Given the United States' diminished role in supporting Ukraine and a certain lack of clarity in Europe's position, is Europe capable of fully stepping into that role?

Good question. I think Europe is definitely capable of doing much more than it currently is. Europe's strength lies in its size — though that often means it moves more slowly — but it still holds considerable economic power and a shared understanding of certain values. Of course, there are always countries — and we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking otherwise — that see things differently. Even now, EU enlargement is being stalled, for example, by Hungary and there are plenty of such cases. But overall, Europe is still moving in the same direction.

Economically and financially, Europe has been able to shoulder a large part of the burden in supporting Ukraine and I believe it will continue to do so. But that requires making decisions — like /.../ at the last European Council summit where a common decision was reached to provide €50 billion. Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has publicly told me that this is a critically important decision for them for the next couple of years.

Otherwise, we'd have to talk about capitulation, not negotiations on their own terms. So financially and in terms of production capacity where we still lag behind Russia, I believe we can definitely scale up within three to seven years.

That said, in today's security environment, much of the weaponry, technological edge and overall security capability still lies with the United States. In that, we are inevitably partners and it's a good thing that we have been partners for a long time. Regardless of the rhetoric that each administration brings, we remain partners in upholding a rules-based world. Even if close friends sometimes have their disagreements, I believe that while we in Europe can take on a lot, we still need partners.

Undoubtedly, in the near term, the United States' focus is quite strongly on Venezuela. To begin with, Mr. Prime Minister: does removing the president of a third country with special forces like that comply with international law and the principles of the UN?

I would put it this way: that leader wasn't a legitimate leader from our point of view either. It has been said before as well — that this was not a legitimate leader who respected free elections or adhered to the kind of world order we envision. In international law and more broadly, regularly held free elections are still a part of that. That's certainly not something we can imagine under Nicolás Maduro's leadership.

As for what this means in terms of international law... I would still say that what must now follow is that the people of the country gain the right to self-determination, free elections take place and the country and its people themselves decide what their future will be. If that's the case, then I believe that in the course of history, the intervention will end up on the right side. If it becomes a vassal state, poorly governed and with only one objective, then certainly not. So I think that any reasonable person can clearly distinguish between the two.

But did removing Maduro weaken the shield of international law, as your fellow Reform Party member Marko Mihkelson put it?

Rather, such so‑called interventions in other countries have happened before in history — this is not the first and, unfortunately, will not be the last.

That's why what follows is very important. If what follows is that the country and its people are free to shape their own future, to decide for themselves without external interference and we see that the country becomes again a state where the free will of the people is expressed in elections and governance, then that is understandable. I think in that case we would rather say that international law does view this as an intervention that has happened, a fact that has happened, but generally the continuation of it is understandable. If what follows is the kind of negative scenario I described above, then certainly that would be a very bad example and different dictatorial states would use that, among which I absolutely do not count the United States. Theirs is still a functioning electoral system and a country with checks and balances.

This use of force specifically — China and Russia might look at it and think: so that's how it works now — send in helicopters and go take, say, Moldova or whoever else?

Once again, in our view, governments and borders should not be changed by force. Estonia has been quite clear on that. And it's not just because we lack the power to act — we truly are not a country with the world's largest army, that's obvious — but certain rules are still agreed upon and part of those rules is the people's right to self-determination.

In this world, I would say that the fewer leaders we have who are not dependent on elections, who don't receive that feedback — the fewer dictators there are, whether they're far-right, far-left, communists or whoever — the better the world is. Because there are many countries, and I'm sure everyone has a list of them, where it's long past time to change leaders, but in the end, it doesn't happen just like that.

So I'd say that international law generally presumes that everything should take place through the people's right to self-determination and that others should respect that, but it very much depends on what happens next in that country.

How difficult a situation does this shift in U.S. policy actually create for Estonia's foreign policy? After all, we've always talked about rules and international law, but now it seems that, somewhere out there, raw power and might makes right are clearly at play?

Power has always been balanced by law and rules. A rules-based world is often necessary even for the strong. In the end, the world may operate on the basis of several different power centers, but everyone needs rules because the world functions on that basis.

For small countries — as Lennart Meri said and this has often been quoted — our so-called nuclear weapon is international law, a stable legal system. We will certainly stick to that position, and it's a values-based position, regardless of whether it benefits us at any given moment or not. Rules must be followed because let's be honest: no country using force should be granted the justification to go somewhere and carry out actions. But again, it depends very much on what happens next because that will also shape how the U.S. role is seen in the future.

