When we conducted interviews during your time as prime minister, we often began by tallying up the crises. It now seems the world has gone completely off the rails. Does the world and the international order we've known perhaps since the end of the Cold War still exist or has it in fact already begun to break down?

It has certainly changed. If we think about it, a rules-based international order was already being attempted after the First World War with the League of Nations, but that did not truly succeed in maintaining peace. After the Second World War, the United Nations and the UN Charter were established, laying out all of these principles.

However, we can see that these principles are being violated. This effectively began with Russia's attack on Ukraine and unfortunately there have been more such developments. There are certainly major powers that would prefer a world based on the idea that whoever has power can take whatever they want. But most countries in the world still want the international system to be based on rules.

How difficult a dilemma does this new situation create for European countries and especially for Estonia? We have always said: let's agree on rules, behave consistently and ensure everything is fair. But now?

Belgian Prime Minister Paul-Henri Spaak once said that in Europe there are two kinds of countries: small countries and those that have not yet realized they are small. In reality, most countries in the world are relatively small in terms of power. We stand alongside all those countries that want order to prevail and for the world to be based on rules. In fact, we must stick together.

The war in Iran has now entered its fifth week. Donald Trump has accused NATO of not coming to his aid and in a recent interview said he would seriously consider withdrawing the U.S. from the alliance. Are alarm bells and panic lights going off in European capitals right now or is this being seen more as just another statement from Trump?

To my knowledge, no request has been made to NATO, so to claim that NATO did not come to help is not justified in any way. If we think even about our small Estonia — April is Veterans Month — and consider the soldiers we have lost in wars where the United States said Article 5 had been invoked and asked us to come to their aid — we all went. Other small countries also lost a significant number of people relative to their populations. That hurts. I know it does not only hurt Estonia, but also other small countries that have felt they have always fulfilled their obligations as allies.

President Trump has indeed always had criticisms of NATO. Previously, it was that everyone was contributing too little. Now, since the last NATO summit, everyone has increased their defense spending and Europe is genuinely trying to carry more of the burden. Yet again, however, there are criticisms that are not actually based on any real requests.

This quote: "I would say [it's] beyond reconsideration. I was never swayed by NATO. I always knew they were a paper tiger; and Putin knows it too, by the way." Those are pretty harsh words.

Yes, very harsh words. Precisely because who benefits from such statements or from disagreements among allies? Vladimir Putin and similar figures. If we think about what distinguishes the superpower that the United States is, it's this: when Russia goes to war, it goes alone. When China goes, it goes alone. When the United States goes, it usually has 31 allies behind it.

At the same time, it has not been clear what the objectives are and there has been no consultation with anyone. On the one hand, it is said that no one is needed; on the other, there is criticism about why others are not coming to help — without any such requests actually being made. Such requests are not made through the media.

This is a very complicated situation because a president's words certainly carry weight and reflect how he thinks. Given the significant influence of the U.S. president, this is undoubtedly a warning sign. But the question now is what we do about it. Is this a genuine criticism that we can address or simply a pretext for doing something that has long been planned? In any case, it does not make the United States or any of its allies stronger.

It is clear that an actual withdrawal from NATO may be difficult to expect, since there is no two-thirds majority in Congress. But its effectiveness can also be reduced through funding or troop presence.

Yes, and that is precisely why it is so important that in Europe we step up our efforts — not only in terms of investments that must go into defense, but also that the defense industry itself needs to step up so that we are actually capable of producing and strengthening our own defense. Of course, we cannot replace the Americans because NATO is built on alliances. We must do everything to ensure those relationships function, but unfortunately, a relationship is always a two-way street. That is the concern right now.

By the way, how much does your office communicate with Iran?

They do maintain contact. I myself have communicated with Iran's foreign minister.

Does he pick up the phone and speak quite reasonably?

A foreign minister is a foreign minister. It is clear that we have a wide range of criticisms of Iran. Even back when the nuclear deal was still in place, there were concerns that they were developing nuclear weapons; in addition there is their missile program. There is also the fact that they have carried out cyber and hybrid attacks targeting Europe, supported Russia in the war in Ukraine and detained European citizens. There is no shortage of issues to discuss with them.

That list could go on: the Houthis, Hezbollah and so on.

Exactly — all those that help create tensions in different countries. Iran has been very open about what it thinks of the countries around it. It has certainly played a role in destabilizing the order there.

The latest European Council meeting showed that positions across Europe vary widely. Many say, as have you, that this is not our war. The United Kingdom is now convening 35 countries to discuss what to do about this situation because we cannot take a step back in security policy. What can Europe actually do at this point?

We already have naval operations in that region. If we look at the broader geographic area, we have Operation Aspides and Operation Atalanta, which have been escorting ships past the Houthis. The operational boundary has been the Muscat line, meaning the mandate has applied below that. Now we can reinforce this and deploy more ships there.

