Estonia’s prime minister, Kaja Kallas, born in 1977 in Tallinn, has emerged as a strong voice against Vladimir Putin and a steadfast defender of Ukraine. On the eve of the European Council gathering in Brussels, she reaffirms her stance with clarity. In interviews with EL PERIÓDICO and several European outlets, she emphasizes that the threat is not only to European security but to global safety. Her message is clear: when aggression meets success in one place, it becomes an invitation to try elsewhere. Her focus is squarely on strengthening military readiness.
What danger does Russia pose to Estonia?
The same danger it poses to any NATO member. We are all in this together. Attacking one ally is attacking all. If Ukraine falls, Europe will feel the impact. There would be a pause in conflict for a few years, followed by a broader escalation if defense investment remains insufficient. Russia does not want war with NATO, and we do not want war with Russia. But if we fail to invest adequately, fear will grow. The defense challenge is clear: the moment defense is needed, it is already too late. Estonia will raise taxes to fund defense because citizens deserve security now, even if it means political risk. If years from now people look back, they should see that a small increase in monthly payments would have prevented a larger disaster.
Is Europe fully aware of the existential risk of a Ukrainian defeat? Is there political will for collective action?
When the war began in 2022, she expected NATO members to boost defense spending because the threat was real. She was surprised by the slower response. In the late Cold War era, NATO members spent well over 2 percent of GDP on defense, with some at 6 percent. The current conflict is open, yet some countries still treat it as a rhetorical issue rather than a funding priority. The defense industry echoes the same concern: plenty of talk, few orders. Estonia itself has become one of Europe’s largest purchasers of ammunition, not by percentage but by absolute numbers, underscoring the scale of need for a small country.
As Olaf Scholz noted, Europeans want to avoid a third world war. How can that be achieved while preparing adequately?
The path to avoiding a broader conflict is simple in theory: Russia must lose this war. If they were to win, a dangerous precedent would be set. If they manage to seize more territory without consequences, the risk of wider escalation grows. A decisive European response is needed to deter future aggression.
What is her assessment of Vladimir Putin’s nuclear rhetoric? Is there a real risk of nuclear conflict or is it meant to intimidate the West from aiding Kyiv?
The tactic is not new. Nuclear threats have been used as psychological leverage for a long time. They aim to sow fear and create compliance. In Estonia, nuclear threats are not a present concern, but assurances are elusive because the behavior of a leader can be unpredictable. The broader aim is to terrorize societies and shape perceptions according to each country’s fears. The Russian approach relies on fear, not just military moves.
When spending more is discussed, what is the real objective: arming Ukraine now or building up Europe’s own defenses for the long term?
Both. In the short term, support for Ukraine must continue, and staple reserves must be replenished. In the longer term, collective NATO defense needs robust funding. A calculation shows that if all Ramstein Group members commit 0.25 percent of their GDP to military aid for Ukraine, the balance could tilt decisively against Russia, even for smaller nations with limited economies.
Could eurobonds finance defense if needed?
Progress is incremental this time. Meetings with the German chancellor focus on finding broadly acceptable solutions. Eurobonds are not a fixed requirement; other instruments could work if they unlock defense investment and attract private capital for the defense industry.
What about Macron’s comments on sending troops? Is there a concern that strategic ambiguity could fray alliances?
Strategic ambiguity can be a prudent tactic in rough times. In Estonia, it has different interpretations. The question of whether any Estonian troops would participate in Ukraine has not been settled publicly; Putin would need to see any confirmation. The reality is that decisions at the alliance level remain careful and deliberate.
What concrete steps can be taken to close sanction loopholes?
Sanctions are effective but should work better. Closing loopholes remains essential. The plan includes quotas on restricted products to certain third countries, a comprehensive export ban, expanding the list of goods banned for re-export to Russia, symmetric sanctions, blocking Russian agricultural imports, and a new framework to address human rights and rule of law violations. These measures aim to choke off critical resources and push Russia toward a change in behavior.
Brussels has proposed a phased EU accession path, moving from unanimity to qualified majority on some decisions. Is that price acceptable?
From Estonia’s perspective, having a voice at the table matters. It is not about weakening veto rights but ensuring small states are heard. It is increasingly challenging, and the move toward qualified majority must safeguard minority rights while advancing broader security objectives. Estonia has not used its veto and remains constructive, while recognizing the need for balance in a larger union.
Many have noted she could be a strong candidate for major EU roles. Is this likely?
This is not a current focus. The European Council discussions are about the future, and the political landscape shifts with elections. Liberal parties may not dominate, and outcomes depend on negotiations and vote offers among many players. What matters is readiness and competence in key jobs.
Could António Costa be a candidate for the European Council presidency?
Future candidacies depend on party decisions and negotiations. The same applies to Mark Rutte, whose experience in coalition-building could help unite diverse parties. It is essential to have someone capable of bringing everyone to agreement, especially in a pivotal role like this.
And Klaus Iohannis as NATO secretary general?
Historically, leadership selections have varied by region. Defense and security are not just academic debates but real, urgent requirements. Iohannis fits the security criteria, though coalition experience is also necessary. Rutte’s diplomatic skills could help align different interests.
Is there broad agreement on a second term for Ursula von der Leyen?
There is strong support for Ursula, and no major objections have been raised in European Council discussions. Yet conversations continue privately, and no final judgments are public yet.
And Mette Frederiksen, the Danish prime minister?
That topic is not part of current deliberations. Outcomes will depend on elections and political dynamics as they unfold. Interest levels vary, and no concrete naming is on the table yet.
Are there personal considerations at play in staying or leaving high office?
Politics is unpredictable. Difficult choices demand tough sacrifices at home. The pressure on leaders, especially women juggling public duties and families, is immense. The speaker acknowledges that many leaders across the world are stepping back due to the heavy demands of leadership and family life.