Main points:

• Russia is trying to scare countries into not helping Ukraine;
• Nuclear deterrence strategies have been scrapped;
• Russia cannot win the war alone;
• Ukraine cannot be held hostage by countries' domestic politics;
• Russia has friends who will die for them, Ukraine does not have friends who will provide enough weapons;
• Countries publicly rejecting Macron's plan was an embarrassment;
• Putin does not need reasons to escalate;
• Trump will realize Putin is the problem, not Ukraine;
• History will judge German Chancellor Olaf Scholz.

You can watch the "Esimene stuudio" broadcast in English above, or read the transcript in full below.

Andres Kuusk: Welcome to the program, Mr. Dmytro Kuleba.

Dmytro Kuleba: Thank you. It's a big pleasure to be in Estonia and to be able to talk to you.

A few days ago, Russia fired a long-range missile at the city of Dnipro and now the world is discussing whether [Russian President Vladimir] Putin is bluffing or do they really have a new lethal weapon? What is the correct answer?

At this point he is still bluffing because he's trying to scare away other countries from providing necessary weapons to Ukraine and the people of Ukraine from the idea of the possibility of fighting against Russians, because basically he says, I still have the weapon that can destroy all of you, so it's better for you to stop fighting now and not take destruction and death to the next level.

But in this period of war, it was a moment of bluff, which unfortunately had some impact among our partners.

So if he talks in a televised speech about a new Oreshnik [Russian intermediate-range ballistic missile], 10 times the speed of sound, uninterceptable etc. This is all nonsense?

Well, I remember the presentation of the Russian Kinzhal missile. And it was said that it was impossible to intercept this missile because it was the best in the world, incomparable, and no one else had the weapon to shoot it down. But as it turned out, I must say quite unexpectedly for all, U.S. Patriot systems were able to intercept Kinzhal.

Of course, the Oreshnik missile is the next step, but the logic of the war is always the same. Once you have an invincible weapon, make sure that someone is already working on a solution how to defeat it. And this is called arms race and this is where we are.

But the point about the Orshnik intermediate-range ballistic missile, of course, is not that you cannot intercept it. The point is that it's an intercontinental missile. And Putin basically sends two messages. The first one is that I will not stop until I destroy Ukraine. And second, I am ready to use weapons which I could also use against you. This is the message addressed to the West because it's an intercontinental missile.

And finally, the issue with the use of this particular missile is that decades-long doctrines of nuclear deterrence, that the whole Western political kind of strategy was built on, was scrapped. It doesn't mean anything anymore because out of the blue a country that possesses nuclear weapons shoots an intercontinental missile without, of course, a nuclear warhead, but it does it. And this ruins the concept of deterrence. So people in the West are racking their minds now how to live from now on.

Russia changed its nuclear doctrine a few days ago, should we pay attention to that at all?

No, we shouldn't be paying attention to that because Putin does not need any doctrines to make his decisions. Second, even in the early phase of the war, I would like to remind everyone that when Putin said to every country, if you send weapons to Ukraine, I will hit you. I will be destroying your weapons. And he was threatening to destroy the depot in Poland...

Yeah, it was with F-16.

Yes, with every new weapon that arrives in Ukraine, Putin will make a statement saying, never again or I will crush you. So he just needed what he believes is a strong political move. He made it by changing the doctrine, but this is all paperwork. It doesn't make any difference. Firing an intercontinental missile does make a difference as a message.

President Joe Biden finally gave the green light to advanced weapons. In military terms, it is still too little too late isn't it?

Well, it's good that it was greenlit but the key word in your sentence, in your question, was finally. And this is the main problem with the West, because the United States and most European nations, not Estonia, of course, but with most Western European countries, they always wait for something. They always believe that, you know, maybe we can out-sit it, maybe we should not rush, or let's look and let's sit and wait how the United States behaves and then follow them. And, so for the way they operate, Ukrainians are paying with their blood and our country is being destroyed.

But the most remarkable thing about this decision on ATACMS [a U.S.-made supersonic tactical ballistic missile] is that we once again have hard evidence that when someone tells that I'm not going to do this, I'm not going to give these weapons to Ukraine because I have a list of arguments against it, technical, legal, military. This is all... I was going to say a bad word, but I am on a reputable TV show, so I have to remain diplomatic. So it's all hypocrisy.

Because the real problem, the real reason, why some weapons are not delivered, or not delivered in sufficient quantities and on time, is the lack of political will to do so. And what we were told was impossible two months ago – I'm speaking about the ATACMS – became possible now.

The question is why wasn't it possible two months ago? Nothing changed since then, except the elections in the United States. So Ukraine should not be held hostage of the internal politics of any country. This is the most difficult thing to achieve, but this is what we have to work for.