For us, the Americans — let's be honest, the United States has long been very popular in Estonia — have been the guarantors of our security. When I look at the contingents present here, the ones providing that security, we have three nuclear powers: France, the United Kingdom, the United States and many others. They are all participating in that guarantee. But the fact that the current administration's policy is perhaps to keep messaging simpler, more transactional — that's their choice.

So a lot now depends on what the next steps are, to ensure that no malicious actor can take this as justification for their own actions. But to be honest, I'd also say in response: has anyone really seen Russia use any actual, real-world justification to carry out its actions somewhere? The truth is, it hasn't.

Well, they [Russia] have a strategic partnership agreement with Venezuela, which isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Yes, and there are memes circulating on social media of all those who've signed these so-called strategic partnership agreements with Putin and every time one of those faces disappears from the "honor board" — are we supposed to be sad about it?

But what really matters is that after events like this, the rules are still followed — that the people themselves are free to determine their own future without interference.

Zelenskyy also joked, in his characteristic style, that if this is how you handle dictators now, then the U.S. knows what to do.

Yes, but let's say he had a smile on his face because none of us are under any illusion that helicopters would be flying into Moscow — although, let's be honest, maybe some evenings we kind of wish they would.

Mart Helme declares in Delfi that the European Union is doomed and, in the longer term, so is NATO, with Estonia left in a so-called gray zone. What thoughts did that piece stir in you?

If only one had the time to read everything they write... But I'd say this: a kind of so-called politics without values where power alone should be worshipped — I don't believe that leads to results anywhere in the world, even if they might like it. I don't think it brings results and I don't think it resonates with our security partners either.

Unlike Martin Helme, who I believe attended Trump's inauguration some four kilometers away, I've been in the same room, for instance at a NATO summit and I've heard directly from [Trump] himself that he respects NATO, NATO works, Article 5 works and his public statements have reflected that. Among other things, for example, when fighter jets entered our airspace last year, the message was: shoot them down. And secondly, the United States is committed to defending the Baltic states and Poland — that commitment exists.

So the idea that value-based cooperation doesn't apply — I think that kind of thinking is more like water for Russia's mill: be submissive, don't get in anyone's way, try to take the shape of a vessel, bow to those who are bigger. No — that's not how I see it. Principles still matter, in my opinion. But time will tell who's right.

But the European Union — let's be honest again — has undermined its own authority by dragging its feet inch by inch on new sanctions packages and failing to reach agreements on this and that. We're just terribly slow, aren't we? I understand it's incredibly difficult for a prime minister to say that when you have to sit at the same table with those very same prime ministers.

It's not difficult to say. Last time, I quite sincerely told everyone: in case anyone hasn't noticed, we're in the fourth year of the war. The discussion often doesn't reflect the urgency of the situation — people don't realize how fast these things need to move. I've never been ashamed to say it and I'll say it calmly in Europe, without blinking an eye.

But the twist is that in large democratic unions, decision-making is often slower. Things take more time — but that doesn't mean they're useless, because I'd still remind people that the essence of Europe has been exactly what we need too: a peace project. That's what it has been at its core — but it has been a peace project without weapons.

Now we're arriving at the point where it's a peace project with weapons — with its own industries and all the rest... That naturally takes time, but that's the direction we're moving in.

If I look at Estonia, this year is actually quite significant — not that any year isn't important — but we are chairing the Nordic-Baltic cooperation (NB8 – ed.). That's actually a very strong regional alliance: the Baltic states and the Nordic countries together make up roughly the tenth-largest economy in the world and are the second-largest contributor in terms of aid to Ukraine — often the first to respond. In that format, alongside Germany and Poland, we're actually quite influential players in Europe.

But when it comes to a peace agreement — are we being left out of the conversation?

When it comes to a peace agreement, Europe is absolutely part of the discussion. Most recently, I spoke about this with Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders have also been in talks with the United States — the contact is ongoing. Naturally, they're not in the same meetings every day because there are certain things that need to be clarified directly between Ukraine and the U.S. when it comes to the security partnership. But everything that concerns Europe is being dealt with together with Ukraine and Europe. So I do acknowledge that the United States may have a somewhat different perspective than previous administrations, but I wouldn't say that Europe isn't at the table.

That first version of the peace deal was a complete disaster.

