On Tuesday in New York, U.S. President Donald Trump gave headline writers a serious case of whiplash. In a speech at the United Nations General Assembly, Trump rebuked global institutions, questioned whether the U.N. should exist, told assembled leaders “your countries are going to hell,” and berated Europe for “buying oil and gas from Russia while they’re fighting Russia.” Hours later, he posted on Truth Social that he thought Kyiv was “in a position to fight and WIN all of Ukraine back in its original form”—a statement that could be read as a significant evolution in his original posture toward Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine.
How is Brussels reading Trump’s involvement in Europe’s biggest war in a generation? On the sidelines of the U.N. meeting, I spoke with Kaja Kallas, the high representative for foreign affairs and security policy at the European Union, in front of a live audience at a Foreign Policy event. Kallas is also the former prime minister of Estonia. We spoke about how Brussels is navigating its relationship with Washington, the next steps in the war in Ukraine, Europe’s relationship with China, and the crisis in the Middle East. The full discussion can be watched in the video box atop this page, or on the FP Live podcast. What follows here is a lightly edited and condensed transcript.
Ravi Agrawal: Just a few hours ago, U.S. President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social: “I think Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position to fight and WIN all of Ukraine back in its original form.” He went on to say, “Putin and Russia are in BIG economic trouble, and this is the time for Ukraine to act.” Sounds like a real surprise, no?
Kaja Kallas: Sounds like a plan. We welcome those statements because this is what we have been saying the whole time. I met with the Ukrainians after their meeting with President Trump. They were very, very happy. It’s been a good day.
RA: Do you have a sense of what caused Trump to change his mind? Obviously, he had just met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, but this isn’t the first time they’ve met. What’s your sense of what happened here?
KK: To my understanding, the Ukrainians’ message stayed the same during this meeting. Maybe he got the data about how the Russian economy is doing and how they are actually not winning this war. Maybe New York has positive effects on him. Whatever the reason is, we welcome those statements.
RA: There’s a term that’s become popular of late. It’s called “TACO”: Trump Always Chickens Out. In other words, he pivots. On Russia and Ukraine, there’s been an evolution this year, as he’s realized that it isn’t easy to solve the war in one day. But that said, what will you do, what will Europe do, and what will Ukraine do, if a few weeks from now there’s aggression from Russia, and Trump actually doesn’t do anything?
KK: We have been very clear on our own plan. What we are doing is pressuring Russia with sanctions. We just enacted the 19th package of sanctions. We are also helping Ukraine—militarily, financially, also politically—as much as we can. We are staying on that course. Anybody else who wants to join is welcome.
What is clear for everybody is that Ukrainians want peace more than anybody else. It is also clear that Europeans want peace, and it is also clear that Americans want peace. The only one who doesn’t want peace is Russia. As long as one side wants war, we have war. What can we do to put Russia in the position to want peace?
We have the tools to force the war to end, once Russia runs out of money to finance this war. The Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan after they couldn’t break the will of the Afghans and ran out of money to run the war.
The statement by President Trump mentioned that the Russian economy is not doing well. We know that they will hit a very difficult point by the end of this year. We have put sanctions on their financial institutions. They can’t raise outside capital. Their friends are reluctant to help them. We see China as the key enabler of Russia’s war, but they don’t want to do it overtly. Russia is running into problems.
RA: Russians will say they’ve transformed their economy into a wartime economy. They’re still selling a lot of oil to China and India, although India has now been sanctioned for it. Even Europe buys some small amounts of Russian crude. There are also frozen Russian assets abroad that haven’t been seized. It’s been more than three years. Do you think the collective West is doing enough?
KK: The war is still going on. We are clearly not doing enough. If the war were to end, then we could say we did enough.
RA: The last few days have been even worse on that front, with Russia flying drones into the territories of several NATO members: Poland; your own country, Estonia; Romania; and even Denmark. If this is a message from Moscow, what do you think the message is?
KK: One of [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s goals is to test us, our unity, our NATO commitments, our courage to act. Just a day before the first drone incursion to Poland, I had a meeting with journalists and they asked, “Is Putin going to go further and attack NATO?” I said, “He doesn’t want war with NATO, but he wants to test us, to see how far he can go, to see how we react. Every next time, he’ll be bolder because he can be. He’s testing us.”
His other goal is to sow fear inside our societies so that we refrain from supporting Ukraine. At the beginning of the war, European leaders discussed closing the skies, which means providing air defense and planes. Those discussions were very, very difficult. Everybody wanted to help Ukraine. But at the same time, we all had a responsibility for our own countries. Russia was saying that if you gave Ukraine weapons or planes, they would bring war to your country.
In hindsight, we can see what was right and what was wrong. But in the moment, you don’t know whether it’s real or just a threat. You have an obligation to your people, and you always choose your own people.
RA: On that point, let me ask you a question that has long worried me about Europe. There’s a theory that Europe has built a welfare state over the last 80 years by relying on three things: energy from Russia, export-driven growth from China, and a security umbrella from America. Energy from Russia is obviously gone, but the other two also look shaky for a variety of reasons.
