The successor to Josep Borrell as High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of the European Union arrives with such energy at the ambassadors' hall of the Palacio de Santa Cruz, where the interview takes place, that it doesn't seem like she has slept, once again, only a few hours between trips.
Kaja Kallas (Tallinn, Estonia, 1977) shows appreciation for the sun in Madrid, although she knows that Frankfurt and Strasbourg await her in a few hours. The Vice President of the European Commission received EL MUNDO this Monday before participating in the meeting of the so-called G5+ formed by France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, the United Kingdom, and Ukraine organized on this occasion by the Foreign Minister, José Manuel Albares.
What is your message to the G5+ ministers?
We discussed various topics, from how we can help Ukraine to the current situation of the peace process. Also, about what more we can do for our own defense. These are very important issues. And, of course, my message is that we need to help Ukraine as much as we can. The stronger they are on the battlefield, the stronger they will be at the negotiation table.
How do you approach the peace process?
In the peace process, nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine, but also nothing about Europe without Europe. Any peace process will also affect European security. I believe this is important, and what we can see at the moment is that Russia doesn't really want peace. So my question is how can we pressure Russia to stop the war.How to pressure Russia? With more sanctions? Yes. I believe we need to be strong and explore all the options we have together with our American partners, along with our other allies worldwide.
You know that Donald Trump has said he is angry, even "pissed off" with Putin. Do you think Trump has underestimated the Russian president?
I think President Trump is losing patience because he also sees that Russia is playing games. It's positive that President Trump realizes that Russia doesn't want peace, and I hope he also understands that we need to put more pressure on Russia to stop this war.
Is it possible to form a European peace force to deploy to Ukraine if there is an agreement?
It is up to all member states with armies to decide if they are willing to send their forces to maintain peace. But to keep the peace, we first need to have peace. And we don't have it yet. And I believe, of course, we also need to learn lessons from the past.
What do you mean?
That if a peacekeeping mission is limited to monitoring, then it doesn't really work because if there is a breach of the peace agreement, action would also need to be taken. But I want to emphasize that we have not reached that point yet because right now Russia doesn't want peace. And we have to press them to achieve peace.
Regarding defense spending, do you see clearly that allocating 2% of GDP is already too little?
We are in a very difficult security situation as Europe, where we have to spend more on defense to deter Russia from taking further steps. The problem with defense spending is that the decision to increase it must be made in peacetime. If defense investments are made in time, then it deters the aggressor from taking another step. That means avoiding war.
And if defense spending is not increased? In Spain, many people do not see it as necessary...
If military spending is not increased, it is a sign of weakness that invites the aggressor to take another step. I understand that here in Spain, you are much further from Russia. And yes, Russian tanks are not reaching the Pyrenees, but we have to be united in this. Clearly, if Russia takes another step towards any NATO country or expands the war, that has an effect on Spain or any other country further from the front.
Yes, but it is difficult to convince many Spanish citizens that there is a direct threat from Russia...
The point is to see it as a direct threat from Russia to Europe. And, of course, there are also hybrid attacks that Russia is carrying out in Spain and all European countries. We are all in this crisis together. In Europe, we have to stand together against the various challenges. Climate change affects Spain more than it affects Northern countries, and when it comes to migration, the pressure coming from Africa affects Southern countries more than the North. And when it comes to threats from Russia, of course, it affects Eastern countries more than the rest. What I mean is that we are in solidarity with each other, and that's why we are together in this. What happens on the border with Russia will also have an impact on Spain.
Is your message perhaps that if Spaniards want solidarity with migration, they must be supportive of Eastern countries in this crisis?
What I mean is that Spain is also in NATO, and in this organization, we have Article 5 which states that an attack on one is an attack on all. The stronger we are together, the less likely these threats will come towards us. And, of course, solidarity means that we stand in solidarity with Spain in its issues regarding migration or when it comes to climate change, which I insist has a greater effect on Spain than on perhaps some other countries. Whatever the crisis, we have to work together as seen in the previous crisis.
Which crisis are you referring to?
To Covid and the health crisis. The Spanish tourism sector was one of the most affected. That's why we also approved programs that helped some countries more than others. All Europeans helped Spain and other countries during Covid, and now we must be united in military spending. Solidarity is our greatest defense. When some countries have problems, they should expect that others are with them. Unity is also our best tool.
You mentioned that in NATO, not only are there political parties in Spain, but also ministers who support leaving NATO. Does this concern you?
