SPECULUM VERUM
The only correct way to end the conflict in Ukraine is a political agreement, says Chinese President Xi Jinping. He stated this, for example, after his April meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron, who flew to China precisely because of the debate about the war in Ukraine. Shortly before that, back in March, the Chinese president completed a three-day state visit to Moscow, and even earlier Beijing presented its peace plan for Ukraine. However, due to the close relations between China and Russia, a number of Western countries are skeptical of Beijing's proposal. When and under what conditions will this conflict end? How to change the world, in which we live? And how we are informed not only about this conflict, but generally about all the important happenings around us and in the world? In a democracy, people make decisions, but the essence of right decisions is undoubtedly the right information. We have them?
For all that, and many others, I will ask one of the most professional experts on military matters, but also to work with information, former director of Military Intelligence, former diplomat, ambassador to Afghanistan, and I will remind you, that for four and a half years he worked in New York as a security adviser to the permanent representative of the Czech Republic at the United Nations - Mr. General Petr Pelz was my guest.
Martina: Mr. General, we repeatedly witnessed verbal exchanges, whether we are, or we are not at war. Arguments and pseudo-arguments flew from one side to the other. The prime minister claimed, that we are at war. Then after some time it was declared a metaphor. But when the head of the opposition party announced, that he doesn't want to, to be drawn into war, he was attacked, that he uses war in political struggle. Word chaos, meaning - confusion. tell me, how about you, as a military, security expert, you judge? So we are at war, or we are not?
Petr Pelz: I think, that we have to approach it that way, that today we actually live in a world of virtual reality, and today's political leaders in the West are generations, which takes only words seriously, poses, and just metaphors. So sometimes the metaphor fits like this, sometimes the metaphor is quite the opposite. Of course we are not at war, because it would look different here, and above all it would be difficult to explain to people all the sacrifices, which they would have to put on the altar of this business, and by that I don't just mean directly going to war, and die there, or be injured, but economically. Taxes and similar things would probably have to be raised. So, sometimes it comes in handy, sometimes it doesn't fit, that we are at war.
Martina: But if I can get into it, I just read your comment, that given that, how we work together, we participate in sanctions, we deliver weapons, we train, we train, we practice, how to say it correctly, Ukrainian soldiers, so we are practically at war.
Petr Pelz: But that's what I was going to say, when i said "A"…
Martina: Again.
Petr Pelz: It was an A after a comma, they weren't but…
Martina: So it's like we're officially at war, but…
Petr Pelz: In terms of military logic, from the position of Russia, I'm afraid, that we are, I don't want to say legal, because legislation is a complex matter, but we are logical… We can become under certain circumstances, if someone in the Russian General Staff is to judge, that the training of soldiers, who fight against them, should be avoided - we can become a target. I think, I say, and I'm not talking about international law, that military logic could bring about such a situation.
Martina: tell me, why do you think, that the prime minister's words were originally strong: "We Are At War", and then questioning those words? I think, that is such a strong statement, that we should probably weigh every word here. It will come to you, that we are juggling this term too much?
Petr Pelz: Certainly. But I understand Mr. Chairman in this: First of all, the standard of living is drastically reduced here, because we become a part, in my opinion, absolutely senseless sanctions against Russia, and also against other international entities, so we have to justify it somehow. No, let's not be surprised: Pensioners will get less money - we are at war. Then someone will say before the election: "Don't drag us into the war, I'm against war.” And when someone says that, as, for example, specifically in this case, Mr. Babiš, so of course it's wrong, because we are not at war after all, and someone is abusing it. So we are at war, or not? You ask very well, but the prime minister should be sitting here.
We are not at war. But the United States has been at war for several hundred years, and the last war, which they announced, it was the second world war.
Martina: If we adhere to truly international law, so there is something, such as an official declaration of war in a country, and in this case we can therefore state, that we are not at war.
Petr Pelz: We are not at war. But let's look at the United States, for example, which are at war, I don't know anymore, how many hundred years in a row, I don't even want to count it, I didn't prepare for it, but they are permanently in some kind of war. And the last war, which Congress declared, it was the second world war. So it would be too much of a luxury, that the current world would still follow such rules.
Martina: Mr. General Petra Pelc, when I read your statement, conversations, or your articles, so I concluded from that, that you personally have a problem with this war, that you don't get along with her. You think, that it was different?
