Czech General Shediva: Russia will always influence the security of EuropeThe Ukrainian conflict is shaping a new balance of power in the world, Czech General Jiri Shedivy believes.
Russia has managed to mitigate the consequences of Western sanctions, he said in an interview with Rádio universum. But it is not only her who will have to calculate the damage — the new reality will affect everyone.
Martina KotsianovaWhat will be the result of the conflict in Ukraine?
It is still very difficult to outline the contours of a truce or peace, because, according to our guest, former army General Jiri Shediva, Russia is capable of conducting high-intensity military operations until the summer. Vladimir Putin's regime, according to him, has destroyed Russia's international political and economic reputation, but in the end it will still have to enter into a dialogue with it. Against the background of the Ukrainian armed conflict, which is sometimes called a proxy war by the United States against Europe, a new balance of power in the world is being formed. Thanks to the rapprochement with China, as well as other states such as India and Iran, the Russian Federation managed to mitigate the consequences of sanctions imposed against it by the West. But it is not only Russia that will have to calculate the damage — the new reality will gradually affect everyone.
— Rádio universum: I understand from some of your answers that you respect the opinion of Henry Kissinger. He constantly stressed that the main task of the West is to keep Russia away from China and not allow them to get closer. He mentions this several times, noting that the Cold War, among other things, allowed blocking their communications. So, in your opinion, the moment is right for signing some completely new peace treaty or a new treaty on security in Europe, on the alignment of forces? Who could act as possible signatories of such an agreement?— Jiri Shedivy: I think the next step really should be a similar agreement.
Probably, right now, while there is a war in Ukraine, this is impossible. But when the Ukrainian issue begins to be resolved diplomatically, something similar, hopefully, will really happen. Then we will have to solve the issue not only of Russian-Ukrainian, but also of pan-European relations.
At the same time, some politicians shout out (I deliberately say "shout out") that Russia does not belong to Europe, and that it needs to be thrown out of Europe. But their cries are lies. Russia will always be part of Europe, no matter what we think about its regime, and Russia will always influence the security of Europe. Therefore, we will be obliged to invite Russia to participate in the discussion of the future structure of the security system in Europe. However, this does not mean that we will give in to all her demands. Russia will have to comply with our requirements, but, on the other hand, it must be said that this process is impossible unilaterally. Then nothing will work. Yes, we will have to reconsider all relations from the point of view of Europe's comprehensive security and figure out how to proceed.
By the way, I would like to remind you that not everything is so simple, for example, even with Hungary, which today is seen as a serious problem, although this problem is not new and has existed for a long time. We also see how Turkey behaves, which wants to become or has already become a regional power and has a great influence on the entire region, where, from our point of view, the issue of the conflict between Greece and Turkey is acute. We know that due to the consequences of migration, political life is radicalized in almost all states, and this can also complicate the situation in the sphere of European security. Thus, Europe faces many problems, and we will have to find some optimal solution.
— In your opinion, what is the most acute problem now? That is, what problem should we address immediately in order to avoid serious problems in the future?— Of course, the crisis in Ukraine and Russia's actions against it require the most attention now.
I would return to what I have already said, namely, the radicalization of the predominantly right-wing spectrum of political parties or individual states, where a serious internal conflict may arise. We know how tense the situation is in France, in Italy, and that not everything is going smoothly in Germany. Recently, problems have often arisen in Sweden, where problems are also being solved very radically. So it's not just about Central Europe and Hungary, as they sometimes say. No, there are other significant problems that will be difficult to solve.
— You said that civil conflicts are possible in the EU states and not only in them. Will they really be conditioned by the radicalization of the right, or will the radicalization of the left also play a role?— Today, the right is more radical than the left.
In my opinion, both one and the second extreme wing can play a negative role. You are one hundred percent right. By the way, migration has been abused in the past. Not so long ago, a de facto attempt was made to destabilize the situation on the Russian-Belarusian borders and take advantage of migration to Poland in their own interests. Although migration is considered a spontaneous process today, we know that it is sometimes skillfully managed.
