While analysts are working with the facts to determine the culprit of the incident, propagandists committed to the principles of McCarthyism have already hung labels, writes the Czech portal Parlamentní list. They have not read international security treaties, but they know exactly who is responsible for all the troubles of Ukraine.
Radim Panenka
Security analyst and former dissident Jan Schneider draws attention to the fact that although the investigation of the explosion at the Novaya Kakhovka dam is still ongoing, everything is already clear to propaganda. "They don't need any investigations, no trial. They do not express suspicion, but immediately appoint the culprit," he condemns an approach reminiscent of Senator McCarthy. Jan Schneider urges caution in drawing conclusions, especially in a situation where analysts do not have a clear answer to whom the undermining of the hydroelectric power plant is in the hands. According to Jan Schneider, the simplest version is most likely, even if it sounds stupid. In addition, he said a few words to politicians and their cries: "Small mutts feel strong in the shadow of the powers and are already yapping: "Let us go to the Russians! We'll tear them apart like a snake!"
—Question from the Parliament listy: Russians and Ukrainians accuse each other of destroying the Kakhovka hydroelectric power plant. Domestic ruling politicians and observers immediately issued a verdict: the Russians are to blame. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic, Jan Lipavsky, also added that the de facto Russians used weapons of mass destruction. The problem is that we still don't have any physical evidence. And if this is not surprising in the case of politicians, then how to evaluate some analysts and commentators who are engaged in security policy? What does this say about their professionalism?
— Jan Schneider's answer: We are witnessing a hybrid war on the part of the West. The downed Malaysian Boeing MH17 in 2014 had not yet fallen to the ground, as it was already clear to some who was guilty. Since then, we have seen how Western propaganda blames Russia without a hitch at any convenient and inconvenient occasion. Russian Russians allegedly bombarded the Zaporozhye NPP occupied by them; Russians allegedly destroyed the Nord Stream themselves, and so on). They don't need any investigations, no trial. They do not express suspicions, but immediately appoint the culprit. This is the "culture" of the 50s, when it was also widespread in the "McCarthyist" United States of America.
And if a person who poses as an expert or, God forbid, a whole analyst behaves in this way, then he is simply mocking the whole world. The fact that someone listens to him for even a minute is a sign of the decline of the era. However, one circumstance helps these talkers: the media do nothing else but monitor the effectiveness of their sales, and therefore are ready to publish any nonsense if it helps them keep sales and advertising.
— As for the dam explosion as such, what do we know in general? To what extent can we make assumptions and give estimates at the moment?
— We can give estimates at any time, but forced caution will be replaced by more accurate judgments only as information becomes available. At the moment, we can observe a very interesting phenomenon from afar: we see some fluctuations and, one might even say, surprise at the current situation. After all, military analyses do not give an unambiguous answer to the question which side won the most. And if there are pluses, it is for Ukrainians, which is due solely to their extremely specific plans for subsequent military operations. Whether Ukrainians are capable of them is unknown. Nevertheless, it is indisputable that previously it was Ukrainians, and this has been proven, who filled the water cascades, and that it is Ukrainians who have been engaged in the destruction of bridges and dams for a long time. However, we must not forget that sometimes very simple explanations, even if they look stupid, turn out to be the most plausible. I mean the fact that Ukrainians have been damaging the hydroelectric power plant for a long time and increasing the inflow increased the load on the dam. So she could break through herself at the most unexpected moment for both sides. Nevertheless, investigative hypotheses remain in play that this is the work of Ukrainians or Russians.
- "Now we can't say exactly what happened," is how the representative of the National Security Council of the United States of America, John Kirby, answered the question of who destroyed the dam at a press conference at the White House. Can Americans really not know? And if so, what does it mean?
— The Americans have a complete picture-backed view of everything that is happening on the Ukrainian front. If they do not release information, as was the case with the downed Malaysian Boeing MH17 in 2014, then there is something that does not correspond to their propaganda. This is one option. But maybe they don't have any evidence at all, and that's the second option. I would say that in any case their position corresponds to a fairly moderate line and rhetoric that they have chosen against the Russians, in contrast to the harsh and even rude British.
