On the Sudeten and Donbas

First Deputy Foreign Minister of the Czech Republic Petr Drulak visited Ukraine a few days ago. Before his appointment to this post, on January 1 this year, he had been working as a researcher on foreign relations. In an exclusive interview Drulak told The Day that he liked to develop ideas and reflect about the world, and now he would use his position and try to apply the knowledge he acquired for several years in political practice.

Mr. Drulak, I have read that President Milos Zeman proposed recently a military mission against ISIS under the aegis of the Security Council. However, Foreign Minister Lubomir Zaoralek rejected it. Do you see any resemblance to what is happening in eastern Ukraine, with Russia’s attempt to impose “Russian World” there?

“I see a difference between the situation in eastern Ukraine and the Middle East, because in the Middle East, we are fighting a terrorist network, the Islamic State, whereas the threat which we face in eastern Ukraine has a concrete shape of Russian aggressive ambitions, so that’s a very different kind of threat. There are no analogies.”

But you may remember the history, what happened with the Sudeten. Many experts say that this is a kind of appeasement of Putin, as it was in 1939 with Hitler.

“Let’s make the comparison again, because the analogy does not work with Ukraine. How was the Sudeten German crisis resolved? There was a meeting in Munich, to which the then Czechoslovakia was not invited. It was just a meeting of Germany, France, Italy, and the UK, and they made the decision. And it was made at the expense of Czechoslovak territorial integrity. Look at what is going on in Ukraine. First of all, the important meetings take place with the presence of Ukrainian leaders. Ukraine is involved, it is not about Ukraine without Ukraine, as it was at that time about Czechoslovakia without Czechoslovakia. The second point is that great powers at that time made the deal at the expense of Czechoslovakian territorial integrity. Again, no one from the West, from Europe, or from the United States would actually put into doubt the territorial integrity of Ukraine. They say we do not recognize this. And quite frankly, I do not see the analogy between Putin and Hitler. Those are different kinds of personality and different kinds of threat. We live in a different situation right now.”

Why not? Some politicians see the similarity in their behavior.

“I don’t. It is a different kind of thing. Hitler was someone who built the state of the strong ideology of Nazism. It seems to me that Putin has great territorial ambitions. If you look for analogy, I would look into the 19th century. Some of the 19th century European leaders, who were very expansive, and who were able to wage war to expand their territory. However, with Hitler, it is simply too strong, and it does not lead to the right conclusion, if you make this comparison.”

Maybe not yet, but he is building the “Russian World,” which is in a way similar to the Nazi ideology.

“But I don’t see Putin actually creating concentration camps and exterminating internal opponents.

But what about parading Ukrainian prisoners of war?

“These are disgusting things, and he breaches many rules, but when we talk about Hitler, it was worse, Nazism was much worse.”

So, you don’t see any danger that Putin would move to promote his idea of the state of Novorossia at the pretext of protecting Russian-speaking people?

“We see a lot of threats. I think he is really a threat, and we acknowledge him as a threat. And we should try to show him that his behavior is unacceptable. But it’s a different kind of threat from that of Hitler.”

President Zeman has criticized Maidan multiple times, virtually taking a pro-Russian stand. However, considering the events of 1968, when the Soviet troops occupied Prague, how can you account for this position towards Russia, which is really an aggressor?

“The body, which actually decides what the foreign policy will be, is the government, that’s one thing. As far as our president is concerned, I would not say that he is against Ukraine. He supports Ukrainian democracy. But of course, he also reflects a part of the Czech public opinion, which is also mistrustful of the developments in Ukraine. Let me emphasize, this is not the position of the government. The government actually sees the developments in Ukraine as very promising, and we appreciate all the reform attempts, which have been made so far. But there is a part of public opinion which sees the glass more as half-empty, rather than half-full. And some of Zeman’s statements are tuned to this, some are misunderstood, so that’s how it is.”

Your government thinks that only political solution is possible. But this tendency we have, with the Russian side not complying with agreements reached in Minsk, and it has declared it will not comply and will move further. Western experts express an opinion that Ukraine should be given weapons, but your government refuses to.

“Our government is against the delivery of weapons, because we don’t think it would help. If we start sending weapons to Ukraine, it means we are afraid of the escalation, that it will be an incentive for Russia to make the war even more open than it is today. And we are afraid that it will be the destruction of Ukraine, we start the arms race, which Ukraine cannot win. That’s why we are against the delivery of weapons. Where we see the way out, and this is not an easy way out, is patience. Ukraine has an economic lifeline from the West, economic and political support. That’s the one thing. And the second thing is that there is a firm stance on Russia: there are sanctions, Russia is now in a very bad economic situation, and if it continues as it does, then it will drive itself to bankruptcy. We do not want Russia to become bankrupt, this is not in our interest, but we hope that at a certain point, Russia will recognize this danger for itself, and it will change its behavior, and it will keep the commitment it is making, because the problem is that there are commitments which have been made and to which Russia does not always stick. It is only that there is no easy spectacular solution like the delivery of weapons. It’s simply patient efforts, building up Ukrainian statehood, which will be modern, democratic, attractive for the rest of Ukraine, even for the territories which are now under occupation.”

When will the costs for Russia reach the level that will make it change its behavior?

“I will not tell you when, but what is quite obvious, is that Russia’s geopolitical ambitions do not correspond to its economic resources. If you want to be geopolitically ambitious, if you want to have expansive foreign policy, you need to have means, and it seems to us that Russia’s foreign policy lives beyond its means. So, at some point – some people say in a year, some say in 18 months, some say, even earlier – Russia will have to recognize that its hands are actually empty.”

During your visit you talked to your vis-a-vis in the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry on the prospects of cooperation between our countries. Can you tell us about this in more detail?

“We have two kinds of projects. On the one hand, we have projects that can be labeled as development, humanitarian, transformation assistance. We have many of these. Recently a humanitarian convoy with medicaments from Prague arrived to Kyiv, which is humanitarian assistance, but which also had some elements for roof construction, which is more of development assistance. We also support Ukrainian hospitals, educational establishments, we offer fellowships to students, we try to provide advice in particular areas like media, and others.

“Then, there is another package about investments and business. There are actually several projects which are in the pipeline, and there we have to explain to our Ukrainian friends that they need to help us with the red tape, because even though we see a clear commitment to reform at the highest political level, it is still a great challenge to transfer this commitment to reform to the level of state administration, where we face some obstacles, which are quite difficult for us to understand. It’s still very difficult to do business here. If you want to develop and modernize your country, you need to be more welcoming to the foreign investors. And the Czech Republic can contribute to this.”

So, what are the trends? This government declared it has made a lot of reforms.

“The number of laws which have been approved by the parliament is impressive. But the greatest challenge is the implementation: how to bring the things which are on paper into reality. We have no doubts about the significant efforts of the government, but still, it is something that will be the testing ground. The government will be tested not by words, but by their deeds. And not by us, but by Ukrainian citizens.”