This statement of his coincided in time with an article in The Times, which talks about informal US approval of long-range strikes by Ukraine on the territory of Russia.

Also, the publication, referring to a high-ranking official of the American defense department, does not rule out the supply of long-range missiles and bombers to Ukraine, although earlier Moscow officially declared that it would consider this to be the entry of the United States into the war.

The fact that, despite Washington's efforts, Putin has renewed nuclear threats also increases the tension.

Moreover, the head of the Kremlin does not exclude the inclusion of the concept of a preventive nuclear strike in the Russian military doctrine.

At the same time, according to the US, the level of military-technical cooperation between Russia and Iran is increasing.

Moscow has already invited hundreds of drones and ballistic missiles from Tehran.

Meanwhile, some EU countries, such as France and Germany, are officially showing openness to further dialogue with Russia and with Putin personally, hoping it might make a difference.

Although, according to German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, every time he talks to Putin, "he talks very clearly about winning something."

To find out where the end of this war is, why Western partners do not want to provide us with more powerful weapons, what possible configurations of the end of this war the West sees, and whether Ukraine will be in the EU and NATO TSN after that.

- Russia's full-scale war against Ukraine has been going on for ten months.

And the end of this war is not in sight.

It is obvious that Putin is preparing for the "second" wave of mobilization.

What, he decided to fight to the last Russian?

- Putin has demonstrated his determination to get what he wants.

And the only response of the Western community must also be to show the aggressor that our willpower will remain stronger.

On Monday (December 12 - ed.) at the EU Foreign Affairs Council, we will discuss the allocation of additional resources (according to media reports, this is at least 2 billion euros - ed.) to the European Peace Fund, from which we also finance individual arms deliveries to Ukraine.

I hope that in the near future we will also be able to adopt a new ninth package of sanctions against Russia.

And most importantly, we must show our willingness to change the way we think about supporting Ukraine.

It should be aimed at obtaining permanent practical results.

Russia is committing atrocities or a series of escalating steps in the course of this war.

And Western countries respond with more military aid and sanctions.

Instead, we should immediately give what Ukraine is asking for, and this was my main signal to the foreign ministers of the NATO member states (at the meeting in Bucharest - ed.), and I repeated it to the EU foreign ministers.

That is, we should immediately provide what Ukraine is asking for with regard to all conventional weapons systems, as well as increase the sanctions to a level that would be sufficient for Russia to end the war and Ukraine to be able to liberate its territories.

- What do you think the West still gets wrong about Russia and its ability to continue this war?

What sanctions are still missing to completely cut off Russia's ability to finance this bloody war against Ukraine?

- I think that the main problem of the sanctions regime is Russia's profit from (export - ed.) natural resources.

That's why we conducted intensive negotiations with the EU member states about the price "ceiling" limit that should be set for Russian oil.

The European Commission's offer was at the level of $65 per barrel.

Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland resisted this first proposal.

We ended up agreeing to $60 per barrel, which is still high.

Therefore, it is necessary to work in the direction of reducing (this limit - ed.) by half.

Because half (that is, $30 per barrel - ed.) will mean that Russia will not actually receive a net profit from the sale of oil.

However, at the same time, the EU countries managed to decide that the current price "ceiling" for Russian oil, which came into effect on Monday, December 5, will be revised downwards.

The second element is the Russian financial sector and banks.

There are dozens of Russian banks that are still not cut off from the SWIFT system.

And we also need to cut off all financial flows of Western companies to Russia, and vice versa.

Therefore, it should be adopted immediately.

And thirdly, there is also a large list of various goods and services that still continue to arrive (to Russia - ed.).

But this is secondary if we talk about the impact of sanctions.

The basis is income from natural resources.

if we talk about the impact of sanctions.

The basis is income from natural resources.

if we talk about the impact of sanctions.

The basis is income from natural resources.

- It is clear that the West wants a controlled change of power in Russia due to its huge arsenal of nuclear weapons.

However, we can already see that the Kremlin is deliberately bringing Prigozhin, Kadyrov and others into the public arena.

