Kaja Kallas: The meeting with J.D. Vance was very, very good

Kaja Kallas attended a meeting in Paris on Tuesday with Ursula von der Leyen and U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance. Photo: Leah Millis / REUTERS / Scanpix

The EU's High Representative, Kaja Kallas, suggests that J.D. Vance's Europe-critical speech in Munich may have been aimed at U.S. domestic politics. She characterizes her closed-door meeting with the U.S. Vice President as «very, very good.»

How did you find out that President Trump had a phone call with Vladimir Putin?

At that moment, I was traveling from Strasbourg to Paris, where we had a Weimar+ group meeting with the foreign ministers of Poland, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, and Spain.

Our main topic was Ukraine and European defense. But of course, it was a significant opportunity to discuss what is happening, especially as the Ukrainian foreign minister also joined one of our sessions.

Was this call surprising for the European side?

In a way, it wasn’t surprising, as President Trump had already stated that he intended to speak with Putin. Others have also called Putin. The real question is what is being offered or what the negotiations entail.

What do we currently understand about what Trump offered?

We don’t know that yet.

However, the message that Ukraine’s NATO membership is supposedly off the table aligns with one of Russia’s key demands. If such concessions are made before negotiations even begin, it is certainly a win for Russia.

Was there anything new or surprising in the remarks made by U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and J.D. Vance afterward?

I met J.D. Vance when I was Estonia’s Prime Minister, and I met him again in Paris a few days ago. The meeting was very, very good. We discussed all the key topics on the agenda. I have spoken with several colleagues who had similar experiences.

We also had a very good conversation with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who once again conveyed a strong message of understanding—our allies stand together.

That is why some of these public statements are surprising, as they do not reflect what we have discussed behind closed doors.

What matters most, in my view, is that we remain focused on the challenges we face together on the global stage.

There are many meetings with Americans here in Munich. I just came from one where the goal was to explain the concerns and how we can work more effectively together.

Were any questions raised behind closed doors about the state of democracy and freedom of speech in Europe?

No, they were not.

Who do you think Vance’s speech was directed at?

His domestic audience, I believe. But I don’t know for sure.

We can handle our internal concerns ourselves. What we must address together with the Americans are external threats.

Summing up the day in broad terms: What is the current state of transatlantic relations?

Judging by the meetings we’ve had, I’d say transatlantic relations are in very good shape. We are allies, we are friends. Of course, we have disagreements, and we discuss them—that is nothing unusual.

However, we still need to discuss the vision for how to end this war, what is needed from both Europe and the U.S., and what is truly at stake. This isn’t just about Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence, and freedom. It’s about sovereignty and independence more broadly. Transatlantic security is also at stake.

How can Europeans and Ukrainians be brought to the negotiating table?

Europe’s message is that we stand united, and no deal or agreement can be enforced without us. Neither without the Ukrainians nor without the Europeans.

It is also in America’s interest that we are at that table. Right now, all efforts should be focused on pressuring Putin because he does not want peace. If he did, he wouldn’t be bombing, as he did just two days ago at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. He could simply show that he is stopping the bombings.

Do you believe Putin wants to enter peace talks anytime soon?

He will want to negotiate when he sees that he can get everything he wants—and more. He believes we are weaker, that he can outlast us. But that is not the reality.

Based on the information we have, Russia’s economy is in very bad shape, and even their tanks are running out. We should not overestimate Russia’s strength or underestimate our own.

Everyone says Ukraine must negotiate from a position of strength. How can that be achieved?

Only by supporting Ukraine militarily so they can defend themselves. By increasing economic pressure on Russia—through sanctions—and isolating them politically. These are the tools we have.

There is constant talk, and you have also raised this issue, that Ukraine is not receiving enough aid. Where can new resources be found?

This is one of the fundamental questions. If we look at the transatlantic alliance, our economy is 17 times stronger than Russia’s. How is it possible that we cannot find these resources?

