"As for the working atmosphere, I would not say it has changed much. Exercises are still being planned, plans are still being drawn up and, perhaps most importantly, the process of Americans withdrawing from Europe is itself a systematic one and is also constantly being discussed in various committees. So you could say that here at NATO headquarters, perhaps people do not feel that political tension quite as strongly," Luik said.

At the same time, Luik acknowledged that comments by U.S. President Donald Trump describing NATO as a paper tiger do have a certain impact. Still, he said NATO's deterrence remains intact.

"Of course it affects everyone. It is no secret that one of NATO's key deterrence elements is political deterrence. And naturally, as much as possible, all such rhetoric should be avoided. But on the other hand, I would by no means say that NATO's deterrence capability has weakened if we look, for example, at Estonia from another angle. Right now Estonia is holding the Spring Storm exercises, involving 16 countries, all NATO members. There are 12,000 troops, Britain's 4th Brigade and the Americans are still present with a battalion. So if we look specifically at Estonia, no one should have any doubt that if Estonia were attacked, NATO would intervene," Luik said.

Speaking about the withdrawal of 5,000 U.S. troops from Germany, Luik said it is not as significant as the United States deciding not to deploy Tomahawk missiles with a range of more than 1,500 kilometers to Europe.

"Naturally, that long-range firepower capability which the Americans promised the Germans — if it is not deployed, then that is undoubtedly very bad news because it is a direct strategic capability," Luik said.

According to Luik, the worst-case scenario would be if the Americans withdrew from Europe the headquarters and communications systems overseen by the U.S. European Command.

"The Americans also have a headquarters structure covering all U.S. Air Force operations, run out of Ramstein Air Base. Attached to that are the operations of all allied countries. If those structures disappear and if logistical support disappears as well — for example strategic airlift or the capability to refuel aircraft in the air — then that is a very serious problem and of course we all hope that does not happen," Luik said.

Luik also considers Europe's lack of bomber aircraft to be a problem.

He acknowledged that the United States possesses a whole range of military capabilities that Europe simply cannot replicate.

"But if we look at deterrence as a whole, what is deterrence? It is ultimately the question of whether the adversary believes it is credible that NATO would intervene if it attacked a NATO country. And right now there are no signs whatsoever that military deterrence has been damaged," Luik added.

Still, Luik said Europe must take action.

"In many ways, we also need to think about how we could fight more cheaply. How we could use more drones. But perhaps also very simple solutions. For example, land mines, which are rarely discussed in the European context because everyone talks about sophisticated new high-tech systems, but in reality there are also some very old yet reliable solutions that should be discussed," Luik said.

Luik considers a U.S. withdrawal from NATO extremely unlikely, both politically and militarily.

"A great deal of what the Americans have in Europe is necessary for the Americans themselves," he added.

Row with Europe

Speaking about tensions between the United States and European countries stemming from the war with Iran, Luik said Trump has not approached NATO with a request for the alliance to intervene in the Middle East. At the same time, Trump has accused European allies of failing to provide support.

"In reality, this was never planned as a NATO operation of any kind. Clearly, it would be impossible to achieve consensus among all 32 countries for that. But where did the problem begin? It began with the Americans assuming that NATO countries would provide their airspace and airfields for carrying out the operation against Iran, including launching bombing operations against Iran from those airfields. And initially there was very strong opposition from European countries. That has now changed. Various different solutions have been found that allow the Americans to operate. But this came quite late and created a great deal of bitterness in Washington," Luik said.

"The biggest issue was the use of Diego Garcia island. It is located in a strategically very important position in the Indian Ocean. The Americans have always regarded it more or less as their own base, although legally it is in fact British territory," he added.

"What happened, happened. The past cannot be changed. I think it is good now that countries are giving the Americans that opportunity; the Americans are our most important allies. And even countries that have not been particularly supportive of the Americans have by now made quite a few concessions to them. So I hope that this dispute, if it is not resolved, will at least become quieter," Luik said.

"What I do consider positive news, however, is that in 2025, last year, all NATO countries reached the point where they are spending 2 percent of GDP on defense. Some took longer to get there, some achieved it more quickly, but I think that is quite a good foundation for moving forward. And in fact, compared with 2024, the increase last year was 20 percent across NATO as a whole. That is a very strong figure and at the moment roughly 50 percent of NATO defense spending in absolute terms — real money — comes from the United States. The other 50 percent comes from Canada and Europe, which again represents significant progress," Luik said.

According to Luik, Estonia and the Baltic states are viewed favorably by the United States.

"In Defense Secretary Hegseth's case, this has already become one of the key elements of his speeches where he says there are complete model allies, as he calls us, and then lists them. That group is fairly small and the Baltic states are always included. It is absolutely certain that our actions have clearly been noticed," Luik said.

Communicating with Russia

Commenting on recent statements about possible engagement with Russia, Luik said these issues need to be distinguished from one another.

"One question is this: when we say 'we,' who exactly are 'we'? I understand that we are primarily talking about Europe and Europe's engagement, not Estonia somehow communicating separately with Moscow. As for wartime, Europe has the opportunity to help Ukraine. For example, negotiations between Ukraine and Russia are currently taking place, mediated by the United States. They are doing this at the request of both Ukraine and Russia. If Europe were asked to participate, we could also serve as a mediator, but we are not being asked because Russia does not view us as that kind of force. I think that at the moment, negotiating with the Americans and Ukrainians and trying to reflect our positions to them in that way is the best option. I do not think there is really anywhere further to go from here because there is a war underway and peace negotiations can only really be conducted by the parties to the war. We cannot negotiate on Ukraine's behalf," Luik said.

Luik is also skeptical about engaging with Russia after the war ends.

"In my opinion, the idea that we should simply sit down with the Russians, keep channels open and that this will somehow produce something positive has completely discredited itself. That has been tried and it did not succeed — we saw that even immediately before the war. But Estonia must of course take into account that there are a huge number of heads of state in Europe who intend to begin dialogue with Moscow. At that point, we will have to adopt some sort of position on the matter," Luik said.

"If negotiations do take place, then in my view the main question is: negotiations about what? What exactly are we negotiating over, what is the goal of those negotiations and how likely do we think it is that any success can be achieved there? Simply having an abstract discussion about whether or not to talk to Russia is pointless in my opinion. Russia is the aggressor, a war criminal, and in that sense we have nothing to discuss," he said.

Speaking about developments inside Russia, Luik said signs of dissatisfaction and protest are now emerging that are no longer tied to the traditional opposition, but instead involve people who had been neutral or even supportive of Putin becoming skeptical.

"I believe a great deal of this is also connected to the fact that the Ukrainians have become highly effective at long-range strikes and their reach now extends very far. So Ukraine has become the most powerful military force in Europe, certainly among European countries," Luik said.

Host Andres Kuusk also asked Luik whether he would consider running to become Estonia's next president.

"I have to say that such a candidacy is not part of my future plans. And let's be honest, I have been involved in politics long enough to predict that, given the political forces and their balance, either an independent candidate who is not a member of any party will be elected — whereas I am a member of Isamaa — or President Karis will continue, though of course he himself must decide whether he wishes to do so," Luik said.

--

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