Posted on 12/09/2021 4:16:15 AM PST by NorseViking
The Russian incursion in Ukraine, according to political scientist Oskar Krejčí is not going to happen. "What would be Russia's gain in Ukraine, which teeters on the brink of economic collapse? I'm more concerned of the attack by Kiev on rebel areas in the east of the country than the invasion of the Russian army into Ukraine,“ says the well-known professor. The West, according to him, shouldn't be interested in a conflict. "It was stated clearly, even for the pro-government press to realize that Washington and Brussels do not promise Kiev military assistance in case of major armed conflict in Ukraine," said Krejčí to ParlamentníListy.cz. He also called on "our valiant elves" to stop poisoning the air with threats to the Nord Stream 2 project.
(Excerpt) Read more at parlamentnilisty.cz ...
A. By default, the used designation of Nord Stream 2 as "controversial" in advance suggests that this pipeline is viewed as a form of geopolitical weapon. It is allegedly turning Western and Central Europe into dependants of the Kremlin. In fact, it is not true and can't be. Take into account that Nord Stream is not tied to the requirement of exclusivity. Russia is not connecting Nord Stream 2 with sanctions on gas imports from the U.S., Norway, Algeria, or other areas. No one in Moscow is saying that he would like these lines of the supply of gas to be severed. Moscow is perfectly okay when Brussels, Warsaw, and Prague are using alternative sources, it is a matter of price and availability.
Secondly, the idea of a geopolitical threat in the form of the Nord Stream 2 dramatically infers the vision of Russia acquiring a kind of irreversible political or propaganda advantage. They make it look as if some trolls are going to arrive through the pipe from nowhere to settle in Europe forever. For them, it is high time to defend European freedom of calm. In reality, Nord Stream 2 is a commercial project with a relatively simple flap: when there is a threat it is not a problem to close the pipe, to stop the collection of "hazardous" gas from Russia. Our brave elves can sleep peacefully – and need to stop spoiling the air.
In terms of the extreme views of some of the leaders of the German Green Party, you cannot fail to see that it was formulated as an opposition criticism. Now the green Party takes responsibility for Germany, and we'll keep track of whether priority to ideological stereotypes before the interests of German entrepreneurs remain. Yet, my experience says that the German business leaders proved that for any government it is impossible to undermine the economic benefits of their projects, including Nord Stream 2. Nord Stream 2 is vital for the German economy. It's not Russian, but a Russian-German project.
Q. What is your opinion on the statement of Poland's Donald Tusk, that the defense of Nord Stream 2 was the biggest mistake of chancellor Merkel?
A. For the political scientist is very interesting to see how long the manifested friendship between Donald Tusk and Angela Merkel is going to last after she leaves office. As has already been said, the geopolitical value of Nord Stream 2 is small. For Warsaw, the point is to keep the greatest transit fees for Russian gas bound for Germany and for Poland as a transit country, as more than once proved by Ukraine and Belarus, to have the ability to blackmail both the supplier and buyer of gas or oil. Note: according to the Polish narrative the supply of Russian gas under the seas is dangerous for Europe, but over Poland is not dangerous. This is not geopolitics, this is genuine merchant politics riding a wave of Russophobes and this Russophobic feeding.
Personally, I consider Angela Merkel a luxuriously good politician. She was, for more than 15 years, the face of not only Germany but also the European Union. She is a brilliant behind-the-scenes negotiator, the master of the discussions – and a perceptive advocate of German interests, which are often imagined as the interests of the union. When I have to talk about her errors, I certainly wouldn't say that her biggest mistake was to consent to the construction of the Nord Stream 2. The actions of Angela Merkel, the head of the strongest of the union state and the de facto and the European Union, are correctly associated with the delayed response to the Greek financial crisis, a very bad reaction to the wave of migration, and equally backward reaction to covid crisis. Her energy policy in a number of aspects has been shown to be counterproductive. Also, the inability to find a suitable successor can be considered a mistake – even though it was and is the problem of most powerful political figures.
Q. In recent days, we have read reports that the Russians are going to invade Ukraine. The Americans have strengthened the Kiev military to resist any Russian aggression. We read about the timing of assault ... what do you think?
A. What would Russia gain with Ukraine, which teeters on the brink of economic collapse? Much more I'm afraid of the attack of Kiev on rebel areas in the east of the country than of the invasion of the Russian army in Ukraine. It is, of course, the question of how Russia is going to react to the Ukrainian attack. It is very unlikely that Russia is going to abandon Russians under the nationalist artillery attacks and you can expect the hysterics in the Western media, covering for nationalists and blaming Russia, primarily because it will be impossible for the Ukrainian nationalists to prevail.
