How should you currently be titled? We know that until recently President Alar Karis had not signed the decision to recall you from your ambassadorial post?

To my knowledge, the president still hasn't signed that decision, but it is up to him how or when he does so, or how he resolves the matter. In any case, I am still a diplomat, but my other calling is education, and that is the field I am currently working in.

What does that mean? It's news to us that you've found a new job.

Since March, I have been working as a history and civic education teacher at the Narva Adult School.

But de jure you are still effectively in the position of ambassador. How would you explain the situation, given that there is no new ambassador in place?

I think it's important that Estonia can operate effectively in a region like Central Asia, where we cover five countries in total. At the moment, a chargé d'affaires is working there, whom I know to be a serious professional diplomat and a good colleague. I wish them strength, and I am also following what is happening there, including the projects that were started during my time.

How would you describe the current relationship between Kazakhstan and Russia? The war of aggression in Ukraine has certainly put Kazakhstan in an uncomfortable position.

This is an important point: Kazakhstan also perceives Russia as a threat, which may not be fully understood here. Kazakhstan does not support the war, and there is actually strong public support for Ukraine in their society. The government, of course, is restrained and has its own pragmatic interests regarding Russia, as well as its own risks and vulnerabilities. But society is clearly very sympathetic toward Ukraine.

How do you see this relationship and dynamic developing further, including in the context of Kazakhstan's relations with the Western world?

I think the key choice for the Western world is to strengthen ties with this region and offer an alternative. Kazakhstan and the other Central Asian countries are interested in this—some more, some less. Kazakhstan, for example, is very interested in Western investment. Strong European companies are already present there, and Estonian companies are also active. What happens to Kazakhstan's foreign policy in the future will also depend on how the war in Ukraine is resolved and what happens in Russia going forward.

Is Russia starting to lose some of its influence in the region? We know that the United States, for example, has recently been very active in Azerbaijan, and Armenia has also strengthened ties with Europe. How do you see this shift?

Inevitably, the independent countries of Central Asia are looking in different directions. Historically, they have had strong ties with Russia, and those will remain, but the new situation and greater openness mean they are also looking increasingly toward Asia and the West. In fact, there is an opportunity for everyone to engage and build partnerships there.

From Estonia's perspective, I am convinced our long-term strategy should be to work with these countries in order to gradually reduce Russian influence and bring them closer to Europe.

It could be said that one starting point of the friction between President Alar Karis and the Foreign Ministry was the state visit to Kazakhstan, when you were criticized for advising the president not to voice positions important to the government regarding the war in Ukraine?

I think that if we talk about misunderstandings or tensions between these two institutions—the Foreign Ministry and the presidency—they go back further. At least that's what I was told when everything unfolded in Kazakhstan.

Our long-term plan was to go there to build relations and show a certain sensitivity to the current situation, while still supporting Ukraine, which we did. The short-term approach is to go to Kazakhstan, loudly state your positions, leave, and not worry about what comes next. My approach was the long-term one, but unfortunately it didn't work at that moment.

As for relations, I would stress that the president is the highest authority in the state hierarchy. Communication with the president should always show courtesy and respect, regardless of disagreements—that is certainly one issue in this dispute.

Another is that public conflict is not beneficial for Estonia and should be avoided. There are ways to do that, though I'm not sure they have been fully used. In another radio program, it was noted that the president has a foreign policy adviser who should ensure smooth communication between the two sides. I would also add that the secretary general of the Foreign Ministry could play a role in maintaining smooth relations. There is also the question of how press departments operate: do we amplify emerging problems or try to defuse them?

Do we issue a press release, or pick up the phone and call the president's foreign policy adviser?

These are diplomats we're talking about. The Foreign Ministry is, by its nature, a diplomatic institution, and the president is also, in a sense, a diplomat. We would all like things to run more smoothly.

But I think the deeper issue is the nature of Estonia's foreign policy debate. Are we able to exchange ideas and propose different approaches? One thing is the fundamental principles we don't revisit every time—such as supporting Ukraine or maintaining our European and NATO orientation. Another question is how we pursue those goals. In my view, there should be more room for discussion without every new idea being immediately shut down.

About two months ago, Foreign Ministry Secretary General Jonatan Vseviov said, referring to Estonia's foreign policy messaging, that it cannot be the case that one side in the orchestra plays Bach and the other Mozart. Is the discord really that significant?

I think your question is fair. That's exactly the issue—I haven't seen such a major disagreement. I haven't heard an orchestra where half plays Mozart and the other half Bach. Perhaps the difference lies in tempo, to continue the musical metaphor, or in how loudly things are played.

But to me, Estonia's foreign policy at the moment may be somewhat too linear or simplistic. The world is divided into black and white: those who are with us and those who are against us. Perhaps the goal and the means have been confused.

A message is not necessarily the goal—it is also a tool for achieving goals. Speaking out loudly is not always the best way to achieve results in every situation. In that sense, I think there could be more nuance and reflection.

Was what happened to you unfair?

When we talk about choices, I had planned to keep working—my work was unfinished. This was certainly not my choice, and my competencies are still there. This is the situation today; we'll see what happens in the future.

Speaking of differing visions, do you agree with what President Alar Karis recently said in an interview with Lääne Elu—that the Foreign Ministry lacks the ability to look further ahead? He partly said there are not enough people, skills, or even knowledge. Later, Karis softened that, saying he meant a lack of resources. You've long been part of the diplomatic corps—how did you perceive those remarks, and did you agree?

We do feel a lack of resources in the foreign service—there could always be more. At the same time, the Estonian state has to be realistic about where it places its embassies around the world. I think the emphasis could shift somewhat toward looking beyond our comfort zone—the familiar circle of democratic countries—and building lasting ties there as well. That requires a diplomatic approach.

Is there a risk in public discourse of being labeled, in a mild sense, a traitor for that?

What do you mean?

It may be a strong word, but something like deviating from the line or backing away from principles and values.

The purpose of diplomacy is to safeguard national interests, and one way to do that is by exchanging information and engaging even with countries whose views do not always fully align with ours. In that sense, there is nothing wrong with communicating with more problematic states.

Of course, we have currently taken the position of keeping Russia isolated and are working to maintain that—that's a separate issue. But there are many countries that are in between: they are not necessarily always with us, but they are not with Russia either. Those are precisely the countries we should pay more attention to.

So you do see that Estonia's foreign policy could be deeper and more long-term in its vision, and that we should engage even with leaders it may not be fashionable to engage with?

Priorities have to be set—where and how much energy to invest. But with some thought and effort, there are opportunities, especially in the so-called Global South, that we may not have fully used. Returning to the issue of foreign policy debate, there should be room for someone to step forward and raise a flag—to say that a certain direction needs strengthening or that we should act differently in some area.

In Estonia, there is also the question of whether we can have independent experts contributing to foreign policy. What role should institutions like the Foreign Ministry's policy planning department or the International Centre for Defence and Security play? Do they critically assess our foreign policy, or do they simply support the main line?
That's an important question—whether they have the space to offer critical analysis or to speak up when change is needed.

Explain how poor foreign policy could harm Estonia's interests.

In general, a single statement, opinion, or event does not usually cause major damage. If the main strategic line is in place and maintained, it should be relatively safe to proceed. The real risk arises when there is tunnel vision—when we move in one direction without paying attention to what is happening around us. That certainly carries risks.

Are we in that tunnel right now?

I hope not, although at times it feels like the perspective could be a bit broader.

--

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