Doctor, how do you see the development of the war in Ukraine in relation to the attitudes of the West and the Czech Republic? A week ago we had a long and confusing debate in the Chamber of Debates about who or what constitutes a security threat to the state.
Questionnaire
Andrej Babiš affecting the Czech Republic?
Voted by: 5578 people
After the irrational debate in the Lower House last week, I would appreciate President Pavle's statement on Ukraine. He recently laid out his position that diplomacy should go hand in hand with military aid, which we widely support in our country. This seems to me to be a sentence that raises the level of Czech debate. I'm a bit curious, given what happened in the House of Commons, where they were looking for who was saying something orthodox, orthodox and not already allowed.
If the President's statement comes from another mouth, it will be labeled as a security risk. However, in this case, Peter Powell is right, everyone should see it. It is clear that we will face a kind of new Cold War, where the main enemy is not Russia, but China, and the Russians will be more in the position of a junior ally. Although China is not involved in the conflict in Ukraine and tries to maintain a certain distance, no matter how much it supports Russia in the economic sphere, it is actually China that Russia cannot wage a war with. It is essential.
So do you think we should prepare for a new Iron Curtain?
I see it so that the new curtain will not be iron, but rather a digital-financial curtain with separate systems, in which there will be a new format for changing crisis topics. It will be a kind of chain of crisis areas in the world. It may not be a military matter, but often a question of very difficult negotiations, the success of which depends on diplomacy. We cannot for one moment allow a conflict that returns to what we experienced in the 20th century. It threatens the entire planet.
If the president mentions diplomacy as part of a solution to the conflict, that's an absolute necessity, not just what's happening in Ukraine. World conflicts cannot be resolved without diplomacy. If the House had approved this since last week, we could have avoided all the irrational talk that took place there.
Photo Gallery: – Specializing in Security Threats
Those who write opinions that disagree with the government's point of view often face not only criticism but also attempts to outlaw what they say. For example, words about reconciliation in Ukraine. But then the president comes along and he actually says the same thing and doesn't face anything like that, but at the same time it's not even up for debate. What does it all mean?
Nothing speaks better of government incompetence than what has happened to me over the past few days. The government itself is subject to misinformation and wants to fight it. EU Minister Dvořák commented on my non-existent statements and attacked them in a very brutal way. The problem is, they are not my statements. He himself succumbed to easily identifiable disinformation channels. Nothing better portrays the government's incompetence. The whole thing was ridiculous because I still had to explain that I never said those words. This means on the government's part that it wants to stamp out any opposition while using the stickers as a security threat. But, on the contrary, the government did not realize the efforts to eliminate the opposition by using stickers. Or finding statements that the person concerned did not make, but they start fighting against them is a real threat to democracy.
We are faced with an unnecessary expansion of debate that a rational debate can hardly hold. I consider it a huge failure for the government to use misinformation to discredit someone. All of this takes away from the more serious things we need to talk about.
What topics are on your mind?
Questionnaire
Which leader do you have the most confidence in?
Voted by: 36087 people
For example, the government's attempt to abolish the guaranteed wage, which is part of the minimum wage system, will have a huge impact on many people. It is a dangerous policy to pursue cheap wages that stifle consumption and ultimately economic growth in this country. The government continues policies that erode the middle class and prevent the situation from changing for the better from a major decline in family living standards.
I see these as big issues, but instead the government engages in wars, the end of which is to destroy, to destroy opposition based on being labeled as a security threat. We keep hearing how populists threaten liberal democracy, but I would say that this very effort by the government is a threat to democracy, and for one simple reason. Democracy is unthinkable without opposition. The opposition parties here cannot open their mouths without someone trying to discredit and disqualify them as a threat to the government.
Some commentators saw the government's labeling of a section of the opposition as a security threat as problematic because it was not a legitimate partner and did not need to talk to them.
This is precisely why the government is relegating the entire opposition to some sort of extremist corner. They still need to start shutting it down because if someone threatens the state, we have no mercy on them. With this move, the government found an excuse not to talk to the opposition and not take it seriously. They want us to repeat after them the canonical basic sentences that they themselves set up in their view. If we do not repeat this after the government, we will be removed as a radical, populist and dangerous group for the state. The government does not recognize legitimate opposition in the House and fits the role of the sole guarantor of democratic development, and anything beyond them is a threat. They are actually creating a battlefield that denies democracy.
They may say that we are in an extraordinary situation, and that dissenting opinions cannot be tolerated now as in peacetime, and that each must repeat the facts he has stated. The problem is that if someone wants us to draw the line, it doesn't have much to do with democracy.
Photo Gallery:- We reject dismissal without assigning any reason
Do you think we are that far? Not apologizing for putting false statements in your mouth?
Minister Dvorak commented somewhere that I may not have said that sentence, but I still want to say it. do you understand I'd say he looks like that if I could. Ridiculous arrogance. I also read somewhere that it was said that we currently have no strategy and no goals in Ukraine. “Okay, but I'm not saying this sentence as my own about the lack of a goal and strategy, but a direct quote from a statement by Foreign Minister John Lipowski,” Braw said in an interview. He noted that because the big players don't like discussion, we don't have a clear strategy and objective of what we are striving for, and thus both of us are confused as to what we want to achieve. Tactically and morally. It's a literal quote.
I pointed out these statements of the Minister, which were serious and interested me. I have allowed a lot when quoting the statements of the Minister of External Affairs. Although the minister said, this may be a sentence that is not allowed to be quoted. I should not quote the President's statement about the fact that not only arms delivery but diplomacy should be a part of it at the same time. You understand, the minister or the president can say something, but if you are an opposition party or from the opposite camp of the government, they say we are not allowed to say it. This is Kokurkov. Above all, I think all this shows the complete incompetence of the government. How to trust them when they themselves are victims of misinformation. They eliminate any decent and rational debate. The government should wake up and start listening to those who are trying to tell many things that it is not as simple as they say.
Ukraine (War in Ukraine)
Reports from the battlefield are difficult to verify in real time from whichever side of the conflict. Both the warring parties may, for understandable reasons, publish false (false) information in whole or in part.
PL editorial content discussing this conflict can be found on this page.
Author: I like toys
