Western nations "must keep Ukraine as a priority" and increase pressure on Russia amid the US-Israeli war with Iran, which is drawing attention away from Europe's deadliest conflict since 1945, Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna told RFE/RL in an interview.
Following US President Donald Trump's vocal criticism on the Western alliance over other members' reluctance to get involved in the Iran war, Tsahkna said that "nobody truly believes the US will withdraw from NATO" but that the conflict "is now also a NATO topic."
Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna
Estonia is ready to discuss a potential contribution, but the United States has made no request for the Baltic nation's support in connection with the Iran war, he told RFE/RL by phone on April 7.
RFE/RL: US officials, in private conversations, have said they were surprised by the reaction of some NATO allies regarding Iran -- specifically, because those allies suggested it was not their problem. However, officials point out that Iran has been a critical factor in Ukraine through its support of Russia. As the implications of the Middle East conflict affect all allies, is Iran, in fact, becoming NATO's problem?
Margus Tsahkna: Iran has been a European problem -- and a global problem -- for more than 40 years because of the regime. What we see is a direct threat to Europe through terrorism and through everything the regime has been doing. We also see it as a direct threat to Estonia because Iran has been one of the main supporters of Russia in its war of aggression against Ukraine.
That is why I do not agree with those leaders in Europe who say this is not our concern. Perhaps it was misunderstood; they may have meant that this particular escalation was not initiated by them, but we are all connected to it. Oil prices are one aspect, but there are political consequences as well. We see oil prices rising, and Russia is benefiting from that.
Trump has lifted some sanctions, though not directly those related to Ukraine, but we also see a political dimension where he is blaming Europe. This is not the first time. Some of the reactions from European leaders were responses to the fact that there was no prior consultation, neither about what the US or Israel planned to do nor the expected outcome.
SEE ALSO:
Ahead Of Deadline For Iran, Trump Issues Dire Warning To A 'Whole Civilization'Estonia has been very clear: If any ally asks for support, we are always ready to discuss it. We have participated before in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and in Mali, where we were the first country to send troops alongside France. We expect the same solidarity: if one ally is in trouble, others will be there.
At the same time, this is increasingly becoming a NATO issue, especially since Trump has said he will review US policy toward NATO. That is a very serious matter. So yes, this is now also a NATO topic.
RFE/RL: Trump criticized allies for not supporting operations in Iran or helping secure the Strait of Hormuz. He also suggested the United States could step back from the alliance. Does this raise a level of permanent doubt among member nations about the willingness of the US to stand by its allies? Is it a temporary pressure tactic or a sign of a fraying bond that could leave parts of the world vulnerable?
Tsahkna: NATO has faced crises before. One example is the 1956 Suez Crisis, when the US opposed actions taken by the UK and France. So political crises are not new.
NATO is strong: We have plans, we have military capabilities, and allies remain committed. But this does weaken deterrence, because one of NATO's greatest strengths is unity. When the leading country says NATO is weak or calls it a "paper tiger," that does not strengthen deterrence -- especially for countries like Estonia that border Russia.
Political unity is a core principle we rely on. Still, nobody truly believes the US will withdraw from NATO. It's not even about legal processes in Congress; it's problematic that we are even discussing that possibility. The US would lose global influence if NATO weakened significantly.
SEE ALSO:
Russian Drone Targets City Bus in Ukraine; At Least 4 Killed, 16 WoundedIt is clear that Europe must take on more responsibility, and we are doing so. However, there is a perception that Europe is not contributing, which is not accurate. Countries like the UK, Portugal, Germany, and France provide bases, access, overflight permissions, refueling, and logistics that the US relies on.
I previously served as minister of defense, and I can say we are very open to discussing practical contributions. But for that, there must be a clear request and a clear plan. Military action requires defined goals and coordination. So far, there has been no official request or structured discussion. Much of this remains political.
RFE/RL: NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte is heading to Washington to meet tomorrow with Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and other officials. Given his personal relationship with Trump, can Rutte help stabilize tensions through personal diplomacy at this stage?
Tsahkna: This visit is very necessary. The secretary-general meeting with President Trump is always important. [Rutte] is very good at explaining our positions and presenting the facts: what European allies are doing and what we are prepared to do.
NATO unity is especially important at a time like this, with a war in Ukraine ongoing for more than four years and instability in the Middle East. This meeting will be crucial.