Petr Pelz: Of course, everything should have been different. let's see, that the first and second Minsk agreements were adopted. Minsk agreement no 2 were received sometime in February 2015, and then she was even 17. February 2015 resolution agreed by the UN Security Council, which invites stakeholders, to establish a truce immediately. It even lays out for each weapon, what is its range, and thus a buffer zone is to be created, from slingshots, but 20 meters, up to those with a range of several hundred kilometers, to move out. On the basis of this Security Council resolution, the Ukrainian parliament had - I repeat again, that's the highest, which can probably be in international law - to 30 days from 17. February 2015 adopt a law in accordance with Ukrainian laws, which would establish on Donbas in the republics there, or then areas, i don't know, as they legally called it back then, brought the situation, that a provisional government may be made there to represent these states. And these states should have linguistic ones, and other minority rights, and they should have some autonomy. I say once again for the listeners: 30 days from 17. February 2015. What would happen, if it was followed?
Today, or a few months ago, Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande, french president, even Peter Poroshenko said, that it was actually just some sort of trap for Putin, so that Ukraine can arm itself well. I ask: Why should Ukraine arm itself so terribly, if all was well with it, that the eastern regions of Ukraine would only have their own administrations and autonomy?
Martina: Mr. General...
Petr Pelz: Pardon. I can still?
Martina: Again, you have to.
Petr Pelz: I started like this and wanted to say, that this is our interest after all. I remember, I already said it…
He committed the conflict in Ukraine, or caused, West. And Ukraine is poor today, because it is slowly ceasing to exist as a state.
Martina: "That's our interest, after all." What do you mean??
Petr Pelz: So that Ukraine remains whole, and was neutral. We always said that, I even came up with that back then: "Ukraine is a fundamental building block of Europe's security architecture." And so it is today. We are still living in some kind of lie - a media lie, political. Ukraine. What is Ukraine? Ukraine is something like Switzerland, but everyone knows about Switzerland, everybody says, he is swiss, but we all know, that the French are there, Italians, Germans and also Romanesques. But we refuse to recognize that with Ukraine, although there are at least three: Eastern Ukraine, where they are more or less Russians. Then there is western Ukraine, which they are - they look at each other, that they are, I do not know, what are they -, but they look at each other, that they are Scandinavians and Germans, or i don't know what. And then there is central Ukraine, which are basically the real Ukrainians, who often speak Russian as their first language, but they feel like Ukrainians, and you bounced off this the worst. And thereby, that we allowed this conflict, or actually caused it, so Ukraine is poor today, i would say, that it is slowly ceasing to exist as a state. And the poorest are actually those in the middle, because you, what are in the east, either they went to Russia, or they fight. And what are in the west, who feel, as we call it, jako Europe, someone else calls it Nazis, some call it integral nationalists, so they are also fighting and they have their truth. And those in the middle just suffer.
And we'll move on, because what was our concern, both Europe and the Czech Republic? Our interest was, for Ukraine to remain. Russians, which I did then, when I interpreted it in the nineties, he didn't think, but also for Russia, neutral Ukraine was the basis, because that way they have a buffer zone. Like us here, we are afraid of the Russians, so the Russians fear the West again. And Ukraine, who likes Russians on the one hand, and on the one hand the West, after all, it fits perfectly. A to, that there are completely opposing views, ensures, that the election result will always be average. So it provides stability. It would ensure…
Martina: You mentioned the Minsk agreements here, you also mentioned the second one from the year 2015, but your opinion opponents in the media say, that the Russian troops refused to respect the mentioned truce, they continued to fight, until they managed to occupy Debalcevo. Then I read more, that based on these agreements, elections were to be held in the breakaway territories in accordance with Ukrainian laws, which Russia allegedly did not admit, and it all happened under the direction, let's say, Russian, separatist militias and the like. What do you think about these arguments?, or counterarguments?
Petr Pelz: Of course, that it took place under Russian direction, because the Russians are there. And I already said it, and I'll say it for the third time: 30 days after 17. February should have been a Ukrainian law, who would start solving this. It certainly wasn't, that the Ukrainian army would, poor man, nice, she was downloading, she refused to fight, because the government ordered them to, and that the so-called insurgents kept pounding them. Every reasonable person knows that, that it cannot be so, after all, that's nonsense. And besides, there is evidence for it. Both sides did not stop. But who was to ensure it?? Of course, logical, as a task from the Security Council, the Ukrainian government was to ensure this.
Martina: You said a sentence a moment ago: "We allowed the conflict,” and then you corrected yourself, and you said: "They caused."
