First, we should clear up one of the most important details: Who is currently Estonia's ambassador to Kazakhstan?

My situation is rather unusual and unexpected in that I submitted my resignation, and as of January 1, my employment with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has ended.

So you're no longer the ambassador, even though when I checked the embassy's website, at least as of January 14, it still listed Jaap Ora as the ambassador?

I'm in Tallinn and my employment with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has ended.

But let's talk about why it ended. What exactly happened in Astana on November 16?

It was a state visit to Astana and on November 16, the president arrived with a large delegation. It was the first state visit by an Estonian president to Kazakhstan. The delegation was substantial: in addition to the president, there were two ministers, two deputy secretaries general, a delegation of university rectors and a cultural delegation. The program was very thorough. Overall, the visit went very well — the goals set were achieved.

What happened afterward? There was some fallout in Estonia, but by now that has mostly blown over. For example, the prime minister said it was a storm in a teacup and the president has spoken positively about the visit in interviews. So in the end, nothing particularly serious happened.

I'll refer to Eesti Ekspress where my colleague Madis Hindre laid out the events. Ekspress wrote that President Karis removed the Russia-critical sections from his speech in Kazakhstan and that the ambassador who advised him was dismissed. What exactly did you recommend the president do that ended up costing you your position?

Let's start with this: during a state visit, the ambassador's primary task is to ensure favorable conditions for the president to carry out effective work — that includes the ambassador, the embassy and the entire team involved. Part of that role is to provide the president with the necessary advice before and during the visit and at times to help convey messages.

Regarding the president's lecture at the university, that speech was actually just one part of the program. The president had multiple opportunities to deliver messages in various meetings. There was also a second speech — one that I largely wrote and to which the President's Office added their input — delivered at the reception we organized. There were media engagements as well and, of course, the main event was the official meeting between the delegations and the president.

As I understand it, visits like this are prepared over many months, sometimes even years, and all the messaging is carefully considered and coordinated with the main office. But in this case, something happened just as the president's plane landed in Astana. Why did you share all of that with the president?

We held a closed-door briefing with the president when the delegation arrived. That's standard procedure — we should always do that during such visits to make final preparations and adjustments. In this case, there was a small addition: I had just received certain messages or signals from the Kazakh side shortly before the president's arrival, specifically concerning the topic of Ukraine.

What did they tell you? What was the message they asked you to relay to the president?

I can't disclose that, as it involves communication between states. I don't think it would be appropriate to go into detail here and, frankly, it's not all that important because when it comes to the topic of Ukraine, it had long been known that this is a sensitive subject for the Kazakhs.

There have been attempts to suggest this to Estonian journalists — I haven't been able to verify it myself, but that's why I invited you here — that the presence of a business delegation may have played a role, perhaps in hopes of finalizing certain agreements… and that the visit might not have been as successful. Is there any truth to that or is that not how things work in diplomacy?

For me, the main issue lay elsewhere. The key concern was ensuring a trusting and friendly working atmosphere between our president and the president of Kazakhstan. From the beginning — and this had been agreed on months in advance — it was clear that sensitive topics, particularly foreign policy matters, would be addressed in a one-on-one meeting between the two presidents. The purpose of that was to allow for a confidential and secure environment in which to exchange views and share concerns.

So the most important thing was for that meeting to go well. As for whether the business delegation was there to secure deals — I think that's speculation. All of that had been prepared in advance: a business forum had been planned and it was very well organized and large in scale. So I wouldn't link those two things. In the end, the priority is always national interests and clearly presenting our positions.

So if I understand correctly, this isn't some kind of mutual blackmail situation? If someone invites a head of state for a state visit, the tone is usually more diplomatic — spoken in the language of birds and butterflies, so to speak — emphasizing the hope that the visit will be a success. It's meant to be straightforward and positive? That's how things usually work in this world, right?

A state visit is the highest-level kind of visit and it's typically a major event. There's a broad program with various components, as we had — economic, educational and foreign policy elements. It's also characteristic of a state visit that the messaging tends to be quite general and it's not usually the venue for digging into or resolving particularly problematic or sharply sensitive issues.

But then the president's speech was trimmed — some parts were removed. Still, couldn't those sections have been reworded on the spot so as not to call a wolf a wolf, so to speak. Or is that not how these things work?

The president himself has said that a speech is only final when it's delivered. And even when a speech is distributed in advance, there's often a note attached saying to pay attention to what is actually said, so changes can be made right up to the last moment.