In your opinion, can things get out of control in Russia?

- By getting out of control, do you mean Putin losing control of the situation?

Of course it can happen.

Unfortunately, we do not see how independent they are.

Judging by public statements, there is a big difference in their approaches to Putin and the war.

But now Russia is turning into a rather totalitarian state.

If Putin becomes more passive, rather than active, regarding their power and economic interests, things could change very quickly.

I remember from my own youth how Gorbachev was effectively deprived of power.

And this process is intensified when institutions simply refuse to follow orders.

But it is really true that there is a radicalization of such people as Prigozhin and Kadyrov, who are made public figures in Russia.

This, I think, should give a clear signal to the world to universally recognize Russia as a terrorist regime.

Because basically

- Perhaps this is a kind of blackmail of the West by Putin to show that perhaps it is better for him to be in power in Russia than these radical characters?

- So.

Russia, like the Soviet Union, plays this game.

Like, look, there could be some even crazier, more unpredictable, and bloodier people out there to replace the current regime.

But, I hope that no one will accept this narrative.

Because in fact, the main focus of committing the genocide of the Ukrainian people is Putin's political will.

And it is his will that turns these atrocities into reality.

In this context, I hope no one believes that the resistance to Putin's regime should be limited after all, because if not, then Prigozhin will come to power.

- By the way, it was a very cool move on your part with handcuffs for Prigozhin in response to the bogus "bloody" sledgehammer that Prigozhin sent to the European Parliament.

You have already partially answered my question about whether things can get out of control in Russia.

However, in general, how do you think Putin can be removed from power, and what will happen in Russia after him?

- It is obvious that the downfall of Putin can happen when Russia loses the war.

So, regarding the loss of Russia, I fully agree with President Zelensky's previous conditions.

First, this is the complete liberation of all Ukrainian territories.

Second, payment of all reparations.

And, thirdly, full responsibility.

It is a litmus test for the world community that we will not see a return to business as usual in international relations after the war with Putin and his accomplices.

They must bear full responsibility for the crimes against humanity they committed, for the crimes of aggression.

And these events, I think, can lead to the overthrow of the Putin regime.

When can this happen?

This is a question of stronger and more practical support for Ukraine by the Western community.

Because I do not doubt for a second the determination of the brave Ukrainians to oppose the Russian aggressors on the battlefield by all means.

- You just said about the defeat of Russia.

What configurations do you see ending this war?

Can this war not end at the negotiating table?

And can this war go beyond the borders of Ukraine?

Has this already happened after the rocket explosion in Poland?

- The investigation into this rocket explosion is still ongoing.

But the Polish authorities are sure... I would say that although this is not a world war, this war has consequences all over the world.

Although, according to international law, the parties to the military conflict in this war are two countries.

But, of course, Western countries see Russia as an adversary in a broader perspective.

And, I think, Russia also does not hide that it has the same view of Western countries.

Therefore, I think that this war, and I want to emphasize this, is not only about the future and freedom of Ukraine and the Ukrainian people.

It is about the future of the whole of Europe.

Because, and I have emphasized this many times, if in theory the result of the war is somehow not a complete victory for Ukraine, but something ambivalent, it will mean an existential threat to all European nations and to the entire European security order.

And for the sake of restoring peace in Europe and a stable European security architecture, we need a future where the borders of countries are inviolable.

And this means the victory of Ukraine, when the aggressor country bears the full responsibility.

And also, I think that the inevitable premise of the future European security order will be that Russia in the future after the war should not be in a position to dictate to its neighbors its terms, different security options or lifestyle conditions.

Therefore, if you are asking how this war will end, then the war must end with the fulfillment of these prerequisites, which were announced by the Ukrainian president.

And also according to the results of events on the battlefield, or a legal legal document that will record the outcome of this war.

This is already the near future.

And closer than we all hope.

Let's see.

we must have a future where the borders of countries are inviolable.

And this means the victory of Ukraine, when the aggressor country bears the full responsibility.

