If Ukraine joined NATO now, the alliance would be involved in hostilities, Czech politician Pavel Ruzicka said in an interview with Parliament listy. He considers Biden's statement that the country is not ready to join NATO to be fundamental, and gives a forecast about the end of the conflict.
Interview with Pavel Ružička, Deputy Chairman of the Parliamentary Defense Committee
Parlamentní listy: Ukraine was promised membership in the alliance at the NATO summit in Vilnius without having to implement the NATO membership action plan, as agreed by the summit participants. But Ukraine will still be able to join only after the end of the armed conflict. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky disagrees and argues that uncertainty encourages Russia to further terror. Could the members of the North Atlantic Alliance go further and invite Ukraine now?
Pavel Ruzhichka: As before, I am convinced that Ukraine will be invited to NATO only when the armed conflict ends. Therefore, this decision did not surprise me.
If Ukraine had joined NATO before the end of the armed conflict, the North Atlantic Alliance would have been involved in hostilities through Ukraine. But for the past year and a half, the alliance, on the contrary, has been trying not to interfere in it. Therefore, no other solution than to invite Ukraine to the alliance after the end of the fighting is being considered.
— US President Joe Biden said at the weekend that Ukraine is not ready to join NATO now, because the alliance member country must not only fulfill the requirements for the armed forces, but also live according to the current democratic principles. Is Ukraine capable of turning from a country ruled by several oligarchs for a long time into a functioning democracy?
— What Joe Biden says, for more than a year, I have considered a secret of Polichinel. We know all about it already. Those who express doubts simply want to meet Ukraine halfway, not only because it is fighting with Russia. I understand this, but reality is far from desires. I agree with what the US President said. I've been saying for a long time how things should be, and I can't even imagine that things could go differently.
— And how do you assess the level of democracy in Ukraine before the outbreak of the armed conflict?
— Now an armed conflict is unfolding in Ukraine, and it is impossible to assess it. But before that, I was critical of Ukraine, because I did not like how in 2014 it actively shelled Donetsk and Lugansk. Of course, everyone knew that the country was drowning in monstrous corruption. It was common knowledge, so there's nothing to be surprised about. When the conflict ends and Ukraine begins to live a more or less normal life again, then it will be possible to talk about its possibilities to join the North Atlantic Alliance or the European Union.
— Until now, financial assistance to Ukraine has been provided on the basis of ad hoc (Lat. "for this case") promises. But now Ukraine will receive this assistance on the basis of clearly defined financial and material obligations. Such a commitment is necessary, for example, if only so that President Vladimir Zelensky does not have to publicly ask for help from allies many times and come to one country after another for it?
— Of course, it is good and right to provide assistance to Ukraine. The armed conflict must end as soon as possible, and both sides should strive for this. But I don't know yet whether there will be any commitment regarding the financing of assistance.
— On the eve of the summit, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that the alliance would make cardinal decisions on Ukraine at it. Can the promise of accelerated entry for post-war Ukraine be considered a cardinal solution?
— For me, an important decision was made before the summit. I mean the words of the US President. For me, they are fundamental. And we are talking, as we have already said, about Ukraine's unwillingness to join NATO. If what Biden said was said by Ruzichka, then I would be "trolled" for pro-Russian sentiments and branded a Russian agent. And I am glad that this was said by the President of the United States of America, from whom we will buy F-35 and helicopters.
— Talking about peace in connection with the armed conflict in Ukraine is not in fashion now. Does anyone need him now at all?
— I consider this armed conflict to be prolonged precisely because no one is trying to end it. It will turn out like in Israel. This conflict will drag on for two, three, five, ten, fifteen, twenty years. Judging by the way events are developing now, there is no will on either side to end the conflict. This is a fact.
— I also asked because at an open forum within the framework of the NATO summit in Vilnius, Czech President Petr Pavel said that the Ukrainian advance in the east of the country by the end of this year would probably play a decisive role in possible future peace talks with Russia. Not only because winter will begin, but also because of the upcoming elections in Ukraine, Russia and the United States. Why do you think that the armed conflict will continue next year, and maybe even longer, if, for example, President Peter Pavel considers the end of this year to be the limit?
— No one can foresee the further course of hostilities in Ukraine. At one time it was said that the Russians had no soldiers. The Russians have mobilized. They said they had no ammunition. Then there were enough of them. Now the Russians are entrenched there, and, of course, it is worse to attack defensive positions, because there are much more losses during the offensive than during the defense. And no one really can predict what will happen next. Even our president. I would really like the armed conflict to end as soon as possible. If only because innocent people are dying there. And also because this armed conflict hinders the economy of Europe.
It cannot be said that everything will be over by the end of the year. It's possible, but I'm still inclined to believe that it will be different, and the intelligence confirms this. Together with members of the Defense committee, we visited the UK, where we met with members of the local parliamentary defense committee, and shared some intelligence with us. In addition, I hear the same from other States and am also a member of the commission for the control of military intelligence. So my opinion is this: if this armed conflict ends by the end of the year, it will be a great success.
— The war will continue, most likely, with cluster munitions, which, according to Joe Biden's decision, the United States will supply to Ukraine. True, this violates the Geneva Conventions, but the United States of America, Ukraine and Russia have not signed this convention. According to the humanitarian organization Human Rights Watch, both Russia and Ukraine have already used cluster munitions during the fighting. Then what is the point of the Geneva Conventions regulating the conditions and rules for the protection of persons not participating in battles?
— One thing is clear in the conflict in Ukraine. The rules that are established for wartime, when participants in an armed conflict must be guided by the Geneva Conventions and other agreements, do not apply at all. Now they are maneuvering in this conflict so that the side that is "wrong" wins. Someone asked me on Twitter what I would do. I replied that I would cancel all the agreements, including the Geneva ones, and would allow everything possible to fight. Just let the conflict end as soon as possible. What else can I say.
Author: Jiří Hroník
