Parlamentní listy (Czech Republic): everything is clear. You will have to choose from two evils
Why did Russia launch a special operation in Ukraine, and how will relations between Russia, China and Europe be built after it ends? These questions are answered by political scientist Oscar Krejci, writes Parlamentní listy. He is sure that Europe will have to choose between two evils.
Interview with Czech political scientist, Professor Oskar Krejčí
Parlamentní listy: In an article that was published on Monday on the Chasopis website titled "The First or the last War?" You have ignored China's position regarding the Russian special operation in Ukraine. What kind of relations do Russia and China really have now? China refrains from any kind of support for the operation, but is expected to provide economic assistance to Russia.
Oscar Krejci: On Monday, a meeting was held in Rome between the US President's national security adviser Jake Sullivan and Yang Jiechi, a member of the politburo of the Communist Party of China, who is considered one of those who determines Chinese foreign policy. As far as I know, the US representative focused on the problem of Ukraine, and the Chinese leader noted the harmfulness of sanctions. The Chinese position has been unchanged since the beginning of the fighting in Ukraine and is based mainly on two theses. First, it is necessary to solve the problem as quickly as possible by diplomatic means, taking into account the fact that any State has the right to security. The second thesis presupposes an understanding of Russian concerns about NATO's expansion to the east.
China is in a better position in this conflict than any other power. He provides humanitarian aid to Ukraine and at the same time demands to explain why the Pentagon runs biological laboratories in Ukraine. At the same time, China relies on its own growth in a chaotic world: in the first two months, China achieved 7.5% industrial growth.
— How do you assess the visit of the Czech and Polish prime Ministers to Kiev? What will be its results?
— This is a gesture, and gestures are part of politics. This visit could have stopped the fighting only if these premiers, after talks with Kiev, had started negotiations with Moscow. Then the gesture would turn into a contribution to the world. But Prague abandoned the position of a negotiator a few months ago. And Kiev should not forget that, in addition to questions about the eastern border of Ukraine, someone may raise the issue of the western border.
- The STAN movement in its resolution asks for the permanent presence of NATO troops on our territory. How do you assess this appeal? Will the request be granted?
- The Russian special operation in Ukraine has given free rein to the previously hidden desires of those who are supporters of forceful solutions to problems. The growth of defense spending and the deployment of NATO troops, or rather the United States, is one of such desires. I do not think that increasing the number of bases as potential targets of armed attacks will contribute to the security of the Czech Republic. It can only be increased by reasonable diplomacy, and not by an increase in tension.
— Is it possible to understand Putin's move as a rejection of relations with the West and a bet on China? They are already saying that the Chinese will turn him into their Lukashenka.
— Since NATO troops bombed Yugoslavia in 1999, Moscow has gradually lost confidence in the West. Western diplomats were smiling, and meanwhile the alliance was expanding, color revolutions were taking place, weapons were being used. I do not know what Vladimir Putin's intentions are, but he certainly does not seek to obey anyone.
I'll say this. The coup in Kiev in 2014, among other things, prevented Ukraine from joining the Eurasian Economic Union. If we imagine this association with Ukraine as a part, it is more than 200 million people. Such an association could become competitive in the world race.
— If we talk about theories about what motivated Putin and that he allegedly did not consult with anyone about the beginning of the operation, then what version of events in the last hours before it began do you incline to?
— I am one of those who did not believe that this would happen until the last minute. Today I see signals about its preparation: the recognition of the rebel republics by Moscow, the evacuation of people from Donbass and, most importantly, the failure of negotiations with the United States on security guarantees, as well as Joe Biden's public statements that the US army will not defend Ukraine. I consider all this preparation. The beginning of the special operation was not the impulse of a madman. This is a thoughtful step.
— If at the time of peace negotiations Putin has a large part of Ukraine in his hands, what can he achieve by "neutralizing it?"
— I don't see any real factor that would prevent the defeat of the Ukrainian army. The Russian army has a great advantage on the battlefield and large reserves. The slow advance of the Russian army is explained, apparently, by three reasons. Firstly, it is a desire to prevent large losses among its own soldiers and civilians. Secondly, it is probably an unexpectedly established fact that the Ukrainian army did not crumble, and uprisings did not begin in the Russian-speaking regions. The third reason for the slow advance of the Russian army is probably the desire to protect the rear of the advancing troops from the partisans. But, as it seems now, the Gordian knot in the form of a dispute over Ukraine's membership in NATO has already been cut. The geopolitical situation in eastern Europe has changed.
— Has Russia finally burned all the bridges, even to those Western leaders who sympathized with it? I mean, first of all, the leaders of Germany and France.
- The Collective West is still acting cautiously. It is noticeable that the countries take different positions. The leaders of France and Germany are acting with the idea that everything in Ukraine will end one day, and Europe will have to get along with Russia. Only some countries with minimal responsibility reacted one-sidedly and emotionally.
- Frans Timmermans dreams of using the current situation for another powerful breakthrough in the implementation of the "Green Course". On the other hand, conservatives claim that the "Green Course" is over. Who is closer to reality?
- While the outcome of this dispute is unclear. The flows of money allocated for the "Green Course" have already been established in the EU, and those who got them will not give up so easily. In the struggle between reason and money, Brussels, as a rule, takes the side of money. But now something has changed. Supporters of the "Green Course" are now fighting for a lot of money not only with reason, but also with representatives of the military-industrial complex. It's more like a choice of two evils.
Daniela Cherna