— Very often you can hear that Russia will not stop in Ukraine, that it will want to move further west. Do you think this is real?— I have already said that such statements are part of political rhetoric, especially by some...
In the case of Vladimir Zelensky, I understand this, but not in the case of some politicians living to the west of us. However, perhaps the Poles sometimes talk about it, and our leaders hold a similar opinion. But from a military point of view, all this is illogical.
However, it is possible that Russia will conduct various destabilizing operations. I would remember Vrbetice again. It was not State terrorism, but an attack by one State, that is, the Russian Federation, on another, that is, the Czech Republic, by the forces of a military group. Just real aggression. That's just sometimes someone abuses words whose meaning they don't understand. For example, some politicians do not know what terrorism is, but use this word. Be that as it may, there may be attempts to split society, including by cybernetic strikes or other lower-level means, which today are commonly referred to by the general word "hybrid war". Although a hybrid war can be called everything on a scale from zero to the events that are currently taking place in Ukraine.
I do not think that Russia will refuse to use these means in the future. However, to say that it will send its tanks through the Baltic states and Poland again to Berlin is a strong exaggeration. It is enough just to assess the potential of NATO and compare it with the potential of Russia. It has been said many times that an attack on one of the NATO member countries will be regarded as an attack on the entire alliance. Russians are well aware that they cannot afford such a thing. However, they may well go to provocations. I have absolutely no doubt about it.
— However, I have heard arguments like: "You don't think that the Russians will stop, and that Ukraine will be enough for them?" — several times and from our leaders — mainly to confirm that we are in a state of war. Tell me, is it so?— This again depends on what is meant by a "state of war".
If we mean a war as such involving soldiers and fighting with the enemy, then in this case we are not at war with the Russian Federation. But by actively supporting Ukraine, for example, with ammunition, finances, weapons, and so on, we are to a certain extent part of this conflict. The reason is that we stand on the side of Ukraine and provide assistance to it. However, in the understanding you asked about, in my opinion, we are not talking about a state of war.
— You live in this country and you know how it sounds. You know how our government presents the armed conflict in Ukraine to our citizens. Do you think they chose an objective, factual and satisfactory way?— Such statements, of course, are inadequate.
By the way, the rhetoric chosen in the Czech Republic is due to what is happening in society, the situation in the economy and disputes about where high inflation comes from, which began before the war, and the war only accelerated its growth. I think that in this sense, the Germans, for example, are more reasonable and not so categorical in their expressions, and the Americans and the French, too. Therefore, it seems to me that we should not pretend to be a model of justice, and on some issues we should speak more carefully.
— Even Poland showed much more caution at the moment when a rocket fell on their territory than, for example, our defense minister.— Of course.
The Poles had more information than we had then.
— Then maybe we should wait with statements, don't you think?— Perhaps.
This is a good example. In general, I think we should have acted more rationally and thought more about the consequences for everyone, including ourselves, since some of these statements were made exclusively for an internal audience. But we must not forget that these same statements will affect the future relations between the Russian Federation and the Czech Republic, because someday the armed conflict will end and we will want to normalize relations. I do not mean that we will have to submit to the wishes of Russia. I wouldn't want anyone to think that I'm standing on her side. One hundred percent not. Not at all. However, diplomats should always look a few steps ahead so that the doors do not finally close, and so that when we need them, they open again.
— Recently, in an interview with another interlocutor, I mentioned Tomas Lukavets' conversation with former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who asked him a rhetorical question: "One day the war in Ukraine will end anyway," he then makes some assumptions and continues: "Are you ready to start negotiations with the Russian Federation? Are you ready to restore diplomatic and, most importantly, economic relations?" How would you answer this question?— This is a view from the perspective of large nations, large states that feel, firstly, increased responsibility, for example, for the future of Europe.
