I believe that um some of the issues related to commercial decisions are too important to be left to commercial decisions or considerations alone. And again, we have touched upon the the most recent examples from from Russia or over dependence on commodities from China or the export of key technologies from us to authoritarian powers. It may be a good business deal, but it will be undermining or dangerous for our own security or for instance, allow authoritarian powers to control critical infrastructure. Again, maybe good business deals, but make us but make but may potentially make us vulnerable. So this is what I mean by it's too important to be left to businessmen alone.

A US Venture Capital firms have ramped up efforts within defense, but we haven't really done the same in Europe, even though NATO has Venture Capital arm, right? Yes, how how do you see this developing? Well, I I think that we need um we need to invest more in our defense industry, and we also need to realize that we need Venture Capital, we need Innovation. And that's the reason why NATO, again, I'm now stepped down, but I'm sure that Mark, the current Secretary General will follow up on this, has stepped up the efforts to work with private business to ensure that we maintain the technological Edge which has been the benefit of Western countries for decades and help to ensure our security.

We always had the most advanced technologies that is not so obvious anymore, especially in of the Chinese economy and and their ability to also develop new technologies and use those Technologies in their defense production. Um, there's also an other change that has happened over decades. Back in the 40s and 50s and 60s, perhaps even the 70s, most of the defense technology was developed by the government. Nuclear was a big state-run program, Manhattan program in the US, GPS, these kind of internet was actually result of government finan government controlled entities, research programs.

This has totally changed. Now most of the advanced and Technologies are developed in private business, in private companies, AI, cyber, the the whole Silicon Valley, the whole the whole and SpaceX, all of these things are now private. So but but the governments and our defense sector, which is of course still State responsibilities are totally dependent. So we need to work with the private business to ensure that um we keep as militaries the the the the technological lead to ensure that we have the best armies in the future.

Yes, let's change tag here and move into happier territories. We have something in Norway called the spending rule, which you first as a student of Economics worked on, then as a minister of finance and prime minister and so on, and it's a rule which tells how much of the Norwegian Sovereign wealth fund can be spent every year to support the budget, and it's really been a Cornerstone in the economic planning in this country. Now what what inspire you to create this rule?

It was the understanding that Norway was going to get a lot of revenues from the oil and gas and much bigger revenues than we expected. And therefore, when I was prime minister in 2000, then we actually had only net oil revenues only for a few years. The first net oil revenues came to Norway in 1996. In the beginning, they were quite small. Then it was obvious that we needed we needed some way of deciding how much we could spend, and we were very afraid of what we refer to as Dutch disease, to spend too much.

And therefore, we started partly the kind of academic, but also then a political discussion on how to establish a fiscal rule for how much of the oil revenues we could spend. And the purpose was actually twofold: one was to ensure that not only our generation, but also future generations get the benefit of the oil and gas resources that we are found on our continental shelf, that's a kind of long-term perspective. The other reason to establish a fiscal rule and the and the pension fund was to ensure that we could stabilize the economy to separate earnings from spending and prevent overheating of the economy.

And therefore, we we established the pension fund, and the first money was allocated to the pension fund in '96. But perhaps as important was this fiscal rule where we decided that all the oil and gas revenues was going to go into Norwegian pension fund, and then that the only thing we're going to spend was the financial return, which we estimate to 3% in yield terms per year as an as an average. And therefore the fiscal rule says that we should only spend on average the fiscal return 3% estimated. And that has served Norway very well.

It's quite a feat to manage to get political consensus around the spending of such vast resources, and probably one of the successes of well, one of the main successes of the fund. Has it worked the way you thought? Yes, and if anything, it worked even better, because partly because the fund has become much bigger than we expected for many reasons. Oil and gas production at the continental shelf has been bigger, prices have been higher, and we also have good investments because of people like like you have been able to manage the fund in a very good way. So the combination of all these things have made the fund much bigger and therefore also the fiscal rule more important.

If you had at the time when the fiscal rule was made had also made a rule for how much in total could the fund contribute to in percent of the budget, what do you think that percentage would have been? I think it would have been lower than the current percent, which I think is now 25%, or roughly almost one quarter of the Norwegian state expenditure or state budget is financed by the return from the oil fund or from. So instead of 25, what do you think he would have been if you I am not able, I know I but but but but but then I think it's important in a way as I'm not able to give you an exact number, but I think it's also important to understand that there are concerns and I'm careful being going too much into that debate because that's a very Norwegian debate and I and I'm careful being too specific on issues I not worked so close with over the last years.

But but I think the the idea back in 2000 when we made the fiscal rule was in a way that this was going to it could last forever because in one way NATO has sorry Norway has spent zero of the oil revenues. The only thing we have spent is the fiscal return on the oil revenues, and and and of course that can last forever as long as we have the installment the the challenge and you know that better than anyone one else is that of course we now have some much our wealth in the stock market then of course there can be big fluctuations that can have a impact on the Norwegian economy, and that's a new risk which we didn't face at least not in the same way before.

