The West has double standards for Russia and other countries, the world is changing, and many countries are already turning away from the West.
There is a growing understanding that he likes to resort to double standards, former Czech Foreign Minister Jan Kavan said in an interview with Rádio Universum.
Ludek Jiracek The world is being divided, and what at the beginning of the year people only talked about and knew from geopolitical theories is becoming a reality today.
Many states either turn away from the West, or at least seriously think about changing their attitude towards it. Why is this happening? It is in the West that it is rarely said that so-called double standards have been criticized in these countries for many years. That is, the fact that Western countries, first of all the United States of America, apply some requirements to themselves and their actions, and to all other states, primarily non–Western ones, are completely different. How will the new division of the world turn out for us? What changes should we expect? Already today we hear about fears and doubts about the future. Prices have risen rapidly, and a new rise in price is expected. High inflation has become a familiar part of our lives. Is Putin and his operation in Ukraine to blame for this situation, or does the lion's share of the blame lie with the government because of its inaction? Have the economic sanctions achieved their goals? And was it possible to prevent the conflict in Ukraine in any way at all? It is at least strange how little is said and written about this in Europe. Why are there no intensive and multilateral diplomatic negotiations on the possibilities of ending the conflict? What role do international institutions, such as the UN, play today? We talked about this with Jan Kavan, a former politician and diplomat, former Minister of Foreign Affairs and senator from the Social Democratic Party.
Rádio universum: The Russian Duma has included the Czech Republic along with the United States, Great Britain and Poland in the list of unfriendly countries. How do you rate it?Jan Kavan: At one time, we were even one of two unfriendly countries — together with the United States.
For me, as a former foreign minister, this is a sad fact, but in light of some steps taken by the Czech government over the past two years, this is not surprising. Remember how Russian diplomats were expelled, what strange things were happening around Vrbetice. And what is happening today, when the Czech Republic has become one of those who send the maximum number of weapons to Ukraine. As a percentage, if you compare this with the size of our population, we are actually the largest supplier of weapons. I am deeply convinced that Western weapons, including ours, only prolong this conflict, and peace by military means will not be achieved in any case. From my point of view, there is no military solution. We need to start negotiations, seek reconciliation, and then negotiate peace.
— Let's go back to the beginning again. In your opinion, because of such a position of the Czech authorities or our position, we are in danger of some kind? To us, that is, the people of the Czech Republic.— No, I don't think so.
I think some theories are ridiculous that the Russian army, if successful, which, by the way, is also not observed, will pass through the whole of Ukraine to Transnistria, and then through Slovakia will come to us. This is downright a bad joke. Therefore, I do not think that we are in any military danger. The threat, in my opinion, is rather that all this will cost us more and more. As a result, this will affect the standard of living of Czech citizens and will lead to another price increase. That's where I see the likely problem.
— Are we overreacting by helping Ukraine too hard? I'm talking about both weapons and other supplies. Does the Czech Republic still have something left to defend itself?— Good question.
In my opinion, we are on the verge now. We have emptied all our warehouses and are still sending shipments of weapons to Ukraine. Thus, we have little left for our own defense. I am glad that, from my point of view, there is no military threat to us from neighboring countries, that is, we have good relations with them, and therefore, at least in the foreseeable future, we will not use our military means for our own defense. But even if this had happened, I think we would have been poorly armed, since everything that could have been sent to Ukraine.
— And when, in your opinion, there was a turning point in the attitude of the Czech authorities to Russia? In the past, we had not the worst relations, because the debt was unblocked. At the time when you were a minister, it seems to me that relations were, perhaps, even more than good. When did the fracture occur? Why?— The question is whether it can be called a fracture.
