The border between Finland and Russia stretches for 830 miles, marking the longest land boundary Russia shares with any European neighbor. Today, this line represents more than a national frontier; it is the edge of the European Union and, following Finland’s accession in 2023, the vanguard of NATO. When the president of a nation sitting on such a volatile fault line weighs in on the global order, the West tends to listen.
In his recent work, The Triangle of Power, Finnish President Alexander Stubb analyzes the collapse of Western dominance and the subsequent fragmentation of the international system. Stubb posits that the world has transitioned from a unipolar order, led by the United States and its allies, into a triangular power structure. This modern architecture consists of the Global West, the Global East, and the Global South.
To navigate this shift, Stubb proposes a framework he calls “values-based realism”—or “Helsinki realism.” He argues that the only stable path forward is one that preserves liberal cooperation while accepting the inevitability of geopolitical competition. However, this structural approach has sparked a deeper debate regarding the moral thinness of geopolitics, with critics suggesting that a focus on managerial systems ignores the spiritual and cultural foundations required to sustain a civilization.
From Idealism to ‘Helsinki Realism’
Stubb uses the evolution of Finnish foreign policy as a microcosm for the broader Western experience. He describes a trajectory that moved from the “pragmatic realism” of the Cold War to a period of “values-based idealism” following the fall of the Berlin Wall. During this latter phase, Stubb admits that Finland, like much of the West, operated under the illusion that history had reached a final destination—a convergence toward liberal democracy.
The invasion of Ukraine by Russia served as the catalyst for a third phase: values-based realism. Stubb defines this as a commitment to universal values—freedom, fundamental rights, and international rules—while remaining cognizant of the diverse cultures, histories, and national interests of the states that comprise the global order. It is a strategy that acknowledges objective standards of legitimacy but is less inclined to forcibly export those standards to civilizations rooted in radically different traditions.
Stubb attempts to reconcile two seminal, yet opposing, theories of the late 20th century: Francis Fukuyama’s “End of History,” which emphasized the triumph of liberal values, and Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations,” which emphasized the primacy of cultural and religious identity. Stubb suggests that the current paradigm shift is a hybrid of both—a world where values and interests must coexist.
The Critique of Managerial Politics
Despite the sobriety of Stubb’s analysis, some observers argue that his approach is too mechanical. The critique centers on the idea that Stubb treats the international order as a structural puzzle to be solved through managerial politics rather than a moral community to be nurtured. This perspective suggests that modern liberal democracy did not emerge from abstract rationalism alone, but from a specific “politics of virtue” and a long tradition of moral habits.
This tension highlights a divide between what political theorist Eric Voegelin termed “elemental” and “existential” representation. Elemental representation focuses on the procedural mechanics of government—elections, laws, and bureaucratic structures. Existential representation, conversely, deals with the substantive elements of a political order that provide meaning and moral orientation to the individual.
By focusing primarily on the “elemental”—the treaties, the balance of power, and the institutional frameworks—critics argue that Stubb’s vision suffers from a moral void. The argument is that no foreign policy architecture can compensate for moral decay at home; attempting to secure a global order without a rooted domestic virtue is akin to building a house by starting with the roof.
A civilization that is suspicious of its own soul or denies that it even has one cannot defend an international order built upon it.
The Tension Between Sovereignty and Global Governance
A central pillar of Stubb’s thesis is the necessity of multilateral institutions. He frames the current global choice as “Helsinki vs. Yalta,” contrasting a rule-based multilateral order (Helsinki) with a world divided into spheres of influence (Yalta). Stubb argues that the behavior of nation-states must be “contained and channeled” through multilateral institutions like the United Nations to solve problems that transcend national borders, such as climate change and pandemics.
However, this preference for top-down governance creates a friction point with the concept of national sovereignty. Critics of this view argue that political legitimacy does not flow downward from global systems, but upward from the nation-state. Virtues such as loyalty, accountability, and sacrifice are only intelligible within a bounded political community. When supranational institutions are perceived as attempting to bypass the nation, it may erode the democratic legitimacy of both the state and the institution.
Competing Visions of Global Order
| Feature | Values-Based Realism (Stubb) | Civilizational Realism (Critics) |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Driver | Institutional rules and balance of power | Cultural confidence and civic virtue |
| World View | Triangular (West, East, South) | Civilizational spheres |
| Locus of Legitimacy | Multilateral institutions / UN / EU | The sovereign nation-state |
| Approach to Crisis | Managerial structural adaptation | Moral and cultural renewal |
Civilizational Exhaustion vs. Strategic Disorder
Stubb’s categorization of the world into the Global West, Global East, and Global South provides a useful map for strategic planning, but it may oversimplify the moral complexity of individual nations. While Stubb notes that countries like India and Turkey often take a transactional rather than ideological approach, the broader vulnerability of the West may not be a result of institutional weakness or strategic miscalculation.
Rather, the argument is that the West is facing “civilizational exhaustion.” the current crisis is not merely a geopolitical shift toward multipolarity, but a spiritual one characterized by a loss of cultural confidence. If the West views itself merely as a geopolitical bloc rather than a civilization with a specific soul and set of values, it lacks the internal cohesion necessary to lead or even maintain its own order.
While Stubb’s call for humility in foreign affairs is widely seen as necessary, critics suggest that humility without confidence is merely weakness. The solution to global challenges—whether technological, demographic, or environmental—may not come from more bureaucratic global initiatives, but from bottom-up actions rooted in national interest and a renewed sense of civic virtue.
As the international community moves toward a more fragmented era, the debate over “Helsinki realism” will likely intensify. The next critical checkpoint will be the upcoming series of NATO summits, where the integration of new member states and the definition of the “Eastern Flank” will test whether a rule-based order can truly withstand the return of raw power politics.
We invite readers to share their perspectives on the balance between national sovereignty and global governance in the comments below.
Keep reading