The bigger point here is that as you now look to increase defense spending to 3.5 percent of GDP—and another 1.5 percent in defense infrastructure—where does that money come from? Doesn’t it hurt the welfare state, thereby fueling the rise of the far right? We’re already seeing that in so many European countries, from Germany and Italy to Spain and Sweden and to the United Kingdom even.
KK: This is extremely difficult. Nobody wants to spend on defense because there are so many things you have to spend the money on. Education, social security, health care, everything. But if there’s war, then none of this matters.
That’s why it’s so important to talk about this to the people, to explain that we have to make cuts because it’s not sustainable otherwise. These are tough times, but we have to do this. Even in countries that are not close to the border with Russia, people will listen.
RA: Can you give me an example of a country that’s done that successfully?
KK: Denmark, for example. Denmark is not close to the border, but its prime minister is very strong on this, and the popular support is there.
As prime minister of Estonia, I had to cut expenses. I had to raise taxes. It wasn’t popular at all. But I didn’t have a choice. I’ll give you an example from our history. In 1933, our defense expenditure was at a record low because we were building up our country and spending money on all the things that people actually need. In 1938, the defense expenditure was increased by 100 percent, but it was already too late. It takes time. The problem with defense spending is that you need to invest in defense while you have peace. When you feel you need it, it’s way too late.
RA: Let’s talk about China. In July, you met Wang Yi, China’s minister of foreign affairs. After that meeting, the South China Morning Post reported that he told you Beijing did not want Russia to lose the war in Ukraine.
KK: He told me exactly that, but the interesting part is that the Chinese leaked it. It was a closed meeting. They really wanted to create a bad image of me.
RA: I was in China shortly after, and I spoke with several officials there. They claim that not only did they not leak it, but that this is also not what they believe.
KK: Usually, when you meet with the Chinese, you know what they’re going say. It’s predictable. But I was really pushing him on China’s support of Russia: “If you want good relations with us, why are you doing this?” I didn’t let go. And then he said that it’s not in China’s interest if the war ends, because then America will turn to us. We were all quite surprised and even asked if the translation was correct because they have never said it out loud like this.
Later I was in Japan, and the think-tankers there thought that it was leaked on purpose because supporting Russia’s war is not very popular in China. The government wanted to show why it was on the side of Russia, to show why it’s in the country’s interest. That was their assessment.
RA: Despite this week’s news, America’s been an unreliable partner for Europe this year. Longer term, do you think China could be a bigger source of trade? If you look at all the big advances in solar or wind technology, EVs, they’re coming from China now.
KK: Countries are really eager to diversify their trade portfolios because of America’s tariffs. We have put too many eggs in one basket, and that’s why we are building new partnerships.
China has a lot of power in its hands. Look at the critical raw materials that come from China, the electric batteries, the chemicals, the microchips. But we have our worries about China. One part is the coercive economic practices against our companies, and the other is also China’s role as the key enabler of Russia’s war in Ukraine.
We are very wary of building new dependencies in energy or security and getting hurt. To counter that, we need to work together, which means not building new dependencies on China but actually working together to counter its coercive economic practices.
We are trying to have more friends around the world. I must say that considering the big picture and the behavior of the world’s superpowers, we are increasingly more popular.
RA: That’s very diplomatic. Let’s talk about the Middle East. Your predecessor, Josep Borrell, has accused the EU of inaction when it comes to the distribution of aid and food in Gaza. I think this is pretty directly an accusation aimed at you. How do you respond?
KK: Look at what we have achieved. We work with the Israeli government to reach a humanitarian understanding and on having concrete measures: how many aid trucks in, how much critical infrastructure repaired, the Jordanian-Egyptian routes opened, water given, all these points. I agree with you. It’s not enough, but it’s better than zero.
RA: I think the sentiment of what he’s trying to say is less about the facts. It’s more of the naming and shaming, as opposed to the other approach, where you pick up the phone and you call [Israeli Prime Minister] Benjamin Netanyahu. You’re saying the former is not as good as speaking to the Israelis?
KK: My thinking is, “What can we do?” If everybody agrees that the humanitarian situation is untenable, what can we do to improve it? We have tried to do that. We are the biggest supporters of the Palestinian Authority. We are the biggest humanitarian aid donors to the Palestinians. We are the most active international actor on Gaza.
Having also met with the Arabs, I think it shouldn’t be the case that we are the biggest donors to the Palestinian Authority, considering that it’s their neighborhood. They’re rich countries. We get a lot of heat that Europe should do this or that, but we are doing a lot. Of course, not enough.
RA: I think the heat comes from Europe being the source, in a colonial sense, of the problems here, right?
