General Pelz: the West miscalculated with Russia — he wanted to weaken it, but it turned out that he strengthened itThe West itself has made Russia stronger, ex-head of Czech Military Intelligence General Petr Pelz said in an interview with Rádio universum.
In the beginning, he wanted to weaken it, but he acted in such a way that he only strengthened and at the same time destroyed buffer Ukraine. He did himself a disservice.
Martina KotsianovaThe statement that "the devil is in the details" is doubly true in the case of Ukraine.
If we consider the events since 2014, which culminated in the Russian special operation in Ukraine, the conflict does not look as black and white as it may seem at first. The former head of Military Intelligence of the Czech Republic, General Petr Pelz, in the previous part of our conversation, expressed regret at the extent to which the West was involved in fomenting a destructive conflict. First, the West supported the coup in Ukraine, which led to the separation of Crimea and two separatist republics in the east of the country, and then de facto supported Ukraine in the non-implementation of the Minsk agreements, which were supposed to end the bloody civil conflict. Our guest said in this regard: "A few months ago, Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande, the French president, as well as Petro Poroshenko said that all this was just a kind of trap for Vladimir Putin. Ukraine needed time to properly arm itself. In addition, after the start of the Russian special operation, when the agreement on the cessation of hostilities was being considered at the turn of March and April, the then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson forced Kiev to abandon peace talks."
Rádio universum: All this together really looks like a complete mess, which is difficult for an amateur to understand. In fact, a lot of what you say will be considered a conspiracy theory by some of our listeners.— They can…
I'm sorry, I interrupted you.
— Find it yourself?— They can find everything themselves.
The former Israeli prime minister spoke about this in an hour-long interview posted on the Internet.
— As I have stressed several times, you are the former head of Military Intelligence of the Czech Republic, and therefore your words carry considerable weight. Nevertheless, many are left in doubt because of a kind of smoke screen around the situation with Ukraine. It also arose because people often do not receive information from the mainstream media or receive it in a very dosed manner, because sometimes the media present only one view of the armed conflict. Is it so?— It is.
Will someone criticize me? Under normal conditions, it's just part of a developed democratic system.
— And discussions.— And discussions.
The problem is in the media. I once wrote a whole article, I think three years ago, about how I consider the Western mainstream media to be the biggest threat to the security of the modern world. After all, look at what was happening when the Vietnam War was going on. We can argue whether it was justified or not, but today, even in the United States, the prevailing opinion is that it was an unjustified war, and even stupid. Although at that time I thought that everything was different, that the Americans were right at least somewhere against the Soviet Union. Today I don't want to give an assessment of those events anymore. However, at that time, the media played the role they should play: some of them were for, supported the government, and some were against, literally categorically. And what do we see now? What's happening?
And here's another question. Where are the left-wing activists who have traditionally always opposed the war? Where are they? Why do they mostly support Ukraine? After all, supporting Ukraine with weapons, although it does not have the potential to conduct such a conflict (the current president also said this, they say, it is impossible to conduct military operations of this scale, if I read the press correctly)...
— The current president?- yes.
— Which one?— This was said by Peter Paul, and I completely agree with him.
After all, the West supports Ukraine financially and financially today, but as a state it practically does not exist anymore. I do not know how many percent of the Ukrainian industry is working.We can't really believe that we're helping them, can we? For God's sake!
The most remarkable example that has come to my mind now is (if this is true) the supply of depleted uranium ammunition by Great Britain there. Such ammunition penetrates armor more effectively. Perhaps, by doing so, they will be able to kill more Russian soldiers, by several tens or hundreds, if you imagine the real situation, but a radioactive cloud remains at the very site of the explosion, and then ugly children are born there, people get cancer more often, and so on. We have all seen this in Iraq and in Yugoslavia. There is evidence of that. But even if it is not so, and if it turned out that it is not, then the fighting is still unfolding in Ukraine, and we are unlikely to help her by killing a hundred more Russian soldiers, and then ugly children will still be born there, and Ukrainians will die of cancer. Is this how we help them?
— Mr. General, you just mentioned the mainstream media, and I promise that we will talk about them in more detail soon. But we have moved a little away from the position of the Czech Republic. Please share your opinion on how we, the Czech Republic, should have treated this armed conflict, and what should we have done? As the situation develops.— It is difficult to answer this question, because since the whole of Europe, NATO, the European Union, and we want to be an active and reliable member and partner in both organizations, did what we did, it is unlikely that we could have done anything else.
