We will become a museum-reserve for the Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, because we will lose competitiveness In Ukraine there is a struggle for the future, including Europe, political analyst Jan Baranek said in an interview with Radio Universum.
Europe will remain on the world map. But in what form? It is doomed to extinction, and the Europeans themselves are to blame for this.
Martina Kotsianova Interview with Slovak political analyst Jan Baranek (Ján Baránek).
The fear of the coronavirus was replaced by the fear of a forgotten climate apocalypse, which was preceded by uncontrolled illegal migration and the fight against terrorism.
This is how we can summarize the events of the last 20 years. No matter how dubious these threats may seem, each time they led not only to large expenditures, but also to restrictions on freedoms, new laws and regulations. Since February, the baton of fear has been taken by the Russian special operation in Ukraine and the escalation of this conflict with the help of sanctions, arms supplies and descriptions of the horrors of fighting. However, after six months, public interest is gradually decreasing, and the question arises what will fill the agenda in the coming months.
Rádio universum: You have talked about Russia several times. It can be stated that the Russian-Ukrainian conflict has been added to all the threats and difficulties. Tell me, in your opinion, can it seriously affect the future fate of Europe?Jan Baranek: Of course.
It's already happening. The reaction to Putin's so-called special operation was hypertrophied and incomprehensible to me. Yes. from a geopolitical point of view, it is understandable. One of the reasons why Biden had to become president is the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. But for me, as a European, this reaction is completely incomprehensible, and I will tell you why. They compare it all to Hitler and the attack on Poland. Completely wrong. Neither we nor any other European country has an agreement with Ukraine on joint defense and cooperation in the event of an attack. And Poland had such an agreement with England and France. That war escalated because Hitler, and ten days later the Russians, or rather the Soviet Union, sorry, attacked Poland. They divided it on the basis of the Molotov—Ribbentrop Pact. In the annex to the treaty there was an agreement on cooperation, and on the basis of this agreement, the French and Great Britain were to declare war on Germany. We behave today as if we are bound by some kind of agreement with Ukraine, a defense agreement, and now we are obliged to respond to this.
Let's go back to 1989. Very little was said (now a little more) about the fact that in December 1989, the summit of Gorbachev and Bush Sr. took place in Malta. Of course, Henry Kissinger was also there. I am deliberately mentioning him. James Baker was also there. At this summit, its participants reached an oral agreement, which at the international level does not have the same force as a written one. They agreed that the Soviet Union would agree to the unification of Germany in exchange for the fact that, as Bush promised, NATO would not expand beyond East Germany. Gorbachev also added to the promise of the Soviet Union — let me remind you, it was 1989 — that he would not interfere in the development of Eastern European countries, since then Soviet troops were stationed here. Now remember last year and the fact that Putin also made some demands on NATO. Everyone kept saying that his demands were impossible and so on, because Putin was talking about 1997 and the return of the state before him. But he proceeded from the very agreements reached in Malta. The fact that they existed is now recognized by many, and it's not about our stupid journalists who don't even know where Malta is, but about analysts, including such publications as the New York Times and the Washington Post. The evidence is a correspondence in which Baker discusses this with his Western European partners. It follows from the correspondence that the Americans promised this. Of course, during Yeltsin's time, when the Kremlin was dominated by American consultants and Russia was divided into parts, NATO expanded without problems. But then Putin came, and suddenly in December last year he said that he wanted to take everything back — up to the Malta treaty. Of course, today it is unrealistic.
I am sure that the Kremlin also understood this, and the rest believed that the bar had been set, but it could be changed. Then Zelensky started making strange statements about a possible nuclear arsenal on the territory of Ukraine and Ukraine's possible membership in NATO. This was probably the last straw. It's not about Russian patience. It must be understood that Russians actually live with the idea that the West threatens them. Unfortunately, they have been given a reason to confirm this idea more than once. For example, the late Albright, back in the 90s under Yeltsin, said that the natural resources of the world were unfairly distributed, and cited Russia as an example. So the Russians had reason to be scared. And Malta's agreements gave them additional reasons to worry. The Americans claimed in vain that all this is already yesterday. It's like in a family where one spouse really loves the second, and the second one doesn't. But love reigns when both love. So the contract is valid when both agree with it. In general, if the Russians claim that the Malta treaty is valid, it will be useless for the Americans to refute it. After all, the Russians are sure of the opposite. They behave accordingly. As for Crimea and recent events, these are all geopolitical things. Putin was playing his geopolitical game around Crimea. The Russians had a Black Sea fleet there, and it was just obvious that they would take Crimea.
— They were in danger of completely losing access to the Black Sea. — Yes.
