• While Estonia's foreign policy can seem panicked and locked in a spiral of reacting to others, as evidenced recently in the case of Greenland, values must not be allowed to give way to pure pragmatism.
• Coordinating between the foreign ministry, defense ministry and political leadership is essential to present a clear and unified stance.
• Kaljulaid prescribes President Karis as precise and effective, while rejecting the idea that Estonia should search for its own "Alexander Stubb" type figure.
• Despite previously leaving the Center Party, Kaljulaid declares a clear and permanent allegiance to the Social Democratic Party.

Do you understand what the U.S. president is pursuing and doing in regard to Greenland?

Yes, I believe I do. The president of the United States has clearly and publicly stated — both during his first term and again now — that his goal is to acquire Greenland and incorporate it into the United States.

He wants to reach an agreement on this with the Kingdom of Denmark and Europe. In recent days, he has repeatedly emphasized that this is the objective of the United States.

Rather unconventional pressure tactics are being used to negotiate with allies.

You're more diplomatic than I am. Not just rather unconventional, but completely unprecedented tactics are being used. We've never seen a situation where one NATO ally makes demands of another NATO ally and does not rule out the use of military force against them. So this is a truly unprecedented situation. (The interview was recorded on Wednesday, January 21 – ed.)

Why does the U.S. need Greenland?

I think there's always more than one reason behind policy initiatives like this. Military experts have explained in great detail the strategic importance of Greenland due to its geographic location. Recently, U.S. representatives have also pointed out that their ambitious plan to develop a missile defense system capable of protecting the United States from potential enemy attacks hinges significantly on the Greenland issue.

Of course, there are also Greenland's natural resources, which remain largely unexplored but are believed to hold great potential.

But if I were to sum it up, I'd say it's part of a broader potential confrontation or preparation for a confrontation with China. It's possible that there are entirely rational arguments behind this. The U.S. Department of Defense and its experts have emphasized that if a conflict with China were to escalate, Greenland would become strategically crucial for several reasons. It seems they've concluded that Greenland must somehow become part of the United States because U.S. security cannot be guaranteed otherwise.

The U.S. already has a military base in Greenland that it can use with relatively few restrictions. What would change if the entire island were under U.S. control?

That's something the United States should explain itself. So far, the public explanations have been quite vague. The president has even gone so far as to say that he has a psychological need or a gut feeling that in order to ensure the security of the United States and even global peace, Greenland should belong to the United States.

Donald Trump has completed one year in office. How would you summarize that year? Despite all the negative, unclear foreign policy and the chaos he's caused, do you see anything positive?

If we're looking to highlight something positive, then undoubtedly the fact that at the NATO level, an agreement has been reached for member states to increase their military spending to 3.5 percent and overall defense spending to 5 percent. That is unquestionably a major diplomatic victory which no one can deny.

This is an issue Estonia has long been advocating for. But of course, when we brought it up, the response was somewhat lukewarm compared to when the president of the United States pushed for it.

That said, in Estonia there's been a bit too much of a "the sky is falling" kind of panic surrounding Trump. We've seen him during his first term, after all. We shouldn't be quite so surprised anymore. Trump really is an unconventional politician who actively uses social media and with him, surprises have become predictable.

Wanting to occupy an ally's territory is still quite unusual.

You just phrased it as a "desire to occupy," but in this case, the emphasis has been on seeking an agreement. Still, if someone had asked me a year ago whether something like this could happen, I wouldn't have seen it coming.

But if you had asked a year ago whether, when we meet again to discuss Trump's first year in office, there might be major surprises or developments that are hard to understand — then yes, of course. That comes with Trump and there are still three years to go. So we'd better keep our seat belts fastened.

With Trump, is there a difference between what he says and what he actually thinks?

I have no idea what he actually thinks.

Who should know that?

He knows that himself.

What we can observe is what the president and other representatives of that country say and what the country actually does. And when it comes to Greenland, we can't rule out the possibility that the issue might simply fade away or not be pursued any further.

Over the past year, there have been several instances where deadlines set for Russia came and went, yet nothing happened. This could be a similar situation where they wait to see how the public and international communities react and eventually conclude that there's no way forward, so the topic gets dropped.

We can look at what statements are made, what's said in interviews and what decisions are taken and whether those things align. But what goes on in someone's head... Even if the Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs had an unlimited budget, we still wouldn't have a device capable of reading the minds of foreign officials.