Well yes, but as they used to say — it's in the dustbin of history now. That initial heat has passed. If I remember correctly, the first plan was supposed to be ready by November 27, or whenever Thanksgiving falls — it was meant to be a "take it or leave it" 28-point plan. Then that plan disappeared, November 27 came and went, nothing was achieved by Christmas either, which was primarily due to Russia in terms of the ceasefire and so on.

So I'd say the process has improved significantly — the agreement is now structured more logically and that's what we're all discussing in Paris: what can actually be done. But the first line of defense is still Ukraine, followed by steps from Europe and the United States really has to be the one to provide the security guarantee.

Only then can negotiations take place. But what game is Russia playing? Let's be honest — I have no illusions that Russia won't try everything it can to make this as unpleasant as possible and to stage provocations along the way.

For example, that talk about an attack on Valdai.

It's one of two things: either /.../ they're a bit panicked themselves or, secondly, they just have a habit of lying a little. And the latter is an understatement — they are in the habit of lying.

But if we look at the whole situation, it seems to me that when talking to the Russians, people sometimes forget this one simple fact: the war and the killing would stop the very moment Putin said his troops should stop. That's something we need to remind people of in Europe as well because I get the sense that we're sitting in rooms across Europe, talking among ourselves and then trying to negotiate with the other parties. But again, I'll say this: over the past year, Europe has grown significantly stronger and the coalition of the willing has widened.

It now includes Turkey, Japan, Canada — countries that are helping to provide a broader support network behind Ukraine. So we have grown stronger, but this journey is not a short one.

Are we still talking about a just and lasting peace?

Hopefully. As much as it depends on us — on Europe and the countries supporting Ukraine — absolutely. Let's put it this way: maybe six months ago, we weren't even discussing, for example, that the United States might in some way guarantee Ukraine's security. If we rewind a bit — that so-called U.S. backstop or guarantee that's now being discussed — back then, it simply wasn't on the table. As of today, it's not only being discussed, it's gone even further: there are talks about what exactly the U.S. would guarantee, not just through an administration decision, but also through congressional approval or debate in Congress. That's a very important development.

Another key point is what exactly Ukraine has at its disposal to ensure that its army remains strong. Because let's be honest: the first and strongest line of defense is still the Ukrainian army. There are a lot of different nuances to that — plus how Ukraine is being rebuilt, using Russian funds rather than other taxpayers' money and so on. So yes, a lot has changed.

Speaking of keeping the issue of Ukraine in focus — have you consciously chosen a somewhat more moderate line compared to your predecessor Kaja Kallas? In terms of both the tone of your messages and perhaps how many you send?

It's hard to say. Kaja and I are both on the side of good, no matter what anyone wants to think — okay, maybe the Helmes (EKRE leaders Mart and Martin Helme – ed.) think differently. But my approach is more that we are prepared and we don't need to be afraid. That sense of calm, readiness and not being afraid comes from knowing that you're investing more and more in this area, your country is stronger and Europe is stronger.

It would be very easy for any Estonian politician, including the prime minister, to go on air with an alarmist message and that's not a criticism of anyone; it would be immediately understood. But my position is just a bit different. During my time, defense spending in Estonia has increased — it's never been this high: over 5 percent of this year's budget — and our capabilities are growing. So I think I can afford to be somewhat calmer and not as worried. But that doesn't mean I'm not doing everything necessary and a bit more to make sure that the threat from Russia is never a real one here.

So what would you say your resolve and ability to fight are?

The will to fight and the ability to fight are excellent, thank you for asking.

I might need to help our viewers out a little here. When Delfi asked Kaja Kallas how Estonia's leaders are doing in representing the country abroad, her response was: "I couldn't say, because I don't see it." Did that offend you?

I don't know. Let's just say that Kaja and I aren't always at the same table anymore, so I don't really see anything special in that. Prime ministers and presidents speak with other prime ministers and presidents. Foreign representation is led by foreign ministers and their counterparts. From time to time, we meet at European Council summits.

I'd still say this: I don't expect and don't think the people of Estonia expect bickering between us. What people expect is that we work toward the same goal and I believe we are on the same side. So I don't see any kind of tragedy in that.

Andrus Ansip had a much sharper take on the topic — he said that the EU's high representative for foreign affairs, for as long as that position has existed, has never really been successful. You can tell they go way back.

I think it's just a difficult job. Let's set emotions aside for a moment — being in a role where you have to bring together very opposing viewpoints from across Europe — and as we've seen, there are always several different "Europes" — that's no easy task.