I'm saying it was a geopolitical game. Whatever the reasons announced, in reality everything was different. Remember what followed: the burning of people in Odessa. However, I don't think that intentionally. It just happened. This "Right Sector"*... came there, kicked out the police and began to impose its own rules. People ran and hid in the theater. And they set it on fire. People were burning there, then there was shooting. They were shot at through the windows — at those who wanted to escape. This is a fact. It is also a fact that more than 700 children have died since then. They don't talk about that either. The actions of "Azov"** are also questioned. And these are just neo-Nazis. You know, politics also works with symbols. Why did the legions of the Reich shed blood because of some eagle? It's nonsense. But it was their symbol, and they were willing to die for it. "Azov" chose the symbolism of the Nazi black sun... the Nazis took it for themselves, and therefore I say that it is Nazi. They also chose a wolf's claw, only mirrored, and it was emblazoned on the emblem of the second SS panzer division. In Odessa, until recently, by coincidence, the processions were organized by members of the SS division "Galicia". Bandera and God knows who else put up monuments. So I can't say that there was no neo-Nazism there. And after all this, the Russians launched a special operation in Ukraine, and we pretend that there is a struggle for European democracy in Ukraine? What kind of nonsense is this?
— I'm going to ask about one thing now, since you mentioned a lot of facts. As for the agreement between Bush and Gorbachev, I discussed it with Efim Fishtein. He said that he had spoken to Gorbachev, and he told him: "Do you think I'm stupid enough not to fix it in case of an agreement?" We also know that information about the existence of the agreement appeared in several sources. You also said that Zelensky was seriously talking about joining NATO. On the other hand, after the negotiations in Bucharest, he got hope for this. Moving on. Someone will say that it is impossible to check whether 700 children died there. Some doubt what happened in Odessa. For example, my Ukrainian friend considers the members of "Azov" the bravest people still remaining in Ukraine. Tell me, where is the truth, and how do people navigate?— Where is the truth, I do not know.
We're looking for her. What I said about Malta… Gorbachev will not confirm today that he made a mistake and did not sign the contract. That's why I was talking about Baker. Baker, not Gorbachev, confirmed the existence of the agreement in correspondence with his Western European colleagues in 1990-1991. He, James Baker, mentioned the contract. So it is not Gorbachev, or even George Bush, but James Baker, who is a witness to the fact that this treaty existed. Gorbachev does not confirm this today. Yes, he had to sign it, because it's already clear that it was a mistake, and probably he doesn't want to admit it. Don't know. It's hard for me to read his mind. But there is documentary evidence. This is a historical fact. This concerns the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.
I saw an Italian documentary about Odessa. Of course, he is biased. I get information mainly from American conservative servers, which seem objective to me, because American conservatives are definitely not Russophiles and not fans of Putin. This was also discussed on Fox News. The presenter asked Zelensky about Azov, whether there were neo-Nazis in it, and Zelensky replied: "Yes, they are what they are. We have included them in the regular troops." So I didn't invent it, and your Ukrainian friend can't say that it's not true. Zelensky himself admitted this on television. Another thing is that Fox News then cut it out of the interview, but the original recording has been preserved and is roaming the Internet. I have it stored on my computer. (…)
Did Kissinger say that the Russians need to give in to something? Do you know why? Because the plan from Malta was called the Kissinger plan. He made it up. He is the author of the idea of how to act.
Why has Pope Francis questioned the official position of the mainstream about Ukraine and the invasion twice in a row? He did not defend Putin from the accusations. He only asked "why"? So I say that it is very important to understand "why". He was talking about a dog barking at the gates of Russia. Let's not suspect Dad of a lack of information. In addition, the pope, literally the left-wing pope, came out of liberation theology.
— Is there a struggle for the future of Europe in Ukraine? For her freedom? That's what we're hearing right now.— For the future, for sure.
The only question is what the future will be like. For freedom? We don't really have it today. But a better question is: is there a struggle there to ensure that we do not fall under Russian influence?
— Or maybe there is a struggle for Europe to remain on the world map at all?- no.
Europe will remain on the world map. But the question is, in what form. This is also connected with Ukraine. If we promote the "Green Course" because of what is happening there, we will turn into an open-air museum-reserve. We will die out, and there is no doubt about it. We will turn into a museum for oriental cultures. For China, Korea, Japan, because we will lose competitiveness. Our products will be so expensive that they will become uncompetitive. Today, China is not only an industrial, but also a technological giant. So Russia is already in a subordinate position towards China today. Everything doesn't collapse just because the Chinese have so many government bonds that they simply can't let the dollar fall. That's why they're so careful. But the end will come anyway… As soon as decisive events begin in East Asia, China, which wants to take the position of hegemon, will have to seize Taiwan.