How should political decision-makers respond to these kinds of signals? Right now, there's a serious risk of miscalculation. We're seeing how Trump's threat to impose tariffs has led to the EU initiating retaliatory tariffs. The snowball starts rolling in such a way that, at some point, it can no longer be stopped.

Exactly. The real solution is to break out of this reactive mode where you're constantly just responding to what someone else is doing. And to break out of that, you need to have your own plan. Your own direction, your own priorities.

Just before the Davos meeting, Finnish President Stubb gave several interviews. It was clear from those that both Stubb personally and the Finnish state have a well-defined vision of where they want to steer NATO, Europe and global affairs. That makes things much easier — you're not constantly at the mercy of events, being blown right and left by every gust of wind.

Stubb said that first you should take a deep breath, go to the sauna, have a beer and then see what comes next.

He also recommended taking a bath. That's the Finnish approach — head to the sauna. But fundamentally, I agree with Stubb.

When right-wing populist politicians reemerged and started making public appearances again, it really doesn't make sense to get worked up every time they say something — especially when they say it in a way that many find off-putting. Sometimes, as Stubb suggests, it's wiser to just take a deep breath and stay calm.

But not start drinking just yet, like Kaja Kallas suggested?

I actually thought Kaja Kallas' comment was quite well put. It's good when someone in high office still comes across as human.

But when we're talking about Greenland, even the U.S. treasury secretary told Europeans in Davos: "Sit back and relax."

Greenland is unimaginably vast. It makes up 98 percent of Denmark's territory, but only about 1 percent of Denmark's population lives there. In Estonia, we also have an island — Hiiumaa — where about 0.7 percent or roughly 1 percent of Estonia's population lives. Now imagine if someone came to us — say, the Swedes or the Finns — and said, "We really need Hiiumaa." How would we react?

So yes, generally speaking, let's stay calm and not get overly worked up. But this situation is a bit different.

How should Estonia's political decision-makers and foreign policy leaders act on the threshold of such a new world order?

It may be a bit unusual coming from someone in the opposition, but I'd say that overall, we're actually behaving quite appropriately. Of course, there might be specific nuances or situations where things could be done differently. But broadly speaking, like Finland and others — what are our interests?

We want NATO to move forward and remain strong. We want the United States to stay engaged in NATO. We want transatlantic relations not to deteriorate, but to remain strong and mutually beneficial. We want the countries in our region, as well as other European countries, to invest in national defense. That, in itself, would take away Russia's opportunity to pursue any kind of military action in Europe.

I've also looked at Prime Minister Kristen Michal's recent positions on the Greenland issue and they reflect these same principles.

If there's anything I would criticize as a member of the opposition, it's this: how much are we ourselves able to contribute in terms of proposing real solutions or new ideas? That's our weakness — if we analyze the Greenland issue soberly.

One of our allies has come forward and expressed an interest. They want something. But the way they're trying to achieve it is unacceptable to us. The task of diplomacy now should be to say, "Okay, let's sit down and talk. What is it that you actually want? What is your objective?" And then, "What's the second, third, fourth, fifth or sixth way we might achieve that goal, while also respecting the rights and feelings of the people of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark?"

It needs to be acceptable to all of Europe. And how can we do it together? Could we pursue it within NATO's framework? This is exactly the kind of situation where a small country can still play a role in diplomacy. Participating in the big game requires having your own ideas and visions about what should be done.

Are there people in Estonia's leadership who understand the United States, its politics and are capable of communicating with the Trump administration?

Yes, absolutely. We have a very strong embassy in Washington and a highly experienced ambassador. Within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, we have people with real experience — people who have lived in the United States themselves or who have worked in NATO, the UN and other international organizations.

By the way, when Estonia applied for a seat on the UN Security Council, many questioned what benefit we'd get from it. I think we can now clearly see that it was, in fact, valuable. We know how the Security Council functions from the inside and that experience is extremely valuable to us.

Among our politicians as well, we have enough people who have interacted with the United States, met with American politicians and understand the country and its people.

Perhaps our current issue is coordination. I think the Estonian public also senses that very different signals are coming from different places.

We have the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the foreign minister, the Riigikogu Foreign Affairs Committee, the prime minister and even the president is involved in foreign policy. Are you saying their messages should be more in sync?

Yes — and let's not forget the Ministry of Defense, which plays an extremely important role, especially when we're talking about military cooperation. And not just cooperation within NATO, but also dealings with the U.S. defense industry and broader defense-related matters.

At times, that coordination has been lacking or the different actors have sent mixed signals. That's something we need to fix ourselves. No one else is going to do it for us.

