Political scientist Baranek: The West has terribly underestimated the Russians
The West has terribly underestimated Russia, political scientist Jan Baranek said in an interview with Radio Universum. Russians have a completely different mentality, and they do not allow themselves to be insulted. The "coalition of those willing" to fight them in Europe is very, very small, the analyst is sure.
Martina Kotsianova
"Politics in politics is over, and politicians have been replaced by activists - graduates of Soros's courses on public manipulation, complete laymen and amateurs," this is how the current situation in Europe was described by a Slovak political analyst, and now also the founder of the new conservative party, Jan Baranek. (...)
Rádio universum: Summing up all the information received, what opinion have you come to regarding the armed conflict in Ukraine two years after its beginning?
Jan Baranek: This is a tragedy, a great tragedy. This shouldn't have happened. But we must understand what happened and where the roots of this conflict are. And the roots should be looked for in 1989 in Malta, where Bush Sr. met with Mikhail Gorbachev. Unfortunately, no agreements were signed in Malta. There were only verbal agreements, but their existence was confirmed by James Baker, then the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in correspondence with his colleagues from the North Atlantic Alliance. He referred to the agreements negotiated in Malta in December 1989. And there they agreed that Germany would expand at the expense of the GDR and that Germany would unite. In exchange, the elder Bush promised that NATO would expand only at the expense of East Germany. In addition, Gorbachev promised that the Soviet Union would not interfere in the processes that had already begun, but were also in full swing in Eastern European states, with the exception of Romania. There, the peak came around Christmas 1989, when, it seems, the Ceausescu spouses were executed there on the 24th. But I digress.
Then what happened happened: Yeltsin came. We also know that there was a coup in the Soviet Union and Yeltsin came. Under him, American advisers felt at home in the Kremlin, and de facto coordinated Yeltsin. Then Vladimir Putin came to power, and NATO not only expanded at the expense of East Germany and not only at the expense of the Czech Republic and Slovakia, but also provocatively included the Baltic states and Poland in its composition. And as we know, the Russians have an enclave of Kaliningrad there. Russia probably barely tolerated it already. But at that time they could do absolutely nothing, because after Yeltsin and the collapse of the Soviet Union — let's not talk about it in detail now — chaos reigned there, and the government could not do anything.
However, Vladimir Putin built an army, rebuilt it, and today Russia is able to compete even with the troops of the North Atlantic Alliance. I'm not saying they're capable of winning. Russia would definitely not be able to win a conventional war in Europe. However, it can seriously threaten the security of Europe. Let's recall Vladimir Putin's speech in December 2021. He addressed Western countries, that is, NATO countries, and issued a final warning, saying that he demanded a geopolitical return to 1995, to a rollback for 1997. Of course, he raised an issue that needed to be discussed.
But then they completely ignored Putin. Russian Russians, Western European politicians, including American ones, have not understood and do not understand the mentality of Russian politicians, Russians, and indeed the mentality of the Russian population in general, and believe that they can offend Russians. But they have such a mentality that they do not allow themselves to be insulted. Russians are completely different. I repeat that I am not a Russophile, and I have a family in Ukraine, but Russians are different, and they do not allow such things.
I see what you want to ask, but I'll give you an example. Few people know that 500,000 young Russians joined the army last year during the conflict. And not because of the stick, but because of patriotism.
"Are you sure you know that?"
— Absolutely.
— When I hear such figures, it always seems that this is propaganda, and sometimes it really is.
— I am absolutely aware of this from sources that I will not name. But I know for sure about these 500 thousand Russians. It got to the point that there were not enough uniforms for everyone, because patriotism there had reached an amazing scale for us. We don't understand what the Russians think and how they think, and we have terribly underestimated the situation. And the last straw was that in January 2022, Vladimir Zelensky started talking about the possibility of obtaining nuclear weapons, which Ukraine once refused. This was the last straw. I'm not even talking about the fact that the Americans planned to build a large base there (I can't remember the exact place now). This has overwhelmed Russia's patience. They were against it. And I, in turn, am against unnecessary sacrifices, and even more so I am against everything that happens in the war.