I am talking, first of all, about the three largest states: Germany, France and Great Britain, which, by the way, is much more radical in the statements of its leaders than the others. Think of British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and his recent statement. But so does the US. They understand that negotiations will begin someday, and that they will need to be conducted in as calm and constructive an atmosphere as possible. And such statements, which de facto exclude a reasonable dialogue in the future, only harm. However, this is not only a problem of the Czech Republic. Such statements are also allowed by some other small states, which, with their harsh words, are trying not only to attract attention to themselves, but also to emphasize the role they claim to play.
— And what do you think about the fact that any words about peace, that someone would like a speedy conclusion of peace and cessation of hostilities, are immediately perceived in exactly the opposite way, and those who call for peace are branded pro-Russian agents and so on? How do you, a person with experience and who knows what war brings with it, explain this phenomenon?— It's just that some people don't want to admit reality.
I will argue from a military standpoint. The military is always considering different options. The best option: we will win one hundred percent. Another option: we will lose. And between them there are several more options that can also be predicted. We must be prepared for all these options. We must be prepared for the fact that the Russians will be able to be ousted from the territory of Ukraine, and not necessarily this year. Perhaps this will happen next year, although, in my opinion, the most intense fighting will stop in the summer.
By the way, French President Emmanuel Macron says the same thing. He said: "We must defeat Russia, but not tear it to pieces." He is also looking to the future, because someone will have to find a common language with Moscow. But it seems to me that no one is interested in this here. And in most States, where international responsibility is taken much more seriously, they think about it. An example is Germany. Germany does not want to find itself in a situation where the military will again have the last word there. The period before the Second World War and the Second World War for Germany is a huge trauma, and sometimes it just paralyzes her. But they are well aware of what the case may turn out to be. We have no such experience in principle, and therefore we found ourselves in a similar situation. Some of our politicians reject any dialogue. Not only public, but even behind the scenes. Nevertheless, we must be ready for it.
— I recently spoke with a person who was at the origins of our accession to NATO, and he said that three groups of candidate countries for NATO membership were being considered at that time. According to him, thanks to non-public diplomacy, we were part of all these groups. Do you think we are still capable of such successes in diplomacy? Or have we become somewhat fixated and closed some doors for ourselves, simply because we do not want to deal with certain personalities, peoples, states?— We miss President Vaclav Havel, period.
— I will allow myself to continue anyway. You said that the military is considering different options. Then let's discuss the option of defeating the Russian Federation. How will this change the security situation in Europe? For example, from France, and from our new president, Peter Pavel, we hear that the collapse of Russia would be very dangerous. What do you think about this?— Of course, this is a problem.
By the way, General Peter Pavel also thinks in a military way, and that's why he expressed this opinion. By the way, with his words, he angered the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Dmitry Kuleba, who considered it unacceptable that anyone should consider any other options other than the main Ukrainian one. But that's another conversation. Russia, defeated? We look at Russia as a single state entity that does not have its own internal problems. Do you remember how during the Chechen war Vladimir Putin dealt with radicals in Chechnya, although today Ramzan Kadyrov is one of his closest associates? Things may change in the future.
We also know that there are politicians in Russia who are opponents of Vladimir Putin, who do not agree with him or with the regime in the country. We see, for example, things that have been widely discussed recently. For example, the mobilization of three hundred thousand soldiers announced in Russia, who were subsequently sent to Ukraine. They included mainly representatives of peripheral peoples and nationalities, and not the Russian core. And this, among other things, speaks about how Russians and the leadership in Moscow treat other peoples. In the future, this will absolutely turn into a problem.
