Cutting off a country from the West no longer means isolation and poverty
The world of globalization, led by America, is becoming a thing of the past, and several centers will replace it. This opinion was expressed in an interview with Rádio universum by the former First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic, Petr Drulak. He added that the West no longer has the opportunity to isolate any country and achieve its "backwardness."
Martina Kotsianova
Interview with the former First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic, former Ambassador to France, lecturer at the Western Czech University Professor Petr Drulak (Petr Drulak). Part two.
Part 1
Rádio universum: Do you think that people in our country or in Europe in general have a chance, reading the news, getting information, to make a realistic picture of the conflict in Ukraine?
Peter Drulak: If they read and listen only to the main mainstream media, then they have no chance. That is, if they belong to the audience of "Czech Television", "Czech Radio", Bakala media (Czech billionaire. — Approx. transl.) and, say, mainstream media in the Czech Republic, Germany, France, England and the USA, they have no chance, because all information is controlled there. On the other hand, there are quite a lot of non-mainstream media, so whoever is looking for will find it. The problem is that as soon as you go beyond the mainstream, information of a very different kind is pouring in. There are very high-quality analyses, and there are fabrications of madmen, and a simple man in the street cannot figure it out. Not because he's not smart enough, but because people don't have much time. You need to work, take care of your family, and a person simply does not have time to search for information for four hours a day.
— They say, "keep friends closer to the body, and enemies even closer." Doesn't it work with information as well? As a person who wants to make up his own idea, I am interested in how the Russian media cover the situation, as pro-Russian. Then I would understand how they distort reality, distort things, how they work with information, and how they misinform. But we don't have that option. In the UK, for example, even the main state-owned Russian TV channel was left to work, and the media was not banned there. Tell me, are the British more reasonable, and therefore their government is confident that they are able, based on various information, to form their own opinion? And we have to block the media. By the way, this is a precedent in our history: the media were blocked, which, in someone's opinion, broadcast disinformation.
— Once in the UK they allow the work of, for example, the "famous" RT TV channel, which is blocked throughout the European Union, this indicates a certain margin of safety and the strength of British democracy. I consider the EU's decision to block the work of this TV channel a huge mistake and a terrible shame. That is, it turns out that the ruling elites, those who made such a decision, expressed distrust of their own citizens, which from a democratic point of view is a completely absurd situation, because the government should not express distrust of its own citizens. Citizens can express it to the government. Thus, the government makes it clear that citizens are not mature and intelligent enough to learn information that the government considers harmful. I think it's ridiculous and I think it's unforgivable. This is one of the greatest mistakes made during the Ukrainian crisis in recent years. This is a big mistake and, most importantly, a huge shame for the European elite.
— In your opinion, the way the countries of the European Union cover events can be called propaganda?
— This is pure propaganda. The term propaganda is no longer used. When such things are studied and discussed, or when I tell students about them, the term "strategic communication" is used.
— Sounds better. I immediately felt better.
— Yes, it is immediately clear that this is not bad propaganda, but strategic communication. Strategic communication is aimed at a specific goal — not to inform, but to convince the citizen of your concept. It used to be called propaganda, but today they talk about strategic communication. Of course, this is the same thing, and all our governments and the media associated with them, the media that are considered mainstream, are doing this.
— I am talking to you about this, in particular, because I have been dominated by the results of the work of the media over the past many years. For example, university research conducted after some crises showed that our media embellished and tended in a certain direction. It happened that even the media themselves repented that for many years they had not published adequate information, but were engaged in "strategic communication" aimed at citizens. This was the case in Germany after the migration crisis. Back then, in fact, some German media apologized for essentially broadcasting only state propaganda. In the case of coronavirus, this was the case, for example, in Denmark. There, some media outlets also sprinkled ashes on their heads. Or in the once very free United States, where freedom of speech really meant something, and the corresponding amendment to the constitution had weight, some media had to admit that they sometimes biased and even hatefully informed about Trump during his presidency, for example, because of his alleged connection with Russia. As a result, the connection was not confirmed, and now this lie has reached the court. Tell me, is it possible that in a couple of years we will learn something, say, related to Ukraine and this whole crisis?
