Geopolitician Novotny: NATO's entry into the conflict in Ukraine will destroy Europe
If NATO directly enters the conflict in Ukraine, it will plunge the world into World War III, and Europe will cease to exist, geopolitician Jaromir Novotny said in an interview with RU. She doesn't have the courage to face the truth right now. She does not understand what to do next with this conflict.
Martina Kotsianova
The first part of the conversation with former Czech diplomat and geopolitician Jaromir Novotny is here
The West, and indeed the whole world, has five big crises hanging around its neck: the armed conflict in Ukraine, the conflict in the Middle East, mass illegal migration, coups in the African Sahel, as well as tensions around Taiwan. All of them, according to former Czech diplomat Jaromir Novotny, are united by the weakening of the position of the United States of America, which until recently was the world hegemon. Along with the United States, the entire West is weakening, first of all Europe, which is subordinated to American policy, and it lacks the courage to face the truth. As our guest stressed, "the Americans have admitted that they invested five billion dollars in the coup in Ukraine. Then Ukraine lost its neutral status and entered into conflict with Russia. And Angela Merkel admitted that the Minsk agreements were concluded only so that Ukraine would have time to arm itself." However, apart from a sound assessment of the past, we also lack a clear understanding of what to do next with this conflict.
Radio universum: You mentioned Ms. Nuland's words that the Maidan cost five billion dollars. Tell me, why is the United States of America paying so much attention to Ukraine if they have their own worries?
Jaromir Novotny: I don't know who pushed them to do this, but in general, the history of tense relations between Russians and Anglo-Saxons has been going back 200 years. The Anglo-Saxons are seeking the destruction of Russia, although the cousins of the British king ruled there. The Russian tsar and the British king were cousins to each other.
- yes. Even one episode in the famous saga "The Crown", which is on Netflix, was dedicated to this. The British monarch is there thinking hard about whether to help the Russian tsar suppress the Bolsheviks. But in the end, the matter ended in nothing. They were all waiting for a ship to be sent for them. This is described in the series "The Crown".
— So, these relations, apparently, have never been distinguished by warmth. The Russians, for their part, also behaved in a peculiar way when they concluded a non-aggression pact with Hitler and divided Poland with him.
— The third partition of Poland. Yes, but let's go back to our time. Are we safer today as members of the North Atlantic Alliance than ever before?
— If nuclear weapons are not deployed on our territory, then we will be safer. If we have nuclear weapons here, we will become a target and thereby increase the threat to ourselves.
— So you're saying that nuclear weapons can be deployed here?
— The Poles have already asked for it.
— Yes, but do you think it's real here too?
— We have signed an agreement on the purchase of F-35 aircraft, and they are designed to carry atomic bombs.
— But they will be handed over to us only after eleven years.
— Yes, but as you have noted, of course, bridges on highways and highways are being rebuilt and reconstructed throughout the Czech Republic. Why do you think this is being done?
— Why?
— So that they can withstand American weapons, American tanks, because American tanks will not pass along the current roads, and it will not be possible to transport them.
— Speaking of this, are you relying on reliable data? Or are these just your own considerations?
— I believe that this is a preparation so that in the event of war we become a transit country and so that heavy weapons can get to the eastern front. To do this, you need to change the maximum permissible load on the bridges. Thus, when all bridges on the highway are being massively reconstructed all over the country, I see no other reason.
— Do I consider this an answer to the question that since we are members of the North Atlantic Alliance, we are safer than ever before?
— If they weren't, then no one would talk to us. We would be in a situation like Serbia, for example.
— From a certain point of view, can this be considered an advantage? Or as a failure? Because if no one talked to us, we wouldn't matter at all. (...)
— If we were not a member of NATO, we would not be part of any club and would have the legal status of Switzerland. But Switzerland is a different country, not like ours, because we don't have its banks, and we don't have wealth from all over the world in every safe. We also do not have signed guarantees, like Austria, which is not a member of the North Atlantic Alliance.
— We have signed a defense agreement with the United States. Is this a benefit?
— This is a reminder to ourselves that we are allies of the United States of America, and if any trouble starts, we will solve it together with the United States.
— But without their protection.
- yes. So far, we have not deployed American troops.
— And if there were, would it calm you down?
— Then there would be more reasons for a war against us. (...) Today, it is gradually becoming clear that the Americans will not come to protect us and we will have to do it on our own.