At the European Council, the debate is usually much more polite — it's not like in parliament where people throw random statements at each other. Everything is still respectful and courteous between countries. But it is a difficult role and expecting anything more than being able to lay out a few positions — well, there's really no reason to expect more than that.

As for me, I've taken the view that we don't have all that many Estonians out there in such roles. We don't always have to agree, we don't even have to belong to the same political party, but in general, we should wish them success. Unless they're actively working against democracy and freedom, we should root for them. That's the way I see it.

That sounded a lot like smoking the peace pipe.

It's not a peace pipe. I've had to intervene in parliament too — for example, even though Kaja Kallas hasn't been prime minister for quite some time — to quiet down the Helmes, Ernits and others. They're still in the habit of picking on gender and the former prime minister in general. I've told them the same thing: don't nitpick. And frankly — yes, we may disagree on many things and I certainly have differences of opinion with several prime ministers, including Kaja, on certain issues — but when it comes to a rules-based world, freedom, support for Ukraine, why bicker about those things?

We spoke about some of the statements made on foreign policy and their tone. Do you agree with President Karis's remark that our foreign policy is at times too hawkish and that someone needs to keep a foot on the brake?

There are plenty of people riding the brakes. No, I'd put it this way — whether it's hawkish or not...

Maybe from the perspective of Europe or the wider world, we seem hawkish, but I don't think that's quite the right term. We're not lashing out randomly. What's happening in Ukraine — we're now in the fourth year of the largest armed conflict since World War II. Russia has more men under arms now than it did at the beginning of the war. What's so hawkish about that? People are dying, people are losing their homes, they don't have heat or electricity. What's so hawkish about fighting that?

I know the president and we have a good relationship. It seems to me that in every meeting, every event and through his messages, he's conveyed that as best he can. Maybe the choice of tone is up to each speaker. I might be a bit more direct, because to me, this is a real problem. I have no illusions that Russia's goals will change. I have no illusion that anything Russia puts down on paper is worth the paper it's written on. But I also don't think everyone in the country needs to share the exact same opinion.

I believe that values-based politics is the only kind of politics possible, also in foreign policy. There's simply no alternative.

Has Karis done a good job?

I would say yes, but in the end, history will judge all of us. As president, he's been balanced — let's say he's also been quite firm in criticizing the government. There was one time I told him he'd forgotten to do so and he asked, "Oh really, where did I slip up?" But overall, I think he's been balanced.

That doesn't mean, of course, that in the next presidential election his qualities, or those of the other candidates, won't be thoroughly discussed. In politics and in life more broadly, there's a simple rule: if you want to find out what you've done wrong, just run for something. You'll find out everything.

Were Alar Karis's chances of continuing as president damaged by the Kazakhstan visit?

I think what happened around the Kazakhstan visit was, without downplaying anything, more of a storm in a teacup. It might qualify as a bit of a scandal, but I'd still call it a storm in a teacup. The real question will come when the broader discussion begins... I think parliament will convene and, from around February or March, the debate will start on what kind of president we should have next. That's going to be the biggest political and societal discussion of the year and I don't think Kazakhstan will be a central issue in that at all.

In Estonia, it's generally customary for the government not to pick a fight with the president. This time, however, a few members of the government did just that, at least a little.

I'm not so sure about that custom of never picking a fight with the president — I recall quite a few instances in our history. But in a free country, that's exactly how it should be: everyone is entitled to their own opinion. The roles must be respected and the president has respected the role of the government and the parliament, just as the parliament has respected the roles of the president and the government and vice versa. Each institution has its own role and the media has made a habit of giving all three a good thrashing — and that's just how it goes.

I haven't sensed any tension myself — we actually had a casual Christmas stand-up meeting with the president after that incident and the atmosphere was warm and friendly. I didn't see any cold shoulders or anyone turning their back on anyone else.

But what about Ambassador Jaap Ora? His career is over. Isn't that a bit disproportionate?

Career matters at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs are decided by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Despite the perception of the prime minister's almighty powers, the prime minister doesn't deal with that.

The foreign minister is a member of your team?

Absolutely.

How likely is it that the president will be elected in the Riigikogu?