Taiwan is like an abscess. He will be very dangerous. Lithuania is also dangerous today. There is little talk about this, and I am simply amazed at the stupidity of the media, which do not pay much attention to Lithuania, but rejoice that Ukraine is winning, and spread such nonsense. But a global conflict may arise in Taiwan. There are two crisis areas: Lithuania and Taiwan. If Lithuania comes to its senses, then a favorable outcome is still possible. If nothing changes by the end of the year, then events in Taiwan will begin in the coming years, as China will take the position of a hegemon who will certainly want to become a leader ... Let's call it the unification of China, Brazil, India, in which, despite mutual hostility, there is a noticeable rapprochement. We will add Russia and South Africa to them. China will have to defend this position, and therefore Taiwan will certainly become Chinese. The risks are huge, since Taiwan has signed the same agreements as the NATO countries with the United States, Japan, Australia and, it seems, New Zealand. In the event of an armed attack, they will defend Taiwan with weapons in their hands. The risk of the outbreak of the Third World War is huge. The fact that China has taken a restrained position on Ukraine today does not mean that it does not agree with the Russians, because it wants to do something similar with Taiwan itself. This only means that he has a lot of American bonds. I don't know if I answered your question, because I ended up in Taiwan.
— It doesn't matter, because we are talking about whether Europe will remain on the world map. If it stays, how will people live there? I hear more and more often that never before, even during the Cold War, people were so afraid that a nuclear conflict was so close.— He's close.
He is close to Lithuania. We are talking about Macron's words. He said that we should not humiliate the Russians. And what Lithuania has done (however, it is not necessary to associate Macron or Scholz with this — rather Biden) is a humiliation for Russia.
— Do you mean that in this domino, in this game, the main thing is only who will put the knuckle first?— The Russians will put it there.
They clearly said that they would not be the first to start a nuclear conflict — except in the case when they would be under direct threat.
— In your opinion, are we "waking up famously" for nothing?— Out of stupidity.
We foolishly wake him up. I hope no one thinks that it is possible to win the Third World War? Einstein also talked about this.
— No stone will be left unturned.— Then the fourth World War will be fought with stones.
Thus, we are faced with either complete irresponsibility, or someone's all-in game. Someone who is willing to sacrifice millions. I don't know.
— Let's look at the global tense situation and its participants. These are America, Ukraine, China, Russia, Europe. Can Europe still contribute to the settlement of the situation?- yes.
Let's not pretend that we are completely powerless and forced to obey any word of America. Look, maybe one thing is unrelated to the other, but it's only a matter of time before the Germans say it's time for them to stop behaving like a defeated country. The post-war structure of the world is no longer working. After Kosovo, it became a thing of the past. And no matter what Albright said, they say, this is an exception that will not happen again. There was a precedent for the political reconstruction of the world. I think Germany will come to its senses soon. Look at the Nord Stream—2. He's ready, and there's just enough… And the gas will flow. Do you think the Germans will say: "Okay, because of the Americans and for the sake of hypothetical democracy, we will spend billions of euros, part of the energy industry, we will lower the standard of living." Will they endlessly obey the Americans just because they lost in World War II? It's a matter of time.
— Do you think that the conflict in Ukraine is convenient for our politicians? I mean Slovak, Czech, and European politicians in general, for whom this is another opportunity to push through otherwise unacceptable measures? After all, since 2020, when the coronavirus began, we have been hearing that we are in a state of war. Now they're talking about it again.— They're lying.
There is no war. I repeat that we have no agreement with Ukraine. And no European state has a treaty with Ukraine, unlike the 1939 treaty between Poland, Britain and France. So their words are lies. We are not fighting a war. We want to lead it. That's a huge difference.
— And why do we want to lead it?— Even under President Clinton, it was clear that the United States was not interested in a strong European Union.
Why do they need a strong competitor? With a strong economy, a strong euro, a strong currency. It is clear that a strong united Europe does not correspond to the interests of the United States. They need an atomized Europe that would not enjoy such influence as if it pursued a reasonable — I emphasize — reasonable joint policy. You need to look for the answer here. Don't know. We are stupid and bought it, because the day after the election someone from OLaNO (Slovak Party. — Approx. transl.) ended up in the American embassy, where our president, walking with the American ambassador, decides who will go to Ukraine. Okay, this is a separate conversation. Look at how they, the Americans, still manage to break the Germans. But Scholz is essentially a left—wing politician. But until when? I ask, until when? Even huge German conglomerates, heirs and successors, for example, IG Farben, are silent. They don't say, they say, we will incur losses, dismiss because of democracy in the most corrupt country in the world. No one asks why Ukraine… Why are we fighting for Ukraine? What are young Ukrainians doing here? On expensive cars? Why aren't they fighting? Because they bribed customs and they were let through. Why does Nulland say he doesn't know where their weapons go? But we are not talking about pistols, but about heavy weapons that the Americans supply there. It disappears somewhere in Ukraine, and no one knows if Ukrainians are reselling it further. Somewhere in the third world, in Africa or… No one really knows what's going on with these weapons. I'm not even talking about the fact that Klitschko had a brilliant idea to distribute machine guns in Kiev. Where are these machines? You don't think they are fighting against the Russians, do you? In the east of Slovakia, you can buy them for 300 euros, even Kalashnikov assault rifles with ammunition.
