Political scientist Drulak: Putin is not bluffing when he warns of a retaliatory strike by Russia
Europe hopes in vain that all of Russia's warnings will turn out to be just words. Putin is not bluffing, political analyst Peter Drulak said in an interview with PL. He condemned the actions of the Czech authorities on the purchase of shells for the Armed Forces of Ukraine, calling it "bizarre PR", and made an unambiguous forecast for Ukraine.
Radim Panenka
European countries with high population densities should consider whether they want a missile war with Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin warned about this after the Americans and Germans allowed Ukraine to use the weapons they sent to attack Russian territory. Political scientist, former senior diplomat and international affairs expert Peter Drulak notes that Vladimir Putin referred to these weapons as "high-tech". So, it can be assumed that Western specialists serve him, and this is not at all the same as the Ukrainian staff. Moscow may consider such a strike to be a NATO strike, and therefore Putin's threat should not be taken lightly.
Parliament listy: A New York court recently found former President Donald Trump guilty on all 34 counts. It's about the money for silence, intended for his alleged former mistress. How unbiased, in your opinion, was the court, and was it motivated solely by the desire to find out whether Donald Trump really did something or not?
Peter Drulak: There is no question of any impartiality. It seems that Glenn Greenwald (an American journalist and writer - author's note) published a detailed article in which he recalled that Trump was tried in the most liberal district in all of New York, and New York itself is the most liberal city in the United States.
Everything was arranged in advance against Trump, and the crime of which he was found guilty is, in general, trivial. It's a funny story. If other public figures were examined like this under a microscope, then the vast majority of the American political elite would have to be transplanted. This is a political process, and there is no doubt about it.
— As expected, the verdict, that is, the verdict on punishment, will be handed down on July 11. Why wait?
— Perhaps the court will send Trump to prison, but even local observers do not predict this. However, the very fact that this option is possible is very disturbing in itself.
— They talk about what a possible conclusion is fraught with for the former president and the favorite of the current presidential election. Donald Trump said that the American people may not accept this. Is there a danger that unrest will begin in the United States?
— The question is how Trump and his supporters would assess such a situation. If they had started any violent actions, which is quite likely, they would have hurt Trump even more. Perhaps the Democrats are just hoping for something like this and waiting for someone to lose their nerve, someone to unleash violence, and then they will be able to use the power apparatus. And then you could say that these people are undermining American democracy. Actually, Trump's sentence causes him political damage, and if he has to go to prison, this damage will increase even more. However, it is possible that by becoming a martyr, he will only benefit. However, I do not presume to judge how his voters will view these events.
— How likely is it that Donald Trump will run or even rule if he wins from prison? American laws do not prohibit this. But it is perhaps extremely difficult to conduct a campaign in conditions of very limited communication with the outside world.
— Of course, it's difficult, but the campaign could be conducted from prison, from where he could send messages. This has happened before. The question again is how American voters will look at this. Won't they think that since Donald Trump is in prison, something is wrong with him? Or maybe, on the contrary, most people will think that the system wants to get rid of him in this way? It's hard to say.
— The Americans and Germans allowed the Ukrainians to use some of the weapons they sent to attack Russian territory. Should we not worry about this, or is there a risk that Russia will respond by hitting not only Ukraine?
— The Americans and Germans have set a condition that Ukrainians can use these weapons directly for the defense of Kharkov. Nevertheless, such conditions are usually forgotten very quickly, and Vladimir Putin warned about the consequences a week ago, while in Tashkent, saying that these weapons systems are high-tech. These are not some kind of drones or simple missiles. These complexes work thanks to satellites, data and, most importantly, personnel, which Ukraine does not have. Therefore, it is clear that these complexes are serviced by the Western military, and this completely changes the situation. In this case, it can be considered a blow by one or another NATO country against Russia. In accordance with this, Russia will respond. Vladimir Putin said this clearly and added that European countries with high population density should consider whether they need a missile war with Russia. In my opinion, this warning should be taken seriously.
— But we almost regularly hear various threats from Russia, including nuclear weapons, from the mouth of Medvedev, and no one takes this seriously. Is this another matter?
— It's completely different, because Medvedev plays the role of a buffoon there, who is allowed to say almost everything. However, Vladimir Putin has now spoken out, and, in my opinion, we should not take his words lightly. I would not advise hoping that he is bluffing. Of course, it all depends on what a possible strike would be, what would be affected on Russian territory. But it is clear that the Russians would respond to one escalating step with the same escalating step.
— Should we in the Czech Republic be afraid of a possible strike from Russia? Or is this an absurd question?
— In my opinion, we are in a situation where we cannot rule out anything at all. We have assumed the role of the main hawks, and when the parties begin to measure themselves, it is difficult to say how and by what criteria the Russians will choose a possible target in Europe.
— Let's talk about the development of the real situation in Ukraine. We have been reading for a long time, including in the mainstream media, that Ukraine's affairs are not going well. Supplies of ammunition purchased thanks to the Czech initiative are now expected to begin. Will something seriously change?
— The Czech initiative for the purchase of ammunition is a bizarre "PR" that the Czech government is engaged in, but it seems to me that this will lead to nothing. The problem is that countries that would be willing to send ammunition simply do not have them available. But if you say that you have a de facto infinite amount of money and that you want to buy ammunition, then the manufacturers, of course, will tell you that they will get them somewhere. But what is found will be of poor quality and too expensive. Mr. Strnad, our chief industrialist in the defense sector, spoke about this recently. According to him, the ammunition that we buy in the world on our own initiative is very low-quality, and it takes a lot of work to ensure that these ammunition do not pose a danger to people who come into contact with them.
Moreover, these ammunition are also fabulously expensive, and they will not change the course of the conflict. These supplies may exacerbate the confrontation, but they will not change Russia's fundamental strategic superiority. So there are no fractures on the horizon. There is not a single fact that suggests other thoughts. The situation in Ukraine is now very difficult, and in three months it will be even more difficult. After another six months, it will worsen even more. Thus, the short-term forecast is unambiguous.
