A highly complex yet interesting security situation has emerged from Munich. You attended the security conference, participated in discussions and listened to various perspectives. Is the message coming from there that the world is now even more unstable due to this war? In other words, do we actually not know whether international agreements will hold, whether the rule of law will prevail — especially since the United States seems to be pushing quite forcefully and rapidly for an agreement regarding the war in Ukraine?

It is true that at conferences like these, opinions are expressed and ideas put forward. As a result, anxiety levels naturally rise and people start thinking further about these statements. In that sense, Munich was no different — such discussions were generally expected, including from the United States.

It should be said right from the start that the U.S. is a partner and a friend; it is not an adversary across the ocean. So, we must approach it with that perspective and see what happens next.

Events in Saudi Arabia — and not only there — are also part of this dynamic. Our representatives were in Paris as well, where the Danish Prime Minister represented the Nordic and Baltic countries. So, it is perhaps the pace and sequence of events that create more unease rather than the messages themselves.

Is the pace Europe's weakness — that Europeans are accustomed to gathering, discussing, with nearly 30 countries sitting around the table, each having to be heard? Meanwhile, the Americans act swiftly, make decisions and move forward without hesitation.

It certainly has an impact, but we must remember that we are a democratic country within a democratic Europe and, unfortunately, processes here tend to move slowly.

On the other hand, when looking from their perspective, they may perceive that we are not as strong as we should be, which leads to them coming here and wagging their finger at us. So, instead of reacting defensively, we should focus on demonstrating our strength in a way that is clearly visible to them as well. Not by merely responding in the same manner, but by being proactive — rather than always waiting to react whenever something is said.

What could be the instrument of proactiveness for Europe? The European Union exists and there is also the high representative for foreign affairs. Could Kaja Kallas play a stronger role within the European Union in the current situation?

I think that the role of every individual entrusted with this responsibility is important and these messages matter. However, what is still expected is that old question from [former U.S. Secretary of State] Henry Kissinger: "When I call Europe, who do I speak to?" In the end, attention is directed toward the leaders of major powers.

This topic was also discussed in Munich. It was not an exception — people were looking, perhaps, toward [Germany's potential future chancellor] Merz, wondering if he could be that leader. He himself stated that if he becomes chancellor, he is ready to take on that role. Of course, at 1.98 meters tall, he certainly has the stature to fill such a position.

French President [Emmanuel] Macron has already tried to take on this role forcefully, both before the outbreak of the war and immediately after. At times, he has perhaps gone through a kind of lull in international diplomacy, where he has not been as actively engaged in maintaining this role. Now, yesterday's gathering in Paris showed that he once again wants to assert himself in this position. What was the main message from Paris? How should it be interpreted? What did European leaders — albeit a small group that was physically present — agree on?

There were no clear agreements that came out of it. But calling it a "crisis agreement" might once again reinforce the perception that we are not as strong as we actually could be.

I tend to agree with the perspective we've also discussed with Finnish President Alexander Stubb — that sometimes, it's best to take an ice bath, go to the sauna, cool down a bit and then calmly consider what the next steps should be.

But isn't there a risk in such an approach — where we take a step back, slow down and calmly assess the situation — that Europe could be wiped off the geopolitical power map altogether? That the game will once again be played over our heads and across the Atlantic, between the U.S. and Russia?

We need to keep our eyes open. Right now, even the U.S. — I was sitting next to [U.S. special representative] Kellogg on a panel — doesn't actually have a clear plan. That plan is still being formulated, tested. The speed that appears on the surface isn't necessarily the reality.

At the moment, we are in a phase of feeling things out. We also need to consolidate our position here in Europe and perhaps address our internal issues — why are we weak right now? In many major countries, there are either elections or other domestic challenges. So, this internal focus is undoubtedly a factor in why Europe is perhaps not as strong today as it could be.

Isn't there a risk that the internationally agreed-upon rules and security systems no longer apply in today's world? We know that the role of the UN has become relatively weak. If the U.S. administration starts making agreements with Putin's administration — while Ukraine, a key party to the peace negotiations, is initially not even at the table — it creates the impression that the international legal order is being reshaped. Would you agree?

The international legal order is certainly being bent; it is not functioning as we would like it to. Organizations like the UN and others should be stronger because they were created not just to deal with the consequences of conflicts but primarily to prevent wars from happening in the first place.

I recently visited Palestine and Israel and the same question arose there — what comes next? One proposal was to create a "Riviera," but neither side takes that idea seriously. One side still places its hope in the UN, while the other says it is hopeless to deal with the UN and looks toward the U.S. once again.

For us, as a small country, it is crucial that such international organizations exist and remain strong.

Lennart Meri once pointed out the same parallel — that our "nuclear weapon" is international law. Right now, it seems that our "nuclear weapon" is becoming increasingly weaker in this regard.

It needs to be strengthened. I have also spoken at the UN for several years in a row, emphasizing the need for reform. The world has changed since the UN was established. Many new countries have emerged and we need to reassess both the Security Council and the UN as a whole.

Perhaps some of the decision-making authority should be shifted to the General Assembly, rather than having just five countries making the key decisions.

Coming back to the issue of peace negotiations — there has been speculation that if the talks reach a stage where peacekeeping forces are needed, how do you see Estonia's role? Do you believe Estonia should participate in such a peacekeeping mission and send its troops to help maintain peace?

This is yet another proposal that came up in Munich. Just like the broader discussions there — including, now, voiced by [Volodymyr] Zelensky himself — that Europe needs to create a European army. These are proposals that require very deep analysis.

First, regarding the idea of a European army: right now, we are still working to ensure that some countries meet the necessary defense spending levels to be fully committed NATO members. Many states have yet to reach even the 2 percent defense spending threshold. As Chancellor Scholz pointed out, Germany simply does not have the money for this.

In other words, we may need to look at European fiscal policy — whether budgets can be allowed to go into deficit — but creating an additional army alongside NATO? I don't think we have the resources for that. Strengthening NATO should be the priority.

As for sending a military force — this was also raised in Munich. The Swedish prime minister said it is definitely worth considering, but it cannot be rushed.

For Estonia, the key is to start by assessing what such a decision would mean for us as a country and then, more broadly, what it would mean for Europe as a whole. Ukraine would certainly be interested in such a mission, but at the same time, Ukraine currently has what I believe is Europe's strongest army, simply because they have been forced to fight.

Here, too, we should not rush — there is a tendency to react very quickly to proposals. We need to take a step back. And by that, I don't mean delaying for just an hour or two, but taking the necessary time to think things through completely. Once decisions are made — or even half-decisions — they are very difficult to reverse.

To conclude our conversation — do you have the sense that the current negotiations might, in some way, sell out Ukraine, compromise its freedom and ultimately threaten European security as well?

Just as it was said in Munich — this was not Yalta, where anything was formally agreed upon — I believe we are still in the phase of feeling things out. This has always been the case in history: different parties attempt to negotiate and explore options.

What is clear is that we must watch very carefully what is happening. Today, nearly everything unfolds in real time — we can see what people are saying, though not necessarily what they are thinking. But we must keep a close eye on every development and these are most likely only the first steps in a much longer process.

--

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