EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW — In any discussion of the potential threat Russia poses beyond Ukraine, the three Baltic states are at the top of the list. With the possible exception of Poland, no other nations have been as menaced by Moscow over the past century. For five decades Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were under the powerful boot of Soviet communism, and they were among the first Soviet republics to rise up against Moscow in the waning years of the U.S.S.R. They are also Russia’s neighbors, and while Lithuania was once a major European power (see the 15th century Grand Duchy of Lithuania), today the three countries combined are dwarfed in size and population by Ukraine.
All of which helps explain why the Baltic nations see themselves as fragile frontline states in the struggle against Russian aggression – real and potential. They have been among the strongest supporters of the Ukrainian resistance, and in a small but telling sign this week, Lithuania’s defense minister said the Baltic countries should shoot down any Russian drones that drift into their airspace. That followed the recent news that a Russian drone had crashed in Latvian territory.
Cipher Brief international correspondent Ia Meurmishvili met recently with two leading parliamentarians from the Baltic states – Marko Mihkelson, Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee in the Estonian Parliament, and Rihards Kols, former Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, Latvian Parliament – for a conversation about the Ukraine war as seen from their capitals, and what they view as the very real danger that Vladimir Putin, unless checked in Ukraine, will come next for their countries.
“We are militarizing our borders with Russia,” Kols said, in what he called “a clear signal that we are ready for potential aggression.”
The conversation also touched on the dangers of Russian disinformation, the coming U.S. presidential election, and what the Baltic nations would like Washington to do – no matter who wins in November.
They spoke to Meurmishvili in the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, on the sidelines of the Tbilisi International Conference.
This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
The Cipher Brief: I would like to start with a Baltic perspective on the war in Ukraine. What happens if Russia wins the war – and what happens if Russia loses?
Mihkelson: I think the answer is rather simple. If Russia succeeds in its efforts to destroy Ukraine's statehood, which is their ultimate goal, then it won’t stop there. As Putin has declared, Russia's strategic aim is not only to change the geopolitical reality in Eastern Europe but also to reshape the world order. This is why they are trying to build alliances with China, Iran, and North Korea.
We have to realize that those who tell us we have to be careful in deterring Russia because it might escalate the situation and lead to World War III are wrong. I argue that if we don't help Ukraine win today, we could end up in a major global conflict. Conversely, if Ukraine wins, Russia will be strategically defeated. For me, “winning” means Ukraine restores its control over its internationally recognized borders from 1991, and then Ukraine can be invited to join NATO. That would change the geopolitical calculus, not just regarding Ukraine but also for Belarus and Georgia.
The Cipher Brief: I understand that Latvia’s position may not be vastly different from Estonia's, but do you have a different perspective on the war?
Kols: Right now, the most important thing is to implement NATO summit decisions in practice. It's one thing to agree on paper, but we need to boost defense capabilities in the Baltics and the wider region, including Sweden and Finland. This will take time and financial resources. There is recognition in our governments and parliaments for the continuous increase in defense spending. There’s still high support within (Latvian) society for Ukraine—over 80%. However, there are also those trying to spread Kremlin narratives about war fatigue through various means.
We are militarizing our borders with Russia, laying out anti-tank mines and dragon's teeth, which is a clear signal that we are ready for potential aggression. It’s not just theoretical anymore; it's a practical concern. We see this as a deterrent, signaling to our European colleagues that we mean what we say. The challenge is Europe’s defense and military industry—it struggles to deliver on the commitments made.
The Cipher Brief: From an EU perspective, we’re hearing about funds being made available, but that they aren't quite enough – and even those haven't been disbursed.
Kols: Yes, the 1.5 billion euros for Europe’s defense initiative program isn’t enough. What’s worse, our strategic partners across the ocean are excluded from participating in these programs. It’s shortsighted. Those who claim to support "strategic autonomy" are actually pushing national interests. Only a few countries in Europe are capable of delivering the defense systems we need, especially air defense, and this dependence on the U.S. is not a bad thing—it helps in domestic discussions in the U.S. We've been engaging with U.S. Congress members, especially those skeptical about support for Ukraine, arguing against the misinformation they’ve been fed.
The Cipher Brief: By whom?
Kols: There’s huge disinformation, from domestic media like Tucker Carlson, or even Elon Musk on Twitter (X). Twitter has been dominated by Russian trolls, and Musk seems to lean toward the Republicans. There are many complications with this.
