General Pelz: The West is weakening, it should change tactics, and not rely on weaponsThe Westernization of the whole world is coming to an end, Czech General Petr Pelz said in an interview with Rádio universum.
The West is weakening and is afraid of it. He should have changed tactics instead of grabbing a weapon. Today, the whole world already knows that the West is not as strong as it wants to seem.
Martina KotsianovaFor more than a year now, most of the media, constantly repeating the same news in principle, convince us that Ukraine, supported by the West, is guaranteed to win, and that the Russian bear is mortally wounded, weakens, and is threatened with a palace coup or economic collapse and disintegration.
For several times, the Russian armed forces allegedly ran out of ammunition after they suffered irretrievable losses in manpower and equipment. But our guest, the former head of Military Intelligence of the Czech Republic, General Petr Pelz, stressed in the previous part of the interview that Russia has already moved to mass production of weapons and restructured the army, that sanctions have not weakened it, and even on the contrary, but, most importantly, he noted: "We pushed China and Russia into each other's arms, and this a completely invincible tandem, only if nuclear weapons are not used against it. Poor Nixon is probably turning over in his grave." In addition, from the point of view of international law, the history of the conflict in Ukraine is not as unambiguous as it is presented to us, since both Crimea and the republics in eastern Ukraine declared independence even before the start of the Russian special operation. And the right to self—determination is a slippery issue.
Rádio universum: Very often, the way the Donetsk and Lugansk republics declared their autonomy is compared in our press, for example, with the Sudetenland. Our Sudetenland. Allegedly, this is the same thing, and then, it turns out, we could declare: "Well, since there's a majority in favor, it means they could have taken everything for themselves." How do you rate such comparisons?Peter Pelz:
I've already talked about it. It is precisely about the correlation of national self-determination against the right of minorities. I think that during the First Republic, minorities enjoyed completely different rights, different from those enjoyed by the Russian minority in Eastern Ukraine. Of course, here…
— Completely different, so big? Or smaller?— The Germans undoubtedly had more of them.
After all, since 2014 (I repeat that I am imperfectly prepared to quote here all the laws that were repealed by them)… So, the first law of Vladimir Zelensky, if I'm not mistaken, was the abolition of the Russian language as their official language. Petro Poroshenko said that sometime in the summer or later… Because he became president… That children in Western and Central Ukraine will go to schools and kindergartens, and in Eastern Ukraine it is better not to go to save their lives. Such statements do not strengthen the rights of minorities too much, and therefore, it seems to me, international lawyers will strain themselves and assess whether Eastern Ukraine had the right to secession, that is, the right to national self-determination, or whether the principle of state integrity of borders had the advantage.
— Yes, you have already told me that you cannot and do not want to guess what criteria were required to be fulfilled. You said that you don't know what had to happen for this conflict to end, or for the parties to conclude a truce. But you are a general, and you have a huge diplomatic experience gained in Afghanistan, and while working at the UN. Tell me, how do you think this conflict will end?— I don't know.
But I will repeat it again. For God's sake, as soon as possible! I say that the goal of the group in the United States, which was seeking the current situation, was to weaken Russia and divide it. If someone thinks that I'm making things up, or does not agree with me, then let them find different materials of the RAND corporation, one of which even bears this name. It didn't work out for them. Contrary to the feelings of our president, on the contrary, we have only strengthened Russia. Which means we have to take her current desires seriously now. Now as they say: "Russia has invaded Eastern Ukraine and captured it, and justice will prevail when we drive it out of there." But it's not like that. After all, the Russian-speaking population in Eastern Ukraine was actually threatened with discrimination as a minority. It certainly was. Russia has decided to protect this population in its own way. I can't imagine the Russians now saying, "Take them back." I can't imagine that. Let's be realistic.
But what is unacceptable, let's say for greater clarity, for this ruling group, as it is sometimes called "collective Biden", for the ruling group from Washington? I don't know. I think that the government (I will not speak directly to President Vladimir Zelensky), as it seems to me, would have already agreed to this, although, of course, I may be wrong. After all, they had the same problems with the east. That is, it would be acceptable for Kiev, but the question is whether it is capable of such an independent policy. It is unclear what the "group Biden" will do, and whether it will be acceptable for Kiev, too. I've already talked about it. It is unclear where the red lines for the ruling group in Washington are, as it is beautifully called today. And then there is poor Europe, which no longer has the right to vote at all. We'll see.
