“We can’t be sure that something or someone will be able to keep Erdogan in check, so he went into his manic fight with the Kurds too far,” says former Military intelligence chief and analyst at security Andor Sandor (Andor Šándor). According to him, Russia has managed a triumphant return to the international scene thanks to the disastrous United States policy in the middle East and especially in Syria. The Russians took advantage of that. In an interview with “Parlamentni leaves” Sandor also said that Syrian Kurds basically have no other way but to negotiate with Bashar al-Assad and Russia. And all because of the actions of the United States. The expert also warned that the conflict could go beyond the limits of 30-km zone.Parlamentní listy: Turkey has decided to use military force in Syria that, according to the Turkish leadership, to create a zone for migrants. The United States, headed by Donald trump protest. As the decision of Turkey determines its policy? And what do You think about the accusations against the US that they betrayed the Kurds?Andor Sandor: I would say that the Turkish policy in the middle East, primarily in Syria have long understood. The main role it plays is the biggest problem, which is Turkey in the middle East. I’m talking about maniacal hatred of the Kurds. Turkey fears any step of a particular Kurdish community (in this case, Syrian) to independence. It will inevitably affect the Kurdish minority in Turkey, with which it many years struggling. This fight has killed 40 thousand of the Kurds, which Turkey indiscriminately called terrorists and mercilessly destroys. The international community is silent.The fact that Turkey uses military force on the territory of independent state, i.e. Syria, only proves the helplessness of UN policy and resolutions of the UN security Council (by the way, it is strange that in connection with what is happening it has not adopted a single resolution). In my opinion, we are witnessing another violation of international law. Also I see here a confirmation of the fact that Ankara has long been behaving not as a member of the Alliance. Today it is much closer to Tehran and Riyadh than, say, Berlin or Paris. The Turks never eager to fight with the “Islamic state” (banned in Russia — approx. ed.), which is fighting in Syria with the Syrian Kurds, reduced the chances of their emancipation, and therefore the Turks could sleep peacefully. Turkey has such a large army (the second largest in NATO), so that if Ankara wanted to, just would be defeated “Islamic state”. But no, sincere desire to do it she had, though the words are all different.Turkey behaves as accepted in the middle East, in accordance with the proverb “the enemy of my Enemy is my friend”. I think Turkey wants to pursue its policy in the region, not looking at anyone. However, it is something that relates to the conflict in Syria, consults with Iran and with Russia. His resolute policy, which, apparently, satisfied with trump, Turkey managed to get US concessions. That is why the US left the Kurds to their fate and unleashed Turkey’s hands, so she created a safety zone with a width of 30 kilometers, which, by the way, began to return Syrian refugees and they are now in Turkey, more than three million. At home Donald trump have come under pressure and criticism for betraying the closest of his allies, and he strongly declared their intention to destroy the Turkish economy, if the Turks will go to far. However, it is not clear what is meant by “overload”. A somewhat vague warning. However, it is clear that, according to trump, the Turkish action should not affect American forces. Don’t know whether this is due to the announcement of the final withdrawal of American troops from Syria. But it is expected that Donald trump, despite all his efforts have not led to success, wants to win at least one foreign victory ahead of the elections that are coming next year. And now he will be able to say: “I back our guys from Syria, as promised during the election campaign.” Actually, the American contingent in Syria today is very small.I want to mention something else. The disastrous United States policy in the middle East and especially in Syria, unfortunately, has made possible the triumphant return of Russia on the international arena and caused a further aggravation of the problems in the middle East. The Russians got a chance to take root in this troubled region. The situation is very helped the Russians to retain two Syrian base in Tartus and Latakia. Also Russia got the opportunity to try out new weapons. Of course, the testing of weapons in combat helped the Russians to expand their trading potential. Future buyers can see, as they always want that Russian weapons have passed baptism of fire and proven.United States policy in the Middle East continues to deteriorate, and the question remains what she will eventually lead. I think (and I am afraid of this), it will lead to another round of chaos and problems in the region.— Syrian Kurds, according to recent reports, has teamed up with Bashar Assad. This was to be expected?— United States policy in the middle East and in Syria, first of all, pushing some of the subjects into the arms of others — those with whom in other circumstances they would not co-operate. We have seen this during as I have said, a triumphant return to the arena of foreign policy of the Russian Federation, which supported Bashar al-Assad. And now we see it again, because the Kurds don’t have anyone to operate, so they negotiate with the government of Bashar Assad. This Covenant is not for love. In the first place here — pragmatics, