This week's visit to Moscow by the American delegation doesn't seem to have produced any significant results. In response, the Russian president declared that if the Ukrainians don't leave Donbas, he's ready to seize it by force and that if Europe wants war, he's prepared for that too. He essentially raised the stakes. When listening to the messages coming out of the U.S. regarding negotiations with Ukraine, it's also said there that any progress requires Russia's willingness to engage. Where do things stand today?

This is exactly where we stand: we have not seen a single sign that Putin has changed his goals. Quite the opposite — we're seeing signs that confirm he remains firmly on course. And that course is aimed not just at taking a piece of Ukraine, but at upending all of Ukraine and, in fact, the entire European security order.

The Russians sometimes express these aims in different terms. Sometimes they cloak it in talk about the root causes of the conflict, sometimes they speak of the need to achieve strategic stability, but in truth, they are always talking about the same thing. The root cause of this war is Putin's inability to accept the collapse of the Soviet Union and his desire to return to an imperial era in which Russia dominates Central and Eastern Europe. As long as that goal hasn't changed, I see no prospects for finding a compromise.

Of course, surrender is always an option and history in Europe offers several examples of that. For instance, the ceding of the Sudetenland was seen at the time as a way to buy stability. That kind of move today would end the same way it did in the 20th century — with catastrophe. Naturally, we support no such thing.

So maybe we should be a bit relieved that the peace talks haven't gotten anywhere yet and at least nothing has been given away so far?

One of the tools of Russian propaganda is to steal our words. During the Soviet era, they called themselves and their satellite states "people's democracies," which had nothing to do with either the people or democracy. In the same way, today the Russians are performing a kind of theater around so-called peace efforts.

Their propagandists claim that there's some kind of war party in Europe that's fueling all of this — but come on, nothing could be further from the truth. Let's take a step back and look at the bigger picture. In the situation we are in today, there is one aggressor, one victim and then there are those trying to help the victim to end the aggression.

Today, peace efforts mean imposing sanctions, confiscating Russia's frozen state assets, providing additional support to Ukraine and backing the open-door policies of the European Union and NATO, not spreading propaganda messages. The Ukrainians want peace and the only thing needed to achieve it is for the aggressor to stop the aggression.

This week, excerpts of a phone call between European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy were made public via Der Spiegel. In that call, the French president warned that America might betray them, Friedrich Merz cautioned against political games and Alexander Stubb said we must not leave Ukraine alone with these guys. How real is the fear in Europe right now that the Americans might strike a deal that completely disregards our interests?

I don't think "fear" is the right word to describe it. What we're seeing is focused action and the true measure of success won't be the words we say, but whether we're able to follow those words with concrete steps. The most important issue on the table right now in European countries is, of course, what to do with Russia's frozen assets.

Equally important is the continuation of military aid to Ukraine. Just about every week now, we see news from European countries announcing new aid packages. What we're witnessing is Europe coming to grips with a responsibility that has, in fact, been staring us in the face for some time. That responsibility is to take care of our own security, primarily by standing on our own two feet, using our own resources and capabilities.

This is being done in the hope that the Americans will continue to support us, because they are no longer going to do this for us. They've said that repeatedly and their actions have now confirmed it. The question is whether Europe can pull itself together. The reports that have emerged from talks between European leaders show that the major capitals of Europe are indeed seeing the situation the same way.

Finnish President Alexander Stubb has said that we're heading toward a world where might makes right. So what kind of peace should we be mentally preparing for, as Stubb told the Finnish people?

First, when it comes to the idea of compromise, imagine a situation where a murderer and their victim are expected to reach a compromise. That's obviously an extremely difficult proposition because compromise requires the murderer to abandon their objectives. And as we discussed earlier, we see no signs that Putin has done so. That's why the road to a just and lasting peace runs through applying enough pressure on Russia that it comes to understand time is no longer on its side.

Second, I think it's wrong to hold up Finland during the era of Finlandization as a model to emulate. Yes, Ukraine's situation is difficult, but we shouldn't forget that Putin's situation is difficult too. He has no viable path for how his strategy could realistically succeed. All he has is a blind hope that the West will tire first and a belief that, afterward, there will be another reset and a chance to go back to how things were before February 24, 2022 — only this time, with Ukraine already swallowed into the Russian empire.

We have to stay the course and we must not diminish ourselves in our own eyes. The Nordic and Baltic countries together are roughly the size of Poland, and if we add Poland and Germany, we're talking about 160 million people. So why do we keep thinking of ourselves as smaller or weaker than we really are?

I believe we must stand firm behind the principles that have made possible the current European security order, principles that have also ensured Estonia's own security. And those are the principles of territorial integrity and sovereignty.

What does that same leaked phone call we discussed earlier reveal about the relationship between the U.S. and its European allies and the growing trust or mistrust between them?

It shows that everyone is assessing the current situation and trying to develop policies that best serve their own security interests. I think it's time to take seriously all those European countries — including Estonia — that have said the outcome of this war is existential for them. If you listen to what European countries have been saying and compare it with the snippets that have made it into the public sphere, you'll see there's actually no real contradiction.

The question is whether the United States supports us in this effort to say no to the return of empire in Central and Eastern Europe or whether it will remain more neutral in that regard. The message delivered by every U.S. president in recent memory — that Europe must begin to take responsibility for its own affairs — has been received loud and clear. The challenge now is whether we can align our actual policies with those words and do so fast enough.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that Europe intends to stand up for its existential interests and that it is coordinating its position closely with the Ukrainians.

This week, the U.S. national security strategy document was also made public. In it, Europe is not necessarily seen as an ally — in fact, it suggests that 20 years from now, Europe may no longer be capable of being one at all. It criticizes Europe over issues like democracy, freedom of speech and migration policy and suggests that more ideologically compatible parties, from Donald Trump's perspective, should be in power. Meanwhile, Russia is referred to as a strategic partner. What do these alliance relationships look like in light of that document?

Of course, the best people to comment on that document are the Americans themselves — I don't want to do their explaining for them. But naturally, we're drawing our own conclusions from it, as every country in the world is doing. We're not shocked or surprised. It only confirms what I just said: the best security policy for Europe today is to stand up for itself, to build confidence, to demonstrate capability and to take clear action to back that up.

A good example is the issue of Russia's frozen state assets, which is currently being debated in Brussels. That's exactly the kind of step we need to take. Only by doing so can we ensure that others, both allies and competitors, take us seriously. We've entered a time when what matters is not just fine ideological speeches, but clear, decisive action.

Are you confident that Europe will actually get somewhere with those frozen assets now? The German chancellor has thrown his weight behind it and was in Belgium on Friday for meetings. Will it succeed?

Estonia has been talking about this for nearly four years now. We've never been as close to a breakthrough as we are today. Of course, nothing is done until the decisions are officially made. I'm an optimist, but I'm also a realist, and the realist in me says that in the days remaining before the December European Council, there's still a lot of hard work to be done to get this across the finish line. In any case, we intend to keep pushing and won't stop until it's done.

--

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