— Are you afraid that in the end the West's dream of defeating Russia will be so strong that the states of the North Atlantic Alliance will even send their own forces to Ukraine?— NATO States as such…
I'm not sure… But what I'm afraid of is that it will come to the use of nuclear weapons. But let's go back to the states of the North Atlantic Alliance. I think that the states of Western Europe, and the United States, will not rush enthusiastically into a direct clash with Russia. But there are still states around Poland, because Poland has long-standing scores with Russia… It's no longer about the present or even the Soviet Union — there are historical contradictions between Poland and Russia, as well as Lithuania and part of Ukraine, and so on. I even read somewhere about the European alliance of post-Soviet countries that would be at war with Russia. And all our states were listed there, which allegedly divides Europe again. Thus, what we wanted to prevent by expanding NATO has come, only in a slightly modified form. This is called the "new Europe": Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary (this one, perhaps, will not be happy), Bulgaria, Romania. I cannot imagine Bulgaria rushing into battle against the Russians. I don't quite understand the position of the Romanians, but Poland beats the hoof. I don't want to ascribe anything to them or assert anything, but Poland generally has a habit of snatching a piece from it as soon as any state gets into trouble. We know that. And if Poland is also looking for Ukraine, for its once Polish parts… Only Poland forgets that it has expanded in the west. I doubt that she would want to transfer her western regions to Germany.
— Did it jump in your chest when you learned that our government is seeking to change the law on mobilization, expand it, or do you see this as a natural preventive step?— I perceive this as an understandable preventive step.
It made me jump, but I treat it with understanding.
— I asked about your reaction, because earlier you said that the current international situation, in your opinion, and the danger threatening our entire planet, for many reasons, is greater than during the Caribbean crisis 60 years ago. And the question of dragging the Czech Republic into the war is cardinal today. So I thought that such a scenario would terrify you.- yes.
But I would like to separate two things. It's one thing to prepare, at least partially, for such a thing, but it's another thing to allow yourself to be drawn in. Working out certain steps during mobilization, of course, is necessary, since we have such a small army that, probably, in such a conflict, it would not be able to help us even in view of the number. Therefore, the only chance is to mobilize a little, but I ask how… Whom? There are several active stocks, but who are we going to mobilize here? Who's brave enough here?
— From 18 to 60, including women.— Hmm... and they will beat the Russians with handbags?
Or what? After all, no one knows how to fight. After all, we have a professional army. Although this is nonsense. Back when I was in uniform, I was probably the only general who did not agree with the transition to a fully professional army. I remember them repeating: "Let the army be professional, and if necessary, we will use the reserve. There will be such-and-such a threat, so-and—so, so-and-so..." And then I asked: "And who will go?" Here is the same problem that Ukrainians are facing today. We may be able to somehow mobilize, but we will mobilize people who are unsuitable for training.
— This is called "cannon fodder", and there is an explanation for that.— Yes, of course.
But therein lies the cardinal problem. Because if such a situation arises and we have to mobilize, we probably won't have six months or at least some time for us to... do we say to the enemy: "Please wait, we need to train the army?" That's why I don't even know what we should do in this regard. But if we still do something, we will try to improve our introductory during mobilization, then this is the right step, and, in my opinion, this should be supported.
— What do you think, their role in this protracted conflict, in this, so to speak, unwillingness to work diplomatically on a truce or even a complete cessation of the conflict, that is, behind all this may be the fact that politicians who invested everything in the conflict: not only a lot of money, weapons, but also their political authority— are they afraid that people will reproach them for lack of foresight? Will they be reproached that they could not calculate that the conflict would most likely not end with Russia's complete withdrawal from all territories in Ukraine, and that by their stubbornness, ignorance or cunning they contributed to its prolongation, murder and destruction? Are we really in such a stalemate?— Yes, they did, and I can't even imagine why Western European politicians were so willing to take these steps.