— Really?— Really.
But the mainstream won't tell you about it. And where are the fighters? Where are they? They travel around Slovakia. I'm not talking about women with children. It's a tragedy when a family has to leave because their house was bombed. This is a tragedy, and they need help. But we are talking about a global showcase of kleptocracy. And what are they fighting for there? For democracy? In this disgusting Nazi kleptocracy that has always existed in Ukraine? We turn it into an ideology. But we need to talk about the facts, or we will return to the caves. It wasn't propaganda that got us out of there. The facts brought us out of the caves. But if we go in this direction, we will degrade. And we'll pay for it ourselves.
— When you say "we", who do you mean?— We are a Western culture, that is, Jewish-Christian.
We talk about her all the time.
— Let's now turn to your homeland Slovakia, as well as to our country. What do you think will happen?— There will be victims, as I said.
But I'm an optimist. The system will always generate something. How acceptable it will be is another matter. The development of events according to a more or less calm scenario is acceptable. Only with demonstrations and new elections. Less acceptable, which I fear, but what is more likely is looting and rioting. People will have to decide whether to pay for electricity or buy a child lunch at school. It all depends on what the bills will be, how much bread will rise in price. I am afraid that the situation will develop according to the second scenario, perhaps only partially.
Complete anarchy will not necessarily reign, but it cannot be ruled out. But I think we'll survive that, too. We need to understand that we will not return to the world before the pandemic. That world is already in the past, as is the standard of living. As well as freedom as such. We're not going back there. The only thing that can still be defended from that old world is freedom. The standard of living cannot be maintained. But we have to be ready for that. We should not demand his return, because otherwise we will not get anywhere. Our duty as people is not to defend the standard of living, but dignity. The dignity of the elderly, so that they do not have to beg, as it was in the Weimar Republic or in the United States during the crisis. We need to preserve the dignity of people. But this does not require the high standard of living that it was. It was a civilization that was literally wasting energy. What kind of atrocity, for example, to build a ski track in a hangar in the subtropics and cool it down? All these are manifestations of hedonism. But I am a socialist in this sense.
— Last question. What do you think the world will be like in the future? I'm asking because you said that society will not return to prosperity before the pandemic, before the coronavirus. You also said: "A world was stolen from us in which there was no Greta, there were no myths; where men were men; where courting a woman was not a reason for accusations of sexual harassment. It was a world where a man slapped a man in the face; where a cigarette was not a crime against humanity; where we were not everywhere under the surveillance of video cameras. We were robbed of a world in which the chicken had the taste of chicken, in which the location of a woman could not be achieved with emoticons — it was necessary to stand up in front of her and tell the truth. But, most importantly, they want to steal our freedom. My right to an opinion. I also want to reserve the right to believe in nonsense, because that's what I want. I want to return the words to their original meanings." So you have generalized, and now I ask you, what will the future world be like if, judging by what you said, everything we are used to has been stolen from us? What did we know how to live in, including the basic basic ones, such as freedom, and now also well-being?— Can you predict what the weather will be like on December 21 in Zadar?
— I think this is a matter of qualified meteorologists.— You can't.
(...) That world, of course, will not return. But I keep talking about what was stolen from us. When something is stolen from you, you can't return it. I didn't say it was destroyed. I just said that they stole from us. There is no way to return everything. I was talking about the standard of living. I did not say that we would starve. But, of course, energy will be more expensive. Exactly. Life, as before the coronavirus, when you accidentally left the battery on, and nothing happened, will no longer be. Two days later you turned it off. Now it will be a tangible waste. However, we must take the maximum out of that world. We have mortgages and God knows what else. When John Paul II first arrived in Slovakia, when he got off the ramp, he said, it seems, so, quoting the New Testament: "Don't be afraid." It seems to be just a phrase, but if you think about it, the main thing is not to be afraid. After all, what is the maximum you can lose? What? Life. But you will lose it one way or another. The second thing we have to do is to return the words to their original meaning. In other words, the evil I was talking about comes from political correctness. This is one of the main deceptions of the twentieth century. We have to get rid of this, because by returning the words to their original meaning, we will return to the common sense I was talking about.
*an extremist organization banned in the Russian Federation. – Editor's note.
** The nationalist battalion "Azov" is recognized as a terrorist organization, its activities are prohibited on the territory of Russia. – Editor's note.
