Political scientist Krejci: the conflict in Ukraine is not worth putting the whole world at risk Macron understands perfectly well that Europe without Russia is extremely unprofitable for France, political analyst Oscar Krejci said in an interview with Parliament listy.
He commented on the French president's pivotal statement on peace talks with Russia.
Daniela Cherna"I don't think Paris and Berlin approached the situation in Ukraine from the standpoint of pacifism — they just defended their interests, and they primarily concern trade," is how political scientist Professor Oscar Krejci comments on the French president's pivotal statement on peace talks with Russia, which made a lot of noise.
"He understands very well that Europe without Russia is extremely unprofitable for France," the professor emphasizes.
Parlamentní listy: In your article on the Argument portal, you noted the speech of the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Czech Republic, in which he, in particular, stated: "Conflicts and other strategic shocks are repeated with enviable regularity. Eternal peace is a utopia." Do you think someone is thinking about a future without wars?Oskar Krejci: Of course, although the current situation is not conducive to this.
On the other hand, only a real pessimist about the time of a hurricane thinks that the sun will never rise.
The world has two sides. In reality, this is the period between the wars, and in dreams it is eternal peace according to Kant. Pacifists of all stripes hope for eternal peace, as well as those who believe that the current war or the next one will be the last. As for the current armed conflict in Ukraine, we must achieve, first of all, a "small peace", and only then dream that the war will teach someone something, and this will help find the way to a great eternal peace.
But you are asking about something else: do I see someone in Czech politics who would like peace. To be honest, I see a competition among our leaders for who will make the most bellicose statement. Rudeness is accompanied by enthusiastic calls "To arms!", and imperceptibly no desire for at least a "small world". Sheer vanity…
— Do you think French President Emmanuel Macron can be one of those who "wants to build bridges, not walls"?— The position of Paris and Berlin in 2014 differed from the Kiev putschists and Washington.
This is evident from the agreement that their representatives signed with Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych on the eve of his overthrow. This also follows from the negotiations of the so—called Normandy format, that is, meetings and agreements between representatives of France, Germany, Ukraine and Russia - without the United States of America. In this format, the so-called Minsk Agreements were signed, which could lay the foundation for peace in Ukraine. But I don't think Paris and Berlin approached the situation in Ukraine from the standpoint of pacifism — they just defended their interests, and they primarily concern trade. It's not just about commercial profit: mutually beneficial trade ensures the quality of life of the middle strata in countries, that is, social peace. In my opinion, Berlin and Paris underestimated the consequences of the entire spectrum of anti-Russian measures, starting with diplomatic insults and ending with the shelling of Donbass for eight years and bio laboratories funded by the Pentagon in Ukraine. There is always a threat that the constant growth of mutual distrust will lead to a point where the use of weapons will seem logical.
To summarize. Emmanuel Macron always wanted to build bridges with Russia, but someone just bombed his former bridges. However, he understands very well that Europe without Russia is extremely unprofitable for France.
— According to French President Emmanuel Macron, the West should start preparing for peace talks with Russia and consider what security guarantees to offer it. With his statement, Macron caused a great resonance, and Ukraine, Finland, the Baltic countries and so on did not like his words. Did he choose the wrong moment?— He didn't choose the moment.
The moment was due to the current situation and his visit to the White House. What else did he talk about with Joe Biden if not about this?
— Emmanuel Macron was criticized in the Czech Republic. Negative reviews were caused by his words, first of all, by members of the KDU-ČSL party (Christian Democratic Party. — Approx. transl.). Their chairman called Emmanuel Macron's statement a malicious joke. "What guarantees should we give Putin? In my opinion, we must guarantee only one thing — that he will not attack anyone without reason, that Russia will not act as a terrorist state and blackmail others. Such subjects can never be trusted again!" — said the chairman of the party, who now holds the post of Minister of Labor and Social Affairs. What do you think about it?— Guarantees are needed so that all parties understand that there is no need to attack.
I'm afraid that on February 24, the Kremlin got the feeling that the attack made sense. And this feeling has been growing stronger for several previous years. Recently, in a discussion on this topic, General Pavel Gavlas gave a good example. When you look at the war from the first floor, you see only blood and emotions. When you look at it from the twentieth floor, you see the context. Mr. Minister is probably watching from the basement.