Yes, this requires very tough decisions in member states. Resources must be allocated and redirected. But if we all agree around the table that we have a security and defense problem, then we must also discuss solutions.

It seems that America’s public messaging has, in some ways, been a wake-up call for some.

Does it help unify Europe?

Yes, it does. I have spoken with many foreign ministers and heads of state. Since everyone is in Munich, I have called for an EU foreign ministers’ meeting tomorrow morning so that we are all on the same page and aligned in our direction.

How is the cooperation with [Lithuanian Defense Commissioner] Andrius Kubilius, with whom you are drafting the white paper?

Very well.

How are the work tasks divided between you?

We work quite closely together. The good thing is that we have no differences in understanding the big picture. Our teams work very well together.

He focuses a lot on the industrial side, while we handle the broader picture. In the end, we will present this paper together, and we have no fundamental disagreements—we are completely on the same page.

But what do others think about the fact that two Baltics are writing a paper for all of Europe?

You’d have to ask others about that, but I haven’t heard any complaints. Of course, everyone provides their input.

We had a large roundtable at the defense ministries' level, and we have various papers from different countries. I haven’t sensed at all that anyone would be unhappy about us coming from the Baltic states. Rather, what we say aligns with what everyone else is saying.

But the important thing is the result. Talking is one thing, but action is another—we need to get defense funding in order.

I’ve also heard a note of criticism from a Southern European diplomat, who said that Kaja Kallas isn’t dealing with the Gaza issue at all. What’s the reality?

That is absolutely not true. Quite the opposite. In fact, I initially dealt much more with Gaza and the Middle East. I’ve been there more often than I have been to Ukraine.

Just last night, we had a major meeting on the Gaza issue. Of course, I understand that some people want to see it that way. This was also a criticism before I took office—that the entire focus would now be on Russia. That simply does not reflect reality.

We have an Association Council with Israel on February 24, and we are dealing with various issues, including reopening the EUBAM Rafah mission (the EU Border Assistance Mission in Rafah, established in 2005 to support the Palestinian Authority in managing the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt, which had been suspended since 2007 when Hamas took control of Gaza). Actions show that we are addressing this issue.

I assume that as Prime Minister, you already encountered the fact that EU countries didn’t see the Middle East issue in the same way. Has that understanding become more unified now?

It depends on how you look at it—whether the glass is half full or half empty. If you consider the principles on which we all agree, there are actually quite a few. That all hostilities should cease on both sides. That all hostages must be released. That Europe supports a two-state solution. That humanitarian aid must reach the people and that Gaza must ultimately be rebuilt. There’s actually quite a lot that we are united on.

Are there any Europeans who support relocating the Palestinians?

I have not heard of anyone supporting the idea that Palestinians should be relocated.

Yesterday, I also sat down with regional players, and they have publicly stated that this is not a real estate project.

If you think of it as a real estate project, then it’s indeed easier to rebuild if there are no people there. But in reality, Gaza can be rebuilt while keeping its people there. It is well known that if they leave, they won’t be able to return. In this regard, we have been aligned not only at the European level but also with our Arab and regional partners.

Finally, on a more personal note, how does the role of High Representative compare to being Prime Minister?

Right now, it seems that this job is even more intense than being Estonia’s Prime Minister. Maybe because I am comparing the end of my tenure as Prime Minister to the start of this role, which might not be entirely fair.

At the request of a journalist, I looked back at my schedule from when I was Prime Minister. As I flipped through those early days, it all came back to me. First, the worst phase of COVID—schools closed, schools reopened, no vaccines, all the pressure. Then came the energy crisis, then inflation, and at the same time, the largest Russian troop buildup on Ukraine’s border in modern history.

Reading all that, I realized it was quite a chaotic time. But this job is different. You learn a lot. I’ve met representatives from different countries and learned so much about their histories and other matters. In that sense, I am definitely growing.