NATO has been around for 75 years and is a defense alliance. It is the most effective security guarantee that exists. In schools in my country, I always explain that when there is a bully in school, he fights and tries to intimidate everyone. The small one doesn't want to fight the big one, but the big one also doesn't want to fight if he sees that the victim has many big friends. And that's how NATO works. It is in everyone's interest for NATO to function. Both in the Alliance and in the EU, we are addressing, for example, cyber threats. And we deal with other threats from space that affect everyone. An effective NATO is in the interest of all allied countries.
Will NATO survive Trump's term?
I am sure. It is a strong alliance that is alive and kicking. Even in his first term, President Trump indicated that European countries are not spending on defense as much as they should. Already in 2014, all NATO countries committed to spending at least 2% of their GDP on defense by 2024. That is the commitment that countries have made, and their credibility is at stake in actually implementing what is agreed upon.
But Spain has trouble even reaching 2%. Why doesn't the European Commission propose grants as the Government requests?
The aid package we have put on the table has different elements to achieve a delicate balance. It must be considered that even grants come from European taxpayers' money. Also, net contributor countries to the EU budget are saying that the burden they bear is already too much. So, a balance must be sought. In addition to loans, there are relief measures [the escape clause] in fiscal rules so that member states have more room to operate. This balance should give countries many options to increase spending.
But for heavily indebted countries like Spain or Italy, with loans, they cannot reach 2%. Can we expect an evolution in the Commission's proposal?
It is under discussion, but I believe that the balance among the 27 is in the proposal. What may be feasible. I understand the problem some countries have, but I also believe that it is illusory to get out of this situation without making difficult and unpopular decisions. In my previous position as Prime Minister of Estonia, I had to make some really tough, unpopular decisions. We had to explain them. We had to raise taxes. People don't like that. But we had no other choice because the situation required it.
Do you refer to both types of measures: raising taxes and cutting budget expenses, right?
Also to cutting the budget, yes, of course.
President Pedro Sánchez does not like the name you have given to the proposal. Why have you called it "Rearmament"?
Of course, names can be discussed, but the essence is that Europe can invest more in defense, and that's what this name captures. My question is: Does the problem disappear if we name it something other than rearmament? In reality, no, because the result is the same: we have to invest more in defense.
Sánchez also proposes creating a European army. Do you see it as necessary, or is coordinating the 27 enough?
I believe what we need is 27 armies to truly work together, to be truly interoperable when it comes to capabilities, for example, or when it comes to ammunition. Also, when it comes to military mobility because each country has its military planning and defense budget. So, creating an army that is in NATO and another in Europe is not feasible. It would be dangerous because in a military crisis, the most important thing is who gives orders to whom. And if we have the NATO military structure and then we have the European one, but in reality, everyone has one army, who gives the orders? I fear then the ball would fall between two chairs.
Regarding the trade war, what works better with Trump, the stick or the carrot?
A balance. The issue is a balanced response because there are no winners in trade wars. If the United States starts a trade war with its allies, the real beneficiary is China. And that is not in the interest of Americans or Europeans. In the end, consumers end up paying more, inflation rises, and history teaches us that trade wars bring economic recession. So right now, we are trying to talk to the Americans to avoid this trade war.
Does the European Commission consider using the so-called anti-coercion mechanism [which would close the European market] in response to Trump?
We are prepared to defend our interests. And, of course, our Trade Commissioner is working intensively to prepare the response. But right now, it is not clear what will happen on April 2nd. We have heard many statements, but not what will actually be implemented. We will be ready to implement our countermeasures, but I want to emphasize that we do not want a trade war because there are no winners.
How difficult is your work personally with the U.S. and China trying to divide the EU?
Good point, because we are strong when we are united. Our adversaries are interested in dividing us, and I believe our response should be to remain united because that makes us strong. And we have to keep that in mind all the time.
What do you think of Marine Le Pen's conviction for embezzlement?
It is a judicial process in France, and at the European Commission, we do not comment on ongoing procedures.
Do you see confirmation that Israel is violating international law?
Last Monday, I was in Israel and Palestine, and I insisted that international law must be respected. This terrible loss of lives that is occurring is unnecessary. I called for a return to a ceasefire and to stop the killing because civilians are being heavily targeted. Humanitarian aid must be facilitated, and humanitarian law must be respected. Civilians or civilian infrastructure cannot be attacked.
How was your bilateral meeting with Minister Albares? Why did you promote Belén Martínez Carbonell as your Secretary-General instead of someone closer to the minister to avoid his anger?
I could have selected people from 26 other nationalities, but I chose a Spanish person. So, Spain should be proud. Belén is very good. And I have not had any issues with the minister regarding this.
Was your bilateral meeting this Monday in Madrid with Albares constructive?
Yes. We have very good relations.