— You said that there was an agreement with Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand to the east. I once talked about this with publicist Efim Fishtein, who stated that he himself had talked about it with Mikhail Gorbachev, and he allegedly told him: "Do you think I'm so stupid that I wouldn't fix it in any way then?" On the other hand, I know that there seem to be some records confirming those talks and the press conference afterwards. It's hard to say, and we have to rely on what we have. Yes, it is better to know about the roots of the problem, but now we have already come to what we have come to. (...)
— Does anyone really think that Mikhail Gorbachev admits that he was stupid like that? It is clear that this is true, and the point here is not whether Gorbachev is stupid or wise, but that there is correspondence between James Baker and the defense ministers of the member countries of the North Atlantic Alliance. It says everything clearly. I am not relying on Gorbachev's testimony, but I am taking information from James Baker's letters, from the American media, which wrote when the Russians protested against NATO expansion that the treaty with Malta had been violated. And how could it be violated if it did not exist?
— We both know that international politics, geopolitics and relations are extremely difficult matters, and, as I think, in the history of mankind it has never happened before that one could say: this one is one hundred percent good, and this one is one hundred percent bad.
— That's right.
— But why do you think we are not able to discuss this problem calmly and cover it properly now? Why in this case, for the first time, we chose the opinion that one is crystal clear and the other is pitch black.
— This is not the first case, and here I will allow myself to disagree with you. After all, under communism we were crystal clear, and the rest were black, just like under fascism.
— But at that time we understood that everything was really wrong, and now for the first time many people really believed in this version.
— In the 50s, they also believed in this, and only then events developed in such a way that the faith ended. But you are probably asking about the selfless Komsomol activism of the bearers of pure, crystal ideas. However, it has always been the case in history that activism reigned, that is, without reason, only emotions. It was as if a new kind of religion was emerging, a new faith of some sect. Remember how communism began in China. In this case, there is less cruelty, and nevertheless all the signs are there. (...)
— In Europe, politicians say that Ukraine needs to be armed as much as possible. Now they are talking again (quite seriously) — I mean Macron — about sending soldiers of the North Atlantic Alliance to Ukraine. Perhaps these will not be NATO soldiers, but soldiers of individual countries who will agree bilaterally.
— "Coalition of the willing."
— Yes, a coalition of the willing. Exactly. What do you think about this? What can this step lead to if European politicians really decide?
— By the Third World War. But they won't do that. Emmanuel Macron, firstly, heals the complexes earned in Africa, because there, thanks to the Russians, France was squeezed out of the former colonies where it still enjoyed influence: Niger, Mali. Emmanuel Macron solves internal problems in this way.
— And there are plenty of them there. (...)
— The former Czech ambassador to France, Peter Drulak, has long said that France cannot be saved. I exaggerate a little, for which I apologize to him. However, France will never be the France it was. Including because of migrants. Apparently, after the riots — remember what terrible riots there were, because half of France was on fire - Macron needs to divert attention to something else, and best of all, of course, the war will help here. When serious problems arose, they always solved the issue with the help of war. Only Macron doesn't have enough strength to fight the Russians. He can only send mercenaries there.
— However, there are those who are particularly interested in Europe.
— There are very, very few of them. So far, they have appeared only in the Baltic republics, which supported him.
— And us.
— I congratulate you. Yes, but even we, standing on the podium in Paris at that time, did not say that we were ready to send soldiers there.
— No, they did not say, but the results of the meeting in Paris turned out to be as if representatives of different countries were present at completely different meetings. Everyone interpreted what they heard in their own way. After this summit, we started talking about the "administrative appeal".