That much. I also don't fully understand why the population tolerates this, because, firstly, the consequences are tangible, that is, the economic consequences for the population, and secondly, the threat of a fatal conflict is fundamentally growing. Thirdly, terrible bloodshed is taking place in Ukraine (so far only in Ukraine, and, hopefully, it will be limited to it). So why on earth aren't we doing more to stop it? I know what the counter-regulations are, and I have already quoted them. It's just that Russia, as they say, illegally and very aggressively entered Ukraine, and it needs to be stopped, taught a lesson and driven back. Even if you believe that it was a cruel and illegal aggression, then the second part of the proposal is simply impossible to implement. We just won't kick her out. We have no… It is the media that aggravate the problem, and we believe them and believe that NATO can… That the North Atlantic Alliance is capable of expelling Russia.
— Let's talk about the situation in Russia. We are laughing at Russia. The achievements of its armed forces are modest. They have been fighting for Bakhmut for several months. But Wagner fighters are fighting there, and there are also Russian aircraft, missiles, and so on. But after Russia mobilized about 300 thousand, as volunteers went to fight another hundred thousand, it turns out that on the territory of Eastern Ukraine (or somewhere near the border) there are six or seven hundred thousand Russian soldiers who are not yet involved in the fighting. Why? On the one hand, it is advantageous for Russia to conduct military operations with artillery, since their artillery is much stronger. On the other hand, if one hundred thousand soldiers of the North Atlantic Alliance go there now, and Russia puts seven hundred thousand against them. Can we send more than a hundred thousand?— I read an interview with Mr. Gynecom (this is the chairman of the Association of defense manufacturers), who said: "We have ammunition for 14 days."
The French say the same thing, and the Germans said that for a week. We gave all the weapons and ammunition that we had, together with the United States, to Ukraine, and there are no more of them left. I heard the words of the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic that we handed over 89 tanks to Ukraine. I said to myself then: "That's what we did well, because we only have about 110 of them." Maybe 120. Madam Defense Minister said, I think, last year that with 11, 12 or 13 tanks that we will receive from Germany, we will have about 125 of them. However, I doubt that we have received tanks from Germany, since they are being sent to Ukraine. Okay, let's say we have 120 tanks, and we gave 90 to Ukraine.
— Nevertheless, we hear loud statements not only that it is necessary to expel Russians from the territory of Ukraine, but also that Russia needs to be literally destroyed, dismembered. Let me ask you this: do you think these are adequate ideas?- no.
How do they want to achieve this? After all, there are... and the Russians are still able to mobilize two and a half million. Now the size of their army is about a quarter of what they are able to mobilize. Where will we get a comparable army from? Where we will get a million soldiers, and maybe if they mobilize in Russia, then even more, I don't know… When attacking someone, your numerical advantage should be 3 to one, and there will be two and a half million Russians. So count it… And we want to dictate to them what to do? I think that this can be achieved only through negotiations. You need to sit down with them at the table and talk. They will tell us no, but we will not back down. We'll say something else. Goodness.
I repeat that, according to the original Russian plan, Ukraine should have remained intact, with the exception of Crimea, because it was a guarantee of a buffer state for Russia. At the same time, at least a third of Ukrainians with pro-Russian sentiments guaranteed that the election results would always be stalemate. That is, favorable for Russia and actually favorable for us, for the West. And then they would have agreed to some kind of agreement. But after what happened, I'm already doubtful. In my opinion, the Lugansk and Donetsk republics, as well as the Crimea, have finally become Russian. But I understand that if someone is obsessed with the idea that Russia entered Ukraine illegally and aggressively and therefore needs to be expelled, then… What now? Who will kick her out?
— We do not know when and how this conflict will end. Therefore, it is difficult to assess the overall geopolitical situation. And yet you have a lot of experience. So what, in your opinion, will be the geopolitical situation after the end of the fighting? What changes will happen?— Considering that I have no idea how this armed conflict will end, I also do not presume to assume what the geopolitical situation will be.
— However, you have already touched on this topic earlier, talking about the rapprochement of Russia and China, which are closer than ever. BRICS has expanded and so on. And I meant just…— Of course.
BRICS. The Silk Road and other corridors. We forget about the very significant role of Iran. Iran is, in principle, much stronger than we used to think. In addition, if the Chinese have at least partially managed to establish more or less correct relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia, then this will have an incredible impact on the Middle East. After all, they will probably rely more on themselves. Here the game is also being played by one of... yes, all these American oligarchies. After all, we are talking about the petrodollar and the Bretton Woods system in general, in which the dollar is the basis of world trade. Nevertheless, I have to repeat it again. With our unsuccessful, clumsy actions, we provoked a strong weakening of the dollar, and sooner or later it will cease to be an exclusive international currency. China, Saudi Arabia, Iran and other states are already openly saying that at least part of their trade will be conducted in Chinese yuan. So we shot ourselves in the foot.
