While Washington does intend to reduce its military presence in Europe, the details of where and how this might happen are not yet clear, Pevkur said in an interview with Ringvaade suvel which follows.

The patience of the U.S. government and President Donald Trump when it comes to Russia is wearing thin, and [Trump] has shortened the 50-day deadline given to them to 10-12 days. You were just in Washington a few days prior, at a defense ministers' meeting. Was there already tension around that breaking patience?

We only met with the Secretary of Defense and also had meetings in the Senate, and indeed those various meetings gave an indication that the U.S. administration's opinion and sense of Russia's willingness to achieve peace had reached the limit. Trump himself also said that it makes no difference whether he offers 10 or 50 days. If Russia is willing to negotiate, it will do so, and if not, then new measures must be taken.

Have these recent events demonstrated that Russia has no such willingness, or has America finally realized this? Why such a sudden change?

Russia has never had the will to sit at the peace negotiating table. Russian President Vladimir Putin has appeared in the Russian Duma and proposed that four regions of Ukraine are officially part of Russia, and until they are fully conquered, the Russian president cannot go back to the Duma and say: "Sorry, I was wrong." This makes it clear that Putin wants to continue this war, and naturally, it is the West's job to help Ukraine as much as possible so that Putin changes his mind.

How often did the war in Ukraine come up in your meetings in America with various parties and the Baltic defense ministers?

It certainly came up. We primarily focused on the U.S. military posture here in Europe and also on how our bilateral cooperation is going, but U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth also stated very firmly that they have never abandoned Ukraine and will continue to support it. Naturally, the power center is in the White House, and if they say the pressure is to be heightened, then that is what will be done.

The news that the U.S. is moving its units away from the Baltics to elsewhere is a little scary. Is there any new information on this?

There is no confirmation or indication right now that any change in troop posture will be taking place in the Baltic states. There is an understanding and assumption that the U.S. military posture across Europe will change, but how it will change within Europe? There is currently no indication. Our task at that meeting was also to signal that it makes sense to be where the threat is and to keep the outer door closed, because if we keep the outer door closed, it will also be safer to be in Paris and Berlin. Thus, the presence of the British, French, and Americans here in Estonia is actually most effective.

What exactly does it mean that they say they are pulling troops out, but there are no indications? Are they actually pulling out at all then?

The story is that they are downsizing their troop postures in Europe, which are various matters from our perspective. In Europe as a whole, a reduction is likely to take place. From a global perspective, the U.S. has a greater interest in the Pacific region, particularly in terms of Taiwan and China, and also domestically at its southern border. Those are the areas where, from their viewpoint, the political focus lies, and from this, we can assume they will make some changes in Europe. What exactly that will be? That is more a question starting in October, at least that was the indication we got from the Pentagon.

What message will that send to Russia if those troops are downsized here?

I would rather put it vice versa. I would say it gives Europe a great opportunity to show that we can act rapidly. That demand from President Trump that all NATO allies invest 5 percent in their national defense — that was agreed together, and now we can actually see that countries are starting to do it. I would rather take this action by the U.S. as a kind of positive sign from the European point of view, because Europeans now have the opportunity to demonstrate that we are capable, our industries can produce much more, we ourselves can invest much more, and Estonia is clearly leading by example here, with defense spending already going above 5 percent next year.

I understand that the Baltic states were praised, but how about the other countries here in Europe. Are they actually taking action and increasing defense spending? Spain and Italy tell a different tale.

They have a somewhat more restrained stance, trying to express it politely, but we are also seeing some very strong decisions. For example, Germany has already made a very strong decision this year alone to allocate an additional approximately €10 billion to national defense and by 2029 reach 3.2 or 3.5 percent [of GDP]. Germany, indeed, is setting an example. Poland is not in doubt, and also the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, and many others are leading by example. These decisions are becoming more frequent and that means that the defense capabilities of countries and the overall defense of Europe are growing stronger by the day.

It appears that you had a successful meeting in Washington, but the Reform Party here in Tallinn is not doing too well. There are scandals, issues, and the ratings are down. What advice would Hanno Pevkur give Kristen Michal on how to lift everything up ahead of the elections?

Neither Hanno Pevkur nor Kristen Michal are currently much involved with matters in Tallinn. I myself haven't dealt with Tallinn matters for quite a while. My advice is very simple: Do things clearly and explain to the people why we are doing them. If you explain clearly why one or another choice is made, then you can hope for public support. There is no secret weapon here. In politics, there's a simple rule: First talk about it and hope that as a result of that communication, people will support you.

--

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