ERKKI KOORT ⟩ London pulled off an unbelievable blunder

Although London's initiative after what happened in the Oval Office is welcome, the overall security of Europe was forgotten. Photo: Photo by Handout / UKRAINIAN PRESIDENTIAL PRESS SERVICE / AFP

• London is trying to take the initiative.
• When taking the initiative, one should not make bigger mistakes than the ones already made.
• Churchill was not a hero from Estonia's point of view.

What happened in the Oval Office on the last day of February was horrifying, but it has consequences for all parties and the blunders do not seem to end, Erkki Koort, security expert at Postimees and the Estonian Academy of Security Sciences, writes.

In Europe, reactions to the meeting between presidents Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy have been truly heartrending. What happened in the Oval Office of the White House exceeded predictions of how Trump intends to end the war many times over. For Trump, one of the themes throughout the election campaign was ending the war between Russia and Ukraine, but he did not say how he intends to do it.

We have reason to be concerned and to ask critical questions. What can we do to further strengthen our security? How healthy are our alliances? Has Europe taken the initiative? Has London? Does Europe need a new leader? A new Winston Churchill?

Yes, Europe needs a leader, but definitely not a new Churchill, because for us that name did not mean freedom, but occupation. The deal made in Yalta with London's participation left us under occupation for fifty years. So no Churchills.

Sunday's meeting in London is significant. It takes place after the fiasco in Washington and before the EU summit. The Brits have taken the initiative to avoid leaving the decision-making on European affairs to the French or the EU. London needs to act to avoid being sidelined as a decision-maker on the continent's security issues

However, it's a bit disheartening to see that neither Estonia nor the other Baltic states are at the table. Considering the contribution of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to helping Ukraine compared to their budgets, this is unexpected. Quite a few countries that have contributed significantly less received an invitation.

Eighteen countries received an invitation to London. The European Union has 27 member states, and of course, London is under no obligation to limit its invitations to EU countries or even to Europe. They have the freedom to make their own decisions, but the fact that the Baltic states are not at the table is unsettling.

At this point, it is worth drawing conclusions about what went wrong. Did anything go wrong at all? Of course it did. As for the content of the meeting, we do not know it now and will not know in two days. But the choice of countries has created a watershed. Obviously, we will also have to revise our foreign policy weighting a little, but the fault does not necessarily lie in what Estonia itself has or has not done to increase its weight.

The main problem is what our adversaries and rivals read from these discussions. I do not mean only those that are directly against Estonia, but also those against Europe (although they overlap). Both Russia and China will look at the boundaries that London has inadvertently drawn on the map. At any other time, this would have been just an ordinary meeting, but with the US moving away from Europe and closer to Russia, this is a major problem for the entire continent.

Just as Washington does not understand the consequences of its actions, it is surprising that London does not either. Or it's the other way round?