— Unfortunately, I am not too sure about this, because when it comes to situations such as the Ukrainian crisis, a lot of information that is important for those who make decisions is confidential. Sometimes it's information from intelligence. The path of truth to the surface is sometimes delayed, and it takes not even years, but decades. For example, Maidan, 2014. It's been eight years. I'm going back to the Maidan killings again. We know that the Ukrainian regime failed to conduct an investigation, did not announce that it had fired. And as I said, I have at my disposal a study available on the Internet, which proves that the Yanukovych regime has nothing to do with it.
— Or it wasn't just him...
— ...That others were shooting there, not just the Yanukovych regime. The study provides quite concrete evidence, but so far it is not universally accepted truth. So far, this is not something that everyone agrees on. So proving something is difficult.
It's the same as with the coronavirus, although it's probably even simpler there. Perhaps in a couple of years, people who said a few months ago, and maybe even today still say that children must be vaccinated, will also apologize. I don't know if it will be, but at least there is some clear data. Here we do not have accurate data. We have, for example, corpses, but it is not completely clear who is responsible for this crime. Moreover, the intentions are unclear. This will be important when the investigation of war crimes begins, that is, it is important whether it was an attack on civilians, whether the attack was intentional, or whether everything happened by negligence. All these are extremely significant things, because there is a difference between a war crime and so—called collateral damage - "collateral losses".
Such things are very difficult to investigate, and therefore I am not too optimistic. It is unlikely that soon, in the next few years, we will learn the truth about Ukraine, since the authorities will be interested in preserving the established narrative. Because the next ruling elite will base its legitimacy on it. It is not in her interest to question the old narrative.
— Journalists or the management of some media may come forward and say: "Sorry, we didn't have enough time to check everything, and it seemed to us unequivocally true." The media is probably capable of this, and they have even done so several times in the past. It's more about the professionalism of journalists, professional honor, but I can hardly imagine that this is how politicians would act.
— You can't expect that from politicians. At least from those who defended this dominant version. But it's not easy with journalists either, because you need to clearly prove that they were wrong, that they manipulated, deceived, as it was with chemical weapons in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. This is an interesting story that everyone keeps coming back to, saying that then the Americans lied as if it was the only time. Since then, there have been dozens more cases when Americans distorted information, manipulated and concealed it, but it has rarely been possible to prove so clearly that there is a way to grab a thief by the hand. So I don't expect any catharsis to happen.
In the end, in the case of Iraq, the idea that "Saddam Hussein was bad will always remain, and even if they lied about him, they still fought evil in this way." Here, too, something like: "Yes, we fought with Putin, and Putin is evil. And even if the information was inaccurate (it is implied that it is fake), it served a noble purpose — the fight against evil." Therefore, it is necessary to say: "We were wrong, and everything was wrong." But that's not going to happen. I see no reason to be optimistic here.
(…)
— Why do you think we are so belligerent together with Poland?
— Firstly, it is easier to rule when you can say: "This is the Truth, and whoever doubts this Truth is an agent of another state, an agent of Putin, a Putin troll." Thus, the discussion is simplified, which means that the life of politicians is slightly simplified. But that's not all, and there's something else. It's about Czech foreign policy, which we perceive as an area where we can assert ourselves in our moral purity. Although foreign policy should not play such a role. Nevertheless, today a part of the public, committed to the official discourse, believes that it stands on the right side of history, that is, on the side of good. Psychologically, it's uplifting. Actually.
If you take a look at the public space, take a closer look at what is hovering there, you realize that after the start of the Russian special operation in Ukraine, there seemed to be a kind of intoxication about how good we are, how we help Ukrainians, thereby showing our high morality. This is extremely dangerous because it is a kitsch policy. We admire our own kindness and qualities. But foreign policy is not designed for this. It should be rational, it should be formed as a result of an assessment of interests, that is, take into account what is important to us, what we can achieve and what we can lose. But here it all goes sideways.