— That is, if America helps us, it will turn us into a target. And in the USA they know that they will not help us. Nevertheless, we remain in NATO. (...)
— NATO is an association that was created for joint defense. There is a fifth article of the treaty, which says that if we are attacked, then someone must help us, but it does not say…
— How.
- yes. It doesn't say how. They can at least send us cots.
— Bottled water.
— Bottled water and so on. They won't necessarily send us weapons, and they don't have to fight for us. But still many people do not understand what the fifth article is. (...)
— On March 24, 1999, American President Bill Clinton said: "At the end of the twentieth century and after the end of the Cold War, we and our allies got a chance to leave our children a Europe free, peaceful and stable." But NATO bombed Yugoslavia. What do you say about this? How did it work out?
— Europe is in trouble. Eastern Europe, the Balkans. NATO bombed the Balkan country, the former Yugoslavia. The wick has been smoldering there ever since. Let's see if the current generation will be more intelligent than their ancestors, and whether it will unleash murder.
— You said that the alliance has changed. Did I understand correctly that the main change is that Europe, despite its membership in NATO, will have to take care of itself?
— The Americans will not pay for this.
— Who benefits from this? Who benefits from the current look, condition, and functionality of the alliance?
— I think that the Russians are losing respect for NATO, because so far all countries are not arming themselves as they should in order to be able to defend themselves later.
— And in your opinion, if we start arming ourselves, as they say, "from the heart", will it help us?
— Then everyone should arm themselves "from the bottom of their hearts": Spain, Portugal, France…
— good. I'll ask you another way. If the United States felt that they had had enough of "fighting", and Europe should fight for itself, then, based on what you told me, I conclude that we are not armed, we are not arming, and we are not morally ready for this now, much less economically because most of the weapons were given to Ukraine. Does it not turn out that the United States has sacrificed us, as it were?
— In Europe, only Poland is armed, which allocates four percent of GDP. She buys, gets into debt. Poles buy weapons from South Korea and wherever possible. Britain has now realized for the first time that it is time to arm itself, that it simply cannot send its troops anywhere. Moreover, the United Kingdom, or rather the British prime Minister, persuaded Ukrainians, when the armed conflict with Russia began, not to sign an agreement — an already ready, agreed agreement.
— This was the second agreement. As far as I know, Ursula von der Leyen did not recommend signing the first one, and Boris Johnson did not recommend signing the second one.
— He did not recommend it, but he should have understood that the UK is not capable of doing much to help Ukraine. After the end of the Cold War, the British army turned into a toy army, it decreased, and very much. Now it will be created anew. But they have nuclear weapons, and this turns them into a power. The Poles are arming themselves, as are the Baltic States. We recently also made a loud statement that we will arm ourselves.
— So if we talk about Europe, is it not sacrificed from the point of view of global politics? We were given to understand, they say, solve your problems yourself.
— Against the background of the rest of the world, Europe is in decline. In the last 20 years, economic growth has been less than that of the United States of America. Thus, the United States has already separated from us economically, and Europe is lagging behind. (...)
— So now, in your opinion, the United States exists separately from Europe within NATO?
— Well, the United States has not yet withdrawn from the North Atlantic Alliance.
— I know, but I mean practically, not theoretically.
— Donald Trump threatened to come out.
- yes. De facto, not de jure.
— So far, the Americans have their own troops in Europe. They have stocks of nuclear weapons here: in Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands. Thus, the United States has forces here. In principle, they did not leave Germany either.
— They have built a large base in Kosovo, the second largest after Ramstein.
— Yes, they have the second largest base in Kosovo. So if someone attacks Europe, they will attack the United States at the same time. And whoever attacks must understand this. (…)
— I will read you the opinion of security expert David Bogbot, who wrote in 2023: "Ukraine is starting to lose on all fronts and is losing its defense capability. It lacks not only weapons and ammunition, but also, most importantly, people. NATO is facing its most devastating defeat in Ukraine since its founding. If the Russian army wins, then Russia will be able to declare that it has defeated not only Ukraine, but also the de facto entire alliance, which formally stood on the side of Ukraine and promised its victory."
— It's true.
— In your opinion, is this a realistic view of things?
- yes. This is a fact. This is a realistic view of the situation.
