Czech ambassador to NATO: The alliance is undergoing a once-in-a-generation transformation
At the end of the summer, Czech diplomats stationed around the world traditionally come back to Prague for a week of consultations about their individual agendas and global affairs. This year the meeting was inevitably overshadowed by the war in Ukraine and its impacts on the world at large. I met with Jakub Landovský, Czechia’s ambassador to NATO, to discuss the course of this conflict, its impacts on global security and whether it can change the world order as we know it.
“As in every war, it depends on the result and in every war there are two distinct possibilities –either we win or we lose. If you believe that you will win –or lose –you will be right in both cases. You need to believe in victory to make it happen.
“If we win, this will stop the usage of power as a tool to change the borders of countries, which means returning to the stable period of our history, returning to the UN Charter and global stability. If we win it will confirm the right of nations to decide their own fate, including Ukraine’s decision to join NATO, the EU and to fulfil their destiny within Euro-Atlantic structures. So the freedom of action of states will be reconfirmed. If we win, Russia will lose part of its ability to project power by force through its neighboring environment.
If we lose, stabilized potential conflicts throughout the world –I’m talking India, China, Pakistan, African countries –will unthaw and will cause trouble to our prosperity, economy, livelihood and even basic needs.
“On the other hand, if we lose, we will lose the international order as we know it. Certain countries will be bolstered by the fact that use of force is again permissible and also useful in gaining your goals, and stabilized potential conflicts throughout the world –I’m talking India, China, Pakistan, African countries –will unthaw and will cause trouble to our prosperity, economy, livelihood and even basic needs. Because – and it sounds like a truism, but I cannot help saying it, the world is so much connected that we will suffer even though the conflict will happen far, far away.
“This was true even in the past. Friends here at the ambassadorial gathering reminded me that in the 15th century it was said that who holds the Malacca Strait holds a knife to the throat of Venice. And that’s like 500 years ago. Imagine it in a world connected by internet, computers, free flow of capital, ideas and multiply this interdependency by gazillion.
“So we need to win. And it is not only a question of Ukraine, not only a question of Europe, it is a question of the world order.”
How has this war changed NATO? In terms of its defense strategy, but also relations within the alliance.
“It is a generational change. It does not happen so often and I feel that I am particularly blessed – and I feel guilty about it – to be part of this once-in-a-generation change. With a slight hint of cynicism, Afghanistan kept NATO in shape and alive, ready for this once-in-a-generation transformation. Our organization is coming back to the concept of collective security as a paramount interest of all its allies and it is bringing together plans, forces, command structure and alert systems that will conduct the collective defense in the fashion of the 21st century. And this organization, currently the strongest military alliance in the world, will modernize itself and forge the political environment into a more actionable state so that nobody will be able to disrupt this defensive alliance by force.”
Has it made NATO stronger? Has it made it more close-knit?
“Definitely. It reinforced the transatlantic link, it made Europe and the EU wake up from the dream of peace. It modernized the military structures within the alliance and brought resources. The US was paying attention to resources from the first – largely disregarded – impulse, the Crimean war in 2014. They said We need to do it together and 2 percent is the basic requirement for doing it together.”
And Czechia has now speeded up plans to meet that requirement in 2024.
“Yes, we have speeded that up and we are credible. One thing is to forge the political will, another thing is to implement it and make it credible. I think we have done heaps of things in both regards.”
Czechia was the first country to send tanks to Ukraine and has been a staunch supporter in many ways since the war started. Has that improved our standing in NATO?
“Definitely. I recall the first morning after the war broke out and I spoke with Czech officials about the need to help. But, the first to respond were the Czech people who showed tremendous solidarity, offering help and gathering money and the state outdid itself by delivering so much military aid. Our prime minister said that if you spread it out over the 550+ days of war - it is one infantry vehicle or tank a day. We were the pioneer in heavy weapons imports to Ukraine and that swayed the others to do it sooner. And time is critical in these deliveries.
