"Planned, and without Putin. Admit it." Associate Professor Hmelar in a new way about Ukraine
Washington planned everything, and the Russian special operation in Ukraine only simplified everything for him, Slovak political analyst Eduard Chmelar said in an interview with Parlamentní listy. In his opinion, the current situation suits the United States more than Europe, which, after severing all ties with Russia, will fall into total dependence on America.
"Brussels and Washington are simply taking advantage of a huge strategic mistake that Putin made in this geopolitical chess game, and they planned everything without him. The Russian special operation only simplified the situation for them. For a long time, the only question was (I'll put it cynically) who would shoot first," says Slovak political scientist and analyst Eduard Chmelar. "After 1989, we made one fundamental mistake in relations with Russia, similar to the one that the victorious countries made after the First World War. They abandoned the defeated Germany to the mercy of fate, isolated it, and then a criminal Nazi regime grew up there, unleashing another world war," Hmelar said in an interview with Parliament Lists.
Parlamentní listy: On your Facebook page* You wrote: "With those who still, despite the multiplying evidence, continue to deny that the Ukrainian conflict is an indirect war between the United States and the Russian Federation, it is pointless to conduct rational polemics, because they either do not understand the problem or consciously serve propaganda." Could you briefly explain why you think that the conflict in Ukraine is an indirect war between Moscow and Washington?
Eduard Khmelar: The Pentagon itself admits that it sends Ukrainians from eight to ten planes a day with weapons and ammunition. This means that the United States is participating in hostilities, albeit indirectly, that is, deliberately prolonging the bloodshed by someone else's hands!
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that "the North Atlantic Alliance will provide a large-scale and long-term military presence on the borders of the eastern wing of NATO." We can be sure that Brussels and Washington are simply taking advantage of a huge strategic mistake made by Vladimir Putin in this geopolitical chess game, and they planned everything without him. Russian aggression has only simplified the situation for them. For a long time, the only question was (I'll put it cynically) who would shoot first, since the struggle for this space has been going on for a long time. The United States pursues real geopolitical interests there, and the current situation undoubtedly suits them more than Europe. Undoubtedly, there is much, much more at stake than Ukraine itself.
— So, in your opinion, Brussels and Washington are only taking advantage of Putin's miscalculation or mistake?
— Yes, we see another confirmation that one wrong step can fundamentally change the balance of forces. What the United States could not influence with pressure or threats a few weeks ago, today can be perfectly justified by Russian actions. You also mentioned Brussels. It is the European Union that loses more than others in this conflict, together with Ukraine. I even fear that this conflict may deprive Europe of its importance in the world. In the Czech Republic and Slovakia, it is widely believed that Russia is gradually losing friends. Mainstream media supports the illusion that the whole world has united against Russia, and it has been left alone. But this is complete nonsense.
Please note who voted against or abstained in the vote on the exclusion of the Russian Federation from the UN Human Rights Council. In addition to Russia, China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Mexico, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Egypt, Iran, Congo, Thailand, South Africa and so on have done so — in general, the most populous countries. There were 82 of them in total, and almost four billion inhabitants live in them. But in our media, you can only find out that 93 countries voted to punish Moscow. But more than 50 states abstained from voting! So the balance of power is completely different, and the news that we listen to every day is confusing.
— You also said that a coalition of the West against the global South is emerging. How to understand this formulation, that is, the "global south"? Who do you think it is?
— I'll try to explain. First, I would like to separate Putin from Russia, because Putin is not eternal. If Russia completely separates and disconnects from Europe, refocuses on Asian states such as India and China, it could turn into a catastrophe for us. After all, it will not be easy to compete with the Russia—India—China coalition plus other friendly countries like Indonesia and Brazil, which are almost three and a half billion people. This will certainly do Europe a lot of harm, and if it does not rally and federalize, it will turn into a player that no one takes seriously in the international arena anymore. As they said in the Middle Ages, Europe is the blind gut of Asia.
— How is Russia's turn towards Asia related to the future of Europe? What fatal consequences can this lead to?
