How far did discussions progress at the Paris Peace Forum in terms of security, and how much of what you expected was covered? Were there any issues that remained unanswered?

In Paris, military leaders and representatives, including generals, from over 30 countries gathered to discuss the situation in Ukraine. The goal was to gain an accurate understanding of the potential threat landscape in the near future, particularly in the context of achieving our primary objective — protecting Europe from possible Russian aggression.

It is clear that Russian aggression must be stopped in Ukraine, and there is consensus on this point. It is also evident that Ukraine's armed forces need additional support immediately to counter Russia's intense attacks on land, at sea and in the air. There is a firm commitment to ensuring that this support continues.

During the discussions in Paris, we agreed on possible courses of action for providing further support and explored how Europe might respond after a ceasefire is reached in Ukraine.

What are the things that Europe can provide and what does Ukraine stand to be deprived of if the United States does not continue its support?

First and foremost, as Europeans, we must be confident. Europe is not as weak as some may try to portray it. We have always worked closely with the United States and remain committed to that cooperation. However, the idea that Europe is entirely powerless without America is not entirely accurate.

This was also reaffirmed in Paris. We must organize ourselves, find solutions and leverage both our economic and military potential to resolve this critical situation in Europe, which is unfolding on Ukrainian territory.

Of course, U.S. support is important. The Americans remain committed to Europe's defense, and we can be confident that by acting together, we will achieve our objectives.

Was there an agreement in Paris, or did specific countries make concrete commitments regarding their contributions?

We are still too far from that point. First, there must be a clearly defined political end goal — written out and explicitly stated. Only then can the military level develop the necessary solutions. As of today, no one has formulated a political end goal, nor has there been any political directive for the commander of the Estonian Defense Forces to take part in any operation. As soon as such a directive comes, we will develop a military solution accordingly.

Our discussions in Paris, as military leaders, focused on assessing the situation and agreeing on possible courses of action in case aggression needs to be stopped on Ukrainian territory or in response to a potential Russian aggression against Europe.

Does this mean that some European countries are prepared to deploy the necessary forces to achieve these objectives?

Ukraine's army has grown to around one million troops, who are actively working to halt and repel Russia's attacks across all domains of warfare. If we assume that our contribution might be increasing manpower on Ukrainian territory, that may not actually be necessary. There are other ways to provide support — through additional actions in the air, on land and at sea — that help Ukrainians maintain their current positions and convince Russia that further aggression is futile.

Furthermore, even after a potential ceasefire is reached, deterrence must continue to prevent Russia from resuming its aggression. These are the key issues we need to think through — how to achieve this effectively. However, everything ultimately depends on whether the political mandate for such actions is granted in European capitals.

Regarding the ceasefire proposal put forward by the Americans and presented to Putin — from a military perspective, what makes you believe that a ceasefire could be beneficial in any way?

For weapons to fall silent permanently at some point, they must first fall silent temporarily. In other words, the killing must stop, even if only for a short time, which is why achieving at least a temporary ceasefire is necessary. Whether it lasts 30 days, 14 days or 60 days is not the key issue right now — the priority is to put an end to the killing on Ukrainian territory, even if only temporarily.

From there, further peace negotiations could follow, though at this moment, we are still far from that stage. We haven't even reached a ceasefire yet. As of today, right now, a full-scale war is still raging on Ukrainian territory with the same intensity as it has for over three years since the escalation on February 24, 2022.

For the fighting to end permanently, it must first pause — even temporarily. That is what efforts are currently focused on. How successful the U.S. will be in pushing Russia to the negotiating table remains to be seen in the coming days. However, Ukraine has already signaled its willingness to engage in a ceasefire.

What risks come with a ceasefire? What opportunities does it secretly provide both sides to prepare for resuming the conflict with renewed intensity later?

Today's battlefield is so closely monitored that it is practically impossible to do anything in secret without the other side noticing. Of course, ceasefire agreements can be violated, but it all depends on the specific terms that are agreed upon. Will it be just a cessation of fire, or will there also be an agreement prohibiting military movements that could immediately enable the resumption of hostilities once the ceasefire ends? That is a matter for negotiations.

However, in today's conflict environment, hidden preparations that go unnoticed by the other side are not feasible. Both sides have a clear understanding of what preparations the other is making. And despite a ceasefire, it is still possible to take preemptive measures to anticipate and counteract potential moves by the opponent.

Based on your experience from these three years of war, how much faith do you have that this ceasefire — and ultimately peace — will come quickly, as President Trump has promised?

As far as I know, peace has never been achieved quickly in any conflict resolution process. Reaching peace always takes time, the application of various capabilities and strength to make it happen. A quick peace in Ukraine is not possible. It has to be done step by step — starting with small ceasefire proposals and gradually moving toward a lasting peace.

The current situation is that Ukraine has lost part of its territory. Russia, as an unprovoked aggressor, has occupied Ukrainian land, and at some point, that territory must be reclaimed — either militarily or politically.

For now, at the very least, the killing should stop, even temporarily, and then we can assess how to move forward toward a ceasefire or a resolution to the conflict.

But one thing is clear: Russia has never viewed Ukraine as its only strategic objective. This has always been a stepping stone to further actions. The next step was undoubtedly military escalation toward Europe. We now have a unique opportunity, in cooperation with the Ukrainians, to stop this aggression in Ukraine.

--

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