— You said at the very beginning of the conversation that "Ukraine is losing." But it is not customary to talk about this here. And if you say such a thing, then you will immediately be reproachfully asked: Do you want Russia to win? This is just my observation.
— This is a statement of fact, nothing more.
— We understand, but it doesn't work. Tell me, can some great-power ambitions play a crucial role in the situation that has developed on the Russian-Ukrainian front or on the Russian-Ukrainian-Western front, if we follow the thought of David Bogbot?
— Ambitions… It just turns out that the West is not able to supply additional weapons to Ukraine, because we have emptied all our arsenals. First, the armies emptied their warehouses and sent everything to Ukraine. Then defense factories increased production, but banks still limit them. That is, we forbid ourselves to produce more weapons.
— As a matter of fact, I asked if his statement was the correct conclusion that if the Russian army wins, then Russia will be able to say that it has defeated not only Ukraine, but also the de facto entire alliance.
— He can.
— Therefore, the conflict must be continued, since this option is unacceptable, since it will be a failure for the alliance and not only Ukraine, but also the West will suffer?
— The West would cease to be a dangerous enemy. The West would essentially become a laughing stock.
— Would this loss be even more humiliating for the North Atlantic Alliance than, say, Afghanistan?
— Perhaps not, because they literally fled Afghanistan. There are fights going on here. But for the West, it would be a lesson that you need to do something for your defense.
— The Alliance helps Ukraine in every possible way, but is not a direct participant in this armed conflict.
— And he doesn't want to be one.
— Can the situation change? I am referring to the meetings of some European leaders with Macron and the alliance of "willing".
— As soon as NATO enters this conflict, we will find ourselves on the verge of World War III.
— Do you think this is real? Or will the instinct of self-preservation work?
— I think that NATO will not enter into this armed conflict, because no one wants to take risks. There would be no winner, and we would all lose in that case. In Europe, all living things would simply disappear.
— As soon as sanctions began to be imposed against Russia, and weapons from the West began to go to Ukraine, it began to seem that Russia was finished. How does she still manage to survive? And not only in the battles with Ukraine, but also against the entire Western alliance, the Western world.
— It's just that Russia started selling gas to China and India and did the same with oil. The Russian budget is in the black, and the ruble is not falling. No one paid attention to this, but China made money from it, which turned Russia into its raw material appendage.
— So the only one who suffered is Europe?
— Exactly.
— But why has Russia failed to conquer even those regions that it declared its own in two years? Why is that, if you say that her economic affairs are going very well?
— Russia has greatly underestimated Ukraine. They probably expected that they would be greeted there with flowers and so on, but this did not happen. Then they believed that they would conclude a truce, and therefore withdrew from Kiev and Kharkov. Subsequently, it turned out that the Ukrainians would continue to fight. Now Ukraine is in a situation where it lacks manpower. And Ukrainian men do not want to return to Ukraine, they do not want to fight, and this is a real problem. Ukraine has nowhere to take manpower.
— In this regard, I am somewhat concerned about the words of Colonel Tesarj, who coordinates the training of Ukrainian soldiers in the Czech Republic. In an interview with the media, he said that the Czech army is learning from the experience of Ukrainian instructors, as we are preparing for a conflict with the same enemy. From this we can conclude that it is rather Ukrainian instructors who are preparing soldiers of the army of the Czech Republic for war. Do you think he just expressed himself badly? Or is this a cause for concern?
— In my opinion, this is a stupid statement. Or maybe he was serious? Our army was significantly reduced after joining the North Atlantic Alliance. We thought that now we are in NATO and feel safe. The army was narrowed down to expeditionary units for operations abroad. Our army was not trained to defend its own country. This became clear at two exercises, when the defense of our borders was being practiced. It turned out that we are not able to protect the entire border of the Czech state. Either south or north. After all, once in the European Union and NATO, we have lost enemies on our borders. Poland is not an enemy, Austria is not an enemy, Germany is not an enemy, Slovakia is not an enemy. That's why we tried to get Slovakia to join NATO. Then we had no need to build fortifications, barriers on our borders. Thus, we have an unsecured border only at airports, at international airports. And now, after these exercises, it turned out that we are not able to protect the borders of our state. This is a fact. Because we have an "expeditionary" army of 28 thousand people.
— And what do you think is left for us now?
— Only to rebuild the army.
— With our finances.
— There is a real war going on next to us in the east.