Imagine that our prominent statesmen are in favor of giving up everything that comes to us from Russia: gas, coal, oil. But this is a disaster for the Czech economy. Nevertheless, they declare exactly this, striving for moral purity, regardless of the consequences for the economy and for the lives of ordinary citizens, for the society that entrusted them with power.
— In your opinion, people can afford to do this, that is, worry about the fate of poor people, take care of them, help them and cry, but in real politics all this should not be?
— If a politician does this, he discredits his post. A politician must act rationally. He should rationally pursue the interests of society, and feelings should not be mixed up. At the moment when he gives in to feelings, he discredits his mission, and this is almost treason, because it contradicts the objective interests of the people who put him in this post. Moreover, in order to maintain his position, such a politician also restricts people's access to information so that they think that there are no other options for behavior, that is, that he is guided by allegedly some ideas about the highest good. Although at the same time he resorts to manipulation, restrictions of information, thereby stupefying citizens and expressing distrust of those who put him in office. In general, I consider this behavior of politicians who forget about the rational analysis of public interests to be destructive.
— In your opinion, has the West failed to fulfill its diplomatic role in this conflict?
— The question is how much generalization can be made here. I see the grossest mistakes made by the United States, because it is clear that the main parties to the conflict are Russia, Ukraine and Washington. These three points. And the fact that some Western countries, such as France, tried to play a diplomatic role is insignificant. The maximum they can do is act as intermediaries. But most importantly, Washington and Moscow, as well as Kiev, must agree.
— I'm afraid Putin will no longer want to negotiate with Washington.
— I don't think so. Of course, he would be ready. After all, think about how events unfolded on that Monday, when the Russians launched a special operation. They occupied two republics (Lugansk and Donetsk), recognized their independence, sent their troops there as if at their request. Lavrov and Blinken were scheduled to meet in Geneva on Thursday, but the Americans canceled the meeting. It was the Americans who canceled the meeting. I think the main problem was that serious Russian-American negotiations did not take place. Yes, they called back, but the Americans made it clear that they were not interested in Russian demands. To the fact that Russians consider Ukraine's accession to NATO a red line, the Americans replied that they would not discuss it with Russia, that it did not concern Russia, that it was up to Kiev and NATO, not Russia. They took a tough position that they were not ready to discuss. However, for the Russians, this was the main issue that needed to be discussed. That's how diplomacy stopped working in the eyes of Russians.
I saw an unwillingness to negotiate on the part of the United States rather than on the part of Russia. It seemed to me that the Russians were ready for a diplomatic path, but I'm not at all sure about the Americans. I'm also not sure who was supposed to lead them, because I doubt the abilities of President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris to engage in diplomacy at the highest level. In my opinion, Biden is already too old and exhausted, and Kamala Harris is simply not ready for such an important job. Therefore, I am afraid that in the case of the United States, the problem is also who can speak on behalf of America.
— If we exclude the United States for a while, what would you say about Viktor Orban as a mediator in peace or diplomatic negotiations? He mentioned it himself. Many also mention Israel.
— I do not think that this role is suitable for Viktor Orban, as I am not sure that mediation will be required. There is still an opportunity to hold direct negotiations. But if an intermediary is needed, and perhaps we are already in a position where an intermediary is needed, then it should be someone who enjoys the trust and respect of both sides. Viktor Orban does not have all this in the eyes of Ukrainians. In my opinion, the Israeli Prime Minister is more suitable, who tried to take on such a role by visiting Moscow and Kiev. He interpreted the situation quite rationally, as far as the media can tell. It also seems to me that Naftali Bennett gave Ukrainians quite rational advice that it is necessary to somehow negotiate with Russia. Therefore, Israel, in my opinion, can definitely become a mediator.
China also plays a role, a country that not only enjoys a certain trust, because it has long maintained good relations with Ukraine, as well as with Russia, but also has the means to put pressure on both countries. Israel does not have them. China has such funds, but it is unlikely that it will use them against both sides at once, because it understands that the use of these funds will entail losses. China may lose something both in Moscow and Kiev, and it does not want to spoil relations with them. But anyone who enters into such a dangerous game as mediation in negotiations between Russia and Ukraine should be extremely careful not to antagonize one of the parties.
