EKRE is the first party to publicly put forward a name for a potential presidential candidate. You have also run for president before. As of today, there are only a few months left until the presidential elections. In the Riigikogu, where the first stage of the election should take place, is it even likely that any candidate will be nominated?

Whether someone will be nominated or not — no one can say right now, or at least no one knows. But if someone is nominated, that nomination can only happen with the collection of 21 signatures, and that can only be done by the Reform Party. Some have said that Kaja Kallas could be a candidate — I don't take that talk very seriously — but technically they could nominate someone on their own. For everyone else, it would require someone teaming up with others and supporting a candidate. That is possible, but at the moment I don't consider it very likely.

The current composition of the Riigikogu is such that the Reform Party faction has close to 40 MPs. They can certainly gather the required 21 signatures to nominate a presidential candidate. All other factions are smaller than 21, so the same coalition would have to be something like Isamaa and the Center Party together. Jokingly, one might say that EKRE and the Social Democrats could also scrape together 21 votes. And then there are the independents, who could lend support somewhere.

Yes, but I don't consider that very likely, and therefore I don't think anyone will be nominated. And if someone is nominated, it would most likely be done in order to already sabotage their chances in the Electoral College. Political games are always possible. But at least on one thing everyone agrees: the president will not be elected in the Riigikogu. It will go to the Electoral College, and there the balance of forces is completely different. There, electors come into play and competing coalitions will certainly form.

Let's return to the Riigikogu. The most talked‑about potential candidate is the current president, Alar Karis. Two parties — Isamaa and the Center Party — have officially announced that they support Karis continuing as president. They presumably won't nominate him in the Riigikogu because that would be tactically wrong.

That also depends on what Karis himself says. Karis isn't a coat you move from one hook to another — he has to give his consent. And as far as I understand, Karis is in a waiting position and will only allow himself to be nominated if he is almost 100 percent certain he will be elected and won't fail. So yes, they may support him, but Karis may not consent to being nominated in the Riigikogu.

But he could do so in the Electoral College if the calculations show it's feasible.

He could, because if we look at public opinion, Karis does have public support. In the Electoral College we can't talk in terms of party power balances, because there are many electoral alliances, and they are very diverse. I haven't calculated how many council chair positions belong to electoral alliances, but those chairs are usually the electors. A lot depends on what kinds of compromises emerge within those diverse alliances and who the electors will be. I think electoral alliances currently play a decisive role in who ultimately becomes president through the Electoral College.

Have you figured out why the Reform Party does not support Alar Karis continuing as president? Kristen Michal has said that "it won't be because of me," which is a rather odd statement since he isn't an MP. It seems to me that the blockade lies in the parliamentary faction — why?

I see only one explanation. They have their own candidate — a different candidate. It's not Alar Karis. They want to introduce that candidate at the right moment, and right now they're feeling their way around to see whether to bring them out in the Electoral College or already in the Riigikogu. Since they can gather the signatures anyway, their room for maneuver is much larger.

Let's assume the Reform Party does have its own candidate, not Karis. Together with Estonia 200, they might be able to reach an agreement. To elect a president in the Riigikogu, 68 votes are needed. But even with Social Democrats joining them, they wouldn't reach 68, assuming every faction votes as agreed.

As for Estonia 200 as a coalition partner, we can clearly see signs of disintegration there.

I don't really see that.

I do, and it's evident in the negotiations already underway regarding the next parliamentary elections — who gets what position, where, under what conditions, and in exchange for what favors.

But if those negotiations were happening as you say, they should be visible to the public.

These things don't happen that way.

We've seen MPs, even cabinet members, change parties — it's very hard to hide. My theory is that such negotiations aren't actually happening.

I disagree.

Can you name some names, then?

No, I won't name names.

Is EKRE negotiating with anyone from Estonia 200?

No. We're not. They're liberals. They don't suit us ideologically — or because of their lack of any real ideology. We have little to talk about with them. But yes, there are several people about whom it's already being said fairly confidently that this one is going here and that one there.

Regarding non‑aligned MPs whom that hypothetical ad‑hoc Reform–Estonia 200–Social Democrat coalition would need — can you imagine a candidate who would bring these independents behind a Reform Party nominee?

