Executive Summary President Alexander Stubb has presented "values-based realism" as the guiding doctrine of Finnish foreign policy, promising to reconcile democratic principles with geopolitical pragmatism. The concept has gained attention both in Finland and internationally. Yet more than two years into Stubb's presidency, questions remain about how consistently the doctrine has been applied. This paper argues that the challenge is not that Finland has occasionally prioritized strategic interests over values—every democracy does so. Rather, the difficulty lies in the absence of a clear framework explaining when realism should prevail over values, and vice versa. Examining Finland's approach to the United States, China, Israel and the Palestinian issue, and the United Nations, the paper finds that similar tensions have often produced different policy choices without an explicit rationale. A foreign-policy doctrine should provide more than an attractive political narrative; it should offer a coherent framework for decision-making. As Finland assumes a more visible role within NATO and European security, the credibility of values-based realism will ultimately depend not on the appeal of its name but on the consistency of its application. Introduction: A Doctrine Put to the Test Under Finland's Constitution, the President leads the country's foreign policy in cooperation with the Government. As Commander-in-Chief of the Finnish Defence Forces, Finland's representative at NATO summits and the country's principal international voice, the President exercises influence well beyond the formal limits of the office. The doctrine associated with the presidency therefore deserves careful scrutiny. During his presidential campaign, Alexander Stubb presented values-based realism as the foundation of his foreign policy. Finland, he argued, would continue to defend democracy, human rights, international law and the rules-based international order while maintaining dialogue with countries that do not necessarily share those values. The formula was appealing because it acknowledged a genuine dilemma. Principles alone rarely determine foreign policy, but national interests cannot be pursued indefinitely without reference to values. A small democracy in a strategically exposed position must defend its political identity while dealing with the world as it is. More than two years into Stubb's presidency, however, the relationship between the two parts of the doctrine remains difficult to define. In some cases, realism clearly prevails; in others, values appear to drive the policy. The problem is not that the balance changes according to circumstances. Foreign policy would be impossible if it did not. The problem is that the doctrine does not always explain why one consideration outweighs the other. Stubb did not invent this tension. His predecessor, Sauli Niinistö, also faced difficult compromises. During Finland's NATO accession process, Helsinki accepted Turkish demands that many regarded as uncomfortable concessions on questions touching human rights and the rule of law in order to secure Ankara's approval. The episode illustrated a permanent reality of statecraft: democracies sometimes subordinate important values to overriding security interests. Values-based realism should therefore not be judged by whether Finland ever compromises. It should be judged by whether similar choices are assessed according to a recognisable method. A doctrine becomes meaningful when it explains the purpose of engagement, the limits of accommodation and the circumstances under which a change of policy is justified. Without that discipline, it risks becoming a flexible narrative applied after decisions have already been made. Finland’s Pragmatic Engagement with the United States and China Few European leaders have approached Donald Trump as directly as Alexander Stubb. While many sought political distance, Stubb invested personal capital in building a working relationship with the American president and, by most accounts, succeeded. The results were tangible. Finland strengthened its access in Washington and secured significant commercial cooperation, including agreements connected with the construction of new icebreakers. In a period of uncertainty over transatlantic relations and European security, such access served a clear national interest. From the perspective of values-based realism, the approach is defensible. Foreign policy is not a popularity contest, and Finland cannot make cooperation with its most important ally conditional on political agreement with every American administration. Maintaining a productive relationship with Washington does not require Helsinki to endorse the domestic politics or rhetoric of the American president. The American case therefore demonstrates that pragmatism need not amount to an abandonment of values. It can instead reflect a hierarchy of interests: Finland's security, NATO cohesion and access to American decision-makers carry exceptional weight. The doctrine would nevertheless be stronger if that hierarchy were stated more openly, so that personal diplomacy remained an instrument of policy rather than a substitute for it. Finland's relationship with China presents a more difficult test. During Stubb's state