In this case, the issue was that the speech was delivered before the official program had begun and in order to ensure a positive atmosphere for the formal part of the visit, it made sense to hold back some of our messages for later.

This was the university speech, then?

Yes, the university lecture. It was a very good lecture.

And in the one-on-one meeting between President Tokayev and President Karis — were the messages that had been prepared by the main office, including how bad Russia is, delivered there?

There were two presidents in the room...

And you don't know anything more about that? I mean, President Karis could just as well come out and say they discussed a joint mission to Mars or the Moon.

It's not that we don't know, but it may not be appropriate to publicly discuss what the two presidents talked about in a one-on-one meeting. What is certain, however, is that Ukraine and other important topics were addressed in that conversation.

But on December 4, you were summoned to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Tallinn. In diplomatic terms, that's referred to as the ambassador being "called in for consultations." What happened in Secretary General Vseviov's office — what were you accused of?

It was a brief meeting. And shortly after that, the media reported that the ambassador had submitted their resignation.

Why did you submit your resignation?

I received a fairly clear message that my departure was necessary.

So, if I understand correctly — the president can't be dismissed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but an ambassador can and that was the route chosen?

Perhaps it's one of those situations where someone has a solution they consider suitable. Even if it's not necessarily rational or fair, if it seems to work, then that's the path they take.

Looking back, do you feel you were forced to resign or was it a voluntary decision?

I'd prefer not to go further in my comments on that. Diplomats and ambassadors don't leave their posts lightly and if you're asking whether I intended to end my diplomatic career in this way, then certainly not.

Have you contested your dismissal? Is it headed to court or already in court?

I'd prefer not to discuss that here. At this point, I haven't burned any bridges. I've had good experiences working as a diplomat and have good colleagues at the foreign ministry's main office. But as I said, my employment has ended and I'm looking at things with a fresh perspective.

It's an interesting moment — you start to wonder what else you might do in life if you're no longer working at the foreign ministry. My strengths are still in international relations, security policy and foreign affairs, but maybe there's something new or completely different out there to explore.

Am I right in understanding that you didn't come on this program today to burn bridges, but rather to build them?

Absolutely.

But did you request to be released from the position of ambassador or from the ministry entirely? What exactly did you write in your resignation? I haven't seen your letter.

That was the result of the conversation — I requested to be released both from the position of ambassador and from the foreign service.

So from both positions?

Yes.

I do recall that when the prime minister was in the studio, we asked about your status — since the government had discussed and decided on it. And even the prime minister said he hadn't looked into the matter because the resignation came from you. But am I right in thinking that, in fact, someone in the Republic of Estonia should have taken an interest in the circumstances of your departure?

The departure happened very quickly and quite unexpectedly. As of now, to my knowledge, the president has not yet signed my formal recall, so I can't say for certain what my official status is. But I have had no employment relationship with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs since January 1.

Am I right in understanding that since your last meeting with the president in Astana, you've also met here in Estonia?

Yes, I've spoken with the president — we discussed the visit and how Estonia's relations with Central Asia could be developed further in a constructive and practical way.

Did he also ask why you wanted to resign and what advice you gave him? Whether he should have withdrawn your letter of credence or your mandate?

That's certainly the president's decision. But I can only assume that he also sees other possible ways of resolving the situation beyond just my resignation.

He didn't suggest that you fly back to Astana and continue representing the Republic of Estonia?

In order to fly back to Astana, of course, the support and willingness of all parties involved would be necessary.

I understand the issue isn't just about Astana. You were also ambassador to the Kyrgyz Republic, the Republic of Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and the Republic of Uzbekistan — so this is a significant loss for the Estonian state.

That's true — we covered five countries from Astana. I was ambassador to all five and it's quite a large operation, a substantial amount of work to get fully situated. First, you do an initial tour and present your credentials in each country and only then can you begin to think about what comes next. I had just reached the phase where it was getting really interesting, where we could start developing concrete cooperation projects. Some things were already in the works.

Mr. Ora, do you feel that you violated anything or made a mistake?

When it comes to an ambassador's duty to advise the president and share information, I did exactly what any ambassador is supposed to do — I did my job. My political analysis as a diplomat has always been appreciated; people often say, "Oh, your analyses are excellent — very insightful, very useful."

I didn't feel that sharing information with the president about the local context, such as Kazakhstan's concerns or vulnerabilities, was in any way wrong. I carried out my duties to the best of my judgment.