“We are a nation that sits in the middle of Europe, but also in the middle of NATO in terms of paying attention to the Southern agenda, to terrorism and to Africa. I think we are not single-mindedly focused only on Russia. Of course, Russia is the biggest threat, but the good news is that if you build a robust enough structure for collective defense, terrorism is just a side task –it can be covered by this structure, because collective defense is a much bigger task, much harder logistically and resource-wise. So you can have a single structure that is able to address both threats –Russia and terrorism – at the same time.
“And also, add to this, that NATO will predetermine the task in collective defense for each nation. So we will have an elaborate plan which will say what is the responsibility of the Czechs, the Spaniards or the French on the Eastern flank, with the ability to cover the Southern flank as needed. So it is truly a Jack-of-all-trades for the 21st century security threats. Moreover, consider that it has one billion people and half of the world GDP at its disposal. So it is really a tremendous force for defense. But of course, it is a purely defensive organization and that is why for instance NATO does not send lethal help to Ukraine, because that would be in contradiction with our defense purposes. But other allies do and the coalition to help Ukraine is greater than NATO –it is fifty nations. Now the G7 has stepped in, pledging money not only for the defense of Ukraine and the war effort but also for the reconstruction. So the West is really woken up fully by this ringing of the alarm clock –for the second time – and very much united and able to muster a defense action together.”
NATO has been bolstering its Eastern flank and there are plans to bolster it further. Czechia has been active on the Slovak border where it is heading a multinational force. Does that mean a stronger engagement, a further commitment for Czechia?
“It does, but we are not only active in Slovakia, we are keeping a profile in the Baltic countries –Latvia and Lithuania, and also in Poland, we have strong ties to German higher units, so all this together can help create an architecture for the Central and East European defense arrangement within NATO. And of course this is plugged-in a much larger NATO defense structure which will cover 360 degrees of NATO space. Our dear chairman of the military committee always says that these tasks and these contributions are like patches on a football –if you stitch them together with a command structure and warning systems it will create a ball with which you can play the collective defense game. But if one nation does not contribute its fair share, then the football is deflated and unplayable.”
When this war broke out, the Czech Republic was in the process of modernizing its army. How was that process impacted by the war?
“The Czech Republic has been in the process of modernizing its armed forces for as long as I remember. The problem was that when we entered NATO we spent 2 percent of GDP on defense, but then somehow the priorities shifted and we created a huge debt. So I don’t envy my good friend and chief of defense, Karel Řehka his role, because he inherited a work in progress. But the whole ministry, him included, is doing its utmost to bring these projects up to speed. The new infantry vehicles we are buying, the F35 fighter jets and all the other big procurements will put our defense on a 21st century footing.”
You said Europe had woken up from its dream of peace. Is this new threat affecting decisions on what to purchase and what the country’s role will be in NATO defense structures?
“It does. And it is not a new threat, it is an old-new threat. The whole existence of NATO within the previous 50 years was basically about keeping Russia out. But the threat is always evolving and changing and now we see how Ukrainians were quick to adapt in introducing certain novelties into warfare. Heavy use of small drones for example, the data they gather is used in cloud computing to determine the targets, the lines of communication and command systems are shortening up, so the whole system is more agile. We need to implement those into our war effort. We know how Russia fights, how Russia adapts – even though at a slower pace – and we will see how the Russian industrial base works.
Russian society prides itself on being the most resilient and able to suffer. But who wants human beings to suffer? It is only the Russians who pride themselves on their tolerance to pain.
“And it is not good news for Russia, because they are losing, they are losing markets, they are losing weapons and they are losing the cohesion of the Russian society, even though not as fast as some might think, because Russian society prides itself on being the most resilient and able to suffer. But who wants human beings to suffer? It is only the Russians who pride themselves in this being their main advantage –their tolerance to pain.”
Have efforts to isolate Russia been successful? NATO and the EU have been pushing to get other big players behind them in this effort –China, India, Brazil – has that been successful?
The political isolation of Russia is a slightly different story from the economic sanctions, which is still a work in progress and the whole counter push – the enlargement of BRICS –should wake us up again.
