You left office almost a month ago, at the same time falling out with the government over munitions needs. How have things developed over this past month? Do you feel the issues you raised have helped move things along?

Yes, I believe so, because we are seeing efforts to address the matter. I have said, in a way that some people have perhaps not understood, that I don't care where the money comes from as long as the decision to make this expense is made post haste. Whether the money will come from taxes, securities or somewhere else is not important right now. But making the decision is crucial so people could start planning, preparing tenders, buying what we need etc. I believe the relevant decisions have been taken by now, which is excellent.

Ministry of Defense Permanent Secretary Kusti Salm said that we're still €0.6 billion short of what would be minimally needed. Are those missing €0.6 billion a problem in need of addressing?

I cannot address this matter from here. The government will have to address it and decide how seriously they take the threat and when it might materialize. Those €1.6 billion or €3 billion are not random figures. They represent a very concrete amount of munitions. In the end, someone will have to decide what we will not buy, whether the missing sum is €0.6 billion or €1 billion etc. Also, how we will compensate or what kind of risks we're willing to take because of it.

I dare say today, based on the example of Ukraine, that gliding bombs are a problem for the Ukrainians. A problem not even F-16 fighters may solve. They need something able to hit targets 200 kilometers away. And even if the Ukrainians have something like that today, they are often not allowed to use it. But looking at Ukraine, we need the kind of munitions we have been requesting in recent months.

To what extent could the new munitions Estonia procures be jammed by Russian systems? Can we be certain they'll not be taken out or sent off course?

We cannot be certain, while we can be sure that all of it will keep developing. As it is in Ukraine today – the Russians might succeed in diverting some of it at times, while they might not succeed for the next month. It is the purview of defense contractors and soldiers. And there are countermeasures for electronic countermeasures etc. I don't see a case where we could not use certain types of munitions. What is more, all of it is replaceable. What we listed [as necessary] is based on munitions we're already using. The question we need to answer is how do we transport a certain amount of explosives 200 kilometers away and destroy the target. Whether we use ATACMS, Puls or other systems from Korea or elsewhere is not important. The main thing is to have the munitions.

Therefore, are you satisfied with matters of national defense in the new government's working document?

Everything is getting better. I am not familiar with all of the coalition agreement. But there is improvement.

What it says is this: ""With additional defense investments, we will procure long-range weapon systems and necessary ammunition to, if needed, neutralize threats to Estonia's security on enemy territory."

Good and proper ideas. What interests me more is how quickly and comprehensively these targets are being addressed, as well as to what extent it covers other things, such as broad-based national defense, which I find to be a vague concept. Frankly, I cannot always understand what is being meant when people talk about also concentrating on broad-based national defense. We're talking about healthcare, education, food production and everything else to boot.

What is the next military capability that Estonia sorely needs? Is it more air defense, which you can probably never have too much of, or is it tanks?

Looking inside those €1.6 billion, a quarter of it is air defense munitions, both short and medium range. I believe that the next thing Estonia should invest in, with considerable allied assistance, is surveillance capability, or finding the targets in question. We are somewhat abstractly relying on allies in this regard today. We know we could do it ourselves, we've done it during exercises, while these efforts should become more concrete, and we should perhaps handle some things ourselves. Such as air surveillance for air defense. I know the Air Force is working on it, and it can be done using what Estonia has, whereas it won't cost tens of millions.

You started working for defense contractor Milrem not long after you left office. Why did you decide to take on an advisory role there?

I was made an offer to be involved. The field interests me. By the way, I'm working neither on munitions nor sensors. People who have suggested I have been campaigning for a job are either blind or simply malicious. Milrem Robotics builds unmanned ground vehicles with the potential of being not just unmanned, but also somewhat autonomous. Vehicles that can be left unattended for minutes or hours and will continue to do their thing. It is a very interesting area for me. My tasks include manufacturer and user feedback. My other focus is Ukraine, which simply interests me.

What benefit do companies like Milrem hold for Estonia's national defense?

I cannot say how many jobs Milrem has created in Estonia, so that is one thing. Secondly, it promotes Estonian business. While we're mainly talking about tax revenue and jobs, promoting the Estonian defense industry plays a part.

What is the likelihood of the EDF buying Milrem products? Would they even fit our needs?

Talking about the Themis vehicle, we could find uses for something like that, while I believe it is definitely not our number one priority today. We would need to analyze whether such a vehicle, one that does not need to operated by a human at all times, could benefit us in some way. We are constantly talking about staff shortages. And an autonomous system that can work for hours without human input would probably be sensible. However, in terms of extraordinary new spending, it's still munitions before transports.

The majority stake in Milrem is owned by United Arab Emirates conglomerate EDGE, which has maintained different ties to various countries, including Russia. Could Milrem products end up being sold to Russia via third country intermediaries? How to avoid that happening?

I cannot avoid it in any way. I'm an advisor to the board and will keep working for the board for as long as I'm sure I'm not working for Russia. I will cut ties with the company if I see I'm working for Russia. But I have no reason to believe this will come to pass.

How do you see Russia's ability to continue this war? They are raising the pay of the mobilized. What does that tell us?

For as long as Russia will be able to continue selling fuel and energy west, east and south, they will not have problems recruiting and mobilizing people. It seems to me that Russia's remaining manpower potential is around five million people. They do not have that problem. I see North Korea continuing to support Russia, with China doing the same to an extent, which is why Russia is capable of procuring equipment and munitions, in addition to producing munitions and weapons itself.

They may have fewer precision weapons and munitions compared to when the escalation started, but at the same time, Russia's production volumes have grown by leaps and bounds. We can see them using precision weapons all the time. Russia can produce all of these things, plus dumb munitions. I do cannot see Russia running out of steam in the current situation as long as the money keeps rolling in. Even Western countries are still buying Russian fuel.

Have looming U.S. presidential elections made Russia act differently in the war? Are they eagerly awaiting Trump's return to the White House, or are they expediting matters to try and grab as much territory as possible for as long as it remains unclear who will be the next U.S. president?

It seems to me that whatever whoever might say about this would amount to little more than speculation. Besides, it is not my area, so I will refrain from speaking up on this topic. I also believe we should not put too much stock in it today. What we need to pay attention to is how Ukraine is fighting and how we can help them. Second, find ways not to support Russia.

We should not pay too much attention to the U.S. presidential election. Instead, we should concentrate on what matters here and what we can get done. We have spent too long looking to abstract NATO or the mighty America, hoping they'll do something. It has been laziness and convenience. We should do more ourselves. Then we would not have to worry about U.S. or some other country's elections, which should not be our problem to begin with.

When will we see effective combined operations of modern air defenses and F-16 fighters by Ukraine, and what could be its effects in the coming months?

I don't know how many F-16 fighters there are and what types of munitions, especially air-to-air munitions, they have, or how the Ukrainians will be able to defend their airfields and bases. We'll have to see. F-16 fighter jets will add a new dimension to Ukrainian air defense and they will strengthen it. But maintaining and protecting all of these things will also require a lot of energy. But there is good potential presently.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!