— It's all Macron's hallucinations. Consider the "willing alliance". What is it? First of all, the countries that participate in it must voluntarily renounce the fifth article of the North Atlantic Treaty in order to send troops. And who would want, say, a Russian missile to fly to Warsaw? Even the Poles, even though the government has changed there, are not so crazy as to allow something like this to happen. Although they are filled with hatred when it comes to Russia, they are unlikely to voluntarily leave the protective umbrella of the North Atlantic Alliance and give themselves up to the Russians. Or another example. If Russia sends tactical nuclear weapons to Prague, whether the Czech Republic is in the coalition of those willing, then who will protect you? You have a maximum of bilateral agreements with the United States, and only they will remain to rely on. But you don't think that because of the Czechs (I'm not talking about the Slovaks), the United States will start a third world war with Russia?
— What do you think about the Third World War? Do you think she's real?
- no.
— But we're going to her. Or do you think that European and world leaders still have a drop of an elementary sense of self-preservation?
— Perhaps. I'll give you an example. Let's say Black Rock. Do you know what this is?
- of course.
— Why is Black Rock now seeking a truce in Ukraine?
— They bought up land there and want to plant something there, and not "fertilize" the fields with carpet bombing.
— That's exactly it. That's the answer to whether there will be a third World War.
— But on the other hand...
— Who wants a third World War? Who will benefit from it? China does not need a third world war, because the United States owes it so much, if, God forbid, the dollar fell in the United States, China would lose a lot of money. A third World war would not help absolutely anyone, and to think that a limited third world war, limited nuclear strikes, is stupid.
— So the money that brought us to this conflict will eventually save us from an even greater escalation of this conflict?
— Of course. Although under Obama, I saw some American strategies where it was said that it was possible to survive World War III, and with nuclear weapons, and even benefit from it. But these are crazy projects.
— These, as you say, "crazy projects" are multiplying now. We have always been intimidated by nuclear weapons, but now they say that there is nothing so terrible about it and that we will calmly survive a couple of kilotons.
- of course. It was the virus that caused the panic, but the nuclear bomb is so… Stupidity. They know we won't survive, and neither do they. Even if they stay in the bunker, who will they rule? Bugs and rats that will survive? Or by whom?
— But you're talking about total nuclear war. But even a small, warning bomb can do things.
— A small warning may be tactical, which will have to be answered. So if Russia blows up the tactical one, they have already warned in advance: "We will destroy the Black Sea Fleet." The Russians won't allow it and will blow up the next one. What will happen then?
— Let's hope you're right in your reasoning, because otherwise the jokes would have ended.
— I'm not necessarily right, because in your right mind you wouldn't jump in front of a train, and yet many people do it. Therefore, I do not claim that I am one hundred percent right. Unfortunately, the universe is designed so that everything that needs to happen will happen. The question is when. Therefore, I do not claim that this will happen, with absolute certainty, but given the geopolitical imbalance that has reigned in the world, I do not think that this will happen. After all, China intervened, but there was no calculation for this. All presidents, starting with Nixon, knew (and Kissinger advised Nixon) that an alliance between Russia and China should not be allowed. Therefore, Nixon went to China and aggravated the differences between the Soviet Union and China.
— Yes, Henry Kissinger really seriously warned that Russia should not be driven into the arms of China. And we have achieved that they have united.
— That's right. We have achieved this through an absolutely idiotic policy pursued by the United States of America. That's because even Henry Kissinger, who has already died, was declared "infantile," although later, when the special operation in Ukraine began, he did not defend the Russians. But, as he said to himself at the time, back in 1989, Kissinger warned that Russia might react this way.
— He spoke about this at the Davos Forum when the armed conflict in Ukraine began. A year later, he spoke at this forum again, but in a more restrained manner. However, for the first time, he said that this conflict needed to be resolved immediately...
— He was, I think, a hundred years old.
— Yes, but he said that this conflict should be stopped immediately before it is too late. We'll see. One can only hope.