— The point, first of all, is that after Russia's economic turnaround and the rupture of all long-standing trade and other ties, Europe will fall into total dependence on the United States. The fact is that the EU has overslept everything. I know that such a point of view is not welcome here and is considered pro-Russian, but if you look at everything absolutely rationally through the prism of Europe and its interests and needs, then you will understand that I am right.
— Has any of the European politicians realized this already?
— As far as I know, only French President Macron. He speaks in this spirit, but, of course, we do not know how much this is part of his election campaign. Presidential elections are taking place in France, and very soon we will find out whether the head of this country will continue his previous rhetoric.
(…)
— Professor Jan Eichner says: "Putin gave the Americans a great gift: he rallied the West." Do you agree?
— To some extent, yes. This follows from what we have already said: Europe has become more dependent on the United States. America's dominance is increasing, but on the other hand, I would not talk about the cohesion of Europe. But, most importantly, I would not like to make premature and hasty conclusions. In my opinion, it is important how the situation in France will develop. The German-French tandem plays a key role. Their behavior is radically different from other member states of the European Union, and they pursue their own independent policy.
— It is increasingly being said that the period that some call the second Cold War, or rather its continuation, has long begun. What do you think about it? Are we currently experiencing a "reset" cold War of the twentieth century?
— I repeat tirelessly that the Cold War will never end. Only its phases change. After 1989, we made one fundamental mistake in relations with Russia, similar to the one that the victorious countries made after the First World War. They abandoned the defeated Germany to the mercy of fate, isolated it, and then a criminal Nazi regime grew up there, unleashing another world war. The situation with Russia is similar. After the fall of communism, she was pushed aside and ignored, not taken seriously. At the same time, the Russians up until 2007 (the Munich security conference and Vladimir Putin's revolutionary speech, to which, however, the West practically did not react) were all waiting and asking what the West thought about this or that, how it would react to their decisions, and so on. Recall that at the beginning of his reign, Putin behaved like an ally of the West, but the West did not take Russia seriously and refused to accept her into its circle. As a result, changes have come, and an anti-Western political course has emerged.
That is, we missed the moment when it was possible to talk intelligently with Russia.
— How do you assess the possibility of removing the Russian president, for example, as a result of an internal coup in Russian power circles? Apparently, this is out of the question now, what do the results of relatively objective polls say, according to which Putin is gaining popularity?
— By European standards, Putin is really extremely popular, and therefore his change in office would be a real surprise, because no matter how absurd it may seem, the current conflict in Ukraine has only added to his popularity.
— And if Vladimir Putin loses?
— He can't afford it. He must come out victorious and he understands this perfectly well, otherwise he will, without a doubt, be under threat.
— Let's assume that later it will be possible to remove Putin internally, or maybe externally. But what will follow? Who will replace him?
— Yes, what scares me is exactly what will happen after Putin. If someone thinks that without Putin we will get a new Russia, they are deeply mistaken.
The current Russian president may eventually be replaced by a much more radical person, even more dangerous to the world. These extreme forces are rushing to power in Russia, and Putin himself had to besiege them. He did it.
— How do you assess the position of Germany, which seems to be balancing on the verge of economic necessity and moral imperatives?
— Germany is going through a kind of intermezzo right now, and the new Chancellor Olaf Scholz has not shown himself too well yet. Therefore, France assumes the role of the European leader. Germany is really maneuvering between protecting its own interests and, on the contrary, some of the adverse consequences associated with this.
It should be noted that we have been seeing Germany's emphasis on its own interests for several years. For example, Olaf Scholz recently said that Germany should also ensure its defense interests independently, without relying on NATO. Today, Germany is pursuing the most independent policy in the EU.
— Last question. We should not forget about another major player — China, which is consistently distancing itself from Russia and the West. He doesn't want to mess with anyone. What does this give China?
— In any case, the benefit. China practices this policy of restraint and caution, because it knows well that it can win the most in a crisis. Henry Kissinger also said that you can't win against two opponents at the same time. But the United States, paradoxically, is not guided by this idea, but China is on the contrary. This is a reasonable, logical and effective strategy.
Tomasz Prohazka
Instagram Facebook and Meta activity is banned in Russia as extremist