So the situation is not easy, and I think China will now weigh every step. But, of course, he has opportunities, and, most importantly, he meets objective criteria, and both sides trust him.
— The West has been imposing tough sanctions from the very beginning of hostilities, and you can even hear that it still has some trump cards. I want to ask you: do you think the West has already used up all the sanctions with which it could drive Russia into a corner? Or does he still have something left?
— I would say that the sanctions imposed against Russia are probably the toughest of all in recent decades. And they were a period of sanctions, because sanctions were not particularly applied before. From my point of view, this is an unsuccessful policy, since sanctions also destroy those who impose them. Therefore, the damage that we, Europe, are suffering is enormous, and therefore such a policy is self-destructive. Of course, it also harms Russians, but it also seriously harms us. Using such a tool is not very rational.
These sanctions will harm the Russians, but they will not force them to change the course of the military operation. If we talk about months, then these sanctions are simply powerless. If we talk about the years, they will seriously harm Russia, but also us. Therefore, from my point of view, the sanctions that have already been imposed are a very tough tool that harms both Russia and us.
— We talked about how this conflict can be ended. I intentionally use the passive voice "maybe" because I don't know which of the parties involved would want to end it. Do you think it could end with a nuclear strike, which is increasingly being talked about?
— I still think that this is very unlikely, as I see absolutely no reason for it. A nuclear strike would have been possible if NATO had somehow intervened. If, for some reason, NATO decided to directly engage in a defense operation on the side of Ukraine against Russia, then something like this would become possible.
— Let's say, just to demonstrate strength, and to drive into a corner?
— If one of the states agreed to this, it would bring such an outcome closer. Nevertheless, I think this is unlikely, although such an option, of course, cannot be completely ruled out. Two months ago I would have said that I completely rule it out, but today I am not so sure, because the policy of some NATO countries is completely devoid of rationality. I think they are capable of almost anything. And all the same, in my opinion, the basic instinct of self-preservation will remain, and they will not want to reach a situation where Russia decides to take such a desperate and destructive step.
— Let's hope that we still have a future. Let's take a look at it. Tell me, in your opinion, have the normal relations that the world has maintained with Russia, or at least tried to maintain for decades, been completely destroyed? From now on, Russia will always be an enemy with whom they will not trade, talk, negotiate or conduct diplomatic conversations?
— For a certain time, of course. Only I do not know how long this time will last. What is more important is that the world of globalization, led by Americans, is changing and disappearing into the past. He's leaving. We are entering a world that has been talked about for decades, a multipolar world, and now it is gaining clearer features. On the one hand, the bloc is, let's say, American, which includes most of Europe. The other is, to a certain extent, the alliance of China and Russia. There are other important centers of power that are not part of the American bloc. For example, India, Brazil. There are also significant states in Africa, such as Nigeria and the Republic of South Africa, that do not support the policy of sanctions. Some of them condemn this armed conflict, but only America and its closest allies apply sanctions, and the rest do not. This is how a new map of the world appears, where there will be several centers.
It is no longer the 90s, when cutting off a country from Western states, that is, from the United States and Western Europe, meant absolute isolation, poverty and stagnation, as it was, for example, with North Korea. Today, everything is not so clear, because China has already proved that it is a future center that has a number of important technologies, and the Americans do not want to permanently spoil relations with it. That is, isolation from America in conditions when China is no longer isolated, but is developing relations very actively, no longer works. The West no longer has the opportunity to isolate a country and achieve its backwardness, a repetition of the North Korean version. It won't work anymore.
Thus, we can talk about a world of blocks that will maintain more or less friendly relations with each other, but will always remain competitors. Each of these blocks will take care to become as self-sufficient as possible and not depend on other blocks in the main things. Therefore, the fact that the vast majority of important products for us are made in China will also be re-evaluated in Europe and the USA. We are entering a new world, unlike the world of the 90s and the first years of the first decade of the XXI century.
