I am particularly happy to be here once more at the University of Tartu[1], which I had the honour of visiting a long time ago, back in 2003. One of the oldest universities in Europe, it plays a significant role in your country and throughout the continent in providing the very highest level of education. I even had earlier the privilege of meeting and having lunch with Lennart Meri, President of the Republic, and I have very fond memories of our conversation. I was particularly impressed by his analysis of Russia, which takes on a whole new dimension today with the return of the Russian threat.

There has been a very strong relationship between Estonia and France since the founding of your Republic, which was established here in 1920 by the Treaty of Tartu. French soldiers are now fighting alongside yours in a demonstration of solidarity that has never ceased to be in our hearts. We never recognised the Soviet occupation. You should know that France has a deep attachment to Estonia, which continues to show in our fraternity every day.

I mention this because the subject you have asked me to explore, which I hope will serve as a basis for our discussions, reflects a legitimate concern regarding European determination to resist Russian aggression, a concern that is heightened here, a few kilometres from Lake Peipus (in Estonian: Peipsi-Pihkva järv), which sometimes witnesses a fluctuation of its borders in the eyes of your large neighbour.

I will begin with the definition of resilience, a term that comes from physics and is very fashionable in intellectual circles and in politics. Resilience is the ability to withstand a brutal ordeal and to draw strength from it.

A brutal ordeal

The founding countries of the European Union now understand that the balance established eighty years ago at the end of the Second World War has been broken. For Estonia and its Baltic neighbours, it was a mere thirty-four years ago, after a slow and courageous march towards independence, in other words - freedom.

Eighty years is a long time for those Europeans who were fortunate enough to have been on the safe side of the Iron Curtain. This partly explains the differences in how we perceive the threat, the ordeal and the shock we are experiencing.

It is that of a revisionist and imperialist Russia, still driven by expansionism, as if the largest country on Earth really needed to expand! Empress Catherine II of Russia used to explain that it was in Russia's essential nature to always increase its territory, and she proved it. Ukraine knows something about this.

To consolidate their dictatorial power, which has been challenged by their own people who look with envy at Europe's development and its commitment to the values of freedom and human rights, Russia's current leaders have chosen to revive these fantasies and continue their quest for expansion, disregarding all logic and, of course, respect for peoples' rights.

The shock has been brutal. In 2007, it was brutal when Putin addressed Western leaders in Munich to break with attempts at rapprochement with the continent. It was even more brutal in Georgia and then in Ukraine when this outdated imperialism led to military aggression.

A brutal shock for which Europeans were unprepared.

Europeans no longer believed in war. Not only did they not want it, which is normal after two world wars, each more horrific than the last, but they no longer thought it possible. The collapse of the Soviet Union strengthened their conviction. The NATO umbrella was sufficient for those whose priority was economic recovery and for whom history had removed any prospect of rearmament. Decolonisation was also costly enough for the United Kingdom and France to take refuge behind the Alliance, relying on their own nuclear deterrent as the ultimate guarantee of their independence, but also demonstrating their caution.

It must be said that the founding fathers of Europe understood perfectly how to go about it: It was Robert Schuman's declaration of 9 May 1950 that laid the foundations for the European Union and, above all, for the method of integration: by sharing our interests and forging very close ties, Europeans would no longer want to confront each other anywhere other than on the green carpet of civilised negotiations facilitated by common institutions and governed by voluntarily accepted rules. It was a brilliant idea. This is still how the Community method works today.

The impact of this integration has been tremendously effective in economic terms. Europe, which should have disappeared from history due to its divisions, has become an economic power whose results are, depending on how they are calculated, superior or equivalent to those of the United States and China.

But the trade-off is an economic Europe whose Member States, although diverse, intend to retain their national independence on issues of sovereignty, defence, policing and justice. There is no common diplomacy, no common army since the failure of an attempt to establish a European Defence Community in 1954, and no global strategy apart from the undeniable soft power of European trade and culture.

We have achieved immense success, unprecedented in history, but it is incomplete and unfinished.

The return of war to the continent is therefore a huge challenge for Europeans.