Petr Pelz: Sure, because if the Minsk agreements were followed, so, as I said, nothing happened. But we do know, that on the one hand doing, and, on the one hand, various theories - it first appeared, for example, in the Defense Planning Guidance 1992, authored by Paul Wolfowitz—it was, that the United States must not allow, people can look it up, if they doubted it, the emergence of such a rival, which would be so strong, as the Soviet Union on the territory of the Soviet Union, or anywhere else. What is it, that he must not admit? And then there are others. Rand studies of the year 2019, which has directly in its inscription, how to weaken Russia. Theories about it, how Russia needs to be "decolonized", which is very beautiful, that means breaking Russia into several mini-states, that we could control. When the Russians hear this, so of course they arrange themselves in some way, and these are the reasons, which caused it.
But then there are you, which result from the American economy. I mean, that the United States is controlled by three oligarchies. So those are the reasons, which in my opinion, and someone may think otherwise, were the reason for it, that this war arose. And of course no one can doubt that, who was the initiator and executor of the so-called revolution in February 2014. There is evidence for that.
I am pro-western, but the West was hijacked
Martina: But you know, that the western world looks at it completely differently. Not everyone, but most politicians. Not everyone, but perhaps also the majority of citizens, and certainly not all of them, but most journalists. You said now: "Nobody can doubt that, who stands behind the year 2014 in Ukraine.” So who?
Petr Pelz: No, 13. december 2013 Victoria Nuland at the Press Club in New York said, that since the year 91 the United States devoted a considerable amount to the so-called development of democracy. How was it going there??
Martina: For the development of democracy in Ukraine?
Petr Pelz: In Ukraine. And how it went there? Just briefly: In November 2013 President Yanukovych suspended the association agreement with the European Union, because of course Russia pushed for it, not to be like this, and he tried to maneuver in some way. But it is important to say, that he suspended her. What did he mean by that?, or his government? That's the question.
And then we had February. There have been some demonstrations since November, a 21. February Radek Sikorski for Poland, and Steinmeier for Germany, and Eric Fournier Chairman, or the director of the East European section of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ombudsman, and the Russian ambassador signed a treaty about it, or i don't know, if the contract, not to be legally challenged, but that maybe there will be elections in the fall, and Yanukovych will remain president until then, and everything will be solved. And that same evening, Yanukovych flees from Kyiv, because it national integrationists, or nationalists, don't like. But who is behind them?, it's clear from the interview, which escaped, or, in my opinion, the Russians recorded it, and put it on social networks. It was supposed to happen 27. or 28. January, a 4. February, or when, was put on the internet. It was a conversation between Victoria Nuland, a Geoffreyem Pyattem, who was the United States ambassador to Ukraine, where they choose, who will be in government. It's a famous phone call: "Fuck the EU." That was clear.
And a month before that, before Yanukovych was expelled, that's how Victoria Nuland and the American ambassador chose, who will be in government, and who does not. And it really happened like this by accident, so who can doubt it? I don't want to go into details about it here, who then? 20. until 22. or when, he shot and killed people - those snipers. I'd rather not say that really, but anyone can look it up.
Martina: Now you have said a lot of information, which are traceable, documentable. tell me: Why then, when we air this interview, will find a large number of people, who will say: "That's not true." Ditto, as there are many politicians, who will say: "That's not true." What's one to do, to find out, where the truth is?
Petr Pelz: No, find it. But what should one do after that?, when he has been doing these things for several years – in my case? I was trained in the West, I actually spent all of communism with some kind of resistance, although I was not a legal objector, but I was on the edge.
Martina: If you were in the military, so…
Petr Pelz: He wasn't. I was in the army until... I was a surveyor, I studied geodetic astronomy, then I worked on construction sites, and I was almost arrested for politics. In summer 1989 strangely enough, I was the company's chief surveyor, relatively large construction companies in Prague, which is unbelievable, so I called the surveyors, had them sign a few sentences, which was signed by all, except for one. So I was on a completely different side of the barricade.
Martina: Aha. So you actually received intelligence training in the West. I.e, that you should logically be pro-Western. A to, what are you saying now…
Petr Pelz: I am pro-Western, but the West was hijacked. look at, what federal elections look like in the United States. If you look at the stats, so one tenth per thousand, the richest, gives donor donations in the amount 57 percent to politicians, who get into Congress. During the presidential election.
Martina: sorry, I misunderstood you. One tenth?
Petr Pelz: One tenth per thousand.
Martina: Gives per mille?
Petr Pelz: He gives 57 percent of all contributions to politicians, who are elected. Maybe, that some statistics are slightly different, so be it o 10 percent differently. And I ask the listeners a question, when they say, it's not true, is it, so let them find it for A, A will B, the rich would do it, if it didn't pay off for them? And that's why I say, that I am pro-Western. I feel sorry for us anyway, and I feel sorry for the Ukrainians, I feel sorry for the rest of the Americans too, by whom their country was abducted.
