How would you assess Ukraine's situation right now?

Ukraine is certainly heading into a very difficult fall and winter. Daily news from across the country shows that Russia has launched a massive campaign of aerial terror against all of Ukraine.

The targets include the capital and many other Ukrainian cities, all the way to the western border. As Ukrainian intelligence has determined in recent days, Russia's aim is to completely destroy Ukraine's civilian infrastructure capacity to withstand the winter. It is targeting energy supplies, data centers, water supplies and sewage systems. As we saw in the recent attacks on Kyiv where hospitals and buildings belonging to the Academy of Sciences were hit, the targets are wide-ranging.

A clear problem for Ukraine right now is its limited air defense capability, specifically because it is short of interceptor missiles for Patriot systems. Another major problem is the jet-powered Geran-5 drones Russia is using with Chinese support. They are being used extensively and causing a great deal of destruction.

What can Ukraine do to defend itself in the current situation?

It is certainly crucial to obtain the air defense weapons it needs from allies and partners as quickly as possible, above all interceptor missiles for Patriot systems from the United States and other allied and partner countries that have them in storage.

The other issue is the need to develop a capability to intercept jet-powered drones as quickly as possible. Several projects are underway, but Ukraine currently has no working solution.

How long could that development take?

When I met Robert Brovdi, commander of Ukraine's Unmanned Systems Forces, in September, he said it could take three to four months. That is, of course, a fairly critical period for Ukraine. Those interception systems will certainly be developed, but for now Russia has a clear advantage in the air.

The shortage of Patriot systems has been known about for a long time. How could the situation be resolved and are there ways to do it?

There are faster and slower solutions. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy also raised the possibility of producing Patriot systems in Ukraine under license when he met Donald Trump in the United States. But it would take years before production delivered any real benefit.

Right now, it is vital that the United States and everyone else able to produce interceptor missiles increase their production capacity. Even more important is a contribution from countries that already have the missiles in storage. Greece and some other countries, for example, should either sell or give them to Ukraine. We see every day that Russian attacks on civilians are intensifying and Russia hopes to bring Ukraine to its knees over the winter. As Ukrainians have repeatedly shown over the years, they will not give up, however hard things get.

The subject of trilateral talks has come up again recently. Why now?

It has always been there in the background. The United States, and the current administration in particular, wants to see this war end through negotiations. At the same time, we heard very clearly from Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov's remarks at the U.N. General Assembly that Russia's aim is to bring the war to a victorious conclusion. It expects the war and its military operations to achieve all its objectives.

Even Lavrov's meeting with the German foreign minister, the first in many years, was in fact a mockery on Russia's part. Russia essentially said outright that it was unwilling to negotiate on those terms. Russia demands Ukraine's capitulation and hopes to achieve it by force if words are not enough.

Fortunately, we are also seeing positive news from the front, particularly recently around Lyman, where Ukraine's Third Army Corps is carrying out a highly successful operation called Vivaldi. It has liberated nearly 200 square kilometers of Ukrainian territory in recent weeks.

The rotation of U.S. troops in the Baltic states will continue. That is certainly good news for us, but why was the decision made now?

I think it is good that the decision came before the Pentagon's final analysis and decision on the overall deployment of troops in Europe, which are still expected. There has been discussion and speculation that as many as 25,000 U.S. troops could leave Europe.

The decisions to increase the presence in Poland and resume rotations in Estonia and Lithuania — with a helicopter unit also coming to Latvia — are certainly very positive and timely for us. That is especially true at a time when speculation about possible Russian action against NATO is spreading almost daily on social media around the world.

To what extent might the sharper threat assessments recently seen in Western media have helped prompt the decision?

For us, the threat assessment has not changed in any way over the past few weeks. Possible patterns of provocative Russian behavior, such as false flag attacks using drones, were already known in the spring when U.S. intelligence made the information more widely available.

I think this reflects good work by our diplomats and, of course, Estonia's contribution to developing its independent defense capability — that same 5 percent of GDP. Our good partners Latvia, Lithuania and Poland are contributing as well. In doing so, we show that we are staunch allies of the United States. It is clear, however, that we must keep the United States' overall strategic approach to conventional defense in Europe in mind. European countries themselves certainly need to contribute substantially more.

There will certainly be some redeployment within Europe. How much hope is there that we might get additional troops?

I think the presence itself is what matters. Importantly, all the allies we have in Estonia — the United Kingdom, France and the United States — are nuclear powers and very important partners in NATO. Their activities under NATO's defense plans, together with our own military units and brigades, must provide the clearest possible deterrent to the adversary, Russia. It is also important that the units stationed here, regardless of their size, have every opportunity to carry out the exercises they need to be ready for combat.

Will U.S. units be combat-ready when they come to Estonia?

The units I have met at Nursipalu in the past have always said that, if necessary, they would be ready to defend Estonia that very day.

At the same time, looking at the U.N. General Assembly, there were some conflicting signals from the other side. The G20 invitation and the sanctions on Belarus are examples. What is the U.S. trying to say with these decisions and what is its goal?

Sometimes it is hard to understand what lies behind particular tactical steps. As we discussed earlier, the current U.S. administration wants, one way or another, to find a path toward restoring relations with Russia.

It is Russia that does not want to restore relations in a way that would ultimately be acceptable to the Americans and their allies. Russia continues its massive war of aggression and is escalating its acts of terror in NATO member states. In this situation, we should not expect that there is some purely diplomatic move, as yet undiscovered, that could stop the war or restore relations.

That cannot be achieved without putting pressure on Russia. I believe the United States has also come to understand this in one way or another, particularly considering the sanctions legislation signed by Trump that was finally passed by Congress after many months. Of course, we would like to see the United States act more forcefully to pressure Russia.

How would you assess relations between the U.S. and Europe right now?

How should I put it? There has not been much new lately; if anything, there have been some more positive developments. At the U.N. General Assembly, a solution was found to the U.S.-Greenland issue, which had been a source of concern for some time. Fortunately, the sound and skillful diplomacy of Denmark and its partners, and ultimately the United States as well, led to an agreement.

It essentially returned matters to the same framework that Denmark and the United States have operated within for the past half-century. So that is largely positive news. The more serious question is how the planned changes to troop deployments in Europe might affect the broader strategic picture, as well as Europe's own conventional defense and deterrence capabilities.

It is very important to continue working closely with our American partners and allies on this. Whatever steps they take must not diminish Europe's and NATO's ability to deter Russia.

--

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