And also, I think that the inevitable premise of the future European security order will be that Russia in the future after the war should not be in a position to dictate to its neighbors its terms, different security options or lifestyle conditions.

Therefore, if you are asking how this war will end, then the war must end with the fulfillment of these prerequisites, which were announced by the Ukrainian president.

And also according to the results of events on the battlefield, or a legal legal document that will record the outcome of this war.

This is already the near future.

And closer than we all hope.

Let's see.

we must have a future where the borders of countries are inviolable.

And this means the victory of Ukraine, when the aggressor country bears the full responsibility.

And also, I think that the inevitable premise of the future European security order will be that Russia in the future after the war should not be in a position to dictate to its neighbors its terms, different security options or lifestyle conditions.

Therefore, if you are asking how this war will end, then the war must end with the fulfillment of these prerequisites, which were announced by the Ukrainian president.

And also according to the results of events on the battlefield, or a legal legal document that will record the outcome of this war.

This is already the near future.

And closer than we all hope.

Let's see.

I think that the inevitable premise of the future European security order will be that Russia in the future after the war should not be in a position to dictate its terms, different security options or lifestyle conditions to its neighbors.

Therefore, if you are asking how this war will end, then the war must end with the fulfillment of these prerequisites, which were announced by the Ukrainian president.

And also according to the results of events on the battlefield, or a legal legal document that will record the outcome of this war.

This is already the near future.

And closer than we all hope.

Let's see.

I think that the inevitable premise of the future European security order will be that Russia in the future after the war should not be in a position to dictate its terms, different security options or lifestyle conditions to its neighbors.

Therefore, if you are asking how this war will end, then the war must end with the fulfillment of these prerequisites, which were announced by the Ukrainian president.

And also according to the results of events on the battlefield, or a legal legal document that will record the outcome of this war.

This is already the near future.

And closer than we all hope.

Let's see.

therefore, the war must end with the fulfillment of these prerequisites, which were announced by the Ukrainian president.

And also according to the results of events on the battlefield, or a legal legal document that will record the outcome of this war.

This is already the near future.

And closer than we all hope.

Let's see.

therefore, the war must end with the fulfillment of these prerequisites, which were announced by the Ukrainian president.

And also according to the results of events on the battlefield, or a legal legal document that will record the outcome of this war.

This is already the near future.

And closer than we all hope.

Let's see.

- Interesting.

Thank you very much for this answer.

So, you know, now in Ukraine, the Baltic countries, and Poland there is a rather widespread discussion about "good" and "bad" Russians.

This issue became especially acute after the scandal with the Russian TV channel "Dozhd".

What can you say to the Russians who sided with this channel so that they understand what really happened?

Because we in Ukraine understood very well the position of this TV channel regarding sympathy and assistance to the mobilized Russians.

- I think that all honest people, regardless of nationality, if they have responsibility for their actions and the human heart, oppose this war.

And, of course, Russian citizens may find it painful to imagine that their country is involved in a war.

But this, I would say, is false pain.

Because first we have to be human.

And, secondly, to think about the future of our country.

So Putin's regime is turning Russia's future and dignity into murder.

I think that every honest Russian must resist the war with all the public means available to him, which he has in his hands.

And there cannot be any gray zone here, saying that "I am for peace", "I will not take a position on this conflict", "I have some support (from a false humanistic approach) of the Russian military"... No.

This means,

that all these half-hearted comments or positions are morally unacceptable.

Therefore, Latvia, where "Dozhd" worked, made a decision in response to these statements.

And, I think, they have quite understandable arguments for this.

- So.

Estonia and Lithuania, as we have already seen, also banned this TV channel from speaking in their countries.

Fine.

The next question is about Putin's nuclear threats.

The US and China seemed to be sufficiently convinced of the possible consequences.

But last week we heard again Putin's statements about nuclear weapons, that the risk of nuclear war is increasing, etc.

So, do you think Putin will care about the consequences?

- I think that this is a game of escape from the chicken coop (chicken run game - by analogy with the cartoon of the same name - ed.).

