Ignorant own defenses. Phantasmagoric EU Army. The Dictator and the Fall of the Roman Empire. Hynek fired sharp

In recent days, the Czech Republic celebrated the 25th anniversary of its accession to NATO. How significant a step do you think it was from today’s point of view?

The entry of the Czech Republic into NATO fundamentally changed the concept of the defense of the Czech Republic. Unfortunately, in the perception of politicians, this step led to the belief that it is possible to start cheating on our own defense because “someone will take care of us”. This approach then led to a huge internal debt in the equipment of our army, which has not yet been resolved. I would like to tell all those ignorant of self-defense to carefully read the Treaty of the North Atlantic Alliance, especially article three. Then they would understand that relying on the principle of collective defense without being prepared to defend with our own forces might not pay off.

Although one of the conditions of membership in NATO is also to invest 2% of GDP in its own defense, the Czech Republic has not fulfilled this commitment for a long time. Now the situation has changed and investments in defense have become one of the priorities of the Czech government. But will we catch up with the historical debt?

I’ll allow myself a small comparison. It is too late to start making flood barriers when the big water is rushing. Especially when the big water is coming down on everyone. Industrial production is set to certain capacities and it is very difficult to increase it in leaps and bounds. In the case of the defense industry, this applies manifold. This is a very technically and technologically demanding industry with a high proportion of highly skilled work. These are not assembly shops of the untrained, we will teach you. In addition, the defense industry is at the top of the supply chain, so the volume of its production is dependent on suppliers from the engineering, electrical, manufacturing, chemical and mining industries. It is enough if one wheel gets stuck in the whole cogwheel, and the whole system stops working. Even if a bunch of money is suddenly poured into the system, it does not mean that the armed forces will get the equipment that they have been missing for years. It is very easy to catch a delay, but it is often impossible to catch up.

As for military investment, the government has already decided to purchase both the Swedish CV90 tracked vehicles and the American F-35 fighter jets. These are huge investments and some fear that our country will “exhaust” its financial resources for the further necessary modernization of the Czech army. How do you see it?

I have always strived for domestic manufacturers to be preferred in the supplies for my own armed forces. This approach has two advantages. It is about ensuring security of supplies and at the same time strengthening the domestic economy. In times of threat to the state or war, we cannot rely on anyone other than domestic suppliers. I think covid has shown it in all my nudity. As for the benefit of purchasing from domestic suppliers for the national economy, it is calculated that 45% of the expenses will be returned to the state within one year. When shopping abroad, nothing is returned to the state, moreover, dependence on the country from which the purchase is made arises. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure industrial cooperation with domestic industry companies for deliveries from abroad. The armed forces work like an orchestra whose level is not made by the best musician but by the worst. What good will airplanes do if we don’t have enough air ammunition for them or if qualified ground personnel are dependent on Praga V3S vehicles from the 1950s? They are still used at some airports. What I mean by this is that we must not focus on the product, but on the capability. And increase this for all branches of the army. Because just like an orchestra, the level of the army is made up of the worst component, not the best.

The ongoing war in Ukraine is changing the way we look at our own security in many ways. Our country is very involved in military aid to the invaded Ukraine, for which it gains respect from a number of Western allies. However, he is criticized for this approach on the domestic scene, where, according to the opposition, the government should focus more on domestic problems and solutions to its own defense capabilities. How do you see it?

In a democratic society, voters elect their representatives with the vision of improving conditions for their own lives and the lives of their families. Therefore, all the efforts of politicians should be focused on solving those problems that directly or indirectly affect the lives of their voters. From a security point of view, it is as important to keep the trenches as far away from our borders as it is to be a rich country. Because only a rich country is able to ensure the safety of its inhabitants. Focusing on helping Ukraine and ignoring domestic problems is the same mistake as focusing on domestic issues and ignoring what is happening to the east of us.

In connection with this year’s US presidential elections, there is also a lot of talk about the fact that NATO may have to prepare for a period in which the US will no longer play such a dominant role. In your opinion, is this a space for strengthening common military and defense considerations at the EU level? In other words, should the EU also turn into a military alliance?

For God’s sake. Above all, let the European official not get involved in things he does not understand. I often doubt that he understands anything at all. The basis of the defense capability of the member countries of the European Union cannot be the constant reliance on the USA to arrange something for them, nor the phantasmagoric army of the European Union. The basis must be well-trained and well-armed national armies of individual countries, which will be able to cooperate. NATO, as an institution established by an intergovernmental treaty, provides this space. The European Union, as a corporate organization that takes on the role of a dictator, does not give its members this space. European countries must be able to take care of themselves and together. This is the only way they have a chance to be independent and safe.

In the past, the European Union has often been criticized for not being able to protect its external borders from the influx of illegal immigrants, even through FRONTEX. Why do you think the EU is so ineffective in this area?

It’s that he’s inefficient at everything he does. Why should it be effective in protecting the external borders if it is not effective in anything? I see two reasons for this state of affairs. One is that the European official is completely detached from reality. He has no idea what troubles ordinary citizens or how they live under his leadership. The second reason is that the EU tries to interfere in the lives of the inhabitants in everything possible and impossible. The agenda is so vast that it cannot be done well. The basis of effective functioning is to focus only on a few essential things and to stop getting involved in people’s lives in the rest. One of the fundamental tasks is to prevent the further penetration of illegal migrants into the countries of the European Union.

However, the European Union also faces criticism for many policy decisions that have an impact on the security and defense industry. I mean above all efforts for stricter regulation of weapons legislation. Has the view of Brussels changed in this regard after the outbreak of the war in Ukraine?

Just as the European official does not perceive the problems of the lives of ordinary citizens, he also underestimates the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Sometimes I feel that he has not yet noticed that there is a war in Ukraine. Limiting European citizens’ access to legal weapons leads to a reduction in the population’s military capabilities. It is as if some European directives were written by Vladimir Putin. To the east of us, there is a merciless war, people are dying and maiming, and the European Commission, instead of strengthening the defense capabilities of the population, bans lead and limits the size of magazines. It resembles the fall of the Roman Empire live.

However, other European regulations also have a negative impact on the defense industry, e.g. in the form of ESG reporting or the very negative approach of banks to financing development projects in the area of ​​the defense industry. What do you think is the biggest problem and how should this problem be solved?

The biggest problem is that the whole famous ESG is an evil perpetrated against the citizens of the countries of the European Union. Investors are fleeing Europe due to green policies, industry is cutting production and European citizens have become totally dependent on imports. More than 90% of the raw materials needed for us to exist at all are imported from outside the EU, mainly from China. Add to that the fact that European commissioners consider the defense industry socially unsustainable, and it’s no wonder that banks treat arms manufacturers like a pansy. The European ESG policy by regulation defies economic laws and sometimes I feel that it would like to defy the laws of nature as well. The only way out of this vicious circle is to immediately cancel the ESG policy and replace it with a meaningful economic concept that will lead to the development of key industrial capacities. It should start by drastically reducing the current massive redistribution rate and eliminating most subsidies. These should only be aimed at key infrastructure and defense capabilities. But I’m afraid that will never happen, because European politicians would lose the influence, fame and economic benefits they get from the redistribution of subsidies. But if we don’t, we’ll never build defenses to the level necessary to preserve our freedom.