How did you spend the holidays?

In good spirits. To be honest, I also had a chance to rest a little and read a book.

I saw a post on your social media yesterday about getting caught in the storm. What happened? Where were you at the time?

It sounds terribly dramatic, but I was outside of Tallinn, in the Vihterpalu area. As often happens when a storm and power lines or electricity in general cross paths, one of them disappears. In our case, the electricity was gone, but that in itself isn't anything unusual. /.../ That's just what happens during storms.

At first, we tried to get the generator running, but the starter mechanism had broken. So we accepted the situation for what it was and dug out a gas stove and a gas cylinder we usually use for making juice. We managed to hook it up without anything going wrong, cooked ourselves a meal and made some coffee. All in all, it was fairly romantic and luckily there's also a fireplace where you can throw on some logs. The room was warm and there was this kind of electricity-free ambience.

That post also had a humorous jab suggesting the government was to blame for it all. But joking aside, things where, at least in the public's view, the government is always to blame tend to happen quite often. How personally do you take it when people blame you for something you feel isn't actually your fault?

I try to separate the opinion from the person expressing it as much as possible and, generally, I think I manage. If there are things we can or should be doing better, then we simply have to do better. In those cases, the criticism is justified and needs to be accepted or addressed.

But if it's just an attitude that someone else is always to blame for everything going wrong, then there's not much to be done with that kind of criticism. Let's be honest we're all human and when we're in a bad mood, we tend to say, "Damn neighbor," or "Damn government," or blame this, that or the other. That's why I try to take it with a sense of measured humor. But where there's reason for it, of course we need to make a greater effort and do a better job.

How do you respond to what former prime minister and EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas said before the holidays — that you supposedly lack the will and capacity to fight in Europe? How do you respond to that criticism?

To be honest, there's really nothing to respond to. Every remark tends to reflect the speaker's own perspective. Kaja and I are sitting at slightly different tables in Europe — prime ministers and presidents deal with other prime ministers and presidents, while Kaja mostly interacts with foreign ministers, so we no longer cross paths everywhere.

But I believe that both she and I are ultimately working toward the same goal in Europe: to make it safer and ensure things go better here.

In politics, is the art of compromise still the most important thing? That despite the occasional jabs thrown in public, you still have to sit down at the same table, have breakfast together and set aside personal emotions for the sake of a better future?

I think so, yes — you should try to remain courteous. But at the same time, I wouldn't rule out a bit of measured or witty irony either. I'll admit, I preferred the era in politics and public life when the headline wasn't the only thing people read, often one that has little connection to the actual story.

Back then, you had to read between the lines to catch various hints. I think that kind of subtle text and good irony is definitely part of public life and good speeches. Nowadays there's a lot of bluntness and oversimplification, but I still think thoughtful messaging and well-crafted texts always have their place. That doesn't mean you can't remain polite.

Looking at past Reform Party leaders, they've often been quite openly critical of the party, regardless of who was in charge at the time. So if we borrow Kaja Kallas' term — what do you think, when you're no longer the leader of the Reform Party, do you plan to be a "soda machine" or not? (Kallas' stab at former Reform Party head Andrus Ansip who, like a vending machine that produces a can of soda when you insert coins, produces criticism of Kallas whenever prompted by the media – ed.)

I don't. My experience so far has been that I've left every position with a firm handshake and a step forward. I've never looked back with longing or regret. Whatever job you're doing, you give it your best and then you move on to the next role.

Every role — be it minister, chairing a parliamentary committee, leading a parliamentary group or even working as a city district elder — comes with its own challenges and difficulties that aren't visible from the outside. At the end of the day, even hosting a radio show probably involves similar kinds of behind-the-scenes struggles that outsiders don't see, though people might still be eager to offer advice. I certainly won't be one of them. I know it's a tough job and I respect everyone who does it and works hard on behalf of Estonia.

The Reform Party is set to elect a new leader next year. Are you planning to run?

You must have pulled that information out of a hat. We're not electing a new leader next year — the next leadership election is in 2027.

Speaking of messaging and how to express oneself — whether to be blunt or not — when I look at your social media, you come across as surprisingly open and bold. Has the communications team ever wagged a finger at you and said, "Hey, slow down, we should be controlling these messages"? You write those posts yourself, right?

It depends. Some of the more technical posts are occasionally done by the team — it's a mix, really, sometimes me, sometimes the team. But I'm probably not your typical politician: I actually need to be held back more often than pushed forward when it comes to saying things. I leave quite a lot unsaid. I've got plenty of irony to go around — often for various commentators who tend to stick to oversimplified soundbites. But more often than not, I hold myself back.