I hope it's very likely and not because it would somehow be more of a concern for the coalition, but because I think it's a concern for the entire political spectrum. Parliament has the opportunity to prove itself, to put forward a candidate and to aim for something bigger than just its own immediate interests. I'm not downplaying anyone's right to have their own opinion, nor am I dismissing the possibility that political figures might also be nominated. That possibility is certainly on the table.

The possibility exists, but with zero chance of success?

You can't rule it out in the end. There will probably be quite a few rounds. If we start discussing it quietly, or more loudly, before Independence Day and at some point reach a conclusion by summer... I hope some kind of understanding will emerge and then there will be candidates. The candidates will have a chance to present themselves and ERR will host several different debate formats. From there, I think the election could go ahead.

But of course, it requires a certain number of votes and the coalition alone doesn't come anywhere near that number right now. Not even the previous coalition (with SDE votes – ed.) has enough votes for that. But if we draw the line around those who believe that Estonia's security and foreign policy should be values-based, then I'd venture to say that a common ground could be found there. But let's wait and not get ahead of ourselves.

The press has already begun doing its excellent work. Your fellow Reform member Urmas Paet was asked about it and said, "Why not, if offered." But come on — surely a Reform Party member can't become Estonia's president right now?

Two things need to be separated here. I think Urmas Paet would be a very good candidate and would do an excellent job as president. His foreign policy experience — he's probably been a member of government longer than anyone else in history, a longtime foreign minister and his time in the European Parliament adds to that — so he would definitely be a good fit for the role. And I'm not praising him from a party-political standpoint. I genuinely think he has the sense, the broad perspective and the ability to think long term.

Now, about him being from the Reform Party... You're assuming that Reform will always hold the prime minister's seat, that it's the largest party. I agree that having that kind of imbalance — Reform as the largest in government and holding the presidency — is naturally not ideal. So yes, I would expect that this might reduce even a very strong candidate's chances, like Urmas's.

/.../

I understand that was more of a light-hearted speculation, not a serious plan?

It was definitely the host's speculation. I hope it doesn't end up as a headline in the news portal.

Let's talk about the final days of the year: undersea communication cables in the Baltic Sea were once again damaged, the Finns are investigating. What exactly do we know? Was this yet another case of extraordinary circumstances or was it a Russian operation?

An investigation means figuring out the facts. I'd say there was a relatively calmer period for a while. In general, as various foreign intelligence experts have said publicly, Russia's ultimate interest isn't necessarily to cause major disruptions here — though it might appear that way — because each such incident results in pushback and adds pressure on their shadow fleet. On the other hand, even without incidents, we won't let up on that pressure or on monitoring their shadow fleet. So, in every sense, that pressure is increasing.

Was this caused by a storm, bad luck, poor seamanship, as is often claimed? Hard to say.

But in my view — and I think this applies to all countries with undersea infrastructure — it means that, going forward, we need to build those connections on the seabed to be as tamper-proof as possible. We're already discussing future energy links with Finland, for instance, and all of them will need to be constructed in a way that they can't be severed by an anchor or other means. It could be a storm, it could be bad intent — but when you have such dense traffic, it's only a matter of time before something like this happens. An attacker or accident only needs to succeed once; defense needs to succeed every time.

This so-called maritime protection operation is ongoing — for Finland, Estonia and all maritime nations. NATO ships are out at sea as well. But when there's a storm, multiple cables can go down, an anchor might catch somewhere — all of that adds up.

The Finns have been very decisive in responding to these incidents — this time too, even boarding from a helicopter, like something out of a movie. But there's another side to this: the Estonians didn't do it and, as the navy commander said, it was so agreed because Estonia doesn't have that capability. Does that mean we failed to act?

Maybe you could say something was left undone — in terms of ship procurement, yes, we do need to acquire more vessels. That's clear. But every country has its own capacity — how large and how many ships it can obtain. The state budget has been limited. In the next national defense development plan, the purchase of new ships is already included, so those will be acquired.

In this particular case, the ship in question was already moving toward Finnish waters, so it was clear that it made the most sense for the Finns to handle it and they did. Fortunately, that ship cooperated. The bigger problems usually come from vessels that don't.

More broadly, across the world's seas, there's this growing issue: years ago, these types of undersea connections weren't often targeted or hit, but now that's changed. Maybe it's accidental — ships striking them with anchors — or due to increased ship traffic and power, but it's a serious issue either way and something we'll have to take into account going forward. It's not going away.

Our job is to minimize the impact as much as possible, to prevent these kinds of incidents at sea — and we do that together with our allies; we definitely don't do it alone. And also to ensure that when something happens, repairs are made as quickly as possible, because that helps reduce the impact on the economy as well.