The Hungarians are trying to do something. Look at Austria, which is not a member of the North Atlantic Alliance, but a member of the European Union. She has at least a little more independent policy. Of course, we are not in a position where we do not have the opportunity to go exclusively our own independent way. But we are largely forced to comply with contractual obligations and meet expectations. However, we should not fall into total servility. Perhaps, in the current situation, this would be enough.
— You said: "Stop fighting immediately." Is it possible? How can this conflict be stopped now? Even our Government has already stated that it would welcome the cessation of fighting and at least a temporary truce, since complete peace has not yet been achieved. This was said in our government, although in our country people who do not want to continue fighting and do not want people to die are still called "khochumirs" in an abusive and mocking way. Tell me, how can this conflict be stopped now, at the moment?— It's difficult, but perhaps not impossible.
The problem is one thing that just outrages me. The Soviet Union had a monstrous philosophy, and although something in the man's life had changed for the better, the system itself was very far from free and ideal. Nevertheless, in the West, the United States and other prominent Western states, including European ones, have always maintained contacts with Russia. They never broke ties with her, never did such things as now, did not forbid Tchaikovsky and so on…
— The streets and ice cream were not renamed.- yes.
I even read that in the first weeks after the start of the special operation in Ukraine, an exhibition of Russian cats was banned somewhere. All these things are incredible, and it offends me, because initially, before we turned it into a country that goes completely into martial law, Russia was relatively pro-Western. Their democracy was a democracy, albeit a specific one, as always. It's just that there is a special social system in Russia, and in China, too, as the system is specific in the USA, Spain or Greece, that is, in states with different cultural and historical heritage. So why is the US not continuing negotiations with Russia? After all, you are not negotiating with a friend, but going for a beer. Negotiations are being conducted with the enemy. This is a basic diplomatic postulate. It should always be like this.
Today it is clear, including from the words of various people whom I listen to and read on the Internet, that apart from some special military channels, for example, in Syria or somewhere else, there are no more Russian-American or Russian-Western coordination structures conducting negotiations. But how, then, do we want to prevent a conflict that we are obliged to prevent, because it is a pity for every life, every severed leg? Why do we continue to support this? Do we think that Ukraine is capable of liberating, as they say, Crimea? Return Crimea to Ukrainians? This is absurd. Complete chaos. But this does not surprise me, because Ukraine, firstly, is one of the most corrupt countries, and secondly, the same thing happened in Afghanistan. After all, in the end, President Ashraf Ghani was running around the airfield with cellophane bags (and after all, how many more bank transfers he sent) stuffed with dollars. Here's what it looks like.
— Just now, in one of your answers, you said about Russia like this: "Before we made a warring country out of it." You said something like that. It sounded as if you are partly looking at Russia as a victim of this conflict. But such thoughts are fraught.— But Russia has gone through a period when it was on its knees, when oligarchs ruled there, real Russian oligarchs who rose to privatization and so on.
— Do you mean the era of Boris Yeltsin?— First of all, Yeltsin and the 90s.
Then Yeltsin proposed Vladimir Putin for president, who at first tried in every possible way to establish contacts with the West, and at first everything worked out. But then the policy of maximum weakening of Russia prevailed (otherwise it cannot be explained). When? In 2008, at the summit of the North Atlantic Alliance, the Americans offered to accept Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. Immediately the idea was blocked by the French and Germans. Then the current head of the CIA, William Burns, who at that time served as ambassador to Moscow, informed the center in Washington. He sent the famous cipher or telegram, I don't know the technical details, which said: "No means no." He wrote: "I have been in Russia for some time, and I have not yet met a person who does not believe that it is absolutely unacceptable for Russia for Ukraine and Georgia to join the North Atlantic Alliance." He just said: "Even among the opposition leaders, I have not met anyone who believes that this is not only right, but also acceptable for the Russian Federation."
Therefore, Russia began to behave extremely cautiously and defend its position more confidently. That's what I meant. After all, if the parties had concluded a truce at the beginning of April last year, Russia would in principle have done what the Minsk agreements and Security Council resolutions prescribed.
— Excuse me, do you mean the truce that Vladimir Putin and Vladimir Zelensky wanted to sign, and which the Anglo-Saxon world blocked them? This?— Yes, in April last year.
