Ukraine does not have the means for a serious counteroffensive, and this is a military fact, Czech diplomat Petr Drulak said in an interview with Parliament listy. According to him, the reaction to the destruction of the Kakhovka dam resembles hasty judgments after the fall of a rocket in Poland.
Radim Panenka
Interview with an expert on international issues, former First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic, former diplomat and educator Petr Drulak.
(...)
Parlamentní listy: The Kakhovka dam was destroyed, and Vladimir Zelensky immediately blamed the Russians for this, calling them terrorists. Do we now have any evidence of anyone's guilt at all?
Peter Drulak: Of course, there is no physical evidence. Like everyone else, I follow the news in the official media. I noted that both sides accused each other of terrorism, as well as the fact that the destruction of this dam will lead to problems with the supply of water to the Crimean peninsula. Of course, part of the territory for which the parties are fighting, and which is located on the line of contact, has been flooded. All this is definitely not in the interests of Russia, as well as, perhaps, Ukraine. Therefore, I would consider what happened as another tragedy and crime, for which we should not hastily lay the blame on one side or the other. Both Ukrainians and Russians could have done it. There are arguments for and against each side.
— Some media are already asking the question, to whom is this catastrophe more profitable, and for whom is it more fatal? But already in the morning, the overwhelming majority of the media and government politicians were absolutely sure that Russia was the culprit. It's possible, but no one knows for sure yet. Do such reactions surprise you?
— Oh, really. In the Czech militant media space, when it comes to Ukraine, there is no other way. When the errant rocket landed on Polish territory, the Czech media and most Czech politicians immediately knew for sure that this rocket was Russian. Only when the Americans refuted this version, our people had to give up. Americans play a decisive role in interpreting events, and if they don't say what and how, then they will say that they don't know anything. If the Americans remain silent for a long time, it will become clear that the Ukrainians are to blame.
— When a rocket fell on the territory of Poland, some politicians even called for considering the possibility of activating the fifth article of the North Atlantic Treaty...
- yes. And now Czech Foreign Minister Jan Lipavsky writes on Twitter that Russia has used weapons of mass destruction and expanded the boundaries of its aggression. He is again trying to take the conflict to a new level of escalation. Our warmongers continue their usual game, which they have been playing since the beginning of the armed conflict.
— The long-awaited Ukrainian counteroffensive, which, according to Russian reports, has already begun, is also connected with the media coverage, but Ukraine denies it. Our media mostly echo the Ukrainians, although, for example, the New York Times, based on its sources, admits that the counteroffensive has really begun. We are in information chaos, and the average reader has no way to navigate. Or is everything wrong?
— It is difficult to form a real idea even for an informed reader. This is extremely difficult. It can be seen how expectations, so heated at the beginning of the year, are trying to gradually moderate. Some authoritative sources urge not to expect too much in this regard, because, as it turns out, Ukraine does not have any exceptional means for a breakthrough. This is a military fact. Therefore, the discourse on the counteroffensive has fundamentally changed. Ukrainians now refuse to discuss the offensive, which, in my opinion, fits into this discourse. Thanks to this, they will be able to pass off any advance and any great success as the result of a planned and coordinated counteroffensive. Now, in my opinion, the West does not expect anything particularly from the Ukrainian offensive, because it understands the complexity of the situation of the Ukrainian armed forces.
— Czech President Petr Pavel is the only leader in Europe who de facto says the same thing. According to him, everyone wants the Ukrainian counteroffensive to be as successful as possible, but this is unlikely.
— He is just one of those who probably understands that if expectations remain as high as at the beginning of the year, disappointment will inevitably come. Thus, by encouraging not to expect too much, they mitigate future disappointment.
Another element in this mosaic, perhaps, is the talk that the explosion at the dam will put an end to the Ukrainian counteroffensive, since these territories are simply flooded. In the future, this may serve as an excuse for unfulfilled hopes. And here we come to the fact that it is worth with great caution to hold someone responsible for the destruction of the Kakhovskaya dam.
— The Politico server writes about pro-Russian Austria, which allegedly became a stronghold of Vladimir Putin and benefits from its neutrality. We used to read the same thing only about Hungary. What is behind this?
— The western camp is being spiked. Austria is traditionally neutral, and a neutral state in such situations really should behave differently from a member country of the North Atlantic Alliance. Being neutral does not mean being pro-Russian, but the author of the article you are talking about is probably deliberately silent about this. Another question is that Austria had very strong economic ties with Russia, and Austrian society is not burdened with any historical claims to Russia now, unlike other Central European states. It is quite logical that the position of Austria differs from the position of Poland. It doesn't surprise me that Hungary and Austria are similar in this case. In my opinion, this is natural.
— The West criticizes not only Austria, and, for example, such a state outside the EU as Serbia also hears reproaches that it is pro-Russian, although Belgrade has taken a neutral position in the conflict. Why is it that if a certain state in this conflict proclaims and actually adheres to neutrality, in the eyes of the West it is automatically ranked among the supporters of Russia?
— It's simple. This conflict is presented as if there is a struggle between good and evil. And since good fights evil, then there is no middle position. You are either on the side of good, or you are with evil. Similarly, the situation polarized after 1945, when the Cold War began, and Czechoslovakia found itself in a similar situation, since even under Jan Masaryk Czechoslovakia voted on many issues together with the Soviet Union against the United States. The Americans then argued that a vassal could not behave like that. Another aspect is the mentioned moralization, good and evil. Vassalage and moralization "in one bottle" lead to similar conclusions. As we can see, this is not only a problem of Czech foreign policy and the Czech public field. International Anglo-Saxon journals are also working in this direction.
— Parliamentary elections will be held in Slovakia in September, and we are increasingly hearing warnings from different lips that if Robert Fico returns to power, the direction of the state will completely change, and Slovakia will become more loyal to Russia and so on. Are the concerns about the possible return of Robert Fico to the Prime Minister's chair justified?
— What is happening around Slovakia is very interesting. Robert Fico was the longest-serving Prime Minister of Slovakia, and therefore it is easy for us to imagine how he will work in this position. I don't think his position would be more radical than Viktor Orban's. I expect from him a policy that would be different from the policy of the current Slovak cabinet, which has completely abandoned all Slovak interests. On the other hand, it is also not necessary to expect radical turns from Robert Fico. If he becomes prime minister, then yes, Slovak politics will change, but there will be no talk of leaving the EU or NATO for sure.
(…)