Looking back on the year, there were also some fairly dramatic developments in Tallinn involving the Reform Party this summer. Was it a good year, a difficult one, a bad one or just a lousy year?

The whole year was pretty difficult. Looking at the world as a whole, we're still living daily with the impact of what's happening in global security and in Ukraine. I think that's the dominant issue — everything else in daily life seems relatively minor in comparison.

As for life in Tallinn... I'd say there were lessons to be learned there, too. One of them is about keeping a team together — after all, it's the captain's job to hold the crew together. And if you don't do that as captain, then maybe you shouldn't go around complaining to others that things didn't work out. In that respect, I'd look at the then-mayor (Jevgeni Ossinovski, SDE – ed.) as well.

After the elections, I personally would've preferred to see a four-way coalition form (Isamaa, SDE, Reform Party and the Parempoolsed), despite the disagreements. In my view, there's little point in doing a post-mortem now, but if you create a coalition agreement that's unbalanced and doesn't consider all partners, then the result will be what it was.

In some ways, it was also instructive in a different sense. Before the election, Isamaa gave the impression — at least to me and I don't think I was alone — that any cooperation with the Center Party was completely off the table. But then the first thing they did was shake hands with the Center Party. And when Isamaa leader Urmas Reinsalu made a clear promise that he would become mayor, now I look and see — there's no one like Reinsalu in that role. There's someone else; Peeter is that someone.

The Reform Party's results in the local elections were weaker than four years ago. How much did that create a need for internal analysis and what has that analysis shown?

There were quite a few factors at play in these elections. One was a general sense of criticism toward the government, which has been reflected more broadly across society. In my view, that's largely due to the confusion around taxes and the various governments we've had. Most people understand that if you need to sharply increase defense spending, you have to find a way to cover it, especially when the budget is in deficit.

So came the various tax hikes, which were agreed upon with the Social Democrats — corporate profit tax, income tax from the first euro and a general income tax increase. After the Social Democrats were removed from the government, we managed to roll those back, but by then, the bad news had already landed and the good news hadn't reached people. That criticism was clearly reflected in our election results.

When we did our post-election review, we found that before the elections, we were in power in 34 municipalities and now we're in 24. So the result might not be as dramatic as it looks on the surface, but it's still nothing to celebrate — we have to learn from it and get ourselves together.

For the Reform Party, it's crucial to stick to its core principles: an efficient state and lower tax burden. That's the path we're back on now — as of January 1, which is just a few days away, the largest income tax cut in our country's history will take effect. I saw a survey recently where about half the people said they were already aware of it. All the bad news has been delivered with great care — so now the media needs to help deliver the good news too. They're always eager to help with the bad.

What's your mindset when you think about the 2027 Riigikogu elections?

I'm mostly focused on what we can do for Estonia's security and to revitalize the economic environment. The elections are somewhere behind that. If, as prime minister, all you think about is elections, then you might as well go work at a polling institute — they take care of that part.

Do you agree with those who say that no matter who forms the next government after the 2027 Riigikogu elections, new taxes will have to be introduced to bring the budget closer to balance?

I'd say that if we look at 2024, we had planned for a budget deficit of nearly 3 percent, but it came in at just over one and a half — if I recall correctly, around 1.7–1.8 percent. That's €400–600 million better than expected. This year — as of now, there are still a few days left — the deficit, which had been projected at minus 3 percent, is likely to land around minus 1 percent. So that's about €800 million better. We've managed to keep the budget and our spending nicely under control. To be fair, some expenses have also been postponed or left undone.

For next year, the budget framework includes [a deficit of] 4.5 percent, including defense spending. How that plays out depends on how well we can manage things ourselves, but the deficit is planned to continue decreasing. That means if we're aiming to return to the minus 3 percent level — as we are — and eventually go below that toward balance, we'll need to cut back on various state expenditures. I would strongly recommend starting there.

Now, I can't rule out that future governments after 2027 might want to introduce new taxes. But if they do, I suggest they seek a mandate for it in the next election. I know Isamaa has been campaigning to abolish the car tax and has also promised to eliminate the second pension pillar. In reality, that would increase the tax burden on people and do long-term harm to all of our futures. So let's see what those tax plans actually look like. I think by mid to late 2026, we'll be in a position to start evaluating them.

Will today bring any previously undisclosed details about the meeting between the presidents of the United States and Ukraine over the weekend?

I'm sure there are details that haven't been made public and some of them may never be. These negotiations involve highly sensitive matters. I'm sure the Estonian government also knows more than what has been shared with the public.