Putin now intends to act in this way against the will of the Western community, hoping that we will start to fear his threats.

I hope that no Western country or public opinion will buy into these threats.

Because as we've also seen in the past from some of the mutual nuclear deterrence that was used in the Cold War, the first element really is that if you unilaterally use nuclear weapons in that context, it will lead to a powerful response.

And there were also clear signals about this from the Western countries that have nuclear forces.

And I think the Kremlin clearly got this message.

And secondly, of course, if you get down to these threats and start evaluating them, then where does this line pass?

This means,

that a nuclear terrorist country can terrorize the entire planet on a permanent basis.

Therefore, we cannot allow ourselves, firstly, to be afraid, and secondly, we must be ready for everything.

But I am convinced that the rhetoric he (Putin - ed.) is using now is just intimidation.

And, I think, not the Ukrainian people, because they know that Ukrainians are indomitable in this context.

But in the broader sense of the world community.

However, he is defeated along the way.

- The American press writes that 20 of the 30 NATO member countries have already exhausted their capacity to supply weapons to Ukraine.

You are the Minister of Foreign Affairs, not the Minister of Defense, but you are still involved in the discussion of these issues.

What, everything is so critical?

- I think that we still have the potential to immediately supply weapons to Ukraine.

Of course, this depends on the individual decisions of the countries that have the necessary weapons.

This was also discussed at the meeting of foreign ministers of NATO member countries in Bucharest, where I urged that, first of all, tanks should be provided to Ukraine.

And several member countries of the Alliance have these tanks.

Secondly, (provide - ed.) long-range missiles without any political reservations.

And many countries also have such weapons.

And, thirdly, of course, (provide - ed.) larger volumes of air defense systems.

So, Ukraine now, when we talk about military aid, needs both a shield to protect its people, its civilian infrastructure, and a sword to deter the aggressor. 

- Do you think these talks about negotiations with Russia are already closed?

What were the reasons for such statements?

Why did Macron say about the need to provide some security guarantees to Russia?

What is he even talking about?

- This issue should be commented on by the French authorities and the French president.

But I think that the countries that need security guarantees are precisely those countries that are under attack from Russia.

The top leadership of Russia needs only one security guarantee - it is a security guarantee to sit on the tribunal.

This is the security that world countries should provide to the leaders of Russia.

And I also think that, indeed, it is now very important to maintain Western unity in supporting Ukraine, as well as to continue resisting Russia and Russia's war of aggression.

And, I think that in all these top-level contacts or signs of dialogue with the top leaders of Russia, there is a danger that they can be interpreted as certain signs of weakness, not so even from the friends of Ukraine, as, on the contrary, they can also give "oxygen" in the Kremlin.

And that's not a very good thing.

Because we remember

how intense these talks were at the highest level just before the start of this phase of the war.

And they did not stop the Russian war machine in any way.

- And the last broader block of questions about the future of the European security architecture after this war.

So how can she change?

How can NATO and the EU change?

What future awaits these two blocs after the end of Russia's full-scale war against Ukraine?

- I think there are several elements, and tectonic changes are taking place.

In Estonia, we never had any illusions about Russian intentions.

But there were also hopes for a change in the understanding of Western countries, which have now come to a new perspective.

And now the world also understands that all these Russian actions, which they committed against other countries, against Western countries, other tasks, political corruption, the use of any means of influence, cyber attacks, etc., were all used for the sake of a single clear strategic goal - to obtain advantages over the West.

And in this context, the only way to answer that is not to seek a politics of humiliation in any way.

Because if we didn't learn during ten months of this stage of the war, but if you put it in an objective perspective - during eight years of this war, then we didn't learn anything, I would say honestly.

And the second important element of this is that we have to invest more in military capability, in security, and more importantly, I hope there will be a big discussion that has already started on how we see the future European security architecture.

And, I hope, we will be determined that we, as the nations of Europe, do not once again find ourselves in some half-hearted solution that only postpones possible future Russian aggression.