I know you hate this question, but how does it feel to put on a suit and tie in the morning and head to work, knowing your popularity is nearly on the floor?

You still have to put on the suit and tie. I do my job for the things that matter.

Of course, when you think about what really matters — when you look back at it all in hindsight — what ultimately counts is how Estonia has done: is Estonia better protected? Is our independence secure? I don't tie my personal future to Estonia — I operate on the assumption that everything here must be ensured. That's the first priority. And if I've put on a tie and jacket in the morning to serve that goal, then that's enough for me.

Secondly, let's just say — if we've managed to push through this miserable economic climate... The past two and a half years have felt like the worst kind of Estonian ski weather — no snow, just grey — and you keep slogging through. But at the end of last year, and last year overall, the economy did begin to turn — slowly, yes, but still toward real, meaningful growth. The outlook for the coming years is better.

As for the so-called tax hump — its authors are Isamaa, the Social Democrats and the Center Party. So now I've answered who was behind that.

The interim tax confusion — my assessment is that the core issue was how to fund national defense. And the result was that, together with the Social Democrats, we didn't find a better solution at the time than the decisions that were made — including taxing corporate profits. I'm not saying [SDE leader Lauri] Läänemets is to blame — those decisions were made jointly — but at that point, we simply didn't have a better way forward and I acknowledge that the Social Democrats brought their own vision to the table. They've never hidden their view that companies should be taxed more. That's their perspective.

My own view is more aligned with where we are now — that taxes should go down, the state should be more efficient and we should cut more. Those two approaches just didn't work together. And that's why we parted ways with the Social Democrats. It wasn't personal — there's no grudge or clenched fist in the pocket. I'll just say this frankly: the wisdom that Reform Party has long held — part of our DNA — is that Reform handles the economic, fiscal and tax policy side and the Social Democrats handle the spending side. That's half-joking /.../, but when the Social Democrats started taking over too much of the tax policy and...

...the Reform Party too much of the spending... then?

Yes, with cutting spending. Let's just say — it all didn't really work together.

So [SDE MP] Raimond Kaljulaid is right when he says he no longer understands what's going on in the Reform Party — you seem to have lost your professional instinct.

I'm not sure Raimond Kaljulaid needs to fully understand what's going on with us. It'd be good if he understood what's going on within the Social Democrats. Let him be an expert on that — he talks an awful lot about us. If he wants to, he can join the party and we can discuss it properly.

Jokes aside, I'd say the Reform Party today is, ideologically speaking, in its natural shape — true to its DNA. We've taken the feedback seriously and that feedback didn't come without reason. The punishment we received forced us to reflect inward and that's how it should be. So let's say: a more efficient state, scaling back, reviewing services, adopting modern solutions, lowering the tax burden — that's where Estonia needs to head and the direction we're going in.

And just to repeat it clearly: as of January 1, taxes have been significantly lowered. Last year, the tax burden was 36.6 percent; this year, it's 35.2 percent — the largest tax cut in Estonia's history.

The result is that the debt burden is growing to a record high and Urmas Reinsalu's ratings are climbing.

The debt burden is growing. The Estonian state has taken on debt before and defense spending is also growing to record levels. But the deficit is decreasing over time. I'd just remind you that in 2024, when the deficit was projected to be around 2.9–3 percent, the actual result was a little over one and a half percent — 1.7 or 1.8 percent, if I recall correctly. In 2025, when the budget was passed with a 3 percent deficit, the latest estimates put it closer to 1 percent. So in reality, we managed about €800 million better than expected.

This year will also require effort to keep state spending under control — if we do that, the deficit will remain smaller. And yes, we'll need to scale back various services. We have to review a number of things. But let me say clearly — I have stood firmly against something the Parempoolsed have been aggressively pushing: cutting pensions. I do not support that.

Urmas Reinsalu is using your own weapon against you, saying that the biggest long-term issue in the near future is the Reform Party's chosen path of wrecking Estonia's fiscal sustainability. What's your response to the next prime minister?

To the next prime minister in his dreams, first of all. Secondly, the largest planned budget deficit came from the EKRE–Isamaa–Center government in 2020. If I remember correctly, that's when the funding was wrecked. Estonia's public finances were first seriously damaged in 2017 when Jüri Ratas — now an Isamaa member, then a Center Party prime minister — along with an Isamaa finance minister, loosened the fiscal rules.