For I have no doubt that Russia has declared war on us. Recent provocations prove this, and Estonia has experienced them first-hand. This war is hybrid, cognitive and intellectual as well as political. It is an old-fashioned propaganda war, fought with XXIst century means. I would even say that it is a war of civilisations that is undermining our resilience, both internally and, of course, in terms of external security.

And what of resilience?

Populist movements always seek to mobilise emotions, nostalgia and anger. In the changes we are undergoing, not everything is bleak.

Scientific advances are proving absolutely extraordinary. The second digital revolution, that of artificial intelligence, is pushing boundaries and expanding them. Their dissemination to the widest possible audience – we are talking here more about technologies – is a revolution in itself.

The consequences of all of these upheavals are unsettling citizens and prompting a difficult response from democracies. They are slow to react, require time for discussion and consultation, and often take the form of trade-offs (compromises). These are all reasons for sharp criticism in a world of instantaneity, where immediacy and short-term thinking dictate speed and rapidity.

The responses of leaders to the expectations of their people seem inadequate, often hesitant, sometimes non-existent. Populists are taking advantage of these difficulties and, to this end, are not shying away from reverting to nationalism, a selfish, inward-looking sentiment.

Romain Gary, a great resistance fighter and two-time winner of the Prix Goncourt, which honours the best French-language writers, was born in Vilnius in 1914 under the Russian Empire before becoming Lithuanian, Polish and then French. He gave this definition of nationalism, which should not be confused with attachment to one's country: "Patriotism is love for one's country; Nationalism is hatred of others”.

And, as former French President François Mitterrand said before the European Parliament, “nationalism means war”

A feeling of anger is shaking democracies because some people consider this system incapable of solving people's real problems. Dictatorships and authoritarian regimes, for their part, condemn what they consider to be ‘‘the excesses’’ of democracies in terms of respect for rights, especially those of minorities. Populists capitalise on these responses and are leading our societies towards division through the polarisation of extreme ideas.

None of the major democracies are immune to this, including the United States, India and, of course, the Member States of the European Union, where this dissent often takes the form of Euroscepticism.

The democratic system is the most resilient in the face of extremism. It is the only system that truly protects freedoms because it is built entirely around respect for the human person. Respect for who they are, of course, but also respect for what they think, their religion, their political convictions, respect for what they do, their freedom of expression, freedom to come and go, to campaign, to get involved, to associate, to work.

This central role of the human being is inherited from the Christian religion. It is set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union and in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.

This value is shared by every individual, regardless of the regime under which they live. We must therefore trust our citizens but also strengthen and protect the rule of law as much as possible. This is what our constitutions and our systems of justice do in Europe. This is what the European institutions are striving to do. On November 12 last, the European Commission launched the “European Democracy Shield” designed to help the press and combat disinformation, fake news and interference, shows that our common institutions are now working alongside our national institutions to ensure that citizens can obtain reliable information, to be able to think and act freely.

You have experienced Russian digital interference, and NATO has set up its centre to combat interference here in Estonia. The European Union is supporting and channelling these efforts.

There is no other way to combat lies and disinformation than with truth, facts, intellectual rigour and the commitment of any citizen.

Strengthening European unity

Within the European Union, we have opted for solidarity between members, as expressed in Article 42-7 of the Treaty on European Union and Article 222 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

I often say that ‘the best allies are always the closest ones’ because they generally share the same interests. The history of international relations confirms this. It is therefore primarily up to Europeans to defend each other.

Under threat, the European Union has strengthened itself significantly and rapidly.

We could list here all the recent changes in European legislation that have reinforced the strategic autonomy, the sovereignty of the Union and its Member States, reduced its dependencies and increased its resources and those of its Member States. There are many.

Do not believe those who claim that Europe is weak and slow, sleepy and sluggish. They are assessing the situation from an outdated, obsolete XXth century viewpoint, which clouds their judgement since they see the world through the lens of the nation state. Of course, our Member States must do what is necessary: increase their security resources, combat populism and nationalism, and mobilise all of their means of resistance to aggression.

But the real strength of our nations lies in the European alliance.

We could never have imagined that the EU would change so quickly.