This should not happen.

And also, of course, we should openly discuss, and this was also my message at the meeting of foreign ministers of NATO member countries (in Bucharest - ed.), how NATO member countries will consider Ukraine's application for membership in the Alliance, which was submitted by the authorities of Ukraine at the beginning of October to NATO.

which has already begun as we see the future European security architecture.

And, I hope, we will be determined that we, as the nations of Europe, do not once again find ourselves in some half-hearted solution that only postpones possible future Russian aggression.

This should not happen.

And also, of course, we should openly discuss, and this was also my message at the meeting of foreign ministers of NATO member countries (in Bucharest - ed.), how NATO member countries will consider Ukraine's application for membership in the Alliance, which was submitted by the authorities of Ukraine at the beginning of October to NATO.

which has already begun as we see the future European security architecture.

And, I hope, we will be determined that we, as the nations of Europe, do not once again find ourselves in some half-hearted solution that only postpones possible future Russian aggression.

This should not happen.

And also, of course, we should openly discuss, and this was also my message at the meeting of foreign ministers of NATO member countries (in Bucharest - ed.), how NATO member countries will consider Ukraine's application for membership in the Alliance, which was submitted by the authorities of Ukraine at the beginning of October to NATO.

- This is exactly what my next question is about.

So, about the future membership of Ukraine in NATO.

Do you believe that this can really happen?

And what does it depend on?

- It depends on the consensus decision of the member countries.

But, I have already said that it is not a question of "if" (it will happen - ed.), it is a question of "when" and "how".

Because, "whether" - we could already see Ukraine as a future member of NATO, and this question was already answered 14 years ago in the communique of the leaders of the NATO member countries of the Bucharest meeting.

But "when" and "how" is already the homework of our generation of Western politicians to do this.

And, of course, everyone perfectly understands, Ukrainians understand, all NATO member states understand that this issue will not arise literally tomorrow.

But this question, as we say, is on the table.

And if we say, if someone says that we should not escalate the situation, talking about Ukraine's membership in NATO, I think that this will actually give some activity to Putin.

And this will be a fundamentally false signal.

Because another justification for why Putin started this war is actually to avoid the possibility of Ukraine having its own options for a future security vision.

- And the last two questions.

The first is about the security guarantees that Ukraine can receive.

You just said that Ukraine's future membership in NATO is not a topic for tomorrow.

This is a task for us for the future.

But before that, for the time being until Ukraine's membership in NATO, can we get these security guarantees?

- From my understanding, we should immediately, right now, provide more weapons (to Ukraine - ed.) in order to continue the implementation of complete isolation of Russia, its further responsibility (for committed war crimes - ed.), directing frozen Russian assets to the restoration and support of Ukraine .

And these are the issues of the near future that we have to solve.

The second element, when talking about security guarantees, we should not rely on half-assed solutions in the future.

This means that these security guarantees are the reason for the existence of NATO, and this is the membership (of Ukraine - ed.) in NATO.

- And the last question about Ukraine's membership in the EU.

So, again, what does it depend on?

- Again, I am sure that the authorities of Ukraine will be determined to comply with all these seven points established by the European Commission (for the start of negotiations on Ukraine's accession to the EU - ed.).

But one thing is administrative issues, technical work that must be done objectively.

But another, primary issue is always political will.

The political will of the citizens of Ukraine is very clear.

Now it is also very important to have the consensus, the political will of the EU member states.

And it's a long road.

Estonia remembers this well.

It took us years.

But it is also very important to talk about the first steps that we can already take in order to start technical negotiations regarding the partitions (Membership of Ukraine in the EU - ed.) between the EU, between the European Commission and Ukraine already next year.

And these are issues that Estonia strongly supports.

And many countries think so.

And this, I believe,

it is very important to continue to take this path step by step.

Yes, many challenges can arise here on an objective basis.

And political issues may also arise.

But there are friends along the way.

Therefore, this road will be shorter.

And, I am sure, Ukraine will have a future in the EU.