A fracture would indicate that there was some kind of event that led to this. And I can't think of anything like that. But you are right — at the time when I headed the ministry, we were striving for the best possible relations with Russia, primarily in trade. After all, Russia is an extremely important supplier of significant raw materials for us. And taking into account past experience, many of our businessmen and firms are familiar with the Russian market, Russian technologies, and therefore, in the absence of political obstacles, we have achieved success in trade on the Russian market. I was striving for this. During the years when I started working in office, for political reasons, especially because of the position of President Havel at a certain moment, relations with Russia deteriorated. But after the arrival of Milos Zeman, they went on an upward trend, and, I think, at the moment when I left the post of Foreign Minister, relations had already normalized. I would even say that they were commercially profitable. Then the deterioration began again — already at the moment when the Foreign Ministry was headed by Cyril Svoboda, who was more critical of Russia. But, in my opinion, the deterioration proceeded gradually, and it is hardly possible to talk about some kind of fracture. Of course, when events such as the attempted murder of Skripal in the UK took place, and then Russian diplomats were expelled, we took an active position and actively supported such measures. In my opinion, Russia's involvement in the attempt on Skripal is likely, but not firmly proven. Personally, I am in favor of a longer and more thorough investigation. We often came to a simple, quick and, from my point of view, hasty conclusion that the Russian Federation was to blame, because no one else came to our mind. We demonstrated exactly the same approach in the case of Vrbetice, where many questions remained unanswered and properly investigated. There is nothing but speculation that this is the work of two of the same Russian spies who attempted to kill Skripal. And now they suddenly showed themselves in Vrbetice, which in itself is unlikely, given what we know about them. It is sad for me that many reacted so primitively: there was a problem, and, therefore, Russia is behind the problem. Thus, in my opinion, the relationship deteriorated gradually, and there was no talk of any drastic change.
— As if Russia has only two agents, which it sends all over Europe. How do you assess the absolutely clear position of the Czech authorities? Some critics express a literally belligerent position... If you were now the Minister of Foreign Affairs, would you follow the same path? Would you pursue the same policy? Or would you have a different point of view?— I would not pursue the same policy, because, in my opinion, it will not lead to peace.
I am deeply convinced that since there is no military solution, the continuation of this armed conflict will only bring more deaths on both sides and more destruction to Ukraine, which then someone will have to rebuild, which will require a lot of money. I am also sure that we will be expected to invest heavily in this restoration, which is very expensive. That is, if I were Foreign Minister today, I would be looking for allies, because the Czech Republic cannot defend peace on its own. We need allies in this, just as we did at the time of the bombing of the former Yugoslavia. Under enormous pressure from the North Atlantic Alliance, which we joined just a week before, we supported NATO's actions, although we did not actively participate in them. I mean the bombing. But already on the first day we received an order from Milos Zeman, then Prime Minister, to look for allies to find a peaceful solution. Finally, only Georgios Papandreou, who was then the Greek Foreign Minister, joined me, but we found some sympathy and understanding among other foreign ministers, for example, in Norway. Today, the situation would probably be the same. Europe is not completely united in its attitude to this conflict. Perhaps Hungary stands out the most, which does not participate in this action, and, as far as I understand, the Hungarian minister in Moscow agreed on increasing natural gas supplies. Already today, Hungarians pay less for Russian natural gas than any other country in the European Union, but they do not send weapons there and do not even allow our (or weapons of other Western countries) to be transported through their territory in the direction of Ukraine. By doing so, they make it clear that they do not support militant goals. Less than others, so to speak, other countries, for example, Italy, are eager to supply weapons. Therefore, I do not think that our active position is the only one possible. In front of.
— Why is such an opinion unpopular? Most of our politicians say that Ukraine has been attacked and has an irrefutable right to defend itself. They say that she is even obliged to defend herself. However, wars always end with diplomatic negotiations where peace is negotiated. So isn't all this artificially provoked?— I don't think so.
You asked several questions at once, so let's take it in order. Of course, as a former President of the UN General Assembly, I always try to defend compliance with international law. From this point of view, as soon as the Russian army crossed the borders (I mean the borders between the separatist republics of Luhansk and Donetsk and Ukraine as such, since, of course, the transfer of Russian troops to the territory of the separatist republics still corresponded to some extent to the law, because the Kremlin had previously recognized their independence), so that's how The Russian army crossed the borders and the line of contact, invading Ukraine as such, the Ukrainian army, from my point of view, had no choice but to defend itself and its homeland. I think they are much better motivated for this fight than the Russian forces. When another country attacks you, attacks you on your own land, you, of course, will defend yourself. For me, it is more important or, better to say, more interesting to understand what preceded all this. I think you asked at the beginning whether it was possible to avoid all this? Personally, I think so. It is necessary to refer to the events of at least 15 years ago, which are quite well documented. Back in 2007, at a security conference in Munich, Vladimir Putin frankly warned that Russia would regard the approach of NATO troops to its borders as a threat to its own security and would not tolerate it, would not be able not to react.
— And, in your opinion, was that the moment?..— This marked the beginning, because the Americans ignored his warning, and a year later Putin repeated everything he said at the Munich conference in almost the same words.
