Incoming defense minister: I will not interfere with the work of the EDF commander

Incoming defense minister: I will not interfere with the work of the EDF commander Incoming Defense Minister Martin Herem tells ERR in an interview that he will lead the Ministry of Defense as a politician, not meddle in the work of the EDF commander and terminate any private sector contracts that could pose a conflict of interest. Why did you ultimately decide to accept the prime minister's offer to become defense minister, even though you weren't entirely sure about it at first? I wasn't sure and, even today, the position doesn't seem particularly pleasant or appealing to me. But I think someone has to do the job for about six months. I think I have certain qualities that would enable me to handle it. Perhaps someone like me would find it easier to do this job in the run-up to an election. Those six months definitely need to be put to good use rather than simply waiting and letting that time go to waste until the next election. What do you think you can accomplish during those six months? I've said this several times and it's been somewhat misunderstood. That's my fault. Our intelligence assessment today — although it's been said that this is something I've simply made up... If we look at it, Commander of the Estonian Defense Forces Gen. Merilo has said that 2027 is a critical year. Various intelligence agencies in Denmark and Lithuania have talked about a period of one to three years. Former Dutch chief of defense and NATO Military Committee Chair Adm. Bauer recently said that even while the war in Ukraine is ongoing, Russia could become strong enough within three years to test NATO. What I would like to do is look at when that point could come. Not to say that war will begin at that moment, but to look at where our development will have taken us by then. And if our capabilities fall significantly short of the threat at that point, then we need to look at why they fall short and whether there is anything we can change. We may not be able to change very many things in six months, but we can establish what needs to be changed and what it would cost. I don't think we're going to amend very many laws in six months or somehow start moving much faster. But some things do need to be reviewed. Perhaps the number one issue would be the Baltic Defense Line, because in my assessment, it is currently stalled. This isn't only about digging trenches or putting concrete positions in the ground; there are other activities involved as well. I don't want to say too much about it right now because I don't know how much has been done, but it seems to me that it has stalled. Then there is air defense in the broadest sense — not just what kinds of weapons we procure, but what our surveillance system looks like, how the public is informed and how different government agencies would plan their operations and protection in general. In my assessment, we need to move faster on this, whether we do so through the Government Office or different ministries. But I quite literally need political backing and communication so that this doesn't look like fearmongering coming from the Ministry of Defense, but rather simply providing information. It's the same way medicine talks today about preventing serious illnesses, and that isn't fearmongering. You already mentioned the intelligence assessment and the fact that some people say this threat assessment is essentially your own. So how will things work going forward? Are we going to make decisions based on Martin Herem's threat assessment or will we continue to rely on an intelligence assessment that has not been influenced by you? I'm actually very surprised that the question is being framed this way — not here in the media specifically, but in general. Our intelligence services — both Estonian Defense Forces intelligence and the Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service — are saying today that Russia is developing very rapidly. They have likewise said that within a few years after the end of the war in Ukraine, whenever that may be, Russia could test us militarily. What I want is not to change the intelligence assessment, but to put it down on paper in a way that allows us to discuss it with government agencies and the country as a whole. We can then compare the appropriate trajectory of their preparations against that point in time and see whether we can do better. I think this is also becoming very apparent today in the comments made by many people: We talk about this threat, but the next moment we say that we have six months, that we don't need to do things fast enough. A few years ago, those same people said that establishing the division was happening too quickly, that Ussisõnad [military exercise — ed.] was happening too quickly and that the procurement of ammunition, heavy weapons and armored vehicles was also happening too quickly — somehow, everything was too fast. I would say that even if Russia could become that strong within three years, we absolutely cannot allow these six months to go to waste. Of course I'm not going to dictate anything to the intelligence services, but I would point this out: Look at the statements and annual reports of those agencies. Look at what the commander of the Estonian Defense Forces has said. He has said that 2027 is a critical year. So how is it that this has suddenly become something I've come up with? Another point concerns Russia's growing strength: I don't know where critics get the idea that this has been pulled out of thin air. For the past two years, I've essentially been monitoring the development and strengthening of Russia's military power and advising both private companies and, to some extent, the Estonian Defense Forces on the subject. In my view, none of this has been pulled out of thin air. There are specific figures behind it and I'm always prepared to present them in terms of different capabilities. Have you asked the prime minister for any special powers? That's another very interesting point. I haven't asked for any special powers. Again: For me to be able to take this threat assessment to different agencies and ministries, discuss it calmly with them and have them consider how well prepared they are, I simply need political backing. If I start talking about these things now, for example as defense minister, people will say it's fearmongering. It isn't. This is deliberate action. It is the deliberate shaping of the state's activities, not fearmongering. At the same time, you have presented the prime minister with certain conditions. So whose policies are you going to pursue? Are you going to pursue Martin Herem's policies? Is the government going to pursue Martin Herem's policies? Or are you going to pursue the government's policies? How exactly is this going to work? I don't really understand the question. We will pursue defense policy. I can't demand anything from the state that the government doesn't approve. I can't say that certain laws must be changed overnight. That's not up to me. I'm still one part of the state: as a citizen, as a general in the reserve and perhaps, before long, as a minister as well. Whose policy is it? It's state policy, government policy and, then, defense policy. But will you lead the Ministry of Defense as a military officer or as a politician? As defense minister. If you want to call someone carrying out the duties of defense minister, someone who is the defense minister, a "politician," then yes, you can say I'll be doing so as a politician. But not as commander of the Estonian Defense Forces. That's Gen. Merilo's job and I have no intention of interfering in his work. Let's also