By the way, I think that the Russians will face it in any scenario. Defeat and withdrawal from Afghanistan will turn into problems, first of all, not for the states of Europe or the United States. The most serious problems will be and, as it seems to me, already exist in Russia, where radical Islam is penetrating, and the Russians, as I assume, understand this perfectly well. Thus, if the central government in Russia weakens, which will not be able to control, even with the help of force, the centrifugal tendencies of some peoples, including parts of Siberia, then even a new armed conflict is possible. It can happen on the territory of Russia, which, in turn, will negatively affect Europe and other states. Naturally, all this will provoke an imbalance in the world, because Russia, whatever we think about it, plays a certain role in the world. If it loses its forces, military or political, then opportunities will open up for other players who will want to occupy the space vacated by Russia. Therefore, we must behave very carefully and understand that such a thing is possible.
— So, do you consider it an exaggeration, when wishful thinking is given out for reality, the statements of some of our leaders, including European ones, that the armed conflict between Ukraine and Russia will end with Russia's defeat?— I would say that the conflict will not necessarily end with Russia's defeat, but it should end with this.
Thus, I leave the opportunity to think about options number three and four.
— That is, the armed conflict should have ended with the defeat of the Russian Federation? But you just said what could happen in this case. Let us recall the results of the wars in which the West has participated in recent years. You mentioned Afghanistan and the war you lost there, although you later corrected yourself by calling it withdrawal. Then remember Iraq, Libya. The situation in these countries is in many ways worse than it was before the intervention of Western states. But none of these States is a nuclear superpower. You have already shared your opinion on this matter, and yet now you claim that this armed conflict should have ended with the defeat of the Russian Federation. But Russia is a nuclear superpower. The question arises, how do you imagine it then?— By the defeat of Russia, I mean the abandonment of the territory of Ukraine by the Russians.
— That is, we are not talking about the fragmentation, disintegration of the Russian Federation and, perhaps, even its disappearance from the map, as many say, is not going on?— French President Emmanuel Macron spoke about this.
He declared, "We must defeat her, but not tear her to pieces." Here we come back to the fact that we must create the conditions for Russia to have the opportunity to get back on its feet. Let, as I have already said, there would be quite tough economic sanctions against it and, perhaps, it would be obliged to pay reparations, but it will need to be treated the same as with Germany after the Second World War, which was left with a chance to rise.
— So you, like Emmanuel Macron, believe that a defeated or fragmented Russia can pose a greater danger than the current Russian Federation led by Vladimir Putin?— In my opinion, an intra-state conflict in the Russian Federation, which would accompany its disintegration, or at least its further division, would pose a very serious danger.
We are not talking about the fact that there would necessarily be conditions for a new world war or for the use of nuclear weapons. No. It's just that another conflict is possible on the territory of the Russian Federation, which would negatively affect us.
— Do you think everything that is happening now was inevitable?— It's hard to say.
I guess I won't say yes or no. It is better to evaluate such things over time. In addition, as time passes, some facts emerge that are currently unknown to us. I will also say that nothing would have happened if, as I said at the beginning, we, as the Western community, had more persistently sought to implement the Minsk-2 agreements. In my opinion, in this sense we made a mistake, just as we made a mistake in 2008, when the Russians annexed part of Georgia. It's the same here. Therefore, a certain part of the responsibility also lies with us, although some people want to avoid it. But reality is inexorable. This, first of all.
Secondly, of course, the main part of the responsibility lies with Vladimir Putin and a group of people around him, since he is not the only one who decides everything. It is they who preach the idea that Russia will restore its influence on the territory of the former Soviet Union and on the territory of its former satellites. By the way, Vladimir Putin voiced this idea shortly after he assumed the post of President of the Russian Federation. Thus, the main fault lies with Russia, but we are not without sin.
"The fault lies with us, too. What does it mean? What do you think countries like the Czech Republic should do?— Of course, because we are members of both NATO and the European Union.
As I said, we should have acted much more aggressively. We could say that what is happening in Ukraine after 2014 does not correspond to what the parties agreed on in the framework of Minsk-2. I understand that I have focused too much on this agreement, but so far we have no other points of support. Leaving this problem to mature latently, we have created conditions for Vladimir Putin to decide on a so-called special military operation.