In the last few days there were a number of serious observations on this topic, however, not each was correctly understood. Washington, then the NATO secretary-general, said that any Russian attack would have for Russia a major "political and economic consequence." Those who hear between the lines, certainly noticed, that in the given formulations nobody is talking about the military consequences. Speaking so as to understand the public press, Washington and Brussels did not promise Kiev military assistance in case of major armed conflict in Ukraine. It's more a warning to the Ukrainian nationalists than Moscow. At the same time, directly from the mouth of an American president is said that would be the basis of the resolution of the dispute in the east of Ukraine should there be Minsk agreements. These contain a commitment to direct negotiations of Kiev with the rebels. It is also a long-term requirement of Moscow and the position of which in the last few days giving way to Berlin and Paris. The call by the Ukrainian president for direct negotiations between Moscow and Kiev in this context is viewed as a continued effort to avoid the obligations contained in the Minsk agreements. Although the risk of armed conflict in the east of Ukraine is growing, I believe that the upcoming summit of the American and the Russian presidents will contribute to calming the situation.
Q. Let's go back to the new German government. The new chancellor is going to push for the changes that will have to lead to greater integration of the European union, pointing to the emergence of a future federation. From the point of view of unification, is it correct to assume that they are going to increasingly make decisions at the european level?
Green party in Germany traditionally belongs to the most radical advocates of an integrated Europe. In the early days, when the party had largely anti-system character, it was about the revolutionary project, which was to ensure peace and universal cooperation. Today the untethered vision is that the leaders of these parties are connected with aggressive activism.
Q. Professor, do you think that really comes to creating the United States of Europe?
A. I personally think of myself as a european federalist, however, the european federation was imagined as a union of nations deprived of the domination of monopolies and parasitic bureaucracy. Currently I don't see in Brussels such potential – whether at the level of the Council, the Commission or the parliament – to create the United States of Europe in the spirit of the ideals formed in 19th century. It is necessary to say that this initial wave of interest in the idea of the United States of Europe has surged in the custody of the achievements in the formation of the United States of America, and faded in the context of the Civil War in the United States. The ideals shouldn't be abandoned, but also shouldn't replace the analysis of the current situation.
I will mention only one, the sub-problem. Your own army is now one of the attributes of a great state. So far, I can't imagine a single European army when only one country of the European Union has nuclear weapons. What would be the language of military intelligence? Is it English, when is it the language only of Ireland?
It must not be forgotten that the German euro euphoria comes at a time when the EU is going through a period of identity crisis and need to withdraw to defensive positions. This is also true of the euro euphoria of the incoming government in the Czech republic. Going against the tide of history means to provoke a feedback wave. It must not be forgotten that at the turn of 10th and 11th centuries the German emperor Otto III saw his Holy Roman Empire as a homeland of all Christian people. His plan of an integrated Europe was acceptable for the Germans, as well as for the Slavic peoples. He planned for the co-existence of Catholicism and the Orthodox church – which was the vintage idea of "European values". After his premature death, Henry II came to the throne who didn't share the idealism of its predecessor, and "integration" has teamed up with the policy of Drang nach Osten promoted by fire and sword. What is the result of the policies of Otto III and Henry II? it was centuries of war not only against "non-European" infidels but even among Christian states. If the current ideal of an integrated Europe avoids a similar degeneration, which unfortunately reflects yet unequalled geopolitical patterns, it is advisable sometimes this history remembered.
Q. It's not just about integration, but also decarbonization, digitalization, e-mobility, a more conciliatory approach to asylum seekers or iridescent families. These are the trends that now we read of plans for a future German government by a steamroller, which even we in the Czech republic inevitable?
A. The green deal is today presented in a way that the environmental policy is discredited. It is necessary to separate three things. First, the clumsy behavior of Brussels and most European governments are not related to the real need to change something. Secondly, climate change and environmental pollution are phenomena that cannot be equated. They are likely to partially overlap, but climate change can also be related to climatic cycles, which are independent of human activity. And third, no matter what is the fault of the person behind the warming of the planet, there's a big fault in the pollution of the environment. And against this, it is necessary to stand up, radically with some approaches to change. But that doesn't mean that Western countries exchange cars with internal combustion engines for electric cars, while the developing countries will be derived from industrialization. Everything should be done rationally, to combine the efforts of the balance of nature with the cultivation of human needs, and in all regions of the world.
Q. In the media, we still read that green policy are an opportunity for all businesses. Are they from the new trends of the really big corporations enthusiastic?
A. I'll start with a little note. The early activities of the adherents of the green orientation in the 1960s and 1970s were associated with peace policy, often with pacifism and anticapitalism. Today the theme of the environment and climate change is serious enough that it has penetrated into the programs of all the political parties in the West and turned into state policies. This means that ecological activities are consuming considerable part of state budgets. Along with this transformation, an extremely strong business layer, which is stuck on these budgets, and the green policy is changed in a lucrative business. It might have not been a big problem, if the environmental lobby wasn't acting like the lobby of the military-industrial complex – then greedily regardless of the real needs of the society. The case of subsidies for photovoltaics in the Czech republic is just a drop in the sea. And of course, it is nonsense to think that everyone on this shift in the state budget really cares about the environment. It's capitalism, the business is there out of the desire to profit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.