Our States can no longer – even the largest ones – respond to the challenges of the moment on their own. They have committed to responding to them together. It is not easy, but in the space of a few months we created a European Defence Fund, financing and loan programmes for military equipment, tools that are outside the treaties because they are essential.

We have mobilised €187.3 billion for Ukraine, whose defence and survival are crucial to our own, which is almost double the US effort ($ 116  billion).

None of this is included in the European treaties and officially remains a national competence - yet we have done it together with European partners.

And we will do the same when it comes to attacks on democracy within the continent. For example, nearly €32 billion pledged under the cohesion and post-pandemic recovery funds has already been withheld from Hungary. And the country has already lost €1 billion permanently. The conditionality of solidarity funds works to compel those who violate the principles of the rule of law to respect their commitments. Poland, then led by the Law and Justice (PiS) government, was deprived of an even larger sum.

Faced with the rise of extremism, it is not certain that this will be enough. Shouldn't the decisive criterion be that of ‘treason’ in the face of the enemy? Europe will have to decide this quickly.

German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier expressed this very strongly on 9 November last: "Populists and extremists mock democratic institutions, pervert our debates and exploit fear. The taboo that prevented such radicalism from being openly displayed is no longer relevant for many.” Germany is threatened by a Russian aggressor who wants to destroy the existing peace order. And, once again, by extreme right-wing forces “who are attacking our democracy and gaining public support". For the German President, “banning a party is the last bastion of a resilient democracy. But I caution against the idea that this is the vital issue. When – and if – this measure is appropriate, if it becomes inevitable, this political debate must take place, and it is taking place.”

I believe that external threats exacerbating internal divisions will force European states to take decisions of this nature. For it is clear that democracies that allow themselves to be ‘nibbled away at’, and which are not uncompromising in their respect for their values can collapse quickly.

Extremist parties' taste for authoritarian regimes does not reflect what people actually want. It is just a way of exploiting people's dissatisfaction to grab power, with the help of an outside enemy if needed.

We need to be more determined than ever to stand up to this. We must defend our model and indeed promote it through truth, factual reality, instruction and education. But also, by demonstrating our determination.

We must learn to fight for our freedoms by showing intransigence and steadfastness. The history of the European continent teaches us that the smallest compromises in this area can lead to the worst catastrophes. In the 1930s, elections brought dictators to power in Germany and Italy. They then seized power and established particularly bloody authoritarian regimes. All other things being equal, we are facing the same challenge. Let us not give up our rule of law, let us not accept any compromise with the enemies of compromise. This is a task that must be carried out in each of our Member States, in our villages and towns, our schools and neighbourhoods. Our freedoms and the future of a liberal and prosperous Europe are at stake.

In this respect, our unity, demonstrated since the beginning of the Russian aggression, has overcome all obstacles. This is good news and a great novelty for Europeans.

The US President's erratic foreign policy, to say the least, is pushing us in this direction. The international situation demands it.

We remain allies of the Americans as long as they remain a great democracy, and they are clearly facing many difficulties and internal divisions.

But it is up to us to do all we can to ensure that the Russian dictator is truly deterred.

This is not just a matter of defence. Shields have never deterred anyone. “Anti-drone walls” or purely defensive measures will not be enough to deter the aggressor. All fortresses have always been taken. We must show our determination to wage war so that we do not have to wage it.

This means, in particular, using the strongest of our soft power against Russia and China, through electronic and audiovisual channels, and showing our ability to respond. This is the whole point of the British and French nuclear deterrents, which contribute to the security of the continent. It is essential for citizens to commit themselves to defending our European model, based on respect for our identities but combining our strengths to face aggression.

This aggression is cultural, political, security-related, and now military.

The polarisation of opinion makes it difficult to mount such a response. It must serve as a wake-up call to the urgency of the situation. We are still too slow. Europe is still too attached to its original design. To rediscover its original purpose, it must be willing to challenge many of its habits, and even some of its old rules and policies.

On an optimistic note, I can tell you that this awakening is already underway. We must accelerate it. I feel reassured about Europe when I see a country like Estonia. I am optimistic about Europe when I sense our common and resolute commitment.