Member states do not currently have the desire for Europe to be present in the Strait of Hormuz, but since the Houthis have also entered this conflict, the Red Sea trade route must remain open. These are the kinds of measures we can take and we have also proposed them ourselves. To be fair, when we speak one-on-one with the Americans, they say the same thing: even if this war ends, concerns about keeping trade routes open will not disappear and they will need our help with that.

Russia is supplying Iran with intelligence. Do you understand why the United States, as a global superpower, tolerates this? Based on that intelligence, Iran can attack U.S. military targets.

I do not understand.

A completely depressing world.

It is indeed hard to understand. That connection has been very clear. If we consider that President Donald Trump is not a very patient person, then for some reason his patience with the Russians does not seem to run out.

How difficult a situation does this put us in? You are also known for speaking plainly and sharply, but the United States probably does not want to hear right now what we really think of them.

That is not really the issue. The question is what we can do together. We have never seen eye to eye with the Americans on every issue in the world — we have always had disagreements and that will remain the case. But we can talk through those disagreements and raise these issues. Diplomacy is not about speaking only of pleasant things where there is complete agreement. On the contrary — you debate, you try to persuade the other side and you present your arguments.

Are you referring to Marco Rubio and the G7 meeting?

No, I mean meetings in general. For example, when I visit countries that are very far from Ukraine, I always try to find examples from their own history to draw parallels. When I was in Kuwait, I gave this example: if you take UN speeches from the time when Iraq attacked Kuwait and replace Iraq with Russia and Kuwait with Ukraine, they are practically word for word the same.

The only difference is the outcome because at that time the entire international community said that this would not be tolerated as it violated the rules we had agreed upon. Iraq was collectively pushed out and required to pay compensation. At moments like that, people begin to think that this is indeed a similar situation and perhaps they also come to see that they should be on the right side of history.

There has been speculation that the current U.S. administration keeps track of certain remarks — even, for example, when you once said that the free world needs a new leader. Should such things be left unsaid because of that?

I cannot really go back and say whether that was very wrong, considering everything that has happened since.

That context was after Volodymyr Zelenskyy's visit to the White House and that disgraceful incident. Let's talk about Ukraine. Four years have passed since the Bucha massacre — indeed, the first photos of those horrific crimes were released exactly today. You attended a memorial ceremony yesterday together with European Union foreign ministers. What message did you bring to Ukraine?

Yesterday, we were indeed in Bucha. It is a good illustration when people say, "Why not just give up Donbas and then there will be peace?" It is not just about territory — it is about the people who live there. Bucha is a clear example of what happens to ordinary people. These were not soldiers, but ordinary families living in a suburb of Kyiv who, when the occupation came, were simply killed, tortured and raped. The atrocities committed there are horrific. This must be remembered at all times.

What we emphasized there and what must continue to be emphasized is accountability. I already pushed for a tribunal on the crime of aggression when I was prime minister and we are continuing that effort now.

It could move faster.

Of course it could. Coming from a small country where we are used to things moving more quickly, that frustration is there. But these processes are still moving ahead. A lasting peace requires justice — that those responsible are held accountable.

The issue of the crime of aggression is important because war crimes are committed by soldiers against people in occupied areas. But those war crimes would not happen without the leaders who decided to carry out the aggression and send the soldiers there. If soldiers are held accountable for war crimes, then those who made the decisions must also be held accountable for starting the war.

The 20th sanctions package already — and again, it's slow. How much would it help curb the shadow fleet?

When it comes to the shadow fleet, it has been a very effective tool that we have pushed forward. We have now decided that we will not wait for any packages: as soon as we identify new vessels, we place them under sanctions immediately — even if their flags change.

I was actually surprised that when we did this for the first time, Russia's oil revenues via the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea dropped by 30 percent in a week. The impact is significant. Of course, they adapt and come up with new methods, so we also have to remain constantly vigilant. We are cooperating with countries around the world and most are very willing to work with us. As soon as we point out that a vessel is sailing under their flag and is part of such a fleet, they are ready to respond. The 20th package will come as well, but Hungary has once again blocked it.

Let's come back to Hungary in a moment. Arguably more effective than any sanctions has been Ukraine's wave of drone strikes on oil facilities and ports. Does Europe understand what Ukraine is doing?

It does. If we look at the Baltic Sea ports, 40 percent of the revenue Russia uses to finance the war comes from there. When those ports are targeted, it has a major impact on Russia's ability to fund the war. It has been a very effective tool.

But there is a narrative being spread that the Baltic states have opened their airspace for these attacks.

I understand that such claims are indeed being circulated, but to my knowledge, the Baltic states have not allowed this. Of course, this can be confirmed by the Estonian government.