“The political isolation of Russia is a slightly different story from the economic sanctions, which is still a work in progress and the whole counter push –which you are hinting at – the enlargement of BRICS –should wake us up again. Because the West was always confident that it would be our decision to dictate the initiative and tempo of world affairs –now we have to earn it. The other actors and players are trying to put their agenda in motion and we have to respond. We have to regain the right to shape up the world order again. And we are responding by allowing others, who are committed enough and can contribute to our alliances and integration efforts to join in –Ukraine included. And so far we are successful. The number of countries that are trying to enter Euro-Atlantic structures is still far bigger than the number of countries trying to join the Russian defense pact called CSTO. They lost three members in the last 20 years, NATO gained some in that period.”
You said we have to win. Obviously NATO is helping Ukraine, but at the same time it is careful not to get directly involved in the conflict. Is this a war that is likely to drag for years and years?
A frozen conflict can lead to frozen parts of Ukraine being part of Russia. You know what they say – that “peacekeeping” in Russian terms is getting pieces of other countries and keeping them for their own “security purposes”.
“The problem with the “frozen conflict” is that it benefits Russia to force us to think this way. Who can predict the future? Nobody. It is detrimental if you already constrain your strategic thinking in pre-determining that this will be a frozen conflict. Because a frozen conflict can lead to frozen parts of Ukraine being part of Russia. You know what they say – that peacekeeping in Russian terms is getting pieces of other countries and keeping them for their own security purposes. So that is not exactly what will send the right signal to the world about the use of force. We should not be forced to constrain our outlooks by the vision of a prolonged conflict.
“The front in Ukraine is not worse, than it was a couple of months ago. The Ukrainians were already able to recover more than 50 percent of the occupied territory in a flash campaign and now they are probing and searching where they can be successful within the offensive. There is still time and certain positive news is coming every day –the big question of the current state of the offensive is, of course, its cost. The cost is – for good reason – not public information. So we should be careful about dictating the pace or judging the offensive from our side. Our people are not dying in it. Our equipment is only helping Ukrainians to succeed. So we should be careful, we should give Ukraine the comfort of time and the comfort of stable help.
We should be careful about dictating the pace or judging the offensive from our side. Our people are not dying in it. Our equipment is only helping Ukrainians to succeed. We should give Ukraine the comfort of time and the comfort of stable help.
“And that is exactly where we are aiming in this format larger than NATO, either the Ramstein group or the G7 initiative which will also include the post-war reconstruction and by keeping NATO out of it –which is for the benefit of everyone – we are showing some strategic oversight and patience. And that is the US role, to basically isolate and secure the whole Euro-Atlantic space in terms of NATO membership. And now, in Europe it is 95 percent of European nations. Only 5 percent are outside of NATO, throughout the continent, not just the EU. And the main role is to keep this area stable and able to generate the economic and industrial output that will help Ukraine. Because without this, the other wouldn’t be possible. And it is also important to gather a larger coalition including the Pacific.
“Today we met colleague ambassadors posted around the world and we saw that our agenda is so much intertwined –the ambassadors from Africa, the Indo-Pacific – we are all talking about the same topics, trying to put the diplomacy to good use to win this pivotal situation which will shape the security of the 21st century.”
How does NATO view President Zelensky’s peace plan? Is the plan realistic, given the circumstances?
“It is the only one worth talking about on the table right now. It is good that we are listening to others who have their views on the war. For example, the Jeddah meeting was a success in that countries like China and India joined our ranks. But Zelensky’s plan is important because it is the only country that can determine what is the just outcome of this war. It is not Hungary (I refer to the latest remarks of President Orban) who will set the tone in terms of what territory should be ceded for what purposes. It is inappropriate to talk about these things from the perspective of a different country than Ukraine. So at least one half of the whole, which we need to get together –which is Ukraine – is there and the points in the plan cover things that are important to deter future aggressions and future dictators from adventures such as this, because there is a part about punishment of war crimes. So it is a good plan and it is a maximalist view of a country which has become the victim of aggression. We always need to see the beginning of the war as something that should determine the outcome and the beginning was a blatant aggression of a stronger country against a smaller neighbor.”
Is the NATO-Ukraine council proving affective?
