Delf editorial: Why again, Mr. President?

Apart from the fact that there are disturbingly many slips into the new line he wants Russia too thoughts spread by and useful to them, which so far we have avoided in our public rhetoric.

On the anniversary of the Republic, Karis said: “Ensuring our own security must be done evenly and wisely, without unnecessary fuss and wrangling.” However, it is precisely these statements, which are unfortunately usually made at the international level, that have caused the uproar and strife.

This is mainly due to the fact that they create ambiguity as to what Estonia’s position and interests are, thereby weakening the same positions and interests. There are already so many sayings connected with Russian interpretations that it starts to form a truly questionable whole.

This time, however, the president must be protected first. Positions in interviews in Finland, which yesterday they brought coverage and has also brought sharp criticismwe have here a clearly more ominous interpretation than what was actually said. And probably intended.

The president certainly did not immediately invite the Russian dictator to sit down with Putin and agree on something. Instead, he meant Europe level together with the allies to think through and be prepared for the event that the kinetic phase of the war should end at some point.

There is no contradiction here with the foreign policy line of Estonia or European countries.

In part, it is breaking in through an open door, because of course it is thought about and discussed. However, it is really rather not talked about. One of the most important common goals is not to give Putin signs that Europe’s will and willingness to support Ukraine is crumbling.

However, Russian propaganda channels are as expected and happily grasped these views of Karis’s last days.

However, the situation is much more confusing with complaints that Europe made a mistake by cutting off communication with Russia in the spring of 2022.

This has been the core of the common foreign policy line of Europe and also Ukraine, that such a furious and violent aggression must have a price for the top of the Kremlin. Part of it is diplomatic isolation.

The idea that at that moment there was a fair and at least acceptable peace on the table, which Europe slept on, is deeply incomprehensible. As Karis recently said that Sanctions against Russia are not working. The stories about the possibility of peace at that time and Europe acting as a brake unfortunately overlap with the Russian propaganda narrative, which aims to show Europe (and the US administration at the time) as the hostile party to the war.

This is the main reason why today the talks in Istanbul in the spring of 2022 are being talked about as a realistic possibility for peace. Apart from the fact that Putin, whose promises don’t pay a dime for a long time, had promised then-Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett that he would spare Volodymyr Zelenskyi, the negotiations at the time were an attempt by the Kremlin to pressure Ukraine essentially capitulate completely.

Russia’s demands were such that would have deprived Ukraine of substantive independence, serious armed forces, and Western aid. Russia would also have veto rights over support and international protection of Ukraine.

At the same time, Russian soldiers killed, tortured and raped civilians, Ukrainian women and children in Butsha and Irpin and many other Ukrainian cities. Because of these war crimes, the Ukrainians finally said they would stop the show of negotiations.

Putin does not want peace. Not then and not now.

Europe’s mistake was not that we did not hasten to negotiate the subjugation of Ukraine with Putin at the same table, but that Ukraine was helped too little and the pressure on the aggressor was increased too slowly. On the contrary, it was a big mistake made at the time and continued in the following years.

It would only be good if there was a meaningful and balanced debate about the foundations of our security and foreign relations. Suppressing this desire is certainly not in Estonia’s interest.

However, the problem is in the tactical choices – why always abroad, why where the possible confusion of conflicting messages is maximum. Why in a way that occasionally gives air to the Kremlin’s talking points?

Debate at home – definitely yes. Message delay and creating strange connections abroad – why?

Link