The prime minister noted that if there were anything more to wish for, it would be for the EU to jointly agree to help Ukraine immediately, and to a greater extent at a time when U.S. President Donald Trump has ostensibly cut military aid to that country.

The prime minister gave an interview to ERR's Joakim Klementi.

Did everything that was hoped for get approved? Was anything left out? What is your assessment of Thursday's meeting?

Everything that was planned to be confirmed today was indeed confirmed, so I would estimate the outcome quite positively.

The message going out is that Europe takes its defense seriously.

We outlined new changes in budgetary rules. Simply put, Europe, including Estonia, has gained more flexibility with defense investments.

Second, there is scope for taking out loans, while each country that takes out such a loan will be responsible for paying it back.

The loans will likely have more favorable terms and might not count towards the budget deficit. The details are still under review.

Discussions on Ukraine also reinforced the idea that the most secure guarantee in the current situation — and this idea seemed to find majority support — is to help Ukraine achieve the strongest possible position it can.

This means financially supporting Ukraine's armed forces and providing weaponry.

Various countries are contributing to this effort, so I would say that today's European Council meeting was certainly worthwhile.

On [EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy] Kaja Kallas' proposal to send a more concrete weapons package to Ukraine — this wasn't fully achieved today. What is its status now?

This has been noted in the communiqués, and I hope that by the next European Council meeting, which is coming up this month, we will have a clearer picture of how far this can go. Kallas' office is continuing to work on it.

There was a clash with [Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor] Orbán once again. Was this a major falling out? Or is it the usual case of him disagreeing yet things still getting done without him?

Of course, there was a little drama. Orbán's views differ from ours on how to resolve the Ukraine conflict and how to engage with Russia, but he has never hidden the fact that his perspective is different.

Fully aware of this, the European Council can still proceed with decisions in a way that leaves Orbán and his country out of the process. And that is what happened this time.

If Orbán is reasonable and agrees to stay out, we can proceed in that way. If not, then alternative solutions must be found so that like-minded countries in Europe can still move forward.

What was also talked about was that in covering Ukraine's expenses, more cooperation formats among [non-EU] like-minded nations are required.

For example, Norway, which is a major supporter of Ukraine, the U.K., which is also contributing significantly, and many others should be part of this coalition.

What might happen with the defense bonds? Would a common loan be taken, meaning the European Commission would borrow and distribute funds as grants? Might there be a demand for more in terms of defense bonds? Or might we say we have secured the solution we sought and are satisfied with it?

I would say that if there were anything more to wish for, it would be for Europe to jointly agree to help Ukraine now, immediately, and to a greater degree. That would be my wish.

As for our own defense spending — in the coming weeks, the Minister of Defense will present our NATO capability goals to the coalition cabinet, then we will assess the timeline for implementation.

We have obtained more flexibility with these new rules. For Estonia, it is of benefit that we can move forward with our goals and bolster our defense capabilities.

On loans, the mechanism allows for collective borrowing that does not count toward the deficit and comes with somewhat more favorable interest rates, but each country will repay its own share.

I think this will work well, while in addition, various initiatives from the European Investment Bank will support private-sector funding on different defense projects too.

So, I would say that today's European Council meeting and the entire package represent a significant step forward — something that perhaps six months ago no one foresaw happening. But now it has, so we must keep moving forward.

Do we now have to wait for the details to be finalized? The Commission must make a legislative proposal, which requires approval. Or have we gotten the signal that if needed, we can take out a loan and won't be penalized for doing so?

From Estonia's perspective, I would say that we certainly do not intend to act irresponsibly, but we also do not plan to wait around. The fundamental understanding in Europe is that more investment in defense is necessary.

If there are procedural hurdles or messaging issues, we will not let them hold us back. We will do what is required. If later clarification is needed from Brussels, we will deal with that.

We will do what needs to be done; we will not wait. Everyone has been given free rein, but will countries like Spain do what's necessary? Should we demand a more reasonable burden-sharing from them?

We will certainly discuss at future European Council meetings and in various formats which hotspots in Europe require further investment.

I would like to remind everyone that not so long ago, burden-sharing in the Nordic countries was viewed skeptically when it came to refugee flows — people questioned why that should be their concern.

It seems that now everyone understands that these challenges are shared ones.

As a result, steps will likely need to be taken on the southern [EU] border on immigration and terrorism, as well as on its eastern border. From our perspective, it is crucial to ensure that this border holds firm because it ultimately protects all of Europe from Russian influence.

What is your view on how Donald Trump has been acting? The Oval Office disputes, halting aid to Ukraine, yet still proceeding with the mineral agreement. Mixed messages, but also echoes of Russian propaganda, all of which sound terrible from Estonia's perspective.

I would say that our task is to remind our ally — the U.S., regardless of who is president or which party is in office — about rights and wrongs.

We know the facts of the matter: The war in Ukraine could end immediately if Russian forces halted. If Putin decided to withdraw his troops and stop the killing, the war would be over.

Similarly, the dictator is not the Ukrainian president but the Russian president. It is he who is sending people to die on foreign soil.

The fact that American politics is somewhat erratic and media-driven is likely a sign of our times. Time will tell where this road leads.

What really happened with Estonia not being invited to London and Paris? Was it just an oversight? Or is it simply because we are small — plus our positions are so clear that there's no need for extended discussions with us?

In Estonia, it may sometimes seem like only we get left out of things. But it is clear that in the EU, various countries are not always invited to every single table, and impromptu formats can arise.

Sometimes these align with NATO, sometimes with the EU, and sometimes beyond these frameworks.

It is very common to dramatize situations like these and assume something significant has been going on when friends convene without you. But they are still our friends, even if they leave us out of a meeting or assume that a smaller group can move rapidly.

At Thursday's meeting, EU leaders agreed to boost defense spending and provide €30.6 billion to Ukraine, though failed to present a fully unified front thanks to Hungary's veto.

--

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