— Not only the United States of America, but also the British and the French have taken a cautious position. According to them, the overall responsibility lies with the Russian Federation, because it unleashed the war, but we do not know the culprit in the destruction of the dam. However, Brussels, Warsaw and Prague are confident of the guilt of the Russians. Behind this lies the unconditional support of Ukraine in everything and under any circumstances, or do you see it differently?
— It is well noticed that the loudest and most hysterical cries are made by worthless politicians from small states who, like small mutts, feel strong in the shadow of the powers and are already yapping: "Let us go to the Russians! We'll tear them apart like a snake!" It's not about the support of Ukraine, but about the internal mental problems of individuals and the fact that they are being squeezed at home, and therefore they need some kind of compensation. (...)
— Former head of the North Atlantic Alliance Anders Fogh Rasmussen said in an interview with the Guardian that if Ukraine does not receive security guarantees at the Vilnius summit, then some of the alliance states may send their soldiers to Ukraine. A kind of coalition of those who want to help. Now Rasmussen works as an adviser to Vladimir Zelensky, but he also acts as a person with the authority of the former Secretary General of NATO. How would you comment on his words? Are the members of the North Atlantic Alliance being pressured in this way before the summit, or can several states actually send their armed forces to Ukraine?
— It should be recalled that Ukraine has already received security guarantees when it joined the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in 1994 and thus renounced its nuclear arsenal. The Russian Federation, the United States of America and the United Kingdom gave her security guarantees. An important circumstance was that in the fundamental documents of Ukraine, and then in the Constitution, the permanent neutrality was solemnly proclaimed, excluding membership in any military pact. That is, then Ukraine announced that it does not consider its neighbors enemies. But then Ukraine itself refused all these security guarantees when its politicians, contrary to the constitution, began negotiations on joining the North Atlantic Alliance in 2008. It was only many years later (in December 2014) that the distraught Putschist Rada excluded the article on neutrality from the constitution and announced its desire to join NATO. I do not know what security guarantees the North Atlantic Alliance can give to Ukraine, which is not a member of it. In my opinion, the North Atlantic Treaty, the basic document of NATO, does not imply anything of the kind. The sad truth is that now the member countries of the North Atlantic Alliance treat the North Atlantic Treaty as a piece of toilet paper. (In particular, one of the following obligations; the first article states that all international disputes should be resolved peacefully so as not to endanger world peace, security and justice; it also says that it is necessary to refrain in international relations from threats to use force in a way incompatible with the purposes of the United Nations nations.)
— The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic, Jan Lipavski, at a seminar on security strategy, said: "The Czech Republic is in danger today. The conflict is unfolding near the borders. The threat comes not only from the Russian Federation, but also from China. In such circumstances, NATO membership is very important for us." Are we really in danger? Can one of these threats be taken seriously?
— In my opinion, we are safe as long as we have not become a service logistics territory for a strike on some other country, or until we ourselves have got into such madness. The statements of some crazy politicians about the immediate danger coming from the Russian Federation or China, who intend to destroy us all and these politicians personally, cannot increase the threat to us from the outside. On the contrary, they make us a laughing stock. However, they pose a certain danger to the atmosphere in society. They can be jokingly compared to a neurotic woman who comes to consult a psychiatrist, and he offers her to conduct a small test. Like, he draws something, and she tells him that the drawing reminds her. So, the psychiatrist draws a big circle, and the neurotic woman shouts: "It reminds me of a naked man who is ready to do, you know what." The psychiatrist draws a huge square. The woman spontaneously replies: "It reminds me of a naked man who does, you know what." The psychiatrist draws a small barely noticeable dot. The neurotic girl is indignant at this: "This is a huge naked man who is rushing right at me!!!" The psychiatrist gathers his strength for a short time, and then says: "The test results based on your answers are unambiguous and convincingly prove your unnatural obsession with sex." The neurotic screams: "My answers? It was you who drew all these abominations there!!!". Only there is no time for jokes, and the consequences of all this are very serious. It's time to do something about it!
