“If the criticism of the annexation of Crimea was justified and if the presence of Russian troops in the East of Ukraine is disagreement, then we can not criticize a missile attack on a military base independent of the state,” said one of the most experienced Czech deputies Antonin Seda party (ČSSD). “This is mainly caused by the decline in the popularity of Donald trump, who during the election campaign said that his priority is the security of the United States. However, this action does not fit into those plans and confirms the return to the foreign policy of Republican presidents,” added Sada.
Parlamentní listy: 59 How these missiles “Tomahawk” was a political signal for the internal forces in the U.S. and how Donald trump wanted to threaten this action of Putin? Or a missile attack was more a show of force to Iran and North Korea?
Antonin Seda: I Admit, I’m not a political analyst and not an expert in security, so let me Express a personal point of view. According to my information, to strike this blow, Mr President, trump persuaded the Ministry of defence. The first goal, I think, was to teach a lesson to the military forces of the Syrian President and to President Assad because he used chemical weapons against the civilian population. And, of course, at the same time it was a demonstration of the capabilities of the U.S. army following the events in Syria. The second argument was purely political: the President of the United States changed its position on the question of postwar Syria. The message about the impact of the Russian side and the subsequent visit of U.S. Secretary of state indicate that this missile attack was not aimed against the Russian Federation and of President Putin.
— As it is now generally possible to describe the relationship between the U.S. and Russia in light of the events in Syria? How has the attitude of Donald trump to Russia and Vice versa?
President Donald trump learned (during the presidential campaign, he did not understand) that it is responsible for making decisions on the basis of information coming from not only his administration, but primarily from the intelligence services. Also, Donald Trump has to protect the national interests of his country, which Syria was somewhat unique. President Vladimir Putin also defends the interests of the Russian Federation in this country. And the modern relationship between the US and Russia I would call frozen and deprived of the spirit of cooperation.
— The United States has changed its rhetoric, and the trump has already stated that it does not want war in Syria. But after a very cool talks between Sergei Lavrov and Rex Tillerson again talking about imposing a no-fly zone over Syria. Do you think that the first tough statements from both sides, when the United States threatened another blow, as Russia and Iran — the response was merely a “show of force”? Does the contract parties about some kind of mutually acceptable compromise?
Part of diplomacy was, is and will be intimidating and tough statements. Negotiations between the Russian Federation and the United States reaffirm that both parties are committed to the agreement. In particular, they agree on a no-fly zone, and after a possible and a coordinated fight against “Islamic state” (banned in Russia as a terrorist organization — approx. ed.). Problems arise when discussing postwar Syria, given the desire of the countries participating in the event, “to satisfy” its own national interests. It is not only Russia and the United States, but also Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Here I would recommend the talks at the UN level that will benefit first and foremost by the Syrians. And, I think, it will be preceded by the compromise reached by Putin and trump.
— The American public did not appreciate the attack on Assad, and ratings trump, on the contrary, even fell, as reported by some agencies that monitor public opinion. How do you explain this?
The reason lies in the difference between legality and legitimacy. If the criticism of the annexation of Crimea was justified and if the presence of Russian troops in the East of Ukraine is disagreement, then we can not criticize a missile attack on a military base independent of the state. This is mainly caused by the decline in the popularity of Donald trump, who during the election campaign said that his priority is the security of the United States. However, this action does not fit into those plans and confirms the return to the foreign policy of Republican presidents. However, in General we can say that Americans begin to understand that presidential responsibility binds the hands and feet.
— Many politicians believe that in the middle East, Moscow will have to choose between the West and the axis Iran — Syria — Hezbollah. What do you think, which side will ultimately take the Russian Federation?
— The United States has long been an ally of Israel, so I don’t think Americans start to cooperate closely with Iran or Hezbollah, which are much closer to Russia. I also don’t suggest some effective solutions to centuries-old problems in relations between Sunnis and Shiites. However, the question is, what are the national interests of the United States in the region, and how are they going to promote them. This will depend on Moscow’s policy.
— An interesting opinion was expressed by the expert in the field of safety Lukasz Vikingr. He believes that trump can offer Putin a “big deal” for the division of spheres of influence. It will take into account the interests of Russia in Ukraine and Syria. For example, Ukraine will become a neutral “buffer zone”, and Bashar al-Assad emigrated to a safe place. But, of course, remains the question of what Putin can offer in return, or rather, that trump will demand for the United States. That may be the subject of this deal? To offer Putin, and what is trump? Could this be the perfect scenario?
— I noted this view. It is rational: the two world powers have to agree, so at some point, they all agree. It is in their national interest. But, I think, “big deal” will not lead to the division of Syria or to the separation of the Eastern part of Ukraine. President Putin has long worked to prevent the expansion of NATO eastward to Russia’s borders. After all, in the new security strategy announced the Alliance of their enemy. The actions of Russian authorities in Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and now in Moldova and Ukraine confirm that the Russian side is ready without hesitation to take to achieve their goal by any means. Just the protection of its national interests is a priority for both Russia and the United States. It is therefore possible that some “big deal” is, but I don’t want to predict its subject. In my opinion, to fear a solution that would have hammered a wedge between NATO allies. I mean the US and European countries. This may be covered to achieve Putin in the negotiations on the future of Syria and the solution of political problems in Ukraine.
— So who and how supports an American strike on Syria? NATO also supports? But not if brought trump so the Alliance from the game?
Until I hear some official position of NATO regarding the missile attack of the U.S. armed forces. Some member countries of the Alliance are members of the international coalition against ISIL in Iraq and Syria. Hence, restraint in the estimates. I would not say that some countries vehemently supported the strike. Rather, I pointed criticism of Assad, who is suspected of using chemical weapons. An example would be the position of Britain, a longtime ally of the United States. So a number of European countries perceive the U.S. missile attack as a legitimate response to the use of chemical weapons against civilians. NATO has its military contingent in Syria, so the negative impact on the internal Affairs of the Alliance, I do not see, including from the administration of the American President.
— President miloš Zeman stressed the need to investigate the incident with the use of chemical weapons, the blame for which lay on the Syrian regime. However, by far Zeman has not spoken. Already talking about how the President has angered both the American and Russian side. Impact is the position in the course of the visit to the White house, may affect relations in the future on the popularity of Zeman’s voters?
— I have to admit that I agree with the position of President Milos Zeman. However, this does not mean that I do not follow published information and different analyses, most of which says that the order of the chemical attack gave the Syrian President, and carried it out of the air force of the Syrian army. As for the reaction of our President, I don’t think his position will affect relations with President Putin or trump. Ambiguous statements of President Zeman relative to the rocket attacks is likely to increase his popularity among voters.