Talking about real escalation, There are about 11,000 North Korean troops in your country now. And now even they are talking about recruiting Houthis from Yemen. I mean this is a serious escalation.

It is a continuation of escalation, but the message here also should be read differently. Basically by bringing more mercenaries or foreign troops to fight on the Russian side, Putin recognizes that he has issues with recruiting his own people, because so many of them die on the battlefield, which defeats the argument of those who say it doesn't make sense to continue supporting Ukraine because Russia is bigger, they have more people, and they will simply outnumber Ukrainians.

We see with this news coming that in order to defeat Ukraine, Putin has to bring people from abroad. Because for his own reasons, he cannot call for general mobilization and put all the Russians under arms. So those skeptics who are saying that Putin is too big to be defeated, Putin himself tells them 'you are wrong.'

But the problem today, the fundamental problem, and these are the words that yours and my friends in the Western world do not like to hear from Germany to the West, I would say. The truth is very sad. Today Russia has a friend who is ready to send his own troops to die for Russia. And Ukraine does not have friends who are ready to at least send all the weapons Ukraine needs to defend itself against Russia. This is the tragedy of the moment in which we currently are.

With all my gratitude to our partners for everything they have done, but the war does not stand still. The war evolves. We have an enemy who always who continuously escalates. And it means that we have to be [able] to match his escalatory efforts with our defensive efforts.

But there is a report in Le Monde, the French outlet, that French and British governments are renewing the debate on sending troops to Ukraine. If so, it will raise a completely different and very painful debate in many countries, also in Estonia.

I'm an ordinary citizen, so I do not have access to intel. But my understanding of this discussion is different from what people presume this discussion is about. I will suggest, as a speculation on my side, that they are talking about sending troops as part of the peace deal. So, for example, imagine there is a ceasefire and one of the guarantors of the ceasefire is the presence of foreign troops on the ground. So I think this discussion is, if it takes place, yes, it does take place as far as I know. But I think it's more focused on that element and not on let's send troops in order to help Ukraine win the war. This is a completely different discussion.

But I want [to say], since you mentioned that, this is something that will trigger tensions and discussions, including in Estonia...

Painful discussions...

... First, Ukraine never asked for troops, for foreign troops. Never. We always asked for two things. Weapons for Ukraine and real sanctions against Russia.

Second, the most embarrassing moment for the West in this war was the day when President Macron made a bold statement that France and others should consider sending troops to Ukraine, not combat troops, but just to have physical presence on the ground. And one Western leader after another rushed to the mic to say, 'no, we're not going to do it. No, no, no, no, no, this is completely unacceptable.'

And it was a moment of shame for one reason: because entire West exposed its fear and weakness to Putin. Because this is not how you fight wars. Even if you disagree with what Macron said, even if you disagree with the idea of sending troops, you know, keep a poker face. Make your enemy think of what else you can do to defeat him.

And you rushed, not you [Estonia], but the West – we also belong to the West, so it's like complaining about ourselves. But so many key Western leaders rushed with their hands up in front of Putin and saying "don't worry Vladimir I'm not gonna do this to you, fight, continue killing Ukrainians, continue destroying them. We have our red lines. We're not going to cross them. We know that you will cross yours because you have no red lines. You will do everything you want. But don't worry, we will let you do that."

So be smart. I call on any politician who takes part in a discussion of that kind, just be smarter. Do not expose that you are afraid, that you are weak. Play the strong man, because this is one of the ways you win wars.

Let's talk about big global players. Donald Trump was re-elected. It's going to be a bumpy ride, isn't it?

It will, yeah. But my position is that, in the end, Ukraine will survive this new political reality. But we will have to pay a price for this because while Trump will be shaping his policy and implementing it, while Europe will be shaping its own policy and implementing it with the view of what the position of the United States will be, Ukraine will continue to fight.

And we will be suffering from Russian escalations, while people in the political leadership in the West will be talking of non-escalatory policies or non-escalatory moves. This is what everyone has to understand.

Putin does not need reasons to escalate. The Western concept is based on the idea, if we do not escalate, then Putin will not escalate either. But everything we know about Russia in the last two-and-a-half years speaks for the opposite. Putin escalates because he has a clear goal: destroy Ukraine physically, destroy Ukrainian statehood, and expose the weakness of the West to the whole world.

The West does not have a clear goal of what it wants to achieve because the West wants Ukraine to win, but they don't want Russia to lose. And this is not how it works you have to make sure war is a time of choices, you have to make choices, you cannot try. There are moments in history when you cannot put eggs in both baskets. And this is unfortunately what I still see among those who shape intellectual approaches to this war in many administrations.