Honestly, I find it a bit hard to understand why this has happened, because it's not a particularly difficult task in a small country like Estonia. In the end, we're talking about getting at most 40 people on the same page. That shouldn't be so hard.

Who should take the lead on that?

Ultimately, that responsibility lies with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the foreign minister. More broadly, at the government level, it's also the responsibility of the prime minister. Right now would be the right moment to involve the Riigikogu opposition more broadly because there are people there who have previously held important foreign policy positions and who have valuable experience and knowledge.

Secondly, we also have people who have stepped away from top-level politics but who still have a very sharp understanding of the world. In such a turbulent situation, it wouldn't hurt to consider bringing those wise individuals back into the foreign policy conversation in a more meaningful way.

Has Estonian foreign policy found itself caught in a dilemma between upholding long-standing values and adopting extreme pragmatism to ensure a strong relationship with our main security guarantor, the United States? We saw one example of this when Estonia's ambassador to Kazakhstan, Jaap Ora, was recalled after he suggested softening the president's speech at the start of a state visit there.

When it comes to that particular visit, I'd say that perhaps it was an issue that shouldn't have been handled in such an emotional way and so publicly. I don't think it was particularly constructive or reasonable to turn the messaging of a head-of-state visit into a matter for national debate.

But I'll return to a point I made earlier: you need to have a vision and a plan of your own. It's not quite right to suggest there are only pragmatic, realpolitik interests on one side and values on the other — as if values are merely obstacles to achieving your interests.

Take, for example, security in the Baltic Sea region, not just NATO as a whole, but our immediate neighborhood. What we want, above all, is to prevent Russia from attempting a military incursion into this region.

But can we seriously imagine building pragmatic and effective cooperation with the Nordic countries if we were to just throw our values and principles out the window and say they no longer matter to us?

In our region, the strongest military actors are Finland and, on the other side, Poland. If we also include the United Kingdom among the Baltic Sea region players, then it's clear that shared values are incredibly important. We simply cannot set those aside.

Holding onto values in foreign policy is itself a very pragmatic choice. Without them, we change in the eyes of our partners. We could easily find ourselves aligned with the likes of Orbán and others who argue that the entire framework of international law is meaningless and not worth discussing.

But was it the right move to recall Ambassador Jaap Ora and end his diplomatic career?

It's easy for me to defer a bit here, since I'm on the National Defense Committee and this is more a matter for colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Committee — I'm sure they know the details much more precisely.

What I can say is that we should think about how to resolve certain issues in a way that doesn't undermine our own head of state or damage their credibility and authority. I know there are colleagues who see it differently, but to me, that would have been the prudent approach. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has faced situations before where cooperation with someone was no longer continued or considered necessary, but those cases were handled in a way that didn't become such a major public issue.

Has Donald Trump betrayed NATO and European allies?

No, Donald Trump is a very complex figure and with him, the contrasts are quite stark. If we look at his first year and what he achieved in pushing for increased NATO defense spending, that was clearly a move welcomed by Estonia.

But as all of Europe has said, the way certain matters have recently been handled, such as the situation with Greenland, is not acceptable to us. I think it's perfectly fine for the United States to hear that message stated plainly.

Coming back for a moment to Alar Karis and the topic of the presidency — does Estonia need its own version of Alexander Stubb, as Toomas Uibo suggested to me in an interview some time ago?

That's the second time we've looked to Finland as a model. Remember how people used to say it would be great if we had our own Nokia? And even then, some pointed out that maybe it's not ideal to have a single large company dominating the economy because if something goes wrong with it, the entire economy takes a hit.

In Nokia's case, I'd say we've actually found our version of it — those Estonian tech unicorns are our Nokia or perhaps even a step beyond.

As for needing our own Stubb, I don't think that's a goal we should set for ourselves in a presidential election. In politics, there are people who are, in some ways, simply exceptional due to their personal qualities. And if we did have our own Stubb, I think that person would become president on their own merits, without us needing to go out of our way to "find" them.

Just last week, I had the opportunity to join President Karis on a state visit to Portugal. I saw him in official meetings with the Portuguese foreign minister, president and many others. And I must say, I think our president represents Estonia in a very steady and confident way. He steps in when needed and clearly explains our positions.

Not everyone can or should be like Alexander Stubb, that's clear. But to suggest that Alar Karis is somehow weak in international relations doesn't match my experience at all. I believe he's doing a good job and it's actually interesting to see a different style.

In Estonia, we also have politicians who talk endlessly and lecture others about how the world works. President Karis may use fewer words, but the words he does use are all the more precise.

