Last week, Tartu hosted the Baltic Defense College's annual security conference on Russia, bringing together hundreds of high-ranking military officials, experts and scholars from around the world to the "Athens on the Emajõgi." On this occasion, Novaator spoke with Viljar Veebel, a lecturer at the Defense College and one of the event's main organizers, about the global order in the Trump era, Europe's options and a war that has not yet come.

Trump and Europe

Interpretations of the Trump administration's foreign policy vary widely. Some see the president as a protection racketeer, others as a shrewd economic genius, while some argue that his maneuvers should be viewed primarily through the lens of U.S. domestic politics. According to Viljar Veebel, Europeans still tend to sugarcoat Trump, as it is initially more convenient. However, this approach offers no long-term benefits.

"Comparisons to Hitler and Mussolini have already been made. The real question is, what year are we in — 1933 or 1935? At that time, Hitler was also seen as a reasonable negotiation partner. It was assumed that the German state apparatus was separate from Hitler and sufficiently rational. People thought that if they gave him a piece of Czechoslovakia or Poland, agreements would hold. In reality, the groundwork for the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact had already been laid and new territorial redistributions were taking place behind the concessions," Veebel explained.

Similarly, he dismisses as hollow the arguments of analysts who suggest that Trump's foreign policy should be interpreted as a reaction to internal U.S. struggles. In Veebel's view, this logic is comparable to treating Hitler's persecution of fellow citizens as mere domestic spectacle. He finds it far more likely that the narrative of Trump performing for a domestic audience is deliberately promoted by the administration itself. This allows them to push foreign policy boundaries even further.

"The underlying assumption of such interpretations is that the world, from a Western perspective, has long been a rational place. Now, we keep repeating the mantra that Trump is merely provoking. No one wants to be the first to react to his provocations," Veebel said.

The only positive outcome of sugarcoating Trump and allowing events to unfold, in Veebel's view, is that it will eventually reveal whether the U.S. president has already made a secret deal with Russia behind closed doors. Such a revelation might, in turn, shed light on geopolitical maneuvers that China would make in response.

If such an agreement exists and Ukraine is effectively abandoned, the key question is whether Russia would stop at Poland's border. If the Russian administration realizes that Poland is too formidable a target, the next focus would be the Baltic region.

"We need to seriously consider what we will do if Estonia is presented with a so-called rare earth metals deal of its own and told that the most reasonable solution is for Ida-Viru County to be handed over to Russia. I'm not saying this will happen, but we must have a response ready," Veebel warned.

In this context, he believes it would be beneficial for Estonia if Europe had the courage to condemn the resource deal imposed on Ukraine.

"It's like a big kid beating up a smaller one and then forcing him to say they have an agreement to hand over all his pocket money in the future. Everyone who writes that such coercion constitutes a legitimate agreement is essentially also saying that Putin can do whatever he wants in his own country because he was elected," Veebel remarked.

He argues that Trump's self-promotion as a master dealmaker should be regarded in the same way we view propaganda designed to manipulate skeptics. Russia uses similar tactics in its media narrative about the war — it started as a "special military operation" but has since been reframed as a war in Ukraine, implying an internal conflict initiated by Ukraine itself.

There will likely always be some who respond predictably to such messages in Estonia. Veebel referenced a study conducted years ago in which he and fellow researchers assessed the attitudes of representatives working in EU member state parliaments regarding NATO's Article 5.

"The results were quite disheartening. In Greece, we mostly got responses saying they have resources but also their own issues with another NATO country. In Portugal, they said they would definitely not recognize a Russian occupation and would send a diplomatic note. Many said it would be a matter for discussion if and when the need actually arose," Veebel recalled.

According to Veebel, the current situation highlights how geopolitics should be approached rationally. If we focus solely on values and ideals, we may fail to notice shifts in reality. Conversely, if we act as complete pragmatists, we risk trampling on the interests of smaller players. The most sensible approach is to strike a balance between values and pragmatism.

China

Another key question is the role China will play in this geopolitical turmoil. Many analysts link the United States' European ventures to China's growing influence in the Pacific region. The argument goes that Russia is no longer seen as a serious competitor by the U.S., one worth spending time and resources on. This is often illustrated by the broader shift in U.S. defense policy toward Asia, which began during Trump's first term and has continued under Biden.

According to Viljar Veebel, China follows a fundamental principle: it will always oppose a U.S.-led unipolar world order. "It's somewhat similar to Estonia's stance — we always side with those who oppose Russia and China always supports those who oppose the U.S. I don't think they are particularly concerned about Ukraine or Russia per se. What matters to them is ensuring that the U.S. does not secure strong allies or reinforce its global dominance," he explained.