But are you not afraid that Ukraine will be pushed towards some kind of peace deal?

I've been asked this question for 10 years already. Since 2014, the most frequently asked question to a Ukrainian official: 'Aren't you afraid that Ukraine will be pushed and you will have to concede?'

And my response today to this question is: Guys, you all are barking up the wrong tree. And I think this is what people around President Trump are also wrong about. They begin the whole exercise by asking themselves a question, how to make Ukraine agree? But the real question that you have to start a conversation with is how to make Putin stop the war.

And there will be a moment on this bumpy road, as you call it, and rightly so, when Trump will realize that Putin is the problem and not Zelenskyy or Ukraine as a country. And that will make him change his policy.

Overall, everything we see now is what I call a blink game. So the one who blinks first will lose in this standoff with the Trump administration. Trump is flexible. I don't think that everything you read in the media about what he thinks about the war is right...

... And he hates to lose.

[Laughts] You are right. The most important thing for Trump is to look strong. When I was asked yesterday... I met with – no, [it was] the day before we said we [would] speak with you – I sat with a group of serious European experts and, of course, one of the questions was about Trump. And I told them, I understand, I took a political risk – and by repeating this to the audience I'm increasing this risk. But I said to them, Trump, If you come to him and you say that this is the deal, but for you to end this war, you have to take Ukraine into NATO, I believe he will agree. Because the most debated issue now is whether Ukraine will be NATO or it will be considered as part of talks.

So the task for Ukraine should be to build such a compromise that will not cross our red lines and will not replace NATO membership with another package of meaningless security guarantees similar to the Budapest Memorandum.

You don't believe in any kind of special status whatsoever?

Politically independent Ukraine is 33 years old. Out of these 33 years, 31 years was spent by politicians and intellectuals in Europe and in America on defining special status for Ukraine. And this intellectual bankruptcy led to the large-scale invasion of Russia.

One week before Ukraine was granted EU candidate status, which is not a special status for Ukraine but the regular status for every country that wants to become a member of the European Union – and you [Estonia] also had it – one week before that some friends of Ukraine were calling Kyiv and telling us, guys you know you will not get it. Agree to a special status like quasi membership, like you're almost member, you are member but only one with one foot inside. We said to them we love you, you're very good people, but go and take a rest and vote for the right decision.

So special status for Ukraine means leaving the window for war open. Full stop, period. Stop treating Ukraine like a second-class country that needs second options. Ukraine is a country that deserves with its history, with its blood, and with its future contribution to the power of Europe, first-class treatment like anyone else.

Let me guess, you don't like to talk about [Germany's] Taurus rockets?

Now I just got tired of talking of them because it was an, it was like a soap opera. But I took a break of two months, so now I can talk a little bit.

And it's the same with the phone calls to Moscow.

Yeah.

Because it's nonsense, It doesn't solve anything...

Taurus... to the best of my knowledge, the only person in the German government who is against sending Taurus is Chancellor [Olaf] Scholz himself. This is his personal position. All the pages of arguments about why these missiles cannot be sent to Ukraine is toilet paper. They do not make any sense because the reason, the reason they were compiled for one purpose only, to explain why these missiles cannot be sent.

They can be sent, And everyone around, as far as I know, other members of the German government are in favor of this decision. The chancellor decided to take this approach. And I'm afraid that now in the course of German elections and campaign, things will get even worse as the chancellor will be defending his line. And so Taurus will remain a hostage of domestic German politics.

But on the other hand, it is difficult to complain about the chancellor when he sends air defense systems to Ukraine, Patriot, Iris. I want to be fair. People who don't like Chancellor Scholz accuse me of being nice to him. I'm not nice to him. I just want to be fair.

While he made a big political mistake on the issue of Taurus. In my view – I'm sorry, I'm a free man now, I can say whatever I want – I believe it's a big mistake of historic magnitude and history will judge him for this. He could have gone [down] in history as a strong European leader who really changed the course of history, but because of this one decision on Taurus, his reputation will be damaged.

And finally, Steve Rosenberg from the BBC once described Putin as a car with no brakes and the accelerator pedal stuck to the floor. Can you say in two sentences how to stop Putin?

I need one sentence for that. We have to make him accept the fact that he's going to lose. The Russian economy suffers, people of Russia suffer, even the Russian [opinion] polls show that. Look at the exchange rate of the Russian currency.

But Putin sitting in the Kremlin still believes that he can outplay the West, he can out-sit it, and he can destroy Ukraine. This is why he hopes for elections in Germany, this is why he sees Trump as an opportunity.

We have to be resolved, we have to stop him by depriving him of the belief that he can win.

Mr. Kuleba, thank you very much indeed and good luck.

Thank you.

--

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