And what was the result? When the crisis hit, the budget reserves that had been built up during those much-criticized Reform Party–Ansip years were wiped out.

So let's just say — if he wants to figure out who created the problem in the budget, who laid the deficit egg in the nest like a cuckoo, then that cuckoo looks a whole lot like Urmas Reinsalu and Isamaa.

Just a couple of details — one of those events happened nearly ten years ago and the other took place during Covid.

Yes — and let's just say, in case anyone hasn't noticed, we currently have a neighboring country on the warpath and those defense expenditures have to be accounted for somewhere.

And what about the Reform Party's election promises?

The Reform Party's promise is the right one: we will eliminate the so-called tax hump — the progressive income tax introduced by Isamaa, the Social Democrats and the Center Party. It primarily taxed the average worker — the ordinary family earning a middle income — who, in their view, counted as "the rich" and deserved to be taxed the most. Of course we're going to get rid of that.

A flat income tax is exactly what gives people confidence that their ambition won't be punished. And let me remind you: those with higher incomes already pay more taxes in absolute terms.

Lauri Läänemets said that the defense tax turned into a tax break for the rich after the Social Democrats left the government?

When Lauri Läänemets and the Social Democrats left the government, I'd remind you — we canceled the corporate profit tax they had strongly supported on ideological grounds. We also canceled the plan to tax income from the very first euro, which, by the way, would have hit lower-income earners and pensioners the hardest, though few seemed to notice that. And we scrapped the income tax increase that would've added extra tax burdens across the board. So, all in all, we've significantly reduced the tax burden since the Social Democrats left.

I still haven't really heard in this interview, what is your big idea? How will the Reform Party — if I may quote Urmas Paet for the second time — be led out of this hazy cloud it's been floating in for the past few years?

I think there are several components to that. One is certainly a strong, secure and free country — that's the first. And that's not just talk; it's visible in our actions. Defense spending is at a level that ensures our children and grandchildren can live in peace and continue building an Estonian-speaking society here. That's the first point.

Secondly, turning the economy back toward growth. If we look more broadly, many of the tensions in society have stemmed from people struggling — especially during a period of high inflation. In order to have something to share, you need wealth creation. Which means that my second key goal, and I believe the Reform Party's as well, is reducing the tax burden, getting the economy going and achieving economic growth, which is now underway.

The third is certainly values-based politics, meaning people are respected, not mocked. Estonia should not be a country where people are excluded, but one where people are genuinely cared for. Building a country like that.

So I believe those are three key things I stand for and have stood for in practice. Let's just say I don't only talk about them.

Defense spending is at an all-time high. The economy is growing or beginning to grow, people are starting to have more money in hand. And values are something we defend every day. And let's be clear: the noise, the effort to roll back those values, that's exactly what we're seeing in parliament from EKRE, Isamaa and the Center Party. If you listen to their daily rhetoric in the Riigikogu debates, it's aimed at defining which kinds of people are welcome in Estonia and which are not.

Will you take Eesti 200 under your wing or will their rating continue its slide toward zero?

We can speculate, but I believe Eesti 200 will find its footing and they certainly have a chance to pass the election threshold in the next elections. I'd say that if you look at the team... In business, there's a saying — and I'm not sure this is a perfectly accurate comparison — but when you look at a company's components and assets, those parts are often worth much more than the current share price on the stock exchange. That's been the case with many companies. I think it's similar with Eesti 200: when I look at the people there, the level of competence — yes, I understand that when someone's down, it's customary in Estonian media for commentators to politely give them a kick in the ribs — but let's be honest: there are people there with real skills and knowledge. So I think they'll get their footing by the next elections.

Does the ratings question matter to you?

When it comes to Eesti 200 and us — definitely. Why wouldn't I want to see the parties in government do well?

Your most difficult task now: answer in 30 seconds about Elering's security of supply report, which says we'll need 1,000 megawatts of dispatchable generation by 2035. When will construction begin?

That plan already exists. Logically, until the new gas-fired plants are in place, oil shale plants will remain in reserve. As the new gas plants come online, the oil shale plants will gradually be phased out of reserve.

And how much will it cost?

Keeping the oil shale plants in reserve costs about €60 million per year. For the gas plants, it's around €80–100 million annually. So, roughly in the same ballpark — but that's an approximate estimate; it all depends on how the tenders go.

--

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