Kaja Kallas: ‘Russia has been humiliated in Syria. They were there, but their thoughts were elsewhere’

It is her eleventh day in office as the EU’s High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy and Kaja Kallas (Tallinn, 1977) has already faced a new development on the burning international geopolitical chessboard: the fall of Syrian autocrat Bashar al-Assad and the seizure of power in Damascus by Syrian rebel groups. The former Estonian prime minister, a liberal politician who has for years been one of the clearest voices against the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Kremlin’s various war formulas, now speaks with uncertainty about the future of the Arab country, after almost 15 years of civil war.

“The future in Syria is quite hopeful, but still uncertain,” Kallas told a small group of journalists in her first interview with print media, in which she noted that she saw no inconsistency in initiating talks later with some of these groups that are on the UN list of terrorist organisations, such as Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). Kallas spoke in her austere office at the European Commission, shortly before leaving for Berlin, where she will meet with the foreign ministers of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom to discuss Ukraine.

In her new role, Kallas faces the challenge of unifying the position of the 27 EU member states on issues such as the Middle East, ensuring that the spirit of support for Kyiv is maintained, and that funding does not decline. She also faces the uncertainty of what the EU will do if the new U.S. president, Donald Trump, decides to withdraw Washington’s support for Ukraine and push it into negotiations with Russia. On Monday, in her first meeting with the heads of diplomacy of the EU countries, she will address the situation in Syria after several of them decided to suspend asylum applications.

Question: Under what conditions do you think the EU could start negotiating with rebels like HTS?

Answer. The future in Syria is quite hopeful, but still uncertain. We don’t know how they will behave. I have spoken to all the ministers from the region and they are all waiting. We really want to see that there is no civil war, no radicalization, no persecution of minorities, no terrorism... We are in close contact with the regional actors, who are very vigilant, and then we will see how we engage, if it is really the way they are behaving now and if it is in line with our interests.

Q. Do you think the EU should lift sanctions and even remove HTS from the list of terrorist organizations, as defined by the UN?

A. That is not the issue right now, because that does not prevent us from talking to these people. The European approach is not without conditions. And the conditions are that there is no radicalization, no revenge, no retaliation. We will see how the situation develops in the coming days and weeks.

Q. Is there a risk that if we wait too long, Russia for example, which was already there, or China could intervene?

A. Russia? I think they have been somewhat humiliated because they have been weakened. They were there [in Syria], but their thoughts were elsewhere [in a clear reference to Ukraine]… So they left Assad alone. They are not fighting for this. When it comes to China: we must be vigilant, but I don’t see how they can occupy the space, because all the regional actors, as well as international ones, are interested in a stable and unified Syria so that it is possible to attract investments to that region and for the return of refugees. It is in everyone’s interest that there is no terrorism and no radicalization.

Q. It seems that the G7 is considering moving towards recognition or openness to recognition of the new Syrian government. Is this a condition for the EU? And if recognition is granted, does it imply considering Syria as a country to which refugees can be returned?

A. Right now the issue is at a really early stage. The question is not recognizing the government, but rather assessing the deeds and the direction in which Syria is actually going. Now, as far as refugees are concerned: people don’t want to leave their homes unless they have to. Asylum policies are also related to the protection of those fleeing war zones or places where they cannot live, so if those grounds for asylum are no longer in place, European countries expect these people to return, we could take the burden off Europe, we have other wars where people are fleeing. We know the domestic issues in several [EU] countries, where we have seen elections where migration is the main issue, so it is clear that in several countries that is what people want to hear. And also in the countries around Syria, where there are many Syrian refugees.

Q. But voluntary returns, not forced ones...

A. On a voluntary basis. We have international laws. We have the migration and asylum pact in the European Union. All these rules have to be followed.

Q. Isn’t there an inconsistency between having HTS still designated as a terrorist organization, the EU waiting to see what they will do, how they will act, and yet some member states saying that it is safe for asylum seekers to return to Syria, or that this is the goal?

A. The initial signals have been good. Whether they are able to keep it up is another question. It’s domestic politics. Still, we need to discuss it with the foreign ministers in order to have a common approach, because it can’t be one country saying it’s okay and another one saying it’s not.

Q. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is one of the issues you discussed most during your time as Estonian prime minister. There are growing calls for negotiations, with Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk saying they could begin in winter. Is it possible for these negotiations to take place without the EU or any European actor?

A. I have spoken with President [Volodymyr] Zelenskiy about this and if there are any kind of negotiations, the EU needs to be at the table. And he said it: the EU should be there because Ukraine is in Europe there are clear consequences for Europe if such agreements or negotiations are taking place. But he also insisted that right now, no such negotiations are taking place.

Q. Do you think that talks could start this winter?

A. We cannot forget that Russia doesn’t want these negotiations. Russia has been very clear. Without them, there’s no point in talking about this. If Russia wants peace, it could easily have it by withdrawing from Ukraine. It’s very simple, it’s in their hands, but so far they haven’t really renounced their goals. They have the same goals of occupying Ukraine and going further.

Q. Do you expect Donald Trump to put pressure on Russia to sit down at the negotiating table?

A. I can only assess what he will do based on what he has said in the media. He wants to stop this war quickly. Well, everybody wants to stop this war quickly. And in fact, by pressuring Russia to stop this war, we could end it quite quickly. So if he does that, I think he could take credit for ending the war if he’s able to push Putin to say that he will stop.

Q. Trump has talked about reducing U.S. aid to Ukraine. Do you think Europe will fill the gap in terms of military and financial aid?

A. Aid to Ukraine is not charity, it is an investment in our own security and not only in the security of Europe, but also in global security, especially now that North Korean soldiers are also involved in this war, we see big military exercises in the South China Sea. I think China is also learning from what Russia does. And what happens in China and the rest of the world depends on how we respond to what Russia does. And it is also in the interest of the United States. So if [Washington] reduces aid, the EU has to continue supporting Ukraine, and step up our support, because I am worried about what happens if Russia wins. I think we will have more wars, and bigger ones.

Q. There are doubts about the financial capacity of this support...

A. Yes, there are questions, and there I think we need to discuss the frozen Russian state assets [some $220 billion in European territory, especially Belgium and Luxembourg]. A bird in the hand is better than two in the bush. And that is also a tool of pressure on Russia.

Q. So the assets directly? Until now the option has been to use the returns generated by that immobilized money, as agreed by the G-7.

A. The assets.

Q. This has been a controversial issue, could there be a way to reach a compromise?

A. I understand the sensitivities that member states have, especially those hosting these assets. As a lawyer, I also think that we need to think about how we can come around to an agreement. If we look to the future and in broader terms, I think that we will get there one day because of the unimaginable damage that Russia has caused to Ukraine. Ukraine has a legitimate claim against Russia for compensation. We have the assets now, we know the value of them. And if there is anything left when all the damage has been compensated, which I doubt, we can give that back.

Q. An EU leader, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, recently had a conversation with Putin. When you were his colleague, you spoke out against his rapprochement with the Kremlin. Now, as a high representative, how do you view this attempt at bilateral dialogue?

A. Well, of course, everyone is acting on their own behalf. We have 27 different leaders around the table, so we need to work with 27 different democracies and discuss these issues. You always have to keep in mind that Putin really wants to humiliate Europe, but we should not overestimate Russia’s power or underestimate ours. Many are talking about negotiations, so they think that we have the will to undertake them and that if they hold on a little longer they can outlast us. But what we have seen in Syria is that they are not capable of keeping up the fight, that they are beatable, that they can be defeated and that Ukraine can win.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition