Voir tous les articles
We are looking now at a war running for more than two years, potentially entering a third. There is a lot of uncertainty especially around the US election. Looking back, would you say the West, collectively, has done everything it could to help Ukraine win this war?
The war started in 2014, and even before the full-scale invasion, Russia was trying to destabilise Ukraine. There was fighting and casualties almost every week and it is important to remember that.
Since February 2022, we have done a lot, but not enough. It started with blankets and helmets, and now we are sending tanks, Javelins and F16s. Unfortunately, a lot of valuable time has been lost in between. There wasn’t enough momentum in the Kharkiv counter-offensive to bring victory home. The Ukrainians didn’t get enough equipment and couldn’t push forward and keep control of the territory at the same time. Today we see both sides digging in and to make a difference on the battlefield Ukraine is going to need more, much more help. I have said on many forums that we have to decide whether we want Ukraine to win or just fight. To paraphrase Shakespeare, the question is to win or not to win — Russia is still attacking, storming cities, destroying critical infrastructure, they haven’t stopped because there’s an election in the US. We don’t have the right, and Ukraine certainly doesn’t have the luxury of time, to wait for the outcome of that election. If there is a window of opportunity for Ukraine between now and the inauguration in January, we shouldn’t wait.
The NATO Secretary General, Mark Rutte, has said on numerous occasions that Allies should stop worrying about a possible return of Donald Trump and focus on the task at hand. Nonetheless, Donald Trump’s tone on Ukraine is different to that of President Biden. He talks about ending the war in 24 hours. That doesn’t concern you?
When I go to Capitol Hill, talk to Congressmen and Congresswomen, I see bipartisan support for Ukraine. Will things change gear, go up or down? We can speculate, but my point is this is why the European Union has to do so much more to show the United States that we are taking this seriously.
You recently said limitations for Ukraine in terms of weapons and its capacity to hit Russia deeper inside its territory are self-defeating. It is like the metaphor of a man riding a horse, kicking it to go faster while pulling back the reins. Is this a fair battle?
These restrictions have a negative effect, as the Ukrainians are unable to take full advantage of Western capabilities and perform to the best of their ability on the battlefield. The positive, if we can call it that, is that Ukraine is modernising its industry very quickly as a result. Today we see that they have weapons systems built in Ukraine that can reach 1,000 kilometres into Russian territory. I have no doubt that they will develop their own industry as much as possible. It is not rocket science to build a missile. It’s only a matter of time before they reach the capacity of a Storm Shadow. But time is critical and therefore we should give them everything and lift all restrictions.
The German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has been clear Berlin will not change its position on the Taurus. Are these limitations the product of fear of Russia and what a defeated Russia could mean?
I don’t hear this at the highest political level, not among defence ministers, not among Prime Ministers. That is why I insist that we should stop talking about escalation. It’s not a question of Ukraine escalating. Russia has been escalating all along, deporting children, raping women, killing civilians, violating every aspect of international law. Ukraine is not escalating and that is the point. We shouldn’t be talking about escalation and limits. That is not helpful.
So why are there still limitations?
We should ask the governments that still have these restrictions. My government’s position is clear. There are no magic tricks. No single weapon that will bring victory home. It is a combination — sending these weapons, the tanks, the artillery, the SCALP missiles, the Storm Shadows, this is hope for the boys in the trenches. They need that motivation and they need to see that they have the means to fight for their country. That is why this is so important. It would also allow them to hit targets, to destroy the depots of ammunition and missiles that Russia is using against them. We see that the Ukrainians can do this.
It is also about the message. Giving Ukraine a fair chance to defend itself would show that we will do so for as long as it takes and as much as it takes.
President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has now unveiled his plan for victory. Some would argue that it calls for more arms, but doesn’t offer any clues on the diplomatic and political front. When you hear things like dividing the country, giving up land in exchange for NATO membership or faster EU integration, does that sound right to you?
There are things Ukraine needs to win the war and Zelenskiy knows that. On top of that comes the political and diplomatic discussions regarding, for example, accession to the European Union. But this comes on top and it is secondary. First they have to win the war. We all know what Ukraine needs to win. We could train more Ukrainians, we could train them better. Estonia stands ready to assist. There are decisions we could make about munitions, air defence, air superiority, providing more F-16s, long-range weapons for deep, precision strikes. These are things we can do.
