Mr. Defense Minister, you have come to Washington at a very tense moment, with U.S. President Donald Trump pressuring NATO allies. How is the mood in the corridors of Washington right now? Has the situation in the Middle East brought more tension than usual?

We have had a wide variety of meetings here. We discussed with the White House the impact of the Middle East conflict on Ukraine, and how the U.S. views the Ukrainian peace process. My message has consistently been that we must not forget about Ukraine; Ukraine remains of crucial importance. It is clear that more attention here is being given to the Middle East and to the conflict with Iran. My message has been that we must be open to discussing this topic. When allies have concerns, other allies must be ready to discuss them. No concrete request has been made by the U.S. armed forces to allies. So these messages have changed quite a lot over the past two days.

However, the overall understanding has been that the conflict in the Middle East and Iran directly impacts the U.S. too. The midterm elections are looming. Farmers are being directly affected by fertilizer prices and fuel costs, and this may begin to impact domestic politics. Consequently, I do not believe the U.S. has much interest in a long war [in the Middle East]. The messages we have been hearing on this have suggested an ongoing military operation lasting weeks rather than months.

[U.S. President Donald] Trump has stated that if NATO allies do not come to help, the alliance will be facing a bleak future. But how should this statement be interpreted — is it a negotiation tactic or a serious warning?

My response at all the meetings has been that now is the time to build bridges, not to destroy them. Russia is the one who benefits most from this situation right now. Russia's budget has gained significant relief from rising oil prices, and those extra funds are being used to attack Ukraine.

So, when taking a look at the security of our region alone, good relations between Europe and the U.S. are currently much more significant than the individual disagreements. In recent days, we have been hearing reaction from various European countries to President Trump's demands. My belief is it is more important now to focus on building bridges, and to be prepared to sit down and discuss what actually needs doing. Keeping the Strait of Hormuz open will be no simple task. It can be impacted by artillery fire, or blocked by other means. This is not as simple as sending some ships there and everything works out. No — it is a much more complex task.

Trump's close ally Senator Lindsey Graham has said that he spoke with Trump today and had never heard him so angry before. Graham also wrote that he is surprised by what he sees as the arrogance of the allies. Are transatlantic relations at a crisis point right now?

I have been hearing some similar statements. We met with retired General [Dan] Caine, who is very close to Trump's team, and his messages were quite similar — the administration is currently in a rather frustrated mood. We must take into account that the midterm elections are coming, and so domestic politics will start to influence the White House's actions. It is clear that the White House needs to define an "end game" for the war with Iran — how they define its conclusion. Plus, of course, there is also the question that if the Americans and the Israelis share the same understanding, what says Iran? Will Iran agree to such a solution or continue blocking the Strait of Hormuz? There are undercurrents for which we do not yet have answers, but our task is to ensure we do not destroy those bridges.

As for the administration's desire to ensure security in the Strait of Hormuz, where does Estonia stand in this discussion?

We have said that we are ready to discuss and sit down at the table. This is a global issue. It is affecting Estonian farmers and ordinary consumers. When fuel prices rise, this impacts the price of bread and all economic drivers. It is in every Estonian's interest to find a solution as quickly as possible, but simply slamming the door shut will certainly not help.

Has Estonia's readiness to participate in a Strait of Hormuz operation been discussed with the commander of the Estonian Defense Forces (EDF)?

Naturally, we are in contact with the EDF. This primarily relates to the navy. But again — no concrete request has been made regarding what the allies' role should be. There is only President Trump's statement, and on the other hand, a statement that no help is needed. This means at the military level the discussions have not yet reached the stage of defining what the actual contributions of the various allies might be. We are at a very early stage. Whether anything will come of this, it is currently quite futile to speculate. However, we must be ready to contribute to resolving this issue.

Have the meetings here left the impression that Estonians are expected to give a positive answer, or does the administration also accept refusal?

The administration's main desire right now is to talk. And through talking, we can look for solutions. Estonia does not have that many warships to send there. Yes, we have capabilities such as mine-hunting and demining — we have those skills and are part of a NATO mine countermeasures group — but we do not have, for example, corvettes or escort ships to deploy there.

And this is not such a simple task. If you simply assign a warship to escort tankers... the tanker companies themselves must sign up to take on that risk. So this is a much more complex issue. It is not just a military matter — it also involves negotiations with shipping companies and insurance companies, about how they view the situation. And of course, in the end, we are all interested in ensuring that free trade — the oil and gas flows — can be restored.

Is this about loyalty to the Americans?

This is first and foremost a question of how the Americans may want to end the conflict and whether part of ending it is ensuring that the Strait of Hormuz gets reopened. If it is simply stated that military objectives have been achieved but economic objectives remain unmet, then that is only half the equation. Therefore, the solution must address the full equation.

Europeans have complained that Americans have not set out their Middle East objectives. Do you now have greater clarity following this visit?

There is now indeed an understanding of why the attack was launched and what the broader objectives are. Both Israel and the U.S. aim primarily to strip Iran of the capability to use nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles so that it would not pose a threat to the civilized world. Naturally, there are also counter-terrorism goals. If this also results in freedom for the Iranian people and the ability to decide their own future, that would be an added bonus. These are the main objectives behind the action.

You also met today with influential administration [deputy national security] adviser Andy Baker. Is his attitude toward allies as strict as the president's?

Andy Baker has extensive experience, both as [Vice President] J.D. Vance's security adviser when Vance was in Congress and now as part of the president's team. As someone responsible for security, he certainly understands the need to maintain alliances. His interest during our meeting was not confined to the Middle East only. We also discussed bilateral relations between Estonia and the U.S., and the potential interests of our defense industries. Americans have clear interest in certain capabilities that Estonia does well, such as counter-drone capabilities. So our meeting was definitely broader than just the Middle East conflict and U.S. domestic politics.

Is Ukraine no longer on the table for the Americans?

No, it is certainly not [off the table]. The Trump administration clearly still wants to achieve peace in Ukraine. It is not the top priority at the moment, as the Middle East has a greater impact on domestic politics, but it has not gone away. The desire to find peace in Ukraine remains and as quickly as possible. Is it viable in the near term? Probably later, in comparison with the Iran conflict.

How complex or otherwise is it to make contact with the current administration; to speak face-to-face, to understand what they are actually thinking, rather than relying on what they post on social media?

We always have our contacts. The issue is more about timing — for example, arranging a meeting with Pete Hegseth began months in advance. The current situation is simply such that the Secretary of War must be more involved with military matters. One must grasp the situation — not everything can be planned in advance. But we do have contacts. However, it has never been the case that you just call up Washington and everything falls into place right away. It is a massive country with vast systems. Our task is to foster good relations.

--

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