Those independents aren't as independent as they appear.

Some are.

Some are, but look at voting records. They often clearly show whom these window‑seat MPs or independents really support. Some so‑called independents already sit in factions — two with the Social Democrats, two with Isamaa, and at least one with the Reform Party.

There's one sitting with the Center Party as well.

Exactly. They've already positioned themselves, so independents can largely be factored into the math. Still, the votes probably won't add up, because the Social Democrats will under no circumstances support a Reform Party candidate — and neither will we.

That assumption seems reasonable. But can you explain why you think the Social Democrats wouldn't support a Reform candidate?

They still hold a grudge because they were kicked out of government, and they don't want to discredit themselves by acting like a Reform Party poodle in the presidential election. Their main goal is the parliamentary elections less than a year away. Parties are calculating now based not on the presidential election but on the next Riigikogu elections.

You, too, have planned your presidential run primarily to build your party's image ahead of parliamentary elections.

That's not lost on us. But our aim is to show that there is one party and one candidate who is not a cartel party or cartel candidate. We want to build our campaign around drawing attention to the need for direct presidential elections instead of backroom deals. A president elected by the people would truly have a mandate — to be a balancing force, to stand above factions, to be a real head of state. We want to emphasize that we do not support the current appointment‑based system used in Estonia.

Look how hard it is to appoint one.

Yes, but in the end one always gets appointed. Kersti Kaljulaid was appointed too.

Do you really think municipal electors are all in the Reform Party's pocket?

No. If that were the case —

Then that wouldn't be appointment‑based.

Well… it still is.

No, it isn't. Neither you nor I can predict who will become president. What kind of appointment is that?

Right now we can't, but —

That's a very poor appointment indeed.

The appointment lies in who gets nominated in the first place.

You yourself said Reform can't nominate someone in the Riigikogu because they lack confidence in success.

The candidates currently being tested, floated, and introduced to the public — all of them ultimately suit the mainstream and the cartel. It's a game of pretending democracy. What difference did it make whether we had Karis or Soomere? None whatsoever. They all adhere to the same ideological paradigm, the same black‑and‑white worldview.

I understand, but explain this then: if Karis is, as you say, a cartel‑acceptable president — maybe even a "marionette president" — how does that manifest? I've observed Karis being extraordinarily inconvenient for the Kallas–Michal coalition.

He hasn't been. He ultimately promulgated everything. He promulgated the Registered Partnership Act, allowed Kaja Kallas to govern for two months after expelling the Center Party, even though she should have resigned and sought a renewed mandate. Karis allowed the parliament to be neutralized during obstruction. He has promulgated even constitutionally questionable or outright unconstitutional decisions. He's been very obedient.

The conflict arose only because he made statements that don't fully align with our black‑and‑white foreign policy line, and this is now being used to push him out and bring in candidates more suitable to Reform — or perhaps others — candidates agreed upon internally.

If Karis runs again and is elected for a second term without any Reform Party votes, is he still a cartel president?

Of course. Absolutely.

Who makes up this cartel?

All parties except EKRE.

Your life sounds hard.

That's harsh, but true.

Let's talk about other parties. Estonia 200 polls at 1–2 percent. Reform is at 12–15 percent. Their support is extremely low. The popular parties are opposition Isamaa and the Center Party. Social Democrats and EKRE fall in between. What have you done wrong? You claim principles and popularity, but support is lacking.

I wouldn't say support is lacking.

It's low, compared to the Center Party.

Isamaa spent years at five or six or seven percent. Now they're at 25. Politics is dynamic.

What could you do differently now?

Six months ago, after the Center Party split, they were at seven to nine percent. Then they climbed. I don't dramatize this. Politics goes up and down. We weren't in focus for a while, and the media did its best to silence us. Recently, we've returned to focus and ratings are already rising. But I don't obsess over polls — they fluctuate wildly. It depends whether there's another "Prigozhin scandal" before elections — or a corruption scandal for someone else.

Did I just hear you predict that Estonian media will manufacture a corruption scandal against Reform to influence elections?

I meant law enforcement, not the media.

The Deep State?

