Estonian Parliamentarian Supports Russia’s Defeat

The Estonian chairman of the country’s unicameral parliament and a member of its Foreign Affairs Committee has posed a strong argument for adjusting the free world’s goal for ending Russia’s war with Ukraine and bringing peace to Europe and beyond.

Marko Mihkelson of the Reform Party argued that the only way to bring about an end to Russia’s war is by not shying away from the ultimate goal of defeating Russia.

Western leaders are asking the wrong question about Russia, Mihkelson pointed out. It is not how to negotiate with the Kremlin or deter a future attack, but how to ensure Moscow is defeated in its war against Ukraine so that aggression no longer appears to be a viable strategy, wrote Mihkelson in the publication Edasi.

“Almost every day, we hear new warnings about the possibility of a Russian attack against NATO. Defense analysts develop scenarios and conduct war games, intelligence services assess Russia's military capabilities and the Kremlin’s intentions and politicians urge societies to prepare for the worst. All of this is necessary. Yet too often, we fail to ask the most important question: what must be done to ensure that Russia never embarks on another act of aggression? Far too much energy is spent debating who should talk to Russia and how. Far too little is devoted to discussing how to bring about Russia’s defeat in the imperial wars of its own making.”

Mihkelson criticized politicians who favor using “sufficiently skillful diplomacy” to persuade Russian officials to abandon their objectives. The so-called right mediator, format and compromise also don’t work. None of that exists in the Kremlin’s world.

“Reality has proved mercilessly different,” he declared.

Indeed, reading or watching the news paints a very different image. Russia is intent on bombing Ukraine and killing Ukrainians until Kyiv succumbs to its will or surrenders.

“Russia operates according to the opposite logic. It prepares for opportunities, not threats. Its military planning rests on the assumption that weakness and hesitation among its adversaries create openings for further conquest. Its strategic objectives have not changed: Ukraine must fall and NATO must fracture,” he wrote. “It is therefore hardly surprising that every attempt to secure peace without addressing the root causes of aggression has reached a dead end. Ukraine has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to agree to ceasefires and engage in negotiations. It did so in the early weeks of the war and it has done so repeatedly through various peace initiatives supported by international partners. Moscow’s response has always been the same: nyet.”

For Russia and its fuhrer Putin, negotiations are only a means to buy time and as long as Russia believes that time is on its side, it has little incentive to end the war, he opined.

Mihkelson also cautioned against voices in Washington, DC, that favor lasting peace without mentioning a just peace because “peace without justice is not peace at all. It is merely a ceasefire before that next war.”

Mihkelson urged his colleagues throughout the free world to speak openly about Russia’s defeat rather than a truce but more importantly to act to make its demise realistic.  “Supporting Ukraine is of critical importance because every day Ukraine holds the line, it is defending the rest of Europe as well,” he said, repeating the oft-repeated concept that the defense of Europe begins in Ukraine.

“And if we can finally move beyond the absurd formula — that Ukraine must not lose, but Russia must not win, a phrase still heard all too often in Europe’s diplomatic corridors — and instead focus on victory, then there is reason for hope.

But to do that, we must first overcome one deeply ingrained fear: the fear of Russia’s defeat.”