When did you personally become interested in foreign and security policy? You haven't always worked in this field.

Since I was about 14 or 15 years old.

But as a politician, you haven't always worked on these topics.

True, but I was smart enough to understand that when I first went into municipal politics and became the district elder of Põhja-Tallinn, it was a much easier path to the Riigikogu than writing foreign policy articles, which far fewer people would have read.

The reality is, if you want to work in foreign policy, environmental policy or any other field, you need a mandate. And to get that, you have to engage with issues people care about. That's why I've always had a broader portfolio that includes other topics too.

If you don't believe me, go ask the top politicians from the Center Party who ran alongside me in the 2019 Riigikogu elections — they'll tell you my goal back then was to get into parliament and onto the Foreign Affairs Committee. And that's exactly what I did.

From there, I moved forward: I became vice chair of the EU Affairs Committee, then chair of the National Defense Committee and now I'm a member of the same committee again. Maybe not everyone noticed right away that I was doing this work. That says something about how substantive work in the Riigikogu often differs from what makes the headlines. But as a politician, you also need to be in the headlines — there's no getting around that.

How do you view municipal politics in Tallinn today? Is Mayor Peeter Raudsepp pulling a Donald Trump in the capital?

Honestly, I take a very calm view of it. He's been in office for an extremely short time. There used to be a tradition of giving someone 100 days without criticism. Tallinn is a big city with a budget well over a billion euros, 400,000 residents and more than half of Estonia's total economic output generated here.

When top executives come in, especially from outside the system, and have only been in office for 30 or 60 days, I'm certainly not going to rush to judgment. I'd definitely give him time. And besides, he hasn't made any major strategic decisions yet that would allow us to evaluate where things are headed.

But he has laid out some goals, like ending green initiatives and shutting down several institutions. Your own party members have sharply criticized Raudsepp. Why haven't you joined in? Do you no longer feel as strong a connection to your home party as before?

No, no — that's not it at all. I've seen the headlines noting the criticism of his initial decisions, but I personally don't yet feel compelled to form a stance on the new mayor. In my view, he simply hasn't been in office long enough.

And when it comes to early judgments — well, I'm old enough to remember when Andrus Ansip became prime minister and people were cracking jokes about him. In reality, he went on to be one of Estonia's longest-serving prime ministers and earned a strong mandate from voters throughout his political career.

I also remember when Kaja Kallas became chair of the Reform Party. During her first few months, there was talk of disaster and people were saying the party was finished. Under her leadership, Reform won two elections and formed multiple governments.

Maybe it's because I'm now a middle-aged person and understand that some things just take more time. Maybe by spring or summer we can start talking seriously about how Peeter Raudsepp is doing as mayor.

Why didn't you run in the local elections?

Because I'm focused on entirely different issues right now.

But what about supporting your party?

That's always a compelling argument. If the party truly needed that support and had strongly asked for it, of course I would've helped. But when I look at how often I'm abroad on official trips and away from Estonia, I couldn't honestly look you in the eye and say that, as a member of the Tallinn City Council, I'd be fully up to speed on everything happening in the city.

That I've thoroughly gone through the city budget or delved deeply into the Tallinn Hospital project — no, I simply don't have the time. That's just the reality: you can't do everything in life.

Are you planning to run in the next Riigikogu elections?

Yes, my plan is to stay active in Estonian politics for as long as the Estonian people continue to support me. So when it comes to the next Riigikogu elections, I absolutely intend to run and continue the work I've been doing.

Something the public may not be fully aware of is that I serve as the head of the parliamentary support group for Estonia's defense industry. It's a topic and field that's very close to my heart and I definitely want to keep working on these issues.

And how do you see your political future? Still with the same party?

Absolutely. There's no doubt or hesitation about that. I joined the Social Democrats in 2019, at a time when their support was hovering around 4 or 5 percent in some months. So this was certainly not a pragmatic move on my part — I didn't gain anything in return because they had nothing to offer me. They were deep in the opposition. It was a very clearly ideological decision and I stand by it.

I'm not overly critical of people who have switched parties. A party is, in a sense, a platform that should give people the opportunity to realize themselves politically. And if it fails to do that or forgets someone entirely then it's understandable if people move on. That's okay.

But for me personally, I feel that if you've already had to do that once in your life — as I did when I had to leave the Center Party and join the Social Democrats — then you can't do it again. Not in this lifetime.

So yes, I'll remain a Social Democrat until the end. That's certain.

--

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