Yes. Or perhaps the Deep State isn't in Tallinn at all, but across the ocean.

The United States?

Of course. Do you think they don't know what's going on here?

The US interferes in Estonian domestic politics?

They interfere everywhere — they're a global power, and we're a border state.

And this time they'll intervene against Reform?

I'm not predicting. I'm speculating.

Let's return to EKRE. From the outside, it looks like you're doing excellent grassroots work. No other party engages voters so systematically. Your tour of cultural centers drew huge crowds. But those were people who would vote EKRE anyway.

Not only. In some places it was fifty‑fifty. About half were supporters; the rest came out of curiosity or discontent.

If another party held an event in a large hall, they wouldn't draw hundreds. But I suspect those people would vote EKRE anyway. Your problem is expanding beyond them. You've likely lost voters to Isamaa and the Center Party. Why?

Perhaps because we lacked novelty at one point, and the party split hurt us badly.

That was nearly two years ago, and the splinter party is basically gone.

That doesn't erase the disappointment people felt. It had lasting impact. As for voters moving to Isamaa and the Center Party — let them. They'll be disappointed soon enough. Look at Tallinn. What's changed? I live partly in Lääne County, partly in Haabersti. What's different? Nothing. The Hipodroomi intersection shut down for 18 months — how is that improvement? Roads narrowed, lanes removed, nonsense bike paths — "we are creating modern urban space." It's insane.

Back to presidential elections: you thought Isamaa and the Center Party might give you the needed signatures in the Electoral College.

I emphasized electoral alliances. But yes, cooperation is possible.

Why would they support you? You're their biggest competitor.

Because they don't have a good candidate of their own.

What if their candidate is Alar Karis?

Karis isn't comparable to me competitively.

I disagree — he's the incumbent.

Incumbents often lose. You want me not to criticize Isamaa and the Center Party while asking why our voters went to them. They believed propaganda — change that won't come, because they're cartel parties.

Traditionally, opposition parties cooperate. Now opposition doesn't cooperate at all. You don't cooperate with Isamaa or the Center Party.

That's not entirely true. We often submit joint motions to reject or halt legislation. There is some cooperation. But everyone pulls the blanket toward themselves, especially as elections approach. That's inevitable.

What will EKRE's main election topics be?

Not presidential elections. The core issue is that constitutional order no longer functions. The constitution is ignored — through court rulings, suppression of opposition, lack of separation of powers, unchecked security services. Parliament has been neutralized. This is serious.

Look at the Kersti Kracht affair — over ten minutes on public television. That signals a need to restore constitutional order, civilian oversight of force structures, and separation of powers.

People also care about economic survival. We must roll back the tax spree — abolish the car tax and registration tax, reduce electricity excise, leave the power exchange, abolish CO₂ trading. Electricity prices can be lowered by government decision alone.

Food security is also critical. EU directives prevent people from processing home‑grown food. In a crisis or war, we'd have an empty country. No independent food production or support base. Instead, nonstop propaganda about defense spending at 5.4 percent. That's not enough — it requires a systemic approach.

What will Reform Party campaign on?

Security, as usual. They have no other option — especially if the Ukraine war ends before elections.

Isn't EKRE vulnerable on security issues? Every time you gain momentum, someone from your party says something that alarms voters about Russia.

Our stance on Russia is realistic, not suspicious. No one believes a viper becomes a grass snake just by shedding skin. Helping Ukraine doesn't mean destroying ourselves. That's our criticism — not opposition to helping Ukraine. We've done more than we can sustain.

However large Estonia's contribution, even giving 100 percent wouldn't win the war. Victory depends on the collective West. We can't wage an endless war at our people's expense.

Finally, as a Estonia's former ambassador to Moscow — have you sensed changes in Russia lately?

Losses aren't as massive as propaganda suggests, but they hurt. There is deep dissatisfaction. The war has lasted longer than WWII. Losses are heavy. Oligarchs and business elites are unhappy; sanctions are biting. The Kremlin is unhappy with the military, and vice versa. There's serious tension.

I don't believe Putin will be overthrown during the war. But when the war ends, power restructuring is likely. They're already preparing for that, trying to avoid chaos like after the USSR collapsed. That's the change.

--

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