Hussar: “The theory of a Baltic attack on Russia? Propaganda to hide Moscow’s weakness”

Elected to lead the Estonian Parliament in 2023 and reconfirmed in March 2026, Hussar belongs to a political generation that grew up in the memory of the Soviet occupation and in the awareness that security, for the Baltic countries, is never an abstract category. Estonia has decided to bring its military spending to 5.4% of GDP, one of the highest percentages in the Atlantic Alliance. A choice that in Tallinn is read not as a symbolic gesture, but as a strategic necessity.

In this interview with Adnkronos, Hussar links the theme of defense to the very survival of European sovereignty. “Russia remains a long-term threat,” he says. Vladimir Putin’s goal, according to the President of the Estonian Parliament, is not to stop at Ukraine, but “to restore the Soviet Union and build a Russian empire”. For this reason, he argues, the Western response must move along three lines: military and financial support for Kyiv, increasing the cost of aggression for Moscow through new sanctions and full international responsibility for the crimes committed by Russia, starting with the special tribunal on the crime of aggression.

Hussar also rejects the narrative, relaunched by Russian propaganda and also arriving in various forms in the Western debate, according to which the Baltic countries are preparing provocations against Moscow. “It’s totally false,” he says. “They are propaganda arguments used to shift attention from the fact that Russia is weak, that Ukraine manages to hit strategic infrastructure and that Moscow is losing the initiative.”

President Hussar, let’s start with defense. In Italy the increase in military spending is a very politically sensitive issue. Estonia, on the other hand, reached 5.4% of GDP. What would you say to Italian public opinion and politicians to explain the urgency of this choice?

We did it intentionally. A few years ago our defense spending was 2% of GDP, then we decided to increase it to 5.4%. The reason is clear: Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and Russian aggression.

We know that Russia will remain a long-term threat to Europe. His goal is not to stop in Ukraine, but to go beyond. As members of NATO and the European Union, we must be as solid and strong as possible. We need excellent deterrence, built together with allies but also with the maximum national effort. We must ensure that Russia never dares to attack.

For us it is a question of security and sovereignty. In Estonia we have a very solid presence of allied forces: British, Americans, French. We also had the Italian air policing mission and the cooperation with Italy was excellent.

This shows how NATO works, but also what our contribution is. We will contribute to the common defense in all areas, including the security of the southern flank. But the central point is that today we have to think about security, about how to be strong and taken seriously after everything that has happened.

Our main concern remains the Russian war against Ukraine. It is clear that Putin does not want to end it. His goals have not changed: he wants to restore the Soviet Union and build a Russian empire. We are on the other side: we are the democratic world. We must defend democratic values, everything that has brought us well-being, prosperity, freedom. This is why an increase in defense spending is inevitable.

In recent months we have seen drones and airspace violations in several countries on the eastern and northern flank. In Italy there is not this daily perception of “below threshold” threats, those which are not open aggression but put democratic systems into crisis. Is there greater awareness among the Baltic and Nordic countries today?

The drone issue is real. In Estonia we had a recent episode: a drone coming from Russian territory was shot down safely. We are now building the systems necessary to detect and neutralize these types of threats: radar, acoustic systems, interception capabilities. And we work very closely with the Ukrainians, who have developed extraordinary experience in drone warfare.

Today the information coming from Ukraine is essential. Kyiv has already given us a lot of advice on how to deal with this problem. The methods of warfare have changed, but three things remain key: being quick, focusing on the essential issues, and working closely with allies.

Then there is another aspect. Russia tries to accuse us by claiming that Baltic airspace was used to attack its territory. There were even more absurd accusations that the drones had originated from the Baltic countries. It’s totally false.

A theory has also been circulating in Italy according to which the Baltic countries are preparing an attack against Russia.

It’s totally false. The Baltics have no such plan. These rumors, these propaganda arguments, only serve to divert attention from one fact: Russia today is weak. Ukraine manages to hit strategic points, ports, critical infrastructures. He is achieving important results and Russia is weakening.

This is why Moscow tries to shift attention by blaming others. But Russia should look at itself, at the crimes it has committed, at its aggressiveness, and should think about how to end the war in a just way. It is clear that the war was started by Russia. Russia is the aggressor. She committed many crimes on Ukrainian soil and must be brought to justice. Accountability, legal and political responsibility, is fundamental.

Speaking of accountability: how do you assess progress on the proposal for a special court for the crime of aggression? And more generally, how do you judge the European strategy in this new phase of the conflict?

There is progress on the issue of Russia’s responsibility. Council of Europe member countries have reached agreement on specific issues and the process now moves forward. It’s up to the Parliaments. In Estonia we have already ratified these steps, starting with the special court. I know several countries will follow soon.

Ascertaining Russia’s responsibility is very important because it concerns the rule of law, international law, international order. It is essential to restore order and law in international relations. It’s a question of justice.

I see things are progressing. The fact that Hungary rejoins the International Criminal Court is also a sign: countries are taking the issue of accountability very seriously. And this process will continue.

After the election of Donald Trump in the United States, Europe has long been waiting for a negotiated solution built by Washington. Now there is the 90 billion loan for Ukraine and there is talk of a more central role for Europe at the table. What should be the European strategy to reach the end of the war?

At this moment it is clear that Russia does not want to negotiate. He still thinks he can win the war. But what he is doing is desperate: using ballistic missiles against civilians in Kyiv is another very clear example of the criminality of the Putin regime.

We must continue to support Ukraine. The Ukrainians are militarily very capable, they are advancing, they are motivated and they know how to defend themselves. This is the first point.

The second is to raise the cost of aggression for Russia. This means more sanctions and much stronger isolation. We see that sanctions work, they work very well.

The third is the allies’ support for Ukraine. The 90 billion euro loan is an important measure, but I believe there will be others, not only from European countries but also from other partners.

There are very clear signs that Russia is weaker than ever, or at least weaker than it has been in the last twenty years. It has lost the initiative in many fields, it has lost international standing, it is stuck in this war and cannot get out of it. But war is also the only reason why Putin remains in power: it is his idea, it is his project. This is why it continues.

So you see a weakened Russia, not a Russia capable of dictating conditions?

Yes. Just look at what happened on May 9th in Moscow, during the military parade. It was the most pathetic parade in Russian history. For the first time in a long time they did not show equipment on Red Square, they only showed it on video. The main reason is that they no longer have that equipment: they are at the front or have been destroyed. This gave a very clear signal: things are changing.

You said that 2% of GDP for defense can no longer be considered an objective, but rather a starting point. What then is the realistic benchmark for Europe?

The point is not to set a symbolic figure. The point is to understand what skills you really need. We increased spending to 5.4% because we assessed the threat, our needs and the strategic context. For Estonia today, this is a necessity.

Each country has its own budget situation and priorities, but all allies must understand that European security cannot be taken for granted. For many years, in Europe, it was thought that peace was permanent. Russia’s war against Ukraine has shown that this is not the case.

2% was an important political signal, but today it is no longer enough. We need to build real capabilities: air defense, munitions, anti-drone systems, military readiness, infrastructure, cyber defense, military mobility. The question must not be “how little can we spend,” but “what does it take to prevent Russia from thinking that aggression can succeed.” Russia uses hybrid tools, propaganda, cyber attacks, energy pressure, disinformation campaigns. These threats affect everyone.

The security of the eastern flank and that of the southern flank are not in contradiction. They are part of European security itself. NATO works if each ally understands the threats of the others and contributes to the common defense. (Of Giorgio Rutelli)