To my surprise, the Americans not only ignored him, but soon after promised Georgia and Ukraine membership in the alliance. In my opinion, they thereby added fuel to the fire, once again provoked Russia. Even in December last year, American President Biden promised to accept Ukraine into the alliance, which is simply impossible due to the existing rules. And NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the beginning of this year clearly said that Ukraine's accession to NATO is out of the question, and that this option is not even being considered. Unfortunately, he said this after the start of Russia's special operation. If he had said that earlier… From my point of view, this was the last opportunity to prevent its beginning. Unfortunately, it turned out differently. I don't want to justify the special operation, because it violates international law. It shouldn't have happened, but it didn't happen out of the blue, and to a large extent it was provoked. Putin has warned several times on international platforms that if it is serious about deploying the bases of the North Atlantic Alliance in Ukraine, he will regard this as a threat to the Russian Federation as such. You yourself said at the beginning about double standards, and I think you were right. American political scientists claim that if Chinese or Russian troops were invited to Toronto or Mexico, the Americans would react very sharply. You can also recall examples from the past. In 1962, the so-called Caribbean crisis broke out, when the USSR boldly placed its missiles in Cuba, from where the United States was just a stone's throw away. The Americans reacted the way they reacted, and Khrushchev prudently removed the missiles from there. But Fidel Castro was not such a naive person to think about joining the Warsaw Pact.
— Do you think it is possible to use a term that has recently gained popularity in this regard? We are talking about the so-called "proxy war". That is, the Americans and the Western world allegedly use Ukraine as a battlefield, and that an indirect war is just going on between the Russian Federation and the Western world.— I even think that this is the most accurate description, and in some American media, such as the New York Times, I have read statements by American experts who do not hide this fact at all.
According to them, Russia needs to be weakened to the extent that it will never be able to make such an offensive. That's what Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said. Others say: "We must support Ukraine in this fight against Russia. We will not participate ourselves, but we will provide military assistance to Ukraine." At one point, an American professor even said that "we will fight to the last Ukrainian." This is cynical, but it largely conveys the essence of mediated war.
— What do you think about the statement, or rather the opinion that a landfill was set up in Ukraine? The Russian Federation is checking the combat capability of Western weapons there, because logically, if it wanted to prevent the arrival of these weapons, it would cut off the supply routes ... However, it did not do this. The Russians have left the communication routes open, and new and modern weapons are constantly coming through them. Can the explanation be as I said?— That's one possible explanation, yes.
I'm not completely sure of this, because I think that the Russian army is not always able to completely cut off the supply routes. Apparently, sometimes they would like to do this, but they do not succeed. Moreover, missile systems have recently appeared (so far there are only 12 of them, but the Americans have already promised to supply the APU with more), which very effectively hit warehouses and command centers in the part of Ukraine occupied by the Russians. The Ukrainian strikes are so successful that it is clearly in the interests of the Russians to stop further deliveries of ultra-modern weapons. Only they can't do it.
(...) — If we evaluate the conflict as a whole from the Czech point of view, where are the grossest mistakes made?
Let's try to honestly list the mistakes of all the parties involved. That is, what fundamental mistakes were made by, say, the Russian Federation, Ukraine, and which ones by the Western world? Is it possible to list them at all."I'll have to go back to what I said before.
In my opinion, at the beginning, the mistake of the West was not to pay enough attention or underestimate Russian concerns due to the presence of alliance troops near the borders of Russia, that is, in neighboring countries. In my opinion, this was one of the grossest mistakes. Here is a textbook example of double standards: the United States would never allow anything like this, and I was surprised that they underestimated the Russian response to a threat that they themselves would not allow. Double standards are evident everywhere, including in recent history. I repeat that I do not support the Russian special operation in Ukraine, and, as President of the UN General Assembly, I strongly opposed the American invasion of Iraq back then, although a number of alliance countries supported it. NATO did not support him. The agreement was expressed only by the so-called alliance of ready-made countries. The Czech government then took an ambivalent position: the president opposed it, the Prime Minister Shpidla Yuli, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs supported. This is not the first case in Czech history, and thus we have not gained much respect abroad. When the alliance, which our representative in NATO Landovsky calls defensive, attacks Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq and so on, that is, already outside its borders, it is already difficult to call it defensive. Here you need to think about how the other side will react to such acts. This is where double standards appear, including with regard to victims. I am strongly against the fact that civilians, women, and children are suffering in Ukraine. All this is documented, and it is quite rightly said that those responsible for their suffering should be brought to justice in The Hague. On the other hand, I do not remember that any of the Czech politicians, at a time when thousands of Iraqi civilians were dying, when they were tortured in concentration camps, in Abu Ghraib prison, called for the perpetrators to be tried in The Hague or at least not to allow them to participate in sports competitions: Wimbledon and the hockey championship. I was just amazed that one of our ministers even said that Russian students should not study at the Czech Technical University. I think this is completely absurd. This is a textbook example of double standards.
