Facing Down the Russian Threat: A View from Estonia

Article by Ivana Prokopenko (UCLA Burkle Generation)
Image by Erin Ro (UCLA International Institute)

For Estonia, confronting an increasingly uncertain international environment requires two things that might at first seem contradictory: steadfastness and the ability to adapt quickly.

Speaking at an event hosted by the UCLA Center for European and Russian Studies and cosponsored by the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations, Estonian Ambassador to the United States, Kristjan Prikk, described a world in which geopolitical developments are moving faster than traditional diplomatic and policy processes can accommodate. Estonia remains firmly anchored in NATO, the European Union, and its partnerships with Western allies, he explained, but the country must also be prepared to engage beyond the Euro-Atlantic space, respond rapidly to changing circumstances and preserve its commitment to democratic principles, particularly in light of the security challenges posed by neighboring Russia.

For Estonia, confronting the Russian threat requires neither complacency nor paralysis, but the confidence to meet it directly. Ambassador Prikk titled his remarks “Facing Down the Russian Threat: A View from Estonia,” choosing the words “facing down” deliberately: “Not pretending it does not exist, but also not being paralyzed by it,” he explained. For Prikk, Estonia’s approach to an increasingly unpredictable international environment is grounded in “clear eyes, with steady nerves and with confidence,” acknowledging the seriousness of the threat while recognizing that it can be confronted.

Estonia’s experience shapes this perspective. A small country of approximately 1.3 million people sharing a border with Russia, Estonia was occupied by the Soviet Union in 1940 and restored its independence in 1991. “We know what it means to live next to a large, aggressive neighbor, not as a theoretical proposition, as a lived reality,” Prikk said. That history, he argued, gives Estonia a particular perspective on the challenges facing Europe today: “The Russian threat is real. I will not minimize it, but it is not invincible, and it is not permanent unless we make choices that make it so.”

Building security within the alliance

As the international system becomes increasingly unpredictable, Prikk argued that Estonia must remain firmly aligned with its Western allies while adapting quickly to new circumstances. Prikk emphasized the principle of the “indivisibility of security”: countries cannot expect allies to respond to their security concerns if they are unwilling to help those same allies when they face challenges of their own.

Estonia has sought to put that principle into practice through contributions that extend beyond its immediate security interests. Estonian customs and border police and equipment have been deployed to the Mediterranean to work with southern European allies on migration issues.

Estonia has also sent aircraft and personnel to assist with wildfires in Spain and Greece and participated in French-led missions in the Central African Republic and Mali. Such efforts, Prikk suggested, create what he called diplomatic “hard capital,” the belief that Estonia can draw upon diplomatic goodwill when asking other European countries to support its own security concerns.
“We can discuss with not only countries on the eastern flank of NATO, but also, say, southern or western European countries about how we've been there when they needed some help,” he said.

That solidarity is particularly important because European countries do not necessarily perceive the Russian threat with the same degree of urgency. For countries farther from Russia, the immediate security implications can seem less pressing.

Yet Prikk argued that the costs of failing to prepare could eventually become much greater. Some European countries, he said, have increasingly recognized that avoiding renewed confrontation requires investment now.

“It’s much better to pay up now, so to say, than to wait until the day when you have not the friendly bear here, but the angry bear knocking on your window,” he said.

Preparing for a less certain U.S. role

The question of European security has become especially consequential as European governments consider the possibility of a less predictable U.S. role in NATO.

Prikk acknowledged that American political and military support remains important to European deterrence and defense. Estonia does not pretend otherwise. “At the same time,” he emphasized, “we Estonians think that NATO only works well when countries are not super focused on philosophizing around Article Five,” but instead focus on Article Three, which emphasizes each member’s responsibility to provide for its own defense and contribute to collective defense.

Estonia has therefore increased its own defense spending rapidly, building on a longer record of meeting or exceeding NATO’s defense-spending targets. British and French forces are attached to Estonia’s military structures, while contingency plans for reinforcements have been developed with allied partners.

Prikk cautioned against assuming that a reduced U.S. commitment would automatically mean the collapse of European security arrangements. American forces remain in Europe, including in Estonia. At the same time, he argued that Estonia and its European allies must continue strengthening their own capacity rather than relying entirely on American power.

Deterrence depends not only on the strength of an alliance, but on the willingness of each member to contribute to it.

Facing down the Russian threat

Thus, Russia remains the central security concern shaping Estonia’s strategic outlook. But Prikk argued that understanding the threat requires neither complacency nor exaggeration.
Russia possesses significant military capabilities and nuclear weapons and has demonstrated its willingness to use force against civilians. Yet the war in Ukraine has also exposed limitations in Russia’s military, economy, and political system. The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 challenged widespread assumptions about the strength of the Russian military. Predictions that Kyiv would fall within days did not materialize. Instead, Ukrainian forces held the capital and Russia encountered significant military and logistical difficulties. Prikk argued that Russia’s authoritarian political structure can contribute to such failures because leaders are less likely to receive accurate information about the performance of their policies.

“In an authoritarian system, the incentives run the other way,” he said during his remarks. “You tell the leader what he wants to hear.”

For Estonia, the lesson is not that Russia should be underestimated, but that Western countries should avoid allowing fear of Russian power to become a source of paralysis. “The Russians are not one foot tall,” Prikk said, “but they are certainly not 10 feet tall either.”

The same principle, he suggested, should guide Europe’s approach to Ukraine. Estonia views the war not simply as a territorial dispute between two countries, but as a test of the principle that sovereign states have the right to determine their own futures and that borders cannot be changed through military force.

“If that principle fails in Ukraine, they do not fail only for Ukraine,” Prikk said. “This failure is for every country that lives next to a more powerful, more aggressive neighbor.”

For Estonia, that makes Ukraine’s security inseparable from its own. He concluded by saying, “We can face this down if we choose to."