Veebel sees recent developments on the Ukrainian front as a reflection of this dynamic. When Ukraine started experiencing difficulties with data communications, intelligence gathering and Western-manufactured military equipment, Chinese drones reportedly began appearing on the battlefield, according to local military bloggers. In some areas, the situation has reportedly become so dire for Russian forces that deploying tanks is pointless — Ukrainians have ten Chinese-made drones ready for every Russian tank.

Simply put, this means that something was dispatched from China, something arrived in Ukraine and training, which takes about a month for such drones, has already taken place. Veebel interprets this as a sign that China began shipping drones when its intelligence determined that Trump was planning to pressure Ukraine in cooperation with Russia. One possible interpretation of this move is that China is sending a message: it will step in to support those facing U.S. pressure.

"China is in no hurry to go to war itself. By supporting Ukraine, it simply buys more time, prolonging the conflict. In that sense, China is just as pragmatic as Trump. Trump's long-term goal, as he has stated, is to bring China to its knees. He has already started working toward that," Veebel said.

At the same time, China's relationship with Europe should not be overlooked. From a geopolitical standpoint, China is the EU's third-largest export and top import partner. A keen observer might rightfully ask: what happens if Trump demands that NATO's European members sever economic ties with China in exchange for security guarantees? According to Veebel, it wouldn't surprise him if such demands have already been made behind closed doors.

At the same time, he noted, Europe has also come to realize in recent years that China uses its economy as a tool to expand political power. "By offering us cheaper goods, China is pushing out local manufacturers. We are facing essentially the same dilemma we had with Russian gas a few years ago. On the one hand, it's great because Chinese products are cheap and affordable. On the other hand, we are feeding China's economy. The bigger they get, the more power they have over us," Veebel explained.

His recommendation is for Europe to start gradually disengaging from China as soon as possible. "If Trump ends up helping us by demanding an immediate break, we will have to decide whether it's more important to keep buying computers at half the price for a little while longer or to draw the line. In the long run, we must decide who is a partner and who is not," he added.

Estonia's chances of winning the next war

In summary, Estonia faces multiple geopolitical challenges. According to Viljar Veebel, the most crucial strategic focus for Estonia in terms of alliances should be the establishment of a regional defense alliance. Finland, Sweden, the Baltic states and Poland together have the capability to respond to potential attacks, but this requires joint exercises and committed cooperation.

"For example, we either lack or have an insufficient number of weapon systems capable of strategically influencing Russia. Even with HIMARS, we can cover less than 5 percent of Russian territory. However, we do have early warning systems, such as radars. If Estonia provides the situational picture, Swedish jets can take off at the right time.

Conversely, we don't have reconnaissance and surveillance aircraft like the Swedes do — planes that can detect targets beyond the horizon, which cannot be seen from the ground and are out of reach for our weapons. Sweden can also store large quantities of ammunition safely in depots, whereas Estonia faces significantly greater challenges in that regard," he explained.

Another critical issue concerns investments — both in capabilities and people. Veebel believes Estonia must realize that it is impossible to simultaneously build a competitive economy, drastically increase defense spending, implement a green transition, complete Rail Baltica and procure weaponry. The government must negotiate agreements with key stakeholders to ensure that, once the immediate threat of war has passed, it can return to addressing issues not directly related to national defense.

Even more important than money and weaponry are people. "We could easily end up in a situation where we have exhausted our last reserves by spending everything on ammunition — similar to how, in 1940, Estonia had two submarines, had ordered a vast number of aircraft, but had impoverished its society. People smiled and declared their patriotism, but at the same time, they were counting their last pennies at home. The nation lacked strength, birthrates declined and people lost their confidence," Veebel warned.

In his ongoing research, Veebel is working on conceptualizing a sustainable defense budget. He argues that the current 3 percent of GDP for defense spending is unsustainable in the long term. "When we proudly point out that Estonia's defense spending exceeds that of the United States, we often fail to consider that nearly all of the billions invested in defense in the U.S. stay within their economy. In contrast, a significant portion of the money Estonia spends on weapons flows abroad."

As a final point, Veebel highlighted technological innovation as the most effective safeguard against war reaching Estonia. "All wars are technological. If we had the cyber capability to hack into Russia's nuclear weapons, there would be no war. The simplest yet most complex solution is to achieve a technological breakthrough that paralyzes the adversary's operations," he explained.

Whether it involves semiconductors, information flows, financial systems or hacking Bitcoin, Veebel believes that any such advantage could give Europe a unique edge. However, achieving this would require diverting funds away from traditional munitions. "In 1943, Germany developed the V2 ballistic missile using an abacus. How many ballistic missiles are we producing today? A few years ago, IBM had more patents in a single year than the entire European Union's tech industry combined. You can't win a race — or a war — like that!" he concluded.

--

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