And and I'm always a bit careful changing these kind of fiscal rules too often because that will undermine the credibility. Perhaps it's better to have an imperfect rule which is credible than to always try to run for a more perfect rule, but which is constantly changed. That will because this is this is a self-imposed restriction and the biggest success in a way is that a Democratic Society as Norway has been able to handle this enormous amount of cash without spending it.

I remember back in the 1990s when we had this discussion and started to invest in in equities and and had the first allocations to the pension fund, many experts, also economists, colleagues of mine, said this cannot happen. The the the Democratic institutions, politicians, they will spend if they get the money, they will spend. So they were actually in favor of reducing the oil and gas production to keep the wealth in the continental shelf. And the actually former Governor Norwegian Central Bank Bank Harm Scan, he led an expert group and they said it cannot work, politician will spend if they get the money. We have proven them wrong, and that's the biggest success. And but but again, if you start to change these rules too often, you may undermine in a way the the magic of the Line in the Sand, which is which is the the fiscal rule.

I think we can say Well done Norwegian politicians and well done the Minister of Finance and the management and the the the NB and all those who have been irresponsible.

We talked about how the world has changed since since you wrote this book, how have you changed? I've been I've become I to say more realistic about the the dangers. I I I I have always been extremely optimistic and and embrace the world and free trade and openness. I'm less that guy now, because I've seen the backside of that medal or that coin. And I've been as I've always been in favor of the transatlantic Bond North America and Europe together, but of course, being in NATO for 10 years, I I'm more aware of the importance, so I'm more I'm more I say even more committed to that idea.

I'm 10 years older, and and first and foremost, not first and foremost, but but in on top of that, for the first time in my life, I'm I'm in one way free, meaning that and that's not only a good thing. I always worked in public sector, as an economist, as a politician, and in NATO, which is also public sector. And now I'm I'm back in Norway and start a new life, which is very different from the life I lived up to now, and that's a danger, it's it's scary, but also a good thing.

You mentioned that um both you and Rutte had worked in a multi-multi-party system, you know, with lots of parties, uh you have to work with the union and so on. Now how that experience, how has that made you a better Diplomat and negotiator, you think? Well, I think I think that's the most important thing I I brought with me to to NATO and the most important thing that Mark brings with him to NATO is this of leading something where you have to find compromises. I think I've never been a CEO, but I think when when you are a CEO, just make decisions, that's at least my my my my impression in a private company, and you have a very clear mandate. When you're a prime minister, especially in a multiparty governments, and with not clear majority in the in the parliament, which is the case in more and more at least European countries, then you need to find compromises every day, that's just the the the the rule of of of the game. And and and that's also when you are the boss in NATO, that's the same. You have not many parties, but you have 32 different countries, and they all have to agree.

Because you talk about beautiful compromises, most people don't think compromises are so beautiful, but you you really like them. Yeah, I like them, partly because I think that very often actually the solution is better when you make a compromise, then you then you find something which balance different interests, and and and and and that's very often the best solution to take into account different interest, different views. But second, that's the only way to make decisions and to and to move forward. And and our Democratic societies are compromises between capital and labor, between right and left, between different political views. And overall, I believe that these open societies with different interest are better than extreme societies that just adapt to one religion or one political ideology.

Now now Nordic leadership style is also more it's a it's a flatter style, it's more about consensus and so on. Was that also something you brought into NATO? Yeah, yes, I brought it into NATO, but it was less conscious than I than I was aware of because I just brought the way I have led Norwegian governments for 10 years. I brought that same culture to to NATO. Um, I afterwards or after some years, after some some time, I realized that that was the some extent a new style. But I believe in talking to people, having open access to people and to also be frank. So I think it's much easier to have good decisions when the people you work with actually have the courage of telling you that you are wrong or we have to do something different or this doesn't work instead of people are afraid of criticizing or or or being frank and open with you.

You ran this country during the July attack, the terror attacks that had, and you know, through the Ukraine situation in NATO. What are the how does one lead during these traumatic situations? What's the key to sto it's to remain calm in a way, and to and to make sure that you sleep, because it is important to be able to function. So I've seen some people in crisis exhausting thems too early, so so you need to protect yourself self. Um, that may sound a bit egoistic, but but I think if a leader shall function over time, you need to ensure that you get the support, the help, so you can do what you have to do as a leader to be there, to formulate a message to to to be present, especially in the public domain for a political leader, and therefore also need not to be shy to ask for help and support.

How do you work with feelings? I'm a bit strange there, because because when the crisis are acute, I I I suppress them. I just keep them away, and and in one way, I think that helps me dealing with feelings. So I remember especially in 2022, no, sorry, in in in in 2011, the terrorist attacks on the 22nd of of July, friends of mine were killed, people I knew very well, worked with were killed. But I didn't fully take that into as I say myself, until days after, because I think actually the fact that I had the role to play, that I had to lead, that I had to give speeches, to be present, to give comfort to those who have lost their loved ones, that helped me to deal with my feelings. Of course, it's not a sustainable way, you cannot do that forever, but for at least the first days to have a task help me to deal with my own feelings.