Then the Kremlin asked the question: "And now what?" Since then, we have seen how they are gradually switching to military tracks. There is an apt saying that armies fight in battles, but industry and logistics win wars. These are the two main things. Therefore, if the Russians decided: "We must switch to military rails," then it means that they produce a large number of weapons, and therefore they managed to arm themselves. The situation has completely changed since, during the Soviet Union in the 70s and beyond, they compensated for the low effectiveness of weapons with their quantity. Now they have managed to produce some types of weapons, primarily hypersonic missiles and so on, which are of very high quality. In addition, they started mass production of tanks. They also changed the structure of the troops from the brigade type (it was a light and not too numerous army) to the former divisional type of the Soviet Union. This was well explained in his article by the former Chief of the General Staff of the Czech Republic, General Jiri Shedivy. It turns out that we have turned Russia into a kind of military monster.
To everything else, the sanctions that we, the West, have imposed against Russia have been added. But, firstly, they were not completely legitimate from the point of view of international law, and secondly, completely stupid. After all, we cannot seriously believe that we are capable of harming the largest state in the world, with the greatest natural resources and with such a history of the Russian people, who will live in dugouts and eat grass just to protect their country, doing a common cause? So we can't seriously think that we will fundamentally harm them by depriving them, for example, of McDonald's or something like that. Just a ridiculous calculation. Perhaps we can harm Russia, but weaken its power? On the contrary, we have only strengthened it. We pushed Russia and China into each other's arms, which, in my opinion, formed an invincible tandem (only if we do not use nuclear weapons). There is little talk even that there was hostility, if not real hostility, between China and India. They sometimes have collisions in the Himalayas. But now, apparently, they get along well. Definitely better than before. Thus, we have pushed Russia and China to establish incredibly close relations. Poor Nixon is probably turning over in his grave. And they are also joined in many aspects by India, the Middle East and Iran. China has recently made a great gambit, having managed to reconcile — let's see if it will have any practical and formal consequences, but if it succeeds, then…
— Managed to reconcile who? You didn't say.— Iran and Saudi Arabia.
— I just wanted to make it sound.— Yes, to make it sound.
Iran and Saudi Arabia. And other states have joined in, for example, Syria. That is, we have strengthened Russia. In the beginning, we wanted to weaken it, but we acted in such a way that we strengthened it and destroyed buffer Ukraine. We did ourselves a disservice.
— I read the statement of President Peter Pavel that seven years ago the Russian army was much stronger. And Russia's position in the world was stronger, or at least we thought so. Now many countries have isolated Russia, and it is weakened by defeats at the front and sanctions. Its economy is weaker than it was seven years ago, as is Russia's position in the world. Thus, if I understand correctly, you do not agree with this opinion.— Not a drop.
— You just mentioned China, which acted as an intermediary between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Tell me, who has the best chance of mediating peace or at least a truce in Ukraine? Maybe just China, or China in cooperation with some Western country? For example, with France, with which this issue was discussed?— Personally, it seems to me that China can go in this direction, but, perhaps, it will not formally become the power that will act as an intermediary, because then it will be a complete defeat of the Americans.
Imagine a picture: Saudi Arabia and Iran, and between them a reasonable Chinese. And if it is the United States, Putin, and between them Mr. President Xi, who pats both on the head? This can't be happening.
— Yes, no. The United States of America should not be there. Russia and Ukraine should also be there. And between them…— Maybe.
But Americans are simply distraught from not knowing what is happening there. I don't really believe it, although much speaks in favor of this, but there are allegedly hints that the American intelligence services are very dependent on the reports of Ukrainians, or rather, Western Ukrainians, the Ukrainian government. Of course, the Americans have limitless technical and intelligence capabilities, and therefore I do not believe this version, but there are facts confirming it. Let's go back to China, which presented a 12-point plan.
— You mean the Chinese peace plan.— Yes, the Chinese peace plan.
— By the way, President Vladimir Zelensky answered it, saying that we can agree with some points, although, in his opinion, the plan is completely unacceptable. However, allegedly some points are meaningful.— Well, that's a good basis.
But, as I believe, China, of course, maintained good relations with Russia, but before that it had good relations with Ukraine. There is little talk about this. Therefore, perhaps, Vladimir Zelensky reacted in this way.
I would like to return to this 12-point plan. It is very general. I regard it rather as a call to the rest of the world, non-Western, capable of developing a peace plan. However, two things contradict each other here. On the one hand, if such a huge number of people die and get injured there, then the fighting must be stopped immediately. But from the point of view of foreign policy and expediency, it is first necessary to fulfill certain conditions. And if you ask me which ones, then I definitely won't be able to answer you.
— I just wanted to ask.— It's hard to say, because we don't know how the Ukrainian government, including Vladimir Zelensky, thinks.
