Maarja Värv, ERR: Where did the idea come from to propose that Europe needs its own representative to engage with Russia?

That idea didn't come from me — it was actually raised by a journalist in Dubai. The conversation developed from there. I'm somewhat surprised by the reaction I'm seeing in Estonian headlines because people who have actually read or listened to the interview won't find such things in it. But it's clear we're at a stage now where we have to discuss how to move forward. The war has been going on for four years. And understandably, our foreign policy is unified. What is the direction of our foreign policy? It's to support Ukraine both militarily and with humanitarian aid and to begin rebuilding Ukraine. And secondly, since negotiations are ongoing between Trump and Zelenskyy, it makes perfect sense to consider whether Europe could play a stronger role and be part of that process. That's something Europe has consistently wanted or, rather, has worried about: that it's been left out.

Could you please explain in more detail how you envision that engagement? What is the plan you referred to?

The plan will be very simple. First, we need to talk with President Zelenskyy. Estonia isn't the only one that has raised this idea and Europe has proposed before that it should have a say in the matter. But it clearly needs to be coordinated with Ukraine and Ukraine must say whether it wants that or not. At the same time, we know President Zelenskyy has also said that Estonia, together with other countries, could be at the table. But I can't imagine, and I don't think anyone can, 27 countries sitting at the table with President Trump's representative. So clearly, we need to find a solution for how Europe is going to be represented in such a process.

In your view, which country could the special representative come from?

Oh, you know, I really couldn't say. That will always be a sticking point. The big countries all want to be present when something important is happening. But the most important thing is that this doesn't happen over anyone's head and since Ukraine would be involved and is interested in this, I believe a representative will be found if one is needed.

Have you consulted with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on this topic?

I don't think there's anything to consult the Ministry of Foreign Affairs about here because, as I said, our foreign policy is unified. And we must always find a way to reach a peace in Ukraine, one that is acceptable to Ukraine.

How do you assess Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna's reaction to your interview?

It's very hard for me to assess because I haven't had a chance to speak with him and he hasn't spoken with me either. That's what's unfortunate — I always end up reading about these things in Delfi, Postimees or ERR instead of the person reaching out directly. It would be better to talk first and if someone doesn't understand what the president is saying, I'm always ready to explain — then things become much clearer.

Right now, it gives the impression that the president and the foreign ministry are in a public conflict. How do you see it?

No, I'm not in conflict with anyone. I'm an independent, thinking person and I've always been that, both as a scholar and now as president. No one puts words in my mouth and I believe any reasonable person understands that the war in Ukraine must end and end in a way that is favorable to Ukraine.

Has Estonia held too rigidly to the positions that were natural at the start of the war in Ukraine even though circumstances have changed since then?

A country, and democracy as a whole, should acknowledge that times can change over the course of four years or even in less time. We need to reassess whether the messages we put out four years ago still hold today and move forward from there. That's a sign of strength, both for a country and for the European Union. It sometimes feels like what harms us isn't when someone expresses a slightly different opinion, but rather how nervously we react to those differing views.

Your interview is now certainly being interpreted in the context of the upcoming presidential election. You haven't directly addressed your future intentions. Are you prepared to run again?

I think it's too early to talk about that — last time, the proposal was made to me on August 6.

Ott Järvela, Postimees: You said that the Republic of Estonia has a single, unified foreign policy. But right now, there are quite a few people in Estonia, including within the government, who feel that there are, in fact, several foreign policies. How do you respond to that?

Then that feeling needs to be addressed. But as I said, our foreign policy is one and I clearly outlined what that means. So if people are looking at this from another angle, and we've been talking here about the presidential election, perhaps some are thinking ahead and trying to clear the path a bit. Things seem to be in motion.

Are the Government of the Republic and the President of the Republic currently in conflict?

No, I'm not in conflict with anyone. I am the President of the Republic of Estonia and I stand for Estonia's interests.

How did the two interviews you gave strengthen Ukraine's position and weaken Russia's, given that this is Estonia's strategic goal?

If Russia now imagines that, in addition to Trump, the European Union will also be at the table, then the two together will certainly have more influence over Russia than one acting alone. We're already seeing that negotiations have been ongoing for nearly a year. So something clearly needs to be done differently — exactly what will have to be decided by those who take on that task.

Doesn't the European Union already have institutions that should be leading and conducting these negotiations?

The European Union is one thing, but we're talking about Europe as a whole. Not all European countries are part of the EU. So we need to find a person who is accepted — someone we can accept, who is accepted in the United States and who is also acceptable to the aggressor.

