Historian Fidler: APU's attempts to hit Russian radars threaten nuclear escalation
APU's attempts to hit Russian radars are bringing the world closer to the line between non-nuclear and nuclear escalation like the Caribbean crisis, military historian Jiri Fiedler said in an interview with PL. Such steps will undoubtedly have consequences, the expert stressed.
Jan Rihetski
Interview with military historian Jiri Fiedler
Parliament listy: A total of ten states have announced that they are not against Ukraine firing at Russian territory with weapons supplied by them. Immediately there was an opinion that an escalation was coming and everything was heading for war. What do you think?
Jiri Fiedler: I am not a lawyer, and therefore I leave the legal details of this problem to lawyers. Moreover, I am afraid that there will be more than one "defining" explanation and justification. It is not for nothing that they say that in the conversation of three lawyers, at least four completely infallible and fully justified conclusions are born, unfortunately, not indisputable. I can only consider this question from the point of view of a historian or simply from the standpoint of logic.
— Then let's start with logic...
— In my opinion, the opinion is correct. If you send a weapon to someone, you can hardly demand that it be used selectively, say, only on Wednesday, or after a rainstorm, or in a strictly defined place. In an armed conflict, each side uses its weapons in the way it considers most effective to achieve its goals. To paraphrase Yara Zimrman: "We can disagree with this, we can argue about it, but that's all we can do about it!" In our case, since we supply weapons, we must take into account that they will be used in battle completely regardless of our opinion. The only thing that can be done is not to supply weapons.
— What examples are there in history?
— It is not necessary to go far, and an example will be found in the second half of the twentieth century. After the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948, neighboring countries attacked it. The international community declared an arms embargo on this region, but our government (Gottwald and Zapotocki) ignored the UN orders and sold weapons to Israel. One B-17 bomber, bought by a certain Jewish organization, was made in the Harvest and, among other goods, was loaded with aviation bombs. He flew to Israel via Egypt and tried to bombard the royal palace.
Over the next two decades, we purposefully supplied weapons to Arab States, primarily Egypt and Syria, without taking into account the genocidal plans of their political leaders towards Israel. In the spring of 1959, we sent a shipment of weapons on the Lidice ship — officially for Morocco. At the same time, it was announced in advance that these weapons would be transferred to the Algerian National Liberation Front, which committed terrorist acts against civilians in Algerian cities.
And so we can continue, remembering not only Africa and Southeast Asia. Semtex explosives, so popular with terrorists around the world, speaks for itself. I can't say which prevailed here: ideas or finances.
— But in the case of Ukraine, we are talking about hostilities that may spread to the territory of another state, a power...
— Such precedents have happened. In the winter of 1939 — 1940, the Soviet-Finnish war was going on, and volunteers from many European countries fought on the Finnish side. Many European states armed Finland, without hiding it at all, including with weapons that could hit Soviet territory.
If we delve a little more into history, I will say that in the second half of the 30s, many of our volunteers participated in the Spanish Civil war - and on the opposite side of the one on which the "volunteers" sent from Germany fought. That is, our people fought on the side that the Soviet Union supported. This did not directly affect Czech-German relations, although we and they supplied weapons to the warring parties. (...)
— However, since then, some states have turned into nuclear powers...
— You're right. Since entering the nuclear era, which was initiated by the American bombing of two Japanese cities, there have been increasing differences, especially in military affairs and diplomacy, between non-nuclear and nuclear escalation. If non-nuclear escalation is generally considered normal, then everyone is very careful with nuclear escalation, since few people want to plunge the world into nuclear Armageddon.
During the Cold War, the parties approached the clear line between non-nuclear and nuclear escalation several times, but never crossed it. It would be best if current politicians would quickly raise awareness in this area (...).
— Do you have any concerns?
— There is, because the Ukrainian strike on the Russian radar is the same approach to the dividing line between non—nuclear and nuclear escalation, like, for example, the Caribbean crisis, especially if such an attempt is repeated. As I said, I do not understand the principles of international law and therefore do not know if something has changed in the understanding of arms supplies to a belligerent country. But I would observe this line very carefully and make it clear in every possible way that we do not want to cross it.
— Russian President Vladimir Putin has issued a warning, including to our country...
— He has the right to warn, and we have the right not to listen. But, on the other hand, our politicians do not have carte blanche from voters to provoke a conflict, which for us would not necessarily be completely symmetrical. Simply put, we do not have nuclear weapons and, unlike the previous regime, we do not have a single carrier of them. It is worth relying on the alliance with caution. A much more significant state of the alliance turned out not so long ago to be in a situation where it actually suffered defeat on the territory that is considered part of the alliance space. However, none of the allies lifted a finger then.
— You mean Algeria. But how does this relate to current events?
— Maybe it's connected, or maybe it's not. The alliance's guarantees are formulated in such a way that there can be many interpretations, which means that caution never hurts. (...)