We have seen before that tensions can ease after such meetings. The secretary-general understands how to engage with Trump and explain the situation effectively. That is very important.
SEE ALSO:
Iran Conflict Disrupts Private US Humanitarian Aid For UkraineRFE/RL: You have warned that Russia remains the primary existential threat to Europe. Does US pressure for allied involvement in the Middle East risk weakening Europe's posture against Russian President Vladimir Putin? Are we inadvertently giving Moscow a strategic opening?
Tsahkna: Russia's economy is performing poorly. Before the current Middle East crisis, Putin was already approaching a serious economic situation. Rising oil prices now give Russia more revenue, and lifting sanctions gives its war machine more oxygen.
Everything is connected to the war in Ukraine. I was in Ukraine last week and spoke with [Ukrainian President] Volodymyr Zelenskyy and other officials. They stressed that continued support from Europe and the US is critical.
If the Middle East conflict drags on, it will inevitably draw military resources and attention. That is why we must keep Ukraine as a priority.
Europe must do more -- and we are -- but we cannot allow focus to shift entirely to Iran. Russia has not changed its goals. It is using this situation to claim it is winning, which is not true. There has been no strategic breakthrough.
Russia is suffering heavy losses without meaningful gains. We must increase pressure on Russia -- not on Ukraine. Ukraine is the victim, not the aggressor.
SEE ALSO:
Ukrainian Strikes Cause 'Most Serious Threat' To Russian Oil Exports Since Start Of InvasionRFE/RL: Staying on the eastern flank, you have called buffer zones a "green light" for Putin. Does that mean any settlement that leaves Ukraine in a gray zone outside NATO is inherently unstable and risks future war?
Tsahkna: This is a historic moment to unite Europe. If we want lasting peace, we must recognize that Russia is the only direct threat.
History shows that gray zones or neutral neighboring states create opportunities for Russian aggression. We saw this in Georgia and Ukraine. Ukraine must receive real, working security guarantees. NATO membership would be the most effective solution, but at present, it does not appear likely.
SEE ALSO:
Iran's Chokehold On Hormuz And The Limits Of Military ForceAt the very least, Ukraine must receive equivalent guarantees and be integrated into the European Union, which is currently being blocked by Hungary. These are critical decisions, not just for Ukraine but for Europe's long-term stability.
RFE/RL: You've argued that Ukraine could eventually become a guarantor of Europe's security. Does that fundamentally change NATO's logic, making Ukraine a net security provider rather than a recipient? And who is blocking that transition?
Tsahkna: If you mean NATO membership, Trump has said clearly he does not support Ukraine joining NATO at this time. However, this option must remain open for the future. It cannot be dictated by Putin.
Ukraine plays a significant role already. It has nearly 1 million troops with years of combat experience, strong innovation, and rapidly growing defense industry capabilities.
Security guarantees should work both ways. Ukraine would not only receive guarantees but also contribute to European security.
If peace is achieved, Russia would have to think carefully before moving forces toward NATO borders, because Ukraine would be part of that security framework. Ukraine has already demonstrated its willingness to fight for freedom.
SEE ALSO:
Everyone Wants Ukraine’s Drones. This German Joint Venture Is Trying To Get Ahead Of The CurveRFE/RL: What is your reaction to Russia's recent warnings to Baltic states about opening airspace to Ukraine for potential strikes on Russian territory?
Tsahkna: This is typical Russian disinformation. There is no basis for such claims. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Finland have not opened their airspace for attacks on Russia. It has never happened.
Russia uses these narratives to divide allies and create fear. Some drones have entered our airspace, but that does not mean we are enabling attacks.
Ukraine has the right to defend itself, including targeting strategic sites in Russia. However, Russia is responsible for the situation; it is jamming signals and causing these incidents.
RFE/RL: If Washington were to remain in NATO but effectively hollow it out by not honoring Article 5, what is Estonia's backup plan? Are we looking at a fundamentally different European-only security architecture?
Tsahkna: We are practical people; we prepare to fight if necessary. We have no alternative. We believe all allies will stand with us. An attack on Estonia is an attack on Berlin or Washington.
We will do everything to keep NATO strong and ensure Article 5 remains credible. But Article 5 is not a button you simply press; it requires planning and action. NATO has those plans.
If needed, we will act, and NATO would respond collectively. We are confident the United States would be there, as well.