KK: I see what you’re pointing to. That’s what is preventing all the member states from coming on board with all these decisions. That’s why I’ve been focusing on what we agree on. We all agree on a two-state solution. What do we do in order to achieve that? We have to help the Palestinian Authority so that the two states would be more equal. We all agree that the humanitarian aid has to get in.
Big words don’t stop the killing. We have been really trying to improve the humanitarian situation on the ground and help the people. It’s frustrating, considering what is going on, but we are trying our best.
RA: Britain and France have recognized Palestine as a state in the last week. I’m sure you’ve thought about whether Brussels should say the same thing. How do you think about the trade-offs?
KK: It’s up to individual states to recognize Palestine, not Europe. The majority of member states have done so. It sends a message to keep the two-state solution alive.
But if we focus on whether it will stop the human suffering, it doesn’t immediately do that. It requires funding of the Palestinian Authority. It requires necessary reforms. It requires recovery and reconstruction. We are not there because we still have the war. We support the cease-fire and the release of hostages.
RA: Let me press you on this. When I travel around the world, mostly in the global south, I hear the sentiment that Israel is breaking rules in its engagement with Gazans right now, but also around the region. It has attacked many countries in the last few weeks in pursuit of what it will call terrorists, but it has broken international law to do so. If Israel can break the rules, what is the point of rules? It makes it much harder for Europe to criticize Russia for breaking the rules when it attacks not only Ukraine, but other countries on your turf.
KK: First of all, Russia’s war against Ukraine started in 2022, before the Oct. 7 attacks and the war in Gaza. Did all those countries say that Russia’s war was against international law?
When I go and meet countries around the world who criticize us about Palestine, I always ask, “How much have you supported the Palestinians?” Usually, I see very small numbers and even zeros. Others should also chip in, not only with words, but actual deeds and money to keep the two-state solution alive.
But international law is very clear. It gives you two possibilities to use force. One is in self-defense, and the other one is with the U.N. Security Council resolution. If those are not followed, international law is not followed. Right now, on the U.N.’s 80th anniversary, we see that multilateralism and international law is under heavy fire.
RA: If you had to judge the state of the rules-based order today, how would you grade it?
KK: The world order is changing. That is very clear. Now, it’s up to us. Do we get our act together—or don’t we? The forces that want a world where might makes right are increasingly the superpowers. It’s dangerous for everybody else, even big countries with hundreds of millions of people. It’s in their interest that international law survives.
We’re also seeing the decline of democracy at the same time, which means that in some countries, one man is making the decision to go and attack another country. It’s a very, very bad combination.
RA: Let me bring up a democracy and one man: Donald Trump. At the beginning of this interview, we were talking about a Truth Social post in which he appeared to be backing Ukraine with words, if not actions. But earlier today, when he spoke at the U.N. General Assembly, he questioned whether the United Nations should exist. He doubled down on America killing drug smugglers in international waters, an action that some American lawmakers have said could be illegal. He said climate change is the “greatest con job” ever perpetrated.
America’s still your most important ally. Where do values fit into this relationship?
KK: [Pauses]
It has been a long day, hence the pauses.
Our relationship with the United States is different under every administration. We need to adapt while respecting the values and principles that we stand for.
We are a democracy. Even worse, we have 27 democracies, which means that decisions take time. But eventually when we get there, you know, we stick to our decisions. That is something that countries around the world value, because we are reliable and predictable partners. Once we make trade deals, we keep our promises. We don’t change it overnight.
RA: Everyone’s trying to figure out how to deal with Trump in his second term. There’s a theory that one route is flattery. U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer brought a letter from the king and said it’s “unprecedented” that someone would get invited for a second state visit. Mark Rutte, the head of NATO, called Trump “Daddy.”
KK: Actually, he didn’t. I have to defend Mark here, because I watched the interview. It wasn’t like he directly called him that.
RA: But Trump supporters took it as such and printed out “Daddy” T-shirts. The larger point is that flattery has been a route to dealing with Trump, but it’s unclear to me what you get in return. What is the best way to appeal to a president who is nakedly transactional?
KK: I don’t have good answers. We are living in this extremely dangerous time. It is extremely important that we stick together. Today’s statements by President Trump were very much welcomed by everybody. When it comes to what he said about Ukraine, as well as the meetings that he had with the Arab leaders regarding the Middle East, I think everybody’s trying to find their ways to work with the new administration and President Trump.
RA: Last question. We all know that Trump’s vision of American foreign policy is “America First.” That’s what his own staffers say. What is the European vision of foreign policy?
KK: The European vision of foreign policy is to work together with all countries. Our offer is very clear if we compare ourselves to other big powers when it comes to trade or investments. If countries are hurt by the tariffs, then we come with a positive offer and good markets. We can work together.
When we talk to our African partners or Asian partners, we want equal partnerships. Of course we have our own interests, but we also want the prosperity of your countries, too, so that we don’t have migration pressure toward us.
We are really working to find mutual partnerships. I don’t know what the slogan is. I’m not really good at those.
The post How Europe Is Navigating Trump appeared first on Foreign Policy.