The Cipher Brief: Coming back to the issue you raised about the challenges from across the ocean, America has elections coming up, and we know the two primary candidates. What’s your outlook on what U.S. foreign policy could be if Trump is elected, or if Harris is elected? How are you preparing for either scenario?
Mihkelson: A lot will depend on the kind of policy the next administration adopts towards allies, towards Ukraine, and what can be done differently from now. I’ve argued, not just here but also in the U.S. and in European capitals, that the problem isn't just with the U.S. but with the allies overall. Are we on the same page? Unfortunately, we’re not. We’re not aligned on strategic goals, and that’s a problem. In Washington, you don’t always hear the same resolve that you do in Tallinn or Riga. For example, we believe Russia must be defeated, but this isn’t always echoed in Washington.
Mihkelson: If you don’t have a clear vision of what the end goal should be, the policy won’t be fully directed towards that goal. One example is Ukraine's membership in NATO. I have to say the NATO summit in Washington was, unfortunately, a failure in that regard. We gave Russia the signal that we’re still afraid of them and are willing to accommodate their concerns. Whoever takes office in the U.S. must understand that the outcome of the war in Ukraine will affect the future national security of the U.S., particularly in relation to China and the Middle East.
The Cipher Brief: There’s also been discussion at this conference about Poland advocating for NATO to protect Ukraine’s skies, specifically against missiles that could threaten NATO territory. Where do you stand on that?
Kols: In fact, the Baltic countries were the first to call for a no-fly zone right after (Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on) February 24th, 2022. We were ridiculed for it, but now the conversation is back. The recent incidents—whether they were intentional or just testing the waters—have raised the issue again. Not only Poland, but Romania and Moldova have had casualties from these incidents, and in Poland, two farmers were killed. This is no longer just a theoretical debate; it's about protecting our airspace according to international law.
The Cipher Brief: Do you think consensus can be reached on this?
Kols: At some point, consensus may not even be necessary. Providing military assistance to Ukraine isn’t consensus-based. It’s up to individual NATO member states to decide. If Poland decides to act, they soon will have enough Patriot missile systems, and there’s talk of them starting to produce Patriots in Poland, which would help resolve the issue of military industry bottlenecks. Foreign Minister Landsbergis of Lithuania put it well recently—he said we do more to protect legitimate Russian military targets than the Ukrainian people. This needs to change.
The Cipher Brief: What about the restrictions on Ukraine using Western-supplied weapons to strike military targets in Russia? What’s your position on that?
Kols: You can’t fight a war with your hands tied behind your back. Ukrainians have done miracles with what they’ve been given, but when I was in the region recently, talking to those fighting on the front lines, they said they need two things: first, no limitations on how they fight, and second, the ability to strike Russian airfields within 300 kilometers (185 miles) of the Ukrainian border. Russia uses 22 airfields to launch attacks against Ukraine, and that needs to be stopped. This isn’t escalatory; it’s about leveling the playing field.
Mihkelson: On top of that, the deliveries of promised military equipment need to be fulfilled. Ukraine has shown us lists of equipment that were promised back in April, but many items still haven’t been delivered. You can’t fight effectively when you’re promised help but don’t know when it will arrive.
Kols: Exactly. We’ve seen situations where promises were made, but the production lines aren’t delivering fast enough. During the Cold War, the West had hundreds of rocket batteries along the Iron Curtain, and they weren’t afraid of escalation then. Today, the situation has changed, and Russia hasn’t relocated its rocket batteries away from the Baltics—they still target countries like Germany, not us. This is why we need to wake up our defense industries. There needs to be a renaissance in military production.
The Cipher Brief: What do you want to see from America?
Mihkelson: First, the U.S. needs a clear understanding that it’s in their interest, alongside their European allies, to help Ukraine win this war. This isn’t a regional conflict—it’s not something you can park somewhere with another Minsk agreement. The war needs to end with a clear victory for Ukraine, and Russia must be defeated. This is a unique moment for the U.S. to regain serious global leadership, and it will make it easier to balance the growing power of China in the future. If Ukraine is defeated, the challenge for the U.S. will be much greater.Kols: I’ll turn the question around. What I don’t want to see is a further push for isolationism in U.S. politics. History has shown that isolationism is the choice of losers. Over the past 8 to 10 years, we’ve seen the U.S. moving in that direction, both in relation to the EU and its allies. I hope that whoever takes office after November 5th will embrace partnerships and work with allies instead of retreating into isolationism.
Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief.