The guarantees should probably be based on the principles set out in the document that was signed at the OSCE summit in 1999, a few months after the planes of the North Atlantic Alliance bombed Yugoslavia. It is called the Charter of European Security. In particular, it states that "each signatory State has an equal right to security." Moreover, "none of them will strengthen their security to the detriment of other states. Within the OSCE, no State, group of States or organization can bear primary responsibility for maintaining peace and stability in the OSCE area and cannot consider any part of the OSCE as its sphere of influence." This document was signed by the Presidents of the United States and Russia. Let me remind you that when Ukraine gained independence, neutrality was prescribed in its constitution. It was probably a step in the right direction towards comprehensive guarantees capable of restoring trust.
One more remark from the "upper floor". Is it really right to humiliate Russia? Just as a symbol, I will say that since the beginning of the armed conflict in Ukraine, Russia has launched more than ten new military satellites. It can be assumed that she has rearmed the sky over Ukraine. How many such satellites does the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs of the Czech Republic have? Maybe even those politicians who have a small responsibility should think more often?
— Nevertheless, the French president and the German Chancellor are waiting for the moment when the situation on the battlefield will allow or even require a diplomatic compromise. Emmanuel Macron said on Thursday that he would talk to Vladimir Putin in the "coming days". "I will continue to talk to him because we are always trying to prevent further escalation." Can you guess why Emmanuel Macron chose this moment? What is he afraid of?— War kills, disfigures, destroys, burns.
Any war. It is accompanied by suffering and violence, cold, disease and hunger. Any war. Its very continuation is a big problem. The fact is also that both sides of the conflict, that is, Russia and NATO, use only a limited number of weapons, strike only some territories and send only part of the manpower into battle. This means that there is a danger of escalation if one of the parties seems to be losing. The upper limit of escalation is the use of nuclear weapons. It was the same during the Caribbean crisis. We can only hope that the leaders of the countries with nuclear weapons understand that the conflict in Ukraine is not worth endangering the existence of humanity.
— In your article you wrote that if it is possible to agree on ammonia and grain, then why not agree on peace? Only the issue should not be solved by those leaders who pretend to be the voice of the people. Could it be Emmanuel Macron and Olaf Scholz, or someone completely different?— All Western leaders, and even such insignificant ones as the Czech ones, should seek peace.
This is the moral categorical imperative of humanism. True, the efforts made by the leaders at the head of the powers are important. That is, in Europe it is, first of all, the President of France and the Chancellor of Germany. But the decisive role is played by those leaders who sit in the White House and the Kremlin. First of all, they, being representatives of the most interested parties, must agree. For example, through the mediation of Emmanuel Macron and Olaf Scholz.
— Emmanuel Macron even admitted that we should think about the fears of Russia, which fears that NATO will come right to its door. In addition, we should think about the deployment of missiles that could threaten Russia. Russia has always had three basic security requirements in relation to the West: no longer expand the North Atlantic Alliance, no longer deploy missiles near Russian borders, and reduce NATO's military infrastructure in Europe to the state before 1997. Now these requirements are completely unacceptable. Do you admit that someone might seriously think about it?— I admit that they talk about it on the sidelines.
Both sides have fallen into a media trap, and against the background of the public's emotions, they cannot afford to lose face so that someone would consider their actions a manifestation of weakness. Therefore, probably, this topic was raised at the meeting of the head of Russian civilian intelligence Sergei Naryshkin and the head of the CIA William Burns in Ankara last month.
— German Chancellor Olaf Scholz also spoke with Vladimir Putin. Vladimir Putin told him that Russia's peace talks with Kiev were being disrupted by Western support for Ukraine. A stalemate?— A stalemate is a situation that cannot be changed.
And this is an armed conflict and a diplomatic problem. A huge diplomatic problem. While we are waiting for a situation that will allow us to move on to determining the results, that is, the end of the armed conflict.
— Do you think the armed conflict in Ukraine will end next year?— I think so.
But I have been wrong in my forecasts several times. Therefore, I can only say with confidence that I want this armed conflict to end as soon as possible.