talk a little about your potential conflict of interest. Do you see a conflict yourself, given that you're currently involved with a defense industry company? How can we be sure that when you walk through the doors of the Ministry of Defense, you'll leave those business interests behind? There are three safeguards, though people probably won't have much faith in them. First, I'm ending all of those working relationships. Most of them have already ended by now or I'll leave here and immediately sign the agreement terminating my contract with Frankenburg. Second, there is oversight. I'm a very open person; I don't hide anything and the relevant authorities can monitor me if I do anything wrong. Third, I'm also well aware of what the risks are. That's not my objective. Again, I could have had a fairly comfortable life outside of this challenge, so why would I need to get involved in some sort of scheme here? I'll say it again: My concern was who would be handling national defense as defense minister for the next six months. What's more, when Äripäev asked me about this roughly two hours before Hanno Pevkur announced his resignation, I said that he shouldn't resign. I haven't sought this position in any way; rather, it was a politician who approached me. The problems with the Estonian Defense Forces' inventories were already acute when you were commander of the Defense Forces and one of the decision-makers. How do you intend to solve those problems now if you weren't able to do so before? To be very precise, and without blaming others, those problems existed before me and they still exist after me. You can take National Audit Office reports from before my tenure, during my tenure and after my tenure and compare them; they are somewhat different. Second, the Defense Forces and the Ministry of Defense have evolved and some additional responsibilities have been added. But there are also more resources available and Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur has taken steps as well. Some things are already underway. How exactly will I solve them? I'll give it everything I've got. But one thing is clear: Keeping track of inventories isn't actually just a peacetime issue. During wartime, the commander of the Defense Forces and the government need to know how many shells there are on the Narva front and how many there are on the Võru front so that additional resources can be sent to the right place at the right time or reallocated as necessary. That's why we need to think about how the information systems we use in peacetime today would also function during wartime. We tend to think that everything will somehow be simpler during wartime, but I don't think it will be. Perhaps we simply need to change how we keep track of things today, but this needs to be put in order. There's no question about that. On Saturday, the prime minister mentioned bringing in an external partner to restore confidence in the defense sector. Do you know what that means? Do you have any idea what this external partner would do? I've discussed with him the idea that perhaps we should adopt more of the accounting practices used in the civilian world. Within the Ministry of Defense's area of government, this information is often protected as a state secret. Because of confidentiality requirements, all of these information systems are expensive, cumbersome and difficult to build. That slows down the entire work process — I wouldn't say it obstructs it. Perhaps we should review those rules and see how we could operate more efficiently. Because we ourselves — myself included — are very focused on protecting information, perhaps it would make sense to bring in someone from outside, from the private sector, who could look at it with a fresh perspective. That's what I've been talking about and that's what this external expertise means. It doesn't mean bringing someone in to handle communications. But couldn't that mean that this same flow of information could somehow pose a security risk to us? That's exactly what we're all afraid of — both the Defense Forces and the Ministry of Defense. But it does seem rather absurd that we publicly purchase 36 howitzers, everyone even knows how much they cost, but the moment they're entered into the Defense Forces' inventory system, they become classified, we stop talking about them and create problems for ourselves. Perhaps we should review rules like that when they don't make much sense. But once again, that requires communication between government agencies and the political will to assess the risks involved in making changes, and then someone also has to be willing to accept those risks. How extensive a shake-up are you planning at the Ministry of Defense? I've said before that, as of today, I don't have the name of a single specific person I want to replace. I think some changes will take place simply because additional resources will need to be allocated somewhere. But I'm not fully up to speed on what changes Hanno Pevkur or the permanent secretary had already been planning. I need to review those things first. If anyone thinks I'm going to come in with a broom and start sweeping people out, then no, because we have the people we have. Generally speaking, the Ministry of Defense's officials and Defense Forces personnel are all highly competent people. Who will you bring with you to the ministry? Kusti Salm or Veiko-Vello Palm? I'm fairly certain today that neither Salm nor Palm will be coming to the ministry with me. So if I do end up going there, I'll essentially be going alone. But have you offered them positions? I've talked and discussed these issues with them, but I have a feeling they wouldn't come. Who will be the next permanent secretary? I don't have a name. Several names have crossed my mind and come up in various conversations, but since I haven't spoken to those people, I'm not going to name them. That wouldn't be fair either. Why was it necessary to get rid of Kaimo Kuusk? You'll have to ask the prime minister that. He has stated very clearly that Kaimo Kuusk was dismissed from his position regardless of who the minister is. But dismissing him was also one of your demands. What was your reasoning? Why did you think he needed to be dismissed? I think it wouldn't be right for us to start discussing Kaimo Kuusk's actions here or those of anyone else. Kaimo Kuusk isn't a criminal or a villain and any further characterization beyond what has already happened would come across as criticism. I don't think either he or his loved ones deserve that, so I don't want to comment on the subject any further. What are your plans for the election and afterward? Are you going into politics? Do you intend to run in the Riigikogu election? Barely two weeks ago, I would have said that I would never become defense minister. I'm a little wiser now and won't say "never." But you'll find out fairly soon. The candidate lists should be finalized sometime in October or November, so you'll see then. I don't have any such plans at the moment. Otherwise, I wouldn't have taken the position I did when I told the prime minister that becoming a member of a political party or running on its candidate list must not be a prerequisite for becoming defense minister. But today, I'm not going to say anything more. Let's keep things interesting for everyone. We'll see in October. Have you had conversations with any political parties about possibly running? Of the current parties that, according to opinion polls, would win seats in the Riigikogu, practically all but one have spoken to me over the past two years. And they all know that my answer so far has been no. -- Editor: Marcus Turovski, Aleksander Krjukov