“Looking back, Russians were laughing at us”: Former ambassador to US and Russia Petr Kolář on Ukraine, NATO, and Czech security
Czech President Petr Pavel recently visited Ukraine. While there, he said that Czechia is ready to provide troops to Ukraine in case that a full ceasefire is agreed upon between Russia and Ukraine. The president also said that it’s likely that Ukraine will have to, at least temporarily, give up Russian-occupied territories to the invaders because of the logistical impossibility of recapturing them at this stage of the war. So, I sat down with Petr Kolář, advisor to Pavel, and former Czech ambassador to the US and Russia, to reflect on these comments and gauge his overall sense of what went wrong with EU-Russia relations.
So, you were Czech ambassador to the US from 2005 to 2010 and then to Russia from 2010 to 2012. How was your understanding changing at that time of Russia? There were a few things that happened from the war in Georgia to deteriorating minority rights, and more. Were you skeptical of Russia's democratic trajectory and how was that impression changing over the course of your time as a diplomat?
“Honestly, I have to confess that we were practically blind. We didn't want to see some things that were quite obvious. We Czechs, and all post-Communist countries, were more skeptical. But then, when President Barack Obama came into office, he came with the project of resetting relations with the Russian Federation. And we all, or at least I can speak for myself, believed that we should try—rather than showing a fist, we should extend a hand to cooperate. This ‘big hack’ was particularly focused on economic cooperation, where we, the Europeans and Americans, offered to help Russia restructure its economy. That’s because Russia’s economy was (and still is today) heavily dependent on fossil fuel exports, and we wanted to help them diversify. So, I thought to myself, ‘We should try.’ There were many delegations visiting Russia, offering our support.
“But, looking back from today's perspective, I can say that they were laughing at us. They saw us as naive, useful idiots who didn’t understand their mentality. We should have understood it better. For example, when Mr. Putin said at the Munich Security Conference in 2007 that the greatest tragedy of the 20th century was the collapse of the Soviet Union, we should have had our radars up and paid attention to what that message meant. Then, in 2008, Russia invaded Georgia after NATO had refused to offer Georgia the status of a candidate country for membership. This happened just months after the Bucharest Summit in the spring of 2008, and in August 2008, Russia invaded Georgia.
“Instead of showing them ‘the fist,’ we kept trying to please them with kindness, treating them as if they were an adolescent or a psychiatric patient who needed gentle handling so they would eventually understand that we weren’t enemies anymore. But they were laughing at us again. Mr. Putin was constantly testing us, pushing the limits of what we would allow him to do. The concrete result of this was the occupation of Crimea [in 2014].
“Later on, even when we stuck together and imposed sanctions on Russia, they were relatively weak. Then Russia, once again, showed us their true intentions. And in 2022, they invaded Ukraine. Since then, we have been trying not to be blind anymore. But unfortunately, the current situation in the transatlantic partnership and NATO is far from ideal."
So now you're saying that the bloc is more pragmatic, they have a pragmatic understanding of Ukraine-Russia relations, and also specifically of Russia. So, then turning to that, President Pavel said that in order to have military victory, there needs to be at least 3:1 or 5:1, even, ratio of troops for Ukraine over Russia. So he's settling basically that it is likely that there needs to be some understanding that temporarily, at least, Russia will occupy these regions [in eastern Ukraine]. What do you make of that? Is there consensus in the EU over a policy like that with Russia now?
"Well, I think that what President Pavel is saying is a rational and realistic reading of the situation. But that doesn’t mean we’re pleased with it or would welcome it. By the way, Germany was divided for more than forty years before being reunited. I believe that even part of Ukraine, which will likely remain occupied by the Russians—though I say this with deep sorrow, because it's not the goal we would strive for—might end up this way. But realistically, it’s probably how things will unfold.
“But this is ultimately up to Ukraine. No one can dictate what they should do. If Ukraine decides to make a strategic move and sacrifices at least part of its territory, there will likely be a new Iron Curtain. At that point, our soldiers will be desperately needed—not the Czech soldiers, but NATO soldiers. The question is whether American soldiers will be there, especially with President Donald Trump now questioning that very seriously. It’s really up to the Global North, not just Europe, but our allies in Australia, New Zealand, and Japan, who have indicated their willingness to help. Australia and New Zealand have already said they’re ready to send peacekeeping forces.
“We will probably need to stick to the Coalition of the Willing. The European Union is based on the slogan 'unity in diversity,' but I’m afraid in some cases, there's more diversity than unity. We have Hungary and Slovakia, who are probably unwilling to support any military forces [in Ukraine]. So we should build the Coalition of the Willing with countries like Great Britain and Norway, which are not EU members but are in NATO, along with Australia, New Zealand, and other countries that would like to participate.
“This is a likely scenario, and we need to be ready to show Russia and our allies in Ukraine that we care about the situation and are not just like [Winston] Chamberlain and [Édouard] Daladier, offering appeasement to Russia with idealistic and naive hopes that Russia will accept it. If you keep feeding the enemy, their appetite for more grows, so we need to be aware of that.”
You have been very critical of Trump's U-turn on traditional US foreign policy, where we see the US now cozying up to adversaries and ostracizing allies. What do you make of that shift?
“Well, I try to see the glass half-full, not half-empty, so I'm by nature quite optimistic and I say, well, we probably needed that shock. All American presidents, I remember, were telling us, ‘Guys, you in Europe, you should take more responsibility for your own security and defense.’ And we were quite ignorant, ‘black passenger,’ I would call it.
“So it's now up to us to really take it seriously, to build a strong European pillar of NATO and hope that the United States and their leadership would later on understand that this is a great value, that NATO is a great value. The predecessors of President Trump were building it with a clear vision that this is something that should bring peace to the world. And [NATO’s] a defensive organization.
“So let's concentrate on what we can influence, and this is the situation in Europe, and hope that American people will finally be able to persuade their leadership that this is the interest of the US as well. To have a strong NATO with the US leadership and the US hopefully will stay the leader of the free world. I would very much wish that. I would very much pray for that. But we have to be also prepared for the situation where the US would quit, and then it's up to us.”