What's important is that the initial "take it or leave it" atmosphere and high tension surrounding the talks have now eased. As U.S. President Donald Trump repeatedly said yesterday, he doesn't see a hard deadline that must absolutely be met. That alone is a positive shift.

If we look back, the original plan was to meet on November 27, around Thanksgiving. That agreement didn't come together — the draft on the table at the time wasn't acceptable in terms of either content or timing. There was also talk of reaching peace by Christmas and that hope was floated publicly, but Russia rejected it. Now the focus is on working through the text — on the specific points that relate to security guarantees and other issues.

What matters most is that this process is still being led by Ukraine itself, with support from Europe and the United States. We are all on the same side. The pressure needs to remain squarely on Russia.

Judging from what both Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Trump said after the talks yesterday, I'd say I'm cautiously optimistic about this process. It's certainly good to see that the U.S. is also putting pressure on Russia and not solely on Ukraine. At the same time, knowing Russia and how this process works, our job is to tighten the screws on Russia as much as possible. Dictators can't wage war without money. When oil prices are low, assets are frozen in Europe and no new oxygen or hope is coming in, Russian President Vladimir Putin will eventually have to back down. He wouldn't even be at the negotiating table otherwise.

But what about Trump calling Putin directly, while Putin is likely rubbing his hands in delight?

From our point of view, yes, that kind of move is pretty fruitless. Europe should've learned a simple lesson at the start of the war: what we consider rational and courteous is seen in Russia as a sign of weakness. In Russia, if you call and ask for something, they interpret it as a sign that you have a problem and that they can toy with you. So I don't think this notion that Putin can be persuaded to change his position without real pressure holds up.

Fortunately, the Americans — let's be honest — have started applying real pressure. For example, when it comes to restricting oil markets so that Russia can't sell its energy, that's effectively cutting off the oxygen supply. That so-called shadow fleet — on a clear day, you might even see it sailing across the bay from this studio window — is estimated to account for nearly half of the funding for Putin's military. If you shut that down and begin global enforcement, Putin simply won't have the money to wage war — armies don't work for free.

Estonia has been highly active on this front. We were one of the first. I remember how the Riigikogu opposition used to nag me — sorry, there's no better word for it — asking why we were "harassing" the honest sailors of the Russian shadow fleet. Well, that's exactly why: so that Putin won't have the funds to keep this war going.

Even from the Riigikogu podium, we've heard some optimistic views that defense spending might be reduced again by the end of the decade. What do you think, assuming some sort of peace is reached, are these high levels of defense spending here to stay in Estonia for the long term?

It's hard to say for sure, but I personally believe that the threat from Russia isn't going away anytime soon. During my time in office, defense spending has reached record levels — and that has nothing to do with me personally or with choices made by the Estonian people. It's because Putin is a threat and Russia is a threat.

Spending 5 percent of GDP and beyond — that ensures that our children and grandchildren can live here in peace. NATO is strong and functioning. To give a practical example: for the first time in its history, NATO shot down Russian drones in Polish airspace. NATO jets were scrambled, just as the Italian F-35s here — some of the most advanced aircraft — took off to escort a Russian fighter out of our airspace.

NATO is working and the broader alliance is strong. But to be a meaningful player within it and to secure our own defense, we have to contribute. The Baltic states: Estonia is now spending over 5 percent of GDP, Latvia is close behind and Lithuania and Poland are already above that threshold. The Nordic countries, the United Kingdom, Germany — all the key players in our region are increasing their spending. Unfortunately, that's the reality we're in.

From a historical perspective, Europe used to be a peace project without weapons. But now, probably within three to five years, it will be a peace project with weaponry and an arms industry.

The year changes the day after tomorrow. Does the prime minister have the freedom to hop behind the wheel in the afternoon, ask your wife to join you in the passenger seat and drive off to a cozy place to celebrate New Year's or do official duties keep you tied down?

No, I don't have any official duties on New Year's Eve. President Alar Karis will give the annual address, which I'll definitely watch — and gladly, as always — but I don't have any formal obligations. I'll certainly be somewhere nice in Estonia.

What would you like to wish the people of Estonia for the new year?

I think the same thing any reasonable person would wish: that maybe the coming year will be a calmer one. That we'll see fewer security incidents, tensions and provocations at the border — because let's admit, the past year and a half has been heavily focused on security issues and we've had to respond to them more than once. And likewise, that the economy, which forecasts are also pointing to, starts growing again, so things improve for everyone and people can cope better.

We're about to play Dire Straits, at the prime minister's request. It's a tradition here at the radio that whoever picks the song also shares a short introduction. Why this choice?

Something mellow and good-natured to start the morning — so that all this talk doesn't come off too heavy.

--

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