“It is. We already had a meeting concerning the grain deal and the situation around grain exports via the Black Sea. The Ukrainians called it up, it was set up very quickly and I think it will be a very useful and also practical platform to exchange views on many matters, day-to-day issues, but also the question of Ukrainian membership as the ultimate question to be addressed together with Ukraine. And the format is very good. It is no longer Ukraine as a pupil and the allies as examiners of their effort – it is all of us together, in alphabetical order with Ian Stoltenberg presiding, and it is really collegial, so I think it works.”
There has been talk of Putin being replaced by another dictator, the possibility of civil war breaking out in Russia. The country does not have a history of democracy. When you are discussing this war with NATO officials – what is the worst-case scenario and what is the best we can hope for in terms of developments?
When Russia wins a war – even a just war against Nazi Germany – we know what it means. We lost our freedom because we were part of the “land grab” that Russia always associates with victory.
“In history always, when Russia loses a war there is a chance it will bring about change – but there is no guarantee it will be a change for the better. After every lost war – including the Crimea war in 1853 to 1856 when they abolished serfdom and WWI when they turned to communism there was a change. If Russia wins a war – even a just war against Nazi Germany – we know what it means. We lost our freedom because we were part of the “land grab” that Russia always associates with victory. So the worst case scenario is that Russia wins its war of conquest –for us and for the world as such.
“On the other hand, the best-case scenario is stability and ability of nations to decide freely where they belong, their fate and their role in the world. Without a forcible reaction from their stronger neighbors.
But what would have to happen in Russia for that to materialize? What is the best possible scenario that could evolve in Russia?
“Russia should either externally lose the right to meddle with other sovereign nations –so it needs to be weak – or it should change into a constructive player. Russia should find its own place in the world. Russia is always claiming that they need to push through to the world oceans –through the Baltics or the Black Sea. This is already lost! Turkey closed the Black Sea straits at the beginning of the war. NATO can close the Baltic Sea even now – even before Sweden is fully integrated into the alliance. So this is not a good way to be important in the world. The Far East –Archangelsk and all these Pacific ports (and we are all talking about the shift of the pivot of world power to the Pacific) that is the way for Russia to be important, maybe in a more friendly manner. But, the Russian push to the West created a result which will make Russia weaker, the West stronger and all of us safer.”
What will be the impacts of this conflict – political, military, economic…are we looking at monumental changes to come?
“I hope not monumental changes. I think the world does not need monumental changes. It needs stability, predictability, order and basic security. And we will have other problems to invest in. Security is never really cheap. People are talking about the amount of money being sent in aid of Ukraine. But just imagine, in Afghanistan we spent –or the US alone spent 300 million US dollars per day! Two trillion dollars in 20 years! The result is a question of historic debate – I don’t think it is really good - at least it kept NATO in shape – but nobody was complaining about it. And here we have a nation that fulfils the requirements for reconfirming, reinstating the ability of smaller nations to fend off aggression and the Ukrainians are really using these weapons skillfully for their own defense. And it is not as expensive as Afghanistan. We live in a world where we will always have to invest part of our national gains and GDP into our security. That’s given. And if we do it skillfully, the world will be in better shape than if we omit it and live in a dream of eternal peace without any effort spent on it.”
Finally what is the biggest challenge ahead of NATO today – in terms of strategy, so as to win this war?
“We have been really good at forging political consensus, we have been really good at getting together the necessary financial means, and now we face the demanding business of turning this political will and money into a functional defense security framework and system for the 21st century and that’s a lot of work for the years ahead! Thankfully, Ukraine has given us time. Because Russia is not in a position to start a major war with the West in the upcoming years and that’s also thanks to the Ukrainian brave defense. We need to spend this money and time wisely to create a world in which we can turn our attention to other problems of the planet and the wellbeing of society. There are many things for humanity to solve and fighting each other is not the right way to spend our time and energy. Also, in biology for example, animals are usually territorial. Even if they are weaker, they will fight for their own territory. If they try to flee they will hit someone else’s territory and this would create a flux, chaos in the world. So it is good to be defending your own country and sending a signal that you will do so and stand your ground for the stability of the whole global system.“