I want to jump back for a moment to one of your earlier answers where you mentioned that perhaps the path is being cleared and referred to the presidential election. Do you think the reaction we've seen in Estonia over the past day is really connected to the upcoming presidential election this fall?

Oh, I really couldn't say — that's something you'd have to ask the people who are dealing with it. Looking at the headlines right now, and we've seen similar ones before, you don't see this kind of reaction in neighboring countries. It suggests a certain insecurity and I would like to see our country be much more confident. The same actually goes for the European Union. I've seen quite a few European leaders who seem a bit shaky. We should be bolder, stand tall and show that even in relations with the aggressor.

Insecurity about what, exactly?

About how to move forward. Because we're also seeing that within the European Union, despite having a common foreign policy, there are very different opinions. Even the phrasing I used here about the need to move forward has been expressed by several countries. Latvia, Italy — it's not a very short list.

Why did you feel the need to raise the idea that Ukraine might have to cede territory — a notion that has always been completely unacceptable for Estonia?

I also made it clear that we will never accept the seizure of land by force. But as we know, in negotiations like these, territorial issues are always discussed — that's currently on the table. Both President Trump and President Zelenskyy have spoken about it. And our good neighbor Finland and its President Stubb have also emphasized that they gave up a fifth of their territory but preserved their state and their freedom. These are the kinds of negotiations that take place during wartime. Let's recall our own Treaty of Tartu from 1920 — when negotiations began, the borders looked one way and in the end, they turned out as they did. And during the occupation, we lost territory as well. So unfortunately and regrettably that is often one outcome. It could also go the other way, that Ukraine gains territory from Russia, but I can't say how that will turn out.

Eerik-Niiles Kross (Reform), a member of the Riigikogu Foreign Affairs Committee, posted on social media that groveling before the chekists is definitely not the solution and that Estonia's history should have taught us that. How do you respond?

I completely agree. There's no need to grovel before the chekists. But clearly, we want this war to end and negotiating during a war is not the same as groveling. I think everyone understands and I'll say it again — Ukraine needs peace and it needs the kind of peace that it wants for itself. We cannot dictate what Ukraine should do; what we can do is support them on that path.

Kristopher Muraveiski, Delfi: You mentioned that there has been little communication with the foreign minister and that you have to read these stories in the Estonian media. But there's supposed to be regular information flow between the foreign ministry and the Office of the President. Do you mean that there's simply no time to talk things through with the minister personally or is there really a lack of communication between the offices as well?

We're living in the 21st century — every minister has a phone and as far as I know, they also have my phone number. It doesn't take up much time to call me. I'm speaking about a specific situation today: I've read everything in Delfi that politicians are writing. And it's not the first time this has happened. Communication is essential and if they see a problem, then it's on them to reach out to me. Because if I don't see a problem, I have no reason to initiate contact.

In your view, should politicians call you more often if they have questions? For example, today the prime minister said at the government's press conference that your recent statements contradict Estonia's foreign policy line. You've said that Estonia's foreign policy remains unified.

Yes, of course. Then he should explain to me how he sees that difference because I don't see it. As I've said during this interview, our foreign policy toward Ukraine is very clearly unified. We support Ukraine and we're also helping to achieve a peace that is acceptable to Ukraine.

In your interview with NBC News, you spoke about a possible situation where Ukraine might have to consider temporarily giving up territory. What did you mean by "temporarily"?

What I meant was that we cannot imagine a scenario where, as a result of negotiations, part of Ukraine's land ends up permanently in Russia's hands. And once again, I want to stress: we do not accept the seizure of territory by force.

More broadly speaking, would you say you have a good relationship with the foreign minister?

In general, I have a good relationship with everyone — whether that's mutual is harder for me to say. I'm not the kind of person who looks to pick a fight. But if someone attacks, then of course I'll respond.

The foreign minister said that Europe has enforced a policy of isolating Russia. He made that statement after your Euronews interview became public. Doesn't the idea that Europe should appoint a special representative to engage with Russia amount to abandoning that isolation policy?

I think that's something we now need to discuss among ourselves — what the next steps should be. I'm certainly not the only one who's said that something must be done. But the question also is: isolation policies — those who know a bit of history — generally don't work. Sanctions, for example, may work temporarily, but not for very long. That means we have to start thinking about the next steps — how to pressure Russia into a position where it's willing to come to the table.

--

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