Today at 01:03
Lithuania recently withdrew from the international convention on the non-use of cluster munitions, is Estonia ready to? If we say that NATO is no more – would you agree? European – Coalition of the Willing and Re Arm Initiative – is it a viable alternative to NATO.
Read about this and more in interview with Kristo Enn Vaga, Estonian Member of Parliament.
— My first question—well, being born and raised in Latvia, myself, I understand clearly the position of the Baltic states: no Soviets anymore, that’s enough. And Lithuania, just days ago, withdrew from the international convention on the non-use of cluster munitions. In terms of rearming and getting ready for—let’s put it straightforward—a very probable Russian aggression in any way, what is Estonia doing now these days?
— Yeah, we have very hard discussions. Estonia is also part of the Ottawa Convention, which means it forbids us from using anti-personnel landmines. We are currently discussing whether we should maybe step out of it because we see that Russia is using just brutal amounts of people against Ukraine, and this is their tactic. The best tactic against this is mining all of our border areas to prevent a full-scale attack coming from Russia.
Of course, from our own perspective, we are putting a lot of money into our defense—this year, 3.5%, and next year, 5%. Our prime minister just came back from an extraordinary EU council meeting, and there is a lot of good news for the Baltic states and the whole European Union in terms of defense posture.
— Well, in terms of this good news, what do you think about the rearmament initiative? What would it mean for the Baltic states?
— We will know later on, but it seems to me that every cloud has a silver lining. And Mr. Trump—well, I hate to say it, but Europeans were absent for three years, and Trump is right in asking, “Where were you for those three years?”
— I just took the ground that you left. Now, Europe is awakening. My previous guest just said it was bad policy after bad policy, but now it’s getting better. Am I flattering myself? Am I wishful thinking? Or do you see it that way too?
— No, you are definitely on the right track, I would say. Actually, in the February Council, it was the first European Council that truly focused on defense. We have lived in such good times in the European Union for the last 70 years, and from Estonia’s perspective, since we have been part of the European Union since 2004, we have focused on so many other topics. But now, we realize that we need to rearm—because we were armed at some point, then we thought we could have a good partnership with Russia, do business with them, and everything would be fine. But now we have woken up.
And I think what happened in the White House last Friday was good for the European Union. It’s unfortunate to say, but it’s true. We wouldn’t have taken these steps as a European Union if we hadn’t had a proper shakeup. The problem with a lot of politicians is that they react to things instead of having their own initiatives. From the Baltic states’ perspective, Estonia has always emphasized that we must take our defense seriously because, every morning and every sunset, we look east and see a cruel dictator. We know that at some point, he is going to do something bad against us. So, we have always said we must invest in defense.
Now, it’s 800 billion for rearmament, but also 150 billion in direct investment into Ukraine. These are the steps that have been discussed in the last 24 hours, and it opens a lot of opportunities for the European Union’s defense industry. One major thing the European Union must do, of course, is help Ukraine. But Estonia sees that the best way to help is by investing in Ukraine’s defense industry. Ukraine is producing the fastest, most up-to-date, and in some cases, the cheapest defense equipment. Because Ukraine’s defense industry is fueled by the will to live, not by profit. The European defense industry, on the other hand, is focused on making money—it’s corporate. Ukraine is doing much more, and there is a possibility that the European Investment Bank will put a lot of extra money into Ukraine. At least, the Germans think so.
— Just to align with your thoughts—Rheinmetall is here, and Rheinmetall is always making money and good military equipment as well. But sliding into another half of the question — Is it obvious to me that NATO is a paper tiger? Is it no more?
— I wouldn’t be that gloomy.
— Okay, not yet. I need you—you are a member of parliament, after all.
— Of course. I am a member of parliament, and we are part of NATO. We still have NATO troops in Estonia—3,000 troops, including French, British, American, and Dutch forces. So, we don’t have the discussion of “Will NATO come and help us if something happens?” They are already here. They are already targets in Estonia if we are attacked.
But we must rethink NATO’s capabilities. We have to reassess where the capabilities will come from in the event of an attack against Europe. We must also evaluate the capabilities that only the Americans have. A year ago, we didn’t have to think about a Plan B for these capabilities, but now we do. The French have stepped up significantly in intelligence, space, and so on. We also have good, actual defense plans for defending the whole eastern flank. On a military level, we have coordinated joint exercises. Of course, if Washington’s political will says no, then nothing will happen. But we are also creating like-minded groups within NATO and the EU, so let’s see what happens. I won’t declare NATO dead just yet.
— Mr. Vaga, don’t get me wrong—I have great respect for the British, American, Estonian, and other military. Some of them I know personally. But I’m talking about NATO as a union. If a missile kills a British soldier, Britain will act. But as a union, if America says no, nothing happens. We can’t be so dependent on any one leader. It should be a coalition of nations defending themselves. So, do you believe that a Coalition of the Willing and the rearmament initiative could be a viable alternative to NATO if NATO doesn’t react properly?
— I think it is viable. Every time we question whether America will act or not, we must remember what happened in 2001. Estonia acted when Washington invoked Article Five. Estonian troops fought side by side with American troops in the war on terror. Per capita, Estonia had the highest losses in that war. From Estonia’s perspective, we must always remind the Americans that we helped them when they needed help—now they must help us when we need help. And I think this has been understood on a working level.
We also have strong regional defense initiatives like the UK-led Joint Expeditionary Force. Now, we are trying to form a like-minded European group that will provide security guarantees to Ukraine. Estonia has stated that if EU troops are needed in Ukraine to defend a ceasefire or a future peace agreement, we will deploy our troops on the ground in Ukraine.
— One last question—Estonia is well-known for its IT technologies. A European company recently promised to help Ukraine switch from Musk’s Starlink and replace all 40,000 terminals swiftly. Tell me, sir, frankly, is that an Estonian company?
— Unfortunately, it is not an Estonian company. But we have helped a lot in the ICT sector. I remember working at the Ministry of Defense when the full-scale invasion started in 2022. We backed up Ukrainian servers in Estonia in late 2021, and that definitely helped Ukraine in some cases.
We were the first country in the world to open a data embassy in 2016—in Luxembourg. This means that in the event of not just kinetic warfare but also cyber warfare, data remains one of the most crucial pillars of democracy. Now, we are involved in several initiatives, including an IT coalition helping Ukraine. Also, at the end of March, I will be in Ukraine with Estonian defense companies for matchmaking with Ukrainian defense companies.