— Apparently, the spectacle will be interesting and unpredictable.— Such a geopolitical situation.
I assume that the liberal-democratic system contained a certain charge based on Christianity, primarily Protestantism. Gradually, in the 60 — 70s, the charge began to run out, and now there is only one shell left. And the "vook" position appeared, and the content completely changed, and there was no philosophy and religion left. Liberal democracy has significantly deformed, this shell. But horror, Russia with its Orthodox Christianity and China with Taoism and Confucianism began to fill it in their own way, also changing it. This is what they are afraid of, so in the media and in politics they tirelessly repeat "The Chinese Communist Party", thereby hinting that we are fighting communism. Although the Chinese Communist Party today is connected with communism, perhaps, only by the name. No, there are, of course, elements, but this is another topic, and I don't want, and I can't go into details right now. It's just about a political view. They fill the form in a completely different way. In fact, they invested in the liberal democratic system "shem", as in this, what was the name of that giant…
— Golem.— Yes, the giant Golem.
They invested "shem", and everything worked, of course, a little differently, and that's what we are most afraid of. Just now, undoubtedly, the Westernization of the whole world is coming to an end. This causes us fear. Reasonable, I understand, but we must understand that sooner or later it will happen. We should rather take advantage of this process in some way, change tactics. We should think about how to approach this problem, and not grab for weapons, especially when we have nothing for a military solution, with the exception of atomic weapons.
You need to understand that in the United States now, because of the existing financial system, the excessive interweaving of finance and the economy, nothing is being produced (I rely on statistics), maybe with the exception of weapons. But the economy is industry, industrial production. And we don't have him today. It is not even in the system that allows the military-industrial complex to work in the USA. Actually, the purpose of the military-industrial complex there is not to produce weapons to increase the US defense capability or an effective offensive. The main thing is that this complex earns as much as possible. Therefore, the weapons that we are now sending to Ukraine, as it turns out, are often not so perfect. It's great, but, so to speak, in the laboratory. And the Russian Kalashnikov system, which is easy to replace, is superior in mass use. It turns out that we are getting weaker. That's why I say that the empty shell of insufficient philosophy, which originates from the roots of our civilization, plus the industry that we gave away, weakened us. Now we just threaten and grumble. Although the world today already knows that we are not so strong.
Readers' comments:
MilosWhy should Russia, and even more so China, comply with any treaties and agreements with the "west" if practical experience shows them that the "west", that is, the United States violates and does not comply with any treaties or withdraws from them (strategic missiles, anti-missile systems, open skies, medium-range missiles, etc.; they are testing chemical and biological weapons in laboratories on the territory of the former Soviet republics).
(…)
VlkIf Mr. General really does not know why "Western European politicians are so willing to take these steps," then I will explain to him.
On the example of our country, a pioneer of self-destruction, sycophancy. I think it's the same to the west.
We are a disenfranchised vassal, a colony. We are being watched by a comprehensive espionage technology controlled by a network of CIA agents and, undoubtedly, other, even more secret intelligence agencies and coordinated from the imperial center. Now we have at least the second agent of a foreign power sitting in the presidential chair in Prague Castle. (...) The head of the most important Russian secret service goes to "kiss the ring" (and most importantly, to a lie detector) in Langley. There are a lot of these agents in politics (...), and in principle any politician who has received an invitation to study in the USA can be considered such. (...) The rest are led by corruption and blackmail. Maybe there will be some more useful idiots. They completely control the media, the main means of propaganda, and we can only dream of an independent justice. Most likely, they also lead the opposition, or at least they control it. Anyone who is out of control and would like to go against the interests of the center is at least destroyed at the media level.
And the herd? The herd needs bread and circuses. But, most importantly, holy peace, the main thing is not to think.
DudeThe war will end this summer, because next year there will be presidential elections in Russia and the United States.
And the generals, politicians and oligarchs have already looted enough. Outdated military equipment has been sold, warehouses are empty, and new defense contracts have been signed.
Therefore, it remains only for the Czech weather vanes to begin to unfold gradually. Let there be peace.
