Alar Karis: Donald Trump Is Not an Enemy of Estonia

Estonia and Europe should highlight their strengths and use them to convince the United States, says President Alar Karis. Photo: Mihkel Maripuu

One must not lose their temper, says Estonian President Alar Karis in an interview with Postimees on Friday, in light of the verbal clash between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

How did you view the meeting between Trump and Zelensky? What should we conclude or do?

As I already mentioned in my anniversary speech last week – we are witnessing the most significant shifts in global security in recent times. For Europe, cooperation with the U.S. is crucial, and the same applies vice versa. However, we must also consider the possibility of standing on our own. Every passing week has made this even clearer. We must do everything to prevent this possibility from becoming an unavoidable necessity, even though Europe has enough strength and resources to manage on its own.

The notion that not every peace is good peace is more relevant than ever. Giving in to various ultimatums weakens not just Europe but the entire world, including the United States.

One must not lose their temper. We cannot draw far-reaching conclusions from a single vote at the United Nations General Assembly or a meeting in the Oval Office.

The interview with President Karis took place in two parts. The response above was given after the dramatic meeting between Trump and Zelensky at the White House. Below are the questions and answers from before that meeting. Even if emotions and the urgency for action have changed, the diagnosis and prescription formulated by President Karis remain the same: Estonia and Europe must act.

Is Trump a friend of Estonia or not?

I doubt he is an enemy of Estonia. The term «friendship» is also quite flexible. Instead of friendship, Europe—including Estonia—should focus on maintaining very good relations with the United States. The transatlantic relationship is important for both sides.

Perhaps, at the moment, Europe appears weak to America, which influences these behavioral patterns. We in Europe have also stalled a bit. Even last year's European competitiveness report by [former Italian Prime Minister and European Central Bank President] Mario Draghi highlighted this issue. We have not been able to showcase our strengths.

If we compare this to science—being a nice scientist is not enough. If I want something from you, I need to see whether you are truly exceptional and whether you can offer something I lack. The same logic applies to politics. You need to contribute something instead of always being in a defensive position. If something comes from across the ocean, the immediate reaction should not always be defensive.

Do you have a theory about Trump? I mean, every day, even multiple times a day, there's some new development…

It's impossible to keep up.

Everyone makes 180-degree turns, and no one really understands whether there is a grand strategy behind it all or just…

When Trump became president, he called every country. It was evident that he had no concrete plan. If he had any plan, it was to come up with one. He asked questions and tried to piece things together for himself. The same applies to peace in Ukraine—there is no comprehensive plan, just scattered pieces. There's no need to panic over heated statements coming from the U.S.

His style is, well… I was in Munich when [U.S. Vice President JD] Vance was lecturing and making his case. It was not pleasant to listen to. But we have let things reach a point where we are treated this way.

I don't know if there is a grand theory behind Trump's behavior. We must keep our eyes open and act. Playing dead works with a bear, but not otherwise.

What should we do?

As I said, we must highlight our strengths and use them to persuade.

But this is something we should do regardless of whether Trump is in power or not—investing in our defense, fostering strong cooperation, and strengthening our economy.

Exactly. Why have we allowed ourselves to be lulled into this false sense of security, believing everything is fine and will only get better? This applies not just to America but also to the Middle East and other regions facing instability. We have been too complacent and inactive.

But we must keep a clear head. Not every social media post requires a reaction.

When you delivered your Independence Day speech at the Estonia Theater, various people were asked for their impressions. One respondent, entrepreneur Tiit Pruuli, remarked that when you spoke about Estonia»s energy sector, your voice sounded «metallic». Was this a figurative way of saying you were angry or very angry?

Maybe not angry, but of course, there are issues that start to irritate us all. When solutions aren't found, and bits and pieces are cobbled together without fitting properly, frustration grows.

From a citizen's perspective, someone trying to make sense of everything likely doesn't feel very happy. That's why I called on the government and parliament—make things clear. Explain where we are headed.

I had just returned from Finland, where I visited a nuclear power plant and discussed their comprehensive approach to energy.

Do you support building a nuclear power plant in Estonia? I assume the correct answer is that it depends on the details and specific conditions, but in principle?

In principle, we need something stable. If we have decided that oil shale is not the best way to maintain stability, we must find an alternative. Many countries, including Finland, rely on nuclear energy.

We must do the groundwork now so that when the time comes to decide, we are not starting from scratch. After all, a fully functional modular nuclear plant—the kind everyone talks about—does not yet exist.

So, in principle, you are not against it?

No, I am not against it in principle. I see no reason to oppose it.

Do you understand why the government is struggling to make energy-related decisions? There are experienced ministers in office, yet progress is slow.

I can't say. Every government is different, depending on its parties and individuals. There are also pressure groups influencing decisions. You'd have to look inside the government to understand what's happening.

Making decisions is never easy because they will always displease someone. But once a well-justified decision is made, people adapt. If it turns out to be the right decision, they will acknowledge it. If it's wrong, it can always be revised.

Could one reason be that decision-makers feel they cannot foresee the future?

Who among us can?

That the uncertainty is so great that they hesitate to make long-term commitments?

We often see promises being made, only to be overturned a year later. If a decision is justified, it can always be reassessed. But if it's purely political, then, of course, it's more complicated.

Still, clear arguments, numbers, and facts should eliminate hesitation. We can't predict the future, but in today's world, it's hard to see even a month ahead.

Does the energy debate have parallels with military strategy? From Carl von Clausewitz's «fog of war» to Donald Rumsfeld's «unknown unknowns,» decisions must be made in uncertainty and with incomplete information.

Yes, often, or even always, that is the case. There is always incomplete information. Using a military analogy—on the battlefield, indecision is the worst. That's how soldiers fall, and such generals are quickly removed. Decisions must be made.

In war, there are casualties. In energy policy, there may be «casualties» too—some interest groups may suffer—but the focus must be on the nation as a whole.

You met with Finnish business leaders who have invested in Estonia. What are their concerns?

Their biggest concern was our tax system—the changes and uncertainty surrounding it. They are also worried about energy stability and affordability.

I encouraged them to continue investing, but uncertainty could eventually make them pull back. The same applies to our businesses.

Do Finns fear war?

There is some anxiety. When a Finnish journalist asked if Estonians were afraid, I could tell he was projecting his own concerns.

But we, who live right next to Russia, have a clearer understanding of the situation.

I once visited the border between South Korea and North Korea and looked across to the other side. I felt significantly more uneasy there than when I look across the Narva Bridge towards Russia. Here, at least, you more or less know what to expect.

What would you like to do with artificial intelligence?

We need to understand it, not fear it. For me, it all started when I was traveling in different countries, and since Estonia has such a strong digital reputation, everyone looked at me and asked, «So, what are you doing in Estonia?» And I didn't have a clear answer. That's where the idea came from that we need to take the initiative in artificial intelligence as well. The thought was to bring companies together and figure out how we could develop the economy and what we could do with AI. That's how things started moving forward.

What is your opinion on the controversy that emerged a few weeks ago when Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs Liisa Pakosta (Eesti 200) announced that Estonia's language corpus had been given for free to Meta, the parent company of Facebook? The message was later revised and clarified, but still.

At that time, I was actually on my way to Paris to give a speech on artificial intelligence. For a small nation like Estonia, language is extremely important. But we cannot do everything ourselves. We need to involve the big players, but not in a way that we just hand everything over to Meta. Legal clarity must be ensured so that all stakeholders, including the media, are satisfied.

With artificial intelligence, everything becomes simple in the end. If we don't provide Estonian there, all young people will switch to English.