With the benefit of hindsight, should you have informed the main office? Or did you inform them that certain circumstances had changed and that you were adjusting your approach?

There was a large delegation on that visit, as we've already discussed, and it included both members of the president's team and people from the main office. All topics are always discussed within that group during such visits, so this wasn't some kind of solo move by the ambassador or anything like that.

How difficult does the current geopolitical situation make things for an ambassador or any diplomat, really? How much do you have to balance instructions from the main office with local conditions?

You absolutely have to take guidance from the main office into account and we've always done that based on our understanding — that's one of the fundamental expectations of professional diplomacy. It's a two-way street: you also provide information and recommendations back to the main office.

When it comes to the core issue — how to protect Estonia's values and interests in the world — it's crucial to adapt your approach to the country you're posted in. The methods for defending our interests may differ from one country to another. What matters is achieving results.

But how much has all this commotion affected or damaged Estonian-Kazakh relations?

I'd like to believe that the issue or the disagreement that arose will be quickly moved past.

Has all this also diminished the impact of the visit? Because from what I understand, €500 million in agreements, a business delegation, a high-profile cultural program, Anne Veski's songs were performed, horses were shown — it was a standout event. Has its impact faded at all?

I haven't been able to follow everything closely. Before I left, we had a conversation with the Kazakh president's foreign policy adviser about how to begin implementing the outcomes and agreements of the visit.

But when it comes to the economic side, for example, Minister of Economic Affairs and Infrastructure [Kuldar] Leis, who was part of the delegation, already said at the November 20 government meeting that the business community was very pleased with the visit. And all the agreements signed there were preceded by a great deal of work. It wasn't something thrown together a week before the visit; many of these businesses had already spent time in Kazakhstan.

I can give a couple of examples. Take the Oskemen titanium and magnesium plant. The name might not mean much at first, but it's a world-class titanium producer, supplying nearly 20 percent of aviation-grade titanium globally and it's owned by Western stakeholders. Their partner in Estonia is the Port of Sillamäe. That illustrates how Estonia can serve as a gateway to Kazakhstan and its economy and vice versa.

Kazakh companies can also use Estonia for exporting and importing their goods. Another example is the large French group Alstom, which manufactures top-tier locomotives in Kazakhstan. They have two partners in Estonia — one supplies components to them and the other is interested in purchasing locomotives or spare parts.

Foreign Minister [Margus] Tsahkna has repeatedly said that Estonia practices a values-based foreign policy and that this is its golden age. How do you understand values-based foreign policy?

I've been a diplomat since 2000 and I've always carried out a values-based foreign policy. Perhaps my particular experience is that I've often worked in third countries that don't always share our views entirely and in those contexts, you often have to think carefully about how to implement a values-based policy in practice.

How do you remain values-based in the Gulf States? We can't exactly start every meeting with the Saudis by saying, "Look at what you did to journalist Khashoggi."

That's exactly where an important aspect comes in: there may be a desire to quickly fire off certain messages, to say things that matter to us, but the real question is whether that will achieve the intended effect.

In such countries, relationship-building is a long-term effort and it starts with creating an atmosphere of trust and constructive cooperation.

Of course, when the war and aggression against Ukraine began, we told the Saudis right away that this is a serious issue for Europe — an existential one for us — and we worked consistently to gain their support.

But the key point is this: if you want something from the other side, you also have to be willing to offer something in return.

Over the past month, you've undoubtedly become Estonia's most well-known ambassador who, as of January 1, is no longer an ambassador. So what are your plans moving forward?

At the moment, I'm keeping an open mind, as I mentioned earlier. It's an interesting situation — you get to look around with fresh eyes and think about what your skills are and what you'd really like to do. I still want to contribute to Estonia and I believe my expertise and experience could be valuable in several different areas. So, in that sense, while this is all still quite recent, it's also a very interesting moment.

Looking at what's happening in global politics right now, do you agree with Kaja Kallas who said the situation is such that it might be time to start drinking?

I think that's probably another example of someone saying something to lighten the mood. I believe we can all, in certain situations, relate to that sentiment — that things are really tough. But it's important to keep a clear head and stay calm. That's absolutely essential: not to act on emotion or your first impulse, but to remain composed and consistent.

--

The resignation of Estonian Ambassador Jaap Ora in December 2025 followed a significant diplomatic scandal involving President Alar Karis's state visit to Kazakhstan. The controversy centered on the omission of key foreign policy messages regarding Ukraine from the President's official speeches.

--

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