Government members confirmed that today as well. How do you assess the prospects of the so-called peace process overall? Persistent rumors suggest that the United States is still pressuring Ukraine to give up Donbas.

Russia has not taken these negotiations seriously from the very beginning. When I speak with countries that are in contact with Russia, they clearly say that Russia expects the United States to adhere to the Alaska agreement. That represents the absolute maximum program Russia is demanding.

In reality, Russia has not taken a single step, while Ukraine has made quite a number of compromises. We must not forget that one side is the aggressor that attacked another country and the other is the victim. If we force the victim to make all the concessions, we lose sight of the bigger picture. That must not happen because we have done this before — each time, Russia's appetite has grown and it has taken the next step.

I counted that over the past 100 years, Russia has attacked at least 19 countries, some of them three or four times. Not one of those countries has ever attacked Russia. For this to end, concessions must come from Russia. How can we be sure that they would not simply use peace as a pause to regroup?

Hungary — the elephant in the room. During Viktor Orbán's 16 years in power, Hungary has become the most Kremlin-friendly country. Does such a Hungary belong in the European Union?

Hungary is a member of the European Union and we have foundational treaties that state member countries must cooperate in good faith. In reality, the requirement for unanimity was not intended to function as a veto.

Often in foreign policy, 26 countries want one thing, but one country is opposed. As a result, we end up not doing what would be democratically right — following the direction supported by the majority — but instead refrain from action because of that one country's position. This creates significant frustration and we are thinking a lot about how to deal with this situation.

There are not many options, since no one is discussing expulsion, but suspending voting rights or increasing the role of qualified majority voting are possibilities. At the same time, this is a double-edged sword that could one day backfire on Estonia as well.

I have always said this, especially when I was prime minister: whenever this topic came up, I would point out that for 50 years we had no voice — our voice meant nothing. Now we sit at the table as equals and our vote carries the same weight as that of Germany or France. That means a great deal to us, but we have never abused it. We have always worked on the principle of consensus and made compromises.

But now the situation has fundamentally changed. Sometimes it feels as though we are playing by the rules, while no one else is. We have to consider whether the time has come to revisit those rules because if we want to be a geopolitical force, we must be united and ready to make decisions.

We're in a suit and tie, playing chess, while on the other side are brutes not wearing boxing gloves. The tone of the phone call where [Hungary's foreign minister] Péter Szijjártó speaks with Sergei Lavrov and nervously asks if he said something wrong — it sounds like a superior speaking to a subordinate. How do you even sit at the same table with Szijjártó?

We have to. I have read excerpts of that call. It is clear that European ministers should be working for Europe to achieve common goals — not for anyone else.

Because one country cannot hold all of Europe hostage indefinitely. That is not normal.

That truly is not normal.

A bit of gossip as well: is your relationship with Ursula von der Leyen really as bad as Politico has repeatedly written?

Who doesn't enjoy a good catfight story? But joking aside — on a personal level, we get along very well. From the very beginning, my position has involved certain institutional tensions. As prime minister, I put together several state budgets under difficult conditions where we had to make cuts and raise taxes, which is not popular — and I know that very well. In my view, we cannot simply duplicate efforts in Europe. If something is already being done well in one place, then let it be done there.

Outside Europe, we are seen as one Europe. To taxpayers, we are also one Europe — no one distinguishes whether something comes from the Commission, the European External Action Service or the Council of the European Union. We need to function as a single team. I have taken a firm stance against such duplication, but on a personal level, we get along just fine.

Because if we already have a high representative, then perhaps the president does not need to make ten posts on the first day of a war?

Everyone decides for themselves how they spend their days. I try to do my job as well as possible. My role is to coordinate 27 member states and the commissioners dealing with foreign affairs. At times, that is difficult.

When asked about the difference compared to being in government, I say that in government I had three coalition partners — now I have 27. It is a constant balancing act to arrive at a common position. We are doing our best to carry out this work in a way that strengthens Europe's geopolitical influence.

Is there also the aspect that, in a major crisis, it is the president's role to engage on all fronts?

Of course. It is clear that in difficult times, that kind of leadership is needed. António Costa, the head of the European Commission, and I are working toward the same goal at different levels. It is very important that once we have aligned the positions of the member states, we also consistently pursue that unified line. Otherwise, we are not credible.

So how do we piece this world back together?

We believe in diplomatic solutions. In Iran's case as well, there ultimately has to be a return to the negotiating table and an agreement. It cannot be that Iran starts charging tolls for passage through the Strait of Hormuz because the openness of sea lanes is a fundamental principle.

There are many crises and Europe has a major role to play here. If there are forces that want the world to be based solely on raw power, most of the world does not want that. They look to Europe because we stand for a rules-based international order. We speak about human rights and one might say that human rights do not concern everyone, but that is not true. If we think about our own struggle for freedom, it is exactly the same: the idea that you have the same rights and a free media.

--

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