Going back to the question of ceding land, the idea of dividing Ukraine, when you look at your own history and your country how do you react to that?
Giving up land is not a solution to war, and history helps us understand why. In Estonia, under Soviet occupation, we did not have the right to decide for ourselves. Someone, in some committee in Moscow, would decide for us. That is unacceptable in the 21st century. The only nation that can decide how it wants to live is Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. If we start talking about a ceasefire, about peace negotiations, that is exactly what Russia wants, because it means that we are forcing Ukraine to the negotiating table. The only thing we should agree on together is that international law must be respected. That means going back to the borders that were established after the collapse of the Soviet Union. If the Ukrainians get their country back, even if it’s destroyed, the war will end.
If Ukraine is pushed into a deal, what would that mean for your security? Countries like yours, the Baltic states and Poland are geographically particularly exposed to Russia.
It is important that the NATO alliance remains strong and united, because that is the only guarantee of security for us in Europe. One for all, defending every country, every inch of territory. If this principle were to fall, NATO wouldn’t be the same. That is why it is so important for Ukraine to receive an invitation to join NATO. The one thing I know is that Ukraine would be the first to defend Estonia.
Do you believe Russia could attack a NATO country? There are different sensitivities among Allies on this subject. Some argue it is unlikely, others believe it is plausible.
History shows a pattern of behaviour. Russia has imperialist ambitions. Look at Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, Putin’s speech at the Munich Security Conference in 2008. You will see that there is a plan to re-establish a kind of grey zone. He would recreate an empire if he could.
This is something that has been 20 years in the making. NATO is a defensive alliance. We have no interest in reaching Moscow or even going as far as Pskov on the border with Estonia. NATO is not a threat to Russia. If Putin wants to create a demilitarised zone, he is welcome to do so on Russian territory. But we have to look at this seriously, because this is how KGB officer Vladimir Putin operates. This is the Cold War mentality.
Earlier this month, General Rajmund Andrzejczak of Poland suggested NATO deterrence should be more forceful, making it clear to Russia that an attack on the Baltics or Poland would be met with a powerful response “within minutes”. Is this a message that you share?
Of course we would defend from the first minute. That is the only way we can approach defending Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Poland.
If we were attacked, we would hit back in the first minutes.
Are you convinced your Allies would be as forceful?
If I wasn’t, we wouldn’t be in an alliance.
What I would say to every Spanish, Portuguese and Italian citizen is that this isn’t just about the Baltic States or Poland. We have built an alliance that has been able to defend our countries and keep the peace for 75 years. We have set out very clearly what NATO countries have to do to defend the Alliance. Have faith in the military experts. We must be ready, and we must be ready together. The numbers show that we have not done enough over the last 30 years. Let me give you two figures: Russian defence spending has increased by almost 600% in 25 years; in the European Union the figure is 43%. Even with this huge gap, we are collectively stronger than Russia. But credible deterrence also means that you have to invest more, produce more and learn the lessons from Ukraine.
In this scenario of being ready, being prepared collectively, do you foresee the return of compulsory military service?
It is up to each country to decide, because we cannot compare small countries like Estonia or Finland, which have a large land border with Russia, where we have the reserve army and conscription, with countries like Germany, France or Spain, which have a much larger population. It is up to each country to decide what is the best model for them and how to organise their military.
What I would say is that we must be able to meet the criteria that we have agreed together in NATO and in the new regional plan for the defence of Europe as part of the North Atlantic community.
Poland has suggested military spending could be exempted from budgetary rules to provide more fiscal space for what they believe is a strategic security priority. Is this something you would support?
I do not want to rush these changes because fiscal stability is also part of your sovereignty. Fiscally, if you can’t manage your finances, it will be very difficult to manage defence spending and everything else that the state requires, such as health and education. That is why I find the idea of joint purchases, perhaps even defence bonds, more interesting. There are specific needs, but there is also a large area of common needs for all Member States. We all need ammunition, we all need air defence, we all need long-range, deep precision fires. When Ursula von der Leyen presented her 500 billion euro proposal for defence, that is exactly what we should do. Let’s agree that this is a joint effort and then we won’t have to talk about 3% deficits and exemptions for each country.