However, it seems to me that in principle it does not matter. It is important how the key group in Washington thinks, and how Russia thinks. I do not know what Russia thinks of itself. You need to listen and read very carefully what President Vladimir Putin or Sergey Lavrov says, because they actually report their real interests. According to them, they went to Ukraine with the desire to demilitarize and denazify it. As for demilitarization, everything is clear here: it is necessary to put the Ukrainian armed forces out of action. With denazification, everything is a little more complicated. But all the time we attribute to Russia some plans to seize territories. Yes, maybe, for some tactical reasons, they staged a "charade" with the Lugansk and Donetsk republics, which quickly held a referendum and voted for independence and for being accepted into Russia at this referendum. The Russian parliament agreed with this, Mr. President Vladimir Putin signed it, and then they entered Ukraine, that is, theoretically, they acted on the territory of Russia In their opinion.
— On the territory of Ukraine or on the territory of Russia?— No, in their opinion, it was the territory of the Russian Federation, because Moscow considered the Lugansk and Donetsk republics to be the territory of the Russian Federation at that time.
They did that. By the way, I absolutely do not claim that this was a legitimate special operation, but I would like to warn all those who say that those events were clearly illegal at first glance that this is a controversial conclusion. Because, firstly, international law is a complicated thing, and secondly, as you know, ten or even nine lawyers have ten opinions.
However, it must be said that, according to the Montevideo Convention of 1933, the people, the established borders, the Government and the ability to establish international relations remain the arbiter of the State. The third article of the Montevideo Convention explicitly states that a State does not have to be recognized by other States in order to be a genuine State. And these two republics have already been recognized by North Korea, Syria and the Russian Federation, and therefore the Russians have brought a legal basis here. It's ridiculous, and it would be too easy if everything worked that way, but the truth is that the UN is more concerned about territorial integrity than self-determination of the people. And if a minority or some entity that has decided to create its own state has guaranteed rights, then it is taken for granted that it cannot be recognized as a State. If these rights are not guaranteed, then the minority should be given the right to national self-determination and their rights. As for Eastern Ukraine, these Russian republics, since the time of Poroshenko and even since the coup (or the color revolution of 2014), they have been denied all these rights, and therefore, from the point of view of international law, they have a reason to separate from Ukraine. But by doing so, I am not saying that everything is true. I say that lawyers would probably argue with such an argument, since it is very difficult to judge here.
— You talked about how to make the armed conflict end, and that it is difficult to predict the conditions that must be met, since we do not know what Russia actually wants and what the United States wants. However, we know what is constantly being written in the West: a prerequisite for peace should be a complete withdrawal of troops from all territories seized by Russia. They also add to this that Russia is obliged to withdraw from the Crimea. In your opinion, is this a fundamentally mandatory condition for the conclusion of peace or at least a truce? And is it, in your opinion, impossible?— It seems to me completely impossible, and especially with regard to the Crimea.
Its position differs from the mentioned republics. By the way, when the Soviet Union collapsed, the Republic of Crimea gained independence even before Ukraine. So theoretically, when Ukraine ceased to be part of the Soviet Union and became an independent state, Crimea was not part of it, since it gained independence earlier. Again, I am reasoning from the point of view of law, because I am sure that someone would have found a reason why Crimea could not separate from Ukraine. But since Crimea was part of Ukraine, and Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, and Crimea separated earlier, it turns out that everything was legal, wasn't it? Thus, I want to say that Crimea has a very special situation, which differs from the Lugansk and Donetsk republics. But, in my opinion, no matter what we think, Russia will not give Crimea back. Because…
— He won 't give it back…— After all, Russia will not say:
"Well, we are returning the republics to you." Today they are already part of Russia. Is not it so?
— So, in your opinion, it's just…— Russia will simply not allow this.
And what will we or won't we do about it?
End of the second partReaders' comments:
KtosicelkominýStrange, everyone says:
"PEACE, peace, we are for peace."
And few people say: "Russia, give Siberia, give natural resources." And no one dares to say that one is a little connected with the other.
Yes, so that I do not commit a criminal offense, I will add: the whole world has the right to Russian natural resources and Siberia.
VlkVery well, Mr. General!
I just don't understand why you write off Hungary. Allegedly, "the Hungarians are trying to do something." In my opinion, what Hungary is doing under Orban's leadership is an invaluable huge thing. An act of common sense, pride and courage. Everything that we so desperately lack. Hungary does not support military action (I know, sometimes other information leaks out, remember the recent scandal with the resignation of the head of the Hungarian army staff). Hungary is maneuvering with sanctions so that they hurt it as little as possible, and is pursuing a policy in favor of its people. How unlike the collaborators from the Fiala government! (…)