Is it lonely? It is lonely, but but perhaps less lonely that's that people believe. I and that's a party up to yourself. I I think if anything, I'm quite good at at asking for help, asking for advice, calling people, asking them to come to talk to them, and about the big things, the small things, the feelings, and I think it's a bit up to yourself as a leader to be able to open up and accept people into your life. And I if there's anything I'm quite good at is to allow people to help me. Who do you who do you allow to help you? Almost everyone, as meaning of course, those who are closest to me, working with me, um family members, my wife, um but but they can also be, you know, more or less random person who are there. If I have a if I have some makeup before a TV show or something, I can ask all those what do you think about this, what do you think about that? So so I think it's about the openness to advice, not be afraid of of of getting advice.

Now, you may not particularly want to talk about it, but you have this incredible presence, right? One of the most incredible presences I've seen, and you know, I was so lucky. I came down to Brussels to have dinner with you, and you you live you lived in this gated community, and I you know, I had dinner with you at 7:00, came me through the gate, walked for 50 m, and then there is one person standing on the street welcoming me, yeah, and that's you, yeah, and you are the Secretary General of NATO and a very, very important man, and I just felt, you know, a bit overwhelmed by that experience. But I like I like people, I like you, and and that's natural thing for me to go out and say Hello.

But who taught you that? How did you pick it up? No, I never that who who how did you pick it up? It just falls natural for me. It may be that I learned it more from my father than I'm aware of, because he was also very open for know to like people, and I and I think it's impossible to be a politician without liking to be together with people to app I get energy from being together with with people. It's not a cost, it's something actually gives me something that that when I'm together with with with people. Um, then of course, sometimes I also need to rest and then I just I leave as I go, maybe a sudden I go early to bed or I I I I don't attend reception or or or dinner, but but or I go in the weekends, I can go out in Norwegian forest or and I to be alone or only together with my wife or close friend. But but in general, it's it's something that actually gives me energy to be together with people.

Talking about um people, just how you at NATO, you've been dealing with um, you know, people who are perceived to have you know, large egos. I guess what's the key to reaching consensus with them and getting to agreement? No, I think it's about taking their concerns seriously and to even if we disagree on many issues, we may they may actually also have relevant points and concerns. And without being too specific, of course, there have been a lot of attention of how did we manage four years of President Trump in the white house.

And and and it's no no secret that I disagree with him on trade and or abortion or or climate change, but that is that was not core issues for NATO. So what I focused on was what matters for NATO, and actually on those issues, we were had yeah, a large degree of agreement. His main message was that European all had to invest more in events. He conveyed that message in a way which was a bit say not as didn't use conver different than than many other political leaders, but but the core of that message was something was absolutely the same as President Obama had done before him or President Biden does now. And I took that concern seriously, and I think that helped.

The same with with with with President Erdogan. People asked me how how does that work? Well, he has expressed serious concerns about the fact that no other country NATO all country have suffered more terrorist attacks than than than Turkey. So take that seriously. So I think focus on the issues, that's the best way of addressing strong political leaders.

You're now back in Oslo, how does it feel? It's great to be back in Oslo. It's a sunny fall day, it's not always sunny in Norway, but it is actually. I like Norway, I like Oslo. This is the time this is the town where I'm born and grew up, have my family, my wife here, so that's that's that's that's great. It's a bit different of course, but it's a new life and and it's fascinating to open a new chapter of my life.

Why is the forest so important for you? Because for me, nature is a place to be a bit alone, or to together with one or two a persons in be close with them. It's a way to both just relax, but also to exercise. And then of course, it's nice to go out and have dinners, but actually one of the best ways to be together with all the people, it's for me just to walk and we talk and we walk for half an hour or 3 hours. Uh, and but you also cook, yeah? I cook because I hunt. Okay, no, I am I the very strange thing. I my family has has no what should I say, had no interest for hunting, but then when when I was 50, I had some 50 years crisis as we called in Norway, so then I started to do strange things, including climbing some mountains, which was something I never did before, and starting also to hunt, which was a totally new experience.

And then I hunt three or four days every year, and often I don't shoot anything, but sometimes I able to shoot a Norwegian reindeer, yeah, and then I uh one of the specialities is then to prepare the reindeer for friends, yeah, and I was lucky enough to be at one of those dinners, but the the thing that really impressed me was that you served Earl Gray ice tea, no Earl Gray ice cream, which you had made yourself, yeah, but that's now this is a very good podcast because now we get all the best information about me because I I when I lived in in NATO, I had the privilege of having a chef in the house. Of course, there were lot of dinners and and representation and so on, but they also prepared food for me, and especially during the corona, we were a bit stuck in that house, um so I spent more time in the house than than than normal, and then I started to actually learn from him how to cook. I'm not a chef, and there many very few dishes I'm able to to to to make, but for instance, to make my own homemade ice cream, I'm actually bought a machine, so I can make quite good ice cream, and it's not so difficult, but it's nice to serve ice cream which you have prepared yourself.

And the Norwegian population and the European population should make food for you every day because you have served the country and Europe and made it a safer place. So big thanks for doing that and big thanks for being here today. No, thanks so much.