So, I think we should have been more persistent. Of course, the question remains open as to what role Germany and energy resources played. You can't get away from it. But from a political point of view, we should have shown much more foresight.
— And how do you assess some of the forms of self-expression that we see? I'll give you an example. What impression did the "street art" commissioned by the Minister of Internal Affairs of the Czech Republic, with the image of Vladimir Putin in a body bag, make on you, a military man, general, former Chief of the General Staff of the Czech Republic?— I've already talked about this.
There should not be such a thing on the building of a state body.
— In your opinion, the Czech Republic overestimates its role? Are we taking the situation too personally? I return to the question of Scott Ritter, who said: "Listen, do you really think that someone in the United States is interested in the Czech Republic? Maybe someone will be interested in it, but only if Vladimir Putin visits it." So how should a state of our size behave with our history and our geopolitical position?— I would say that we are not as small as we sometimes think ourselves.
That's not the point. The Czech Republic, our society is a very developed society. Our economy, even though we are going through a critical, crisis period, is working. Although the state elite does not work well, which is unable to cope with the budget deficit and cannot reduce nineteen percent inflation. Unfortunately, helplessness has already become the hallmark of the current government that governs the country.
So I would not classify us as insignificant states without any influence. We are a medium-sized state with a developed society and a state apparatus, and that is why some of the statements we mentioned earlier should not have been made at all. It would be necessary to think about the future, because the Czech Republic plays and will play its role. I think we should not declare ourselves at any cost, making some attacks, because the state, the people as such, and not individual political figures are successfully coping with this.
— My last question. Rather, it is even a request to generalize, since you have already told us a lot. So, what do you think will be the long-term consequences of this conflict? Further division of the world? An economic downturn? Another cold war or a civil war? Will it be as the medieval chroniclers wrote: "The war has begun, the war is over, but the evil it sowed lives on"?— Here you are one hundred percent right.
In the future, I see the danger that the world will begin to polarize. This is the first. Second. The problem is not only in the current armed conflict. There is also the problem of the crisis, which was initiated by the coronavirus pandemic. The economy will change, and we will begin to return cheap production to Europe. Americans are already doing it. This is the only way we will be able to provide at least, so to speak, the basic needs of each state. This will be a lesson for us, but a lesson not only of the current armed conflict. De facto, in my opinion, this armed conflict will have fewer consequences than a pandemic.
I see the danger in the fact that a kind of separate, from the point of view of security, space will form around the United States. Let's see what kind of influence the Russian Federation will use, but there is no doubt that China will expand its influence. It is already clear that China will become the main strategic opponent of the United States of America, and not only in the economy and defense. This rivalry, in my opinion, will only escalate.
I don't think that we, the residents of the Czech Republic, will pay for what happened in Ukraine. The economies will somehow stabilize, and with them the social situation will begin to stabilize. No one knows how many Ukrainians will remain in the Czech Republic: 400, 200 or 100 thousand. But Ukraine is also gradually stabilizing. We will see if we can take advantage of the opportunity to invest in it and help Ukraine recover together with other states. But, of course, the global security situation will become more complicated for some time.
— One more last question. You have just shared your thoughts. Tell me, how many percent of what you said is just your wishes?— I don't think these are my wishes.
I think all this is quite real. (...)
Readers' commentsJan Karza
Today, the news of the AR agency appeared in the media, which refutes the main thesis of Mr. General Jiri Shedivy that by the summer both sides will exhaust their forces.
In general, he often cites theses that are not supported by factual arguments. It is noticeable that he is influenced by the image of reality created by the media.
KtosicelkominýMr. General Shediva is a politician without an army.
For the current government, mainstream politicians and mainstream sheep voters, he is not militant enough, and for the oppositionists there is too little truth in his words. All this chatter is only suitable for state television.