— Let's go back to the beginning of this conflict once again. Did you expect Russia to launch a special operation? Everything looked somewhat hasty, and it seemed that there was a certain moment, some kind of trigger that triggered everything.— I admit that I did not expect it.
Perhaps my naivety affected me. I thought they would increase the pressure, emphasize their position again. Although, as I said, Putin has expressed it three times in the last 15 years. Finally, Ukraine has not stopped fighting against the separatist republics for eight years, and therefore I assumed that one day Putin's patience would burst. But if you had asked me in early February, I would have answered that the Russians would try to include these two separatist republics in their defense strategies. I assumed that, yes. Therefore, I was not surprised that Moscow recognized their independence and sent an army to their territory. No, it didn't surprise me. But I did not expect that in two days they would cross the line of contact and already enter Ukraine as such. In my opinion, this was a mistake by Russia, due, in particular, to poor intelligence. They underestimated that since 2014, the United States, together with the United Kingdom, have systematically not only sent weapons, but also trained the Ukrainian army in training camps, the number of which has increased many times. The Russians either did not fully figure it out, or critically underestimated the level of the APU. Therefore, they thought that they would make a blitzkrieg in Ukraine and in a couple of days they would be in Kiev. So thought the Germans, who also assumed that the special operation would last six days. Thus, they underestimated the situation, and therefore I consider this offensive a political mistake. It would be better to find allies to pressure the United States and NATO to come to what they have come to today: Ukraine has no place in NATO. It should be turned into a neutral country that will be part of the West, like, say, Austria, but it will not be part of what Russia considers an offensive hostile military alliance.
— And now tell me, as a person with an international outlook, is it normal that the parties to an armed conflict trade with each other, as Russia does with Ukraine? After all, Ukraine continues to buy gas, and sells wheat… Is this a normal practice?— Good question.
Officially, this is not the norm, but unofficially it does not surprise me at all. Americans do the same thing and have always done so before. Even during the period of tough anti-Russian sanctions, American trade continued. If you look at the losses and profits during these sanctions, Europe, the European Union lost the most, and the United States of America earned the most. Thus, those in power in this world do not sacrifice trade and always find some way, informally, informally or through intermediaries and third parties to turn their deals.
— Sometimes it even becomes funny when you find out that, for example, the notorious LNG, as it turns out, comes from Russia, only it was resold by several other entities.— Only when it reaches us, it is already several times more expensive.
"That's right. Economic sanctions are also linked to trade and the position of the European Union. Did they have the intended effect, or are we punishing ourselves?— I am a well-known opponent of sanctions as such.
In my opinion, the general sanctions that were used very often in different parts of the world in the past almost always led to nothing. Very rarely they gave the desired result. Remember the 40-year-old sanctions against Cuba, against Iraq, British sanctions against the former Rhodesia (then Zimbabwe), against the Republic of South Africa… And if sanctions work, then they harm the residents of these countries, not the government. That is why, while working at the UN, I have always supported the so-called "smart sanctions", that is, those aimed at dictators, those who order violations of human rights, who are responsible for military steps, and so on. But universal sanctions, which the authorities then easily shift onto the shoulders of ordinary citizens, never achieve a political goal. If someone thought that anti-Russian sanctions could overthrow Putin, then I advise them to enroll in the basic level of the course of international politics. Incredible naivety. By the way, it was also naive to think that this could change the attitude of Russia as such. Finally, if we turn to the data of opinion polls in Russia today, then, with the exception of large cities such as Moscow, St. Petersburg and others, Putin enjoys much more support than before the operation began. Take into account the information monopoly, the total control established over the country by Putin's government. They can tell people who suffer every day (there will be suffering, but not much) that it's all because of the United States, because of the West, because of the enemy. That is, they strengthen their own support, their own image in the eyes of the population and direct their anger because of sanctions against the West. And so it was everywhere, in different parts of the world. Sanctions don't work.
