The meeting brought out again the well-worn hope that Russia might somehow just up and change its mind and agree to peace, the official added.

Speaking to "Välisilm," Vseviov noted Russia has a longer-term target than Ukraine, namely the rest of Europe, even as the aggressor is not succeeding in its aims.

How do you think the meeting between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy went?

It depends on what the comparison is. If you are comparing it with the notorious meeting that took place in the first half of the year, then it went well, but in a way you once again get the feeling that we are treading a well-worn path. Once again there has been some kind of contact with the Russians, once again the sense has arisen that a compromise might be possible somewhere, and once again we have to explain to the world that Russia has not altered any of its original objectives, all while the hope of exchanging territory for peace does not work. Putin is not interested in territory alone, but in the whole of Ukraine, and, in fact, in splitting European security more broadly.

The first sign which could demonstrate Russia is interested in any real talks would be if it were to agree to a ceasefire, something which Ukraine has repeatedly said it wants and which the European countries have repeatedly stressed. We keep coming back to this. President Trump also referred to stopping at the contact line, but, of course, if the aggressor shows signs that they plan to halt the aggression, first they would cease firing and also stop annihilating civilian targets — things which Russia is still doing, systematically. The only way we can get him to change course would require pressure from our side, and that pressure must be stepped up.

Who "out-trumped" whom? Putin trumped Trump, Putin trumped Zelensky, Trump trumped Putin, and so on...

This is where everything gets very clever, but so it just goes on. People are dying, every single day: Not only soldiers but also civilians. The only yardstick by which success can be judged is whether the war can be stopped or not, and whether it can be ended with a lasting and just peace, or with the kind of peace that came to Estonia after World War Two. There is a difference between peace and true peace, and for this reason, we always emphasize that any peace must be a just one. Justice means the general principles of international law — territorial integrity, sovereignty — and also things which should not come as a surprise to anyone. When we talk about territorial integrity we are not talking only about Ukraine, but also about the inviolability of borders. If we allow it to become a norm where any big country can amend the borders of its smaller neighbor by force, then show me on a map any border which would remain safe. Through our behavior, actions, policies, and achievements, we are creating the future in which we will all have to live.

Putin is, of course, also in a very tough position. He has to demonstrate something to his people. He has not been able to achieve success; the West has not collapsed, Ukraine has not surrendered. What else can he do than show that some new Munich-style deal is just around the corner, where he will get what he failed to get on the battlefield? We have been trying to focus on depriving him of that hope and to show that we not only ramp up pressure but also take steps that cannot easily be reversed. For example, we work on fighting impunity via the courts — the International Criminal Court, a special tribunal — but also on Russian frozen assets, whose seizure and spending for the benefit of Ukraine could be one of those signals which could convince even Putin's supporters that in Europe we have reached a point of no return. No matter how warm or heartfelt Putin's phone calls are.

Is Trump interested simply in just peace or in a just peace?

We are interested in a just peace, but what others are interested in, I do not know. You would have to ask Donald Trump that question. I believe that if you put the question to the public, those who would be ready to go back to the imperial era and openly support aggression really aren't many. Obviously not in the democratic world, and in authoritarian countries, it is also not so simple to publicly state you support aggression, support changing borders by force, or support assigning some countries a diminished sovereignty status just because of their location or history. Yet all of that can be supported if the question is not posed clearly, but wrapped in a certain haze and ambiguity. The role of small states on the international stage is to create clarity so that it is not so easy, amid the mist and fog, to give away principles that matter to all states, but whose surrender would hurt the small states first. Many small nations have played that role in history. For example, Iceland, which was the first to recognize the independence of the Baltic states — but today Estonia is playing that role too, speaking in such a forthright tone that, hopefully, it makes surrendering those principles at least more difficult, if not impossible, for others.

Russia has been intensifying its hybrid war in Europe and behaving increasingly aggressively. What should we ourselves do now?

This tension has actually been in the air for a long time. I'm not entirely sure whether it has intensified recently or whether we are simply noticing certain things more. Russia wants to turn European security on its head. It wants a different Europe. It has not exactly kept that secret. Ukraine is not its end goal; its end goal is Europe, but it has not been doing well on that road.

It is not going well for it in Ukraine, which was supposed to have ended in a couple of weeks (i.e., Russia's claims at the start of its invasion – ed.). It did not go well in Moldova, where the aim was to use hybrid methods to replace a pro-Western government with a Moscow-aligned one, although it can create local confusion in border areas, by running tests here and there. Broadly speaking, however, it has not met with success.

We can imagine Russia's objectives — to divide allies, to sow confusion and disarray among us, to engender fear, and to take away our willingness to support Ukraine. Every time they do something in our direction, the response must show that the results are the opposite of what they intended. A stronger NATO, more united allies, greater support for Ukraine, less confusion, and greater clarity. We have tried to follow this principle in the cases that have hit us, and I think that by acting this way we can deter them.

Background:

Last Friday's meeting in the White House, while it did not match February's meltdown, suggested that Trump is not fully aligned with either side in the invasion, and is playing both Russia and Ukraine.

Trump has not exerted significant pressure on Putin, such as through arms transfers to Ukraine or more economic sanctions on Russia, and some experts have suggested that Trump's focus on a specific weapon, namely Tomahawk missiles, may not represent sufficient pressure, particularly given his apparent rapport with Putin. In any case, Trump made no offers of Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine.

On the other hand, on Friday, Trump warned Zelenskyy that Putin had threatened to "destroy" Ukraine if it didn't cede the Donbas region to Russia, suggesting that Russia should acquiesce to that demand given over three-quarters of the territory is under Russian occupation.

Nonetheless, Trump called the meeting "cordial" on his Truth Social account, while Zelenskyy remained optimistic, noting Trump had not fully rejected the idea of missile support. The Ukrainian leader has also expressed readiness to join a potential summit between Trump and Putin in Hungary, though it is unclear if he will be invited.

--

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