In the US, three oligarchies control Congress and presidential elections. FIRE: finance, insurance industry, real estate. MIC: Military Industrial Complex, a OGAM: Oil, Gas and Mining, clothes, gas and mines.
Martina: That's why you said a moment ago, if I recorded it correctly, that the United States is controlled by three oligarchies?
Petr Pelz: Again.
Martina: Can I ask for the names?
Petr Pelz: These are not names, but that's it, what they call FIRE: finance, insurance industry, and real estate, pak MIC: Military Industrial Complex, a OGAM, which is Oil, Gas and Mining, i.e. oil, gas and mines. And they proceed in this way at home, as i said, and they control Congress and presidential elections. A to, what got out of their hands, was Trump. Trump is ungovernable, and therefore also him as... He is not suitable as a president.
Martina: And I'll still be a bit of a curmudgeon. you said: "Let people find out, that 53 percent…”
Petr Pelz: Maybe it is 50, or 40. I don't know.
Martina: Contributions for politicians come from these, let's say, financial peaks. But you probably can't find it?
Petr Pelz: From the.
Martina: This is mostly secret information.
Petr Pelz: Yes, It is…
Martina: Few parties can admit, that…
Petr Pelz: Yes, that's what the law is for, according to which he must admit it. After all, it's the other way around in America. There, on the contrary, they boast. Because the more posts it collects, so it is…
Martina: It has support…
Petr Pelz: It has more support and is bigger. But this support comes from these oligarchies, and they go against the very foundations of market capitalism. They are in symbiosis: state, large corporations, average. Today, everything is in the power of this one. It's a state, economy, average, entertainment. That's the terrible problem.
Martina: That's why you say, that America has been hijacked.
Petr Pelz: I know, that looks terrible, but that explains everything.
For God's sake, with such terrible losses and destruction in Ukraine, the fighting should be stopped immediately
Martina: Let's look at the currently impoverished Ukraine. tell me, with your experience in military intelligence, which you have, and also from diplomacy: How should the Czech Republic react to the war in Ukraine at the moment? And what should he do now??
Petr Pelz: It goes beyond that, of course, the interests of the Czech Republic are somewhat a subset of the interests of Europe and the interests of the whole world in general, and of course Ukraine. And we find ourselves in the trap of it again, that we say "Ukraine". So which one? East? Medium? West? Czech Republic. I said it at the beginning, we would need peace. There should be no war. And for God's sake, at the terrible losses and terrible destruction, which is in Ukraine, should be fights immediately, right this second, stopped.
The question is, who wishes it? If Russia wants it, is the question. If the United States so desires, is the question. What Europe wants, I have an unfortunate feeling, that it is completely pointless, completely insignificant, because that's how Europe behaves, that she doesn't care about Europe at all. So mainly, I repeat, fighting should be stopped immediately.
Martina: Who do you think is interested in it?, for the war in Ukraine to continue? To continue prolonging the immense suffering of the people, and economic and economic destruction?
Petr Pelz: That's the problem, that i feel, that these forces, which I am talking about, In the United States, addition, that they are carried away by some effort of their own to do something meaningful, weaken Russia as much as possible, they still seem rather incompetent to me, because actually that, what's happening, It weakens Europe. It does not weaken the United States so much yet, but Europe is going down very fast by that, that he participates in sanctions, which are essentially meaningless.
Martina: The question at the very beginning was: Who do you think is interested in it?, for this war to continue?
Petr Pelz: It is already very difficult to answer at this stage, because there are also theories, that Americans… I think, that there must be great differences of opinion. There's that group of people around President Biden: Juke Sullivan, Victoria Nuland, etc, who are the most ardent. I think, according to some signals, characters, that there is growing opposition to them even among the intelligence services. Seymour Hersh, in his material about it, who blew up Nordstream 2, indicates, that the intelligence services were quite frustrated by this act, and also the current leak of information, which is so current, is basically explained in this way as well. So the question, who is interested in it, is simple, logical, but the answer to it is complicated.
And the view of Russia? Hard to say. I think, that under certain circumstances they would immediately negotiate as well. After all, again - another clue, that all this did not have to happen, was, that when Russia last year 23., or which February, invaded Ukraine, so it progressed relatively quickly to the west, and then at the turn of March and April, the agreements were ready, or there were very developed conversations, which were mediated and took place in Turkey, and were mediated by Belarusians and Turks. But both presidents, like Putin, tak Zelenskyj, expressed themselves, that they would be willing to sign it. But they were basically banned by the Americans and the British. After all, Boris Johnson came there, he said to Zelensky, that if he signed, so that they and the West immediately stop supporting him. And since then it has cost the lives of several hundred thousand people.