visit to Beijing in October 2024, official statements emphasised that human rights remained an integral part of Finnish foreign policy and that the issue had been raised with President Xi Jinping. At the same time, the visit placed considerable emphasis on trade, investment and economic cooperation, and a large business delegation accompanied the President. There is no contradiction in maintaining dialogue with the world's second-largest economy. Realism requires engagement with major powers, including authoritarian ones. Yet values-based realism must explain more clearly how that engagement is reconciled with Finland's concerns about human rights and the international order. The same question returned when Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi visited Finland shortly before the NATO summit in Ankara. The United States and China are not equivalent partners. One is Finland's principal security ally; the other is an authoritarian power whose international conduct often challenges the order Finland seeks to defend. A coherent doctrine may therefore justify different degrees of cooperation. What it cannot avoid is defining the purpose and limits of each relationship. Otherwise, the language of values risks becoming ceremonial while economic or strategic interests determine policy without an explicit account of the trade-off. Israel, Palestinian Statehood, and Finland’s Policy Inconsistencies No issue illustrates the political sensitivity of values-based realism more clearly than Finland's policy toward Israel and the Palestinian question. Stubb has defended Finland's strategic security cooperation with Israel, including the acquisition of the Israeli-made David's Sling air-defence system. He has argued that Finland's national security cannot become hostage to developments in the Middle East and has repeatedly affirmed Israel's right to defend itself following the Hamas attacks of 7 October 2023. At the same time, he has become an outspoken critic of the Israeli government's conduct in Gaza. He has emphasised Israel's obligations under international humanitarian law, called for greater humanitarian access and argued that lasting peace requires a negotiated two-state solution. Taken separately, these positions are not contradictory. Finland can purchase a defensive system from Israel, recognise Israel's right to self-defence and still criticise the way military force is used. Values-based realism should permit precisely this distinction between a country's strategic importance, its legitimate security needs and disagreement with the policies of its government. The more difficult issue is the recognition of Palestinian statehood. During his presidential campaign, Stubb repeatedly argued that Finland should defend a predictable rules-based order. Finland's 2024 Report on Foreign and Security Policy, unanimously endorsed by Parliament, stated that a two-state solution should emerge through negotiations between the parties and in accordance with internationally accepted parameters. Only months later, Stubb announced that he would be prepared to recognise a Palestinian state if the Government submitted a proposal. The Government declined to do so because recognition lacked sufficient support within the governing coalition, but Stubb continued to describe it as a question of 'when, not if'. The debate took on an additional dimension as France assumed the leading diplomatic role in promoting renewed international momentum toward Palestinian statehood. Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen travelled to Paris for talks with her French counterpart immediately before the high-level conference in New York that produced the New York Declaration. Weeks later, President Stubb met President Emmanuel Macron at the Élysée Palace, and the following day, Finland announced that it would join the French- and Saudi-backed declaration despite opposition from two parties within Finland's governing coalition. The sequence of meetings with French officials and Finland's decision to join the declaration naturally attracted attention. It does not, however, prove that Helsinki acted under French pressure. The more important question is whether Finland explained how its new position related to its earlier insistence on a negotiated settlement. A change of policy is not in itself evidence of inconsistency. Conditions can deteriorate, previous assumptions can fail and governments can conclude that a different diplomatic instrument is required. But a doctrine centred on predictability must identify what changed and what the new policy is intended to accomplish. Recognition could be presented as support for Palestinian self-determination, as pressure intended to revive negotiations or as part of a wider diplomatic strategy. Each rationale would imply different expectations and conditions. By describing recognition as inevitable, the phrase 'when, not if' obscures those distinctions. It makes the outcome appear predetermined even though the political and security requirements of a viable settlement remain unresolved. The issue is therefore not whether one supports or opposes recognition. Reasonable people can disagree. The issue is whether Finland's position follows a clear strategic logic consistent with the principles Stubb has placed at the centre of his doctrine. UN Reform and the Limits of Values-Based Realism President Stubb's proposals for reforming the United Nations reveal a different tension within values-based realism: the relationship between a legitimate objective and a plausible strategy for achieving it. During the UN High-Level Week in September 2025, Stubb called for reforms that would give the Global South a stronger voice in international decision-making. Few would dispute that the distribution of influence within the United Nations deserves reconsideration. The organisation's structures reflect the balance of power that emerged from the Second World War, not the political and demographic realities of the present. More controversial was Stubb's suggestion that the permanent members of the Security Council should ultimately relinquish their veto power. The proposal reflects a vision of a more democratic and representative United Nations. Yet the veto is not merely a procedural privilege. It is part of the constitutional bargain on which the post-war system was built. Any amendment to the UN Charter requires ratification by the five permanent members. The United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China would therefore have to approve the abolition of one of their principal instruments of international influence. Under present conditions, that prospect is remote. This does not make the objective illegitimate or prohibit Finland from advocating it. Small and medium-sized states have every reason to challenge institutions that exclude much of the world and repeatedly fail to act. But a doctrine that includes the word realism must distinguish between the desired destination and the diplomatic route toward it. The weakness in Stubb's proposal is therefore not ambition but sequencing. A credible doctrine should identify which reforms might attract meaningful support, how coalitions could be assembled and what intermediate changes would move the institution closer to the stated objective. Without such a path, values define the aspiration while realism contributes little to its implementation. A foreign-policy doctrine should help leaders navigate the world as it exists while preserving a direction for change. Aspirations have an essential place in diplomacy, but they cannot substitute for an assessment of political constraints. When a leader who champions realism advances proposals with little immediate prospect of adoption, observers are entitled to ask how the principle is meant to guide actual statecraft. Conclusion: A Soloist or a Conductor? More than a decade ago, I attended an event hosted by Stubb's National Coalition Party shortly after he had been elected party leader. Having recently become Channel Director of AlfaTV, I was recognised by one of the hosts and asked publicly what I thought of the party's new chairman. After a brief pause, I replied: "It will be interesting to see how a soloist performs as a conductor." It was not intended as criticism. Alexander Stubb has always been an exceptionally gifted performer: articulate, energetic, multilingual and remarkably effective at building personal relationships with fellow leaders. Those qualities have helped him establish himself as one of Europe's most visible political figures and have strengthened Finland's international profile. Leading a country's foreign policy, however, requires something different. A conductor does more than perform brilliantly. He brings coherence, balance and consistency to an entire orchestra, ensuring that each instrument contributes to a unified interpretation. The same is true of a foreign-policy doctrine. Its purpose is not simply to justify individual decisions. It must explain why similar situations are treated similarly, why different circumstances warrant different responses and where the boundaries of compromise lie. Values-based realism begins from a sound and necessary insight. Finland must defend its democratic identity while operating in a world of unequal power, imperfect partners and weakened institutions. The doctrine's weakness is not that it allows pragmatism, but that the hierarchy between principles and interests is not always visible before a decision is made. To become a settled doctrine, values-based realism should make that hierarchy clearer. Finland should state the strategic purpose and limits of engagement with authoritarian powers, explain significant policy changes rather than present them as inevitable, and connect ambitious institutional reforms to attainable diplomatic steps. Such clarity would not eliminate difficult choices, but it would make them more predictable and accountable. More than two years into Stubb's presidency, values-based realism remains an attractive concept. Judged by its application from Washington to Beijing, from the Middle East to the United Nations, however, it still risks appearing as a flexible narrative capable of accommodating almost any policy choice. Ultimately, every foreign-policy doctrine is judged by consistency. Whether history remembers Alexander Stubb primarily as an accomplished soloist or as the conductor of a coherent Finnish foreign policy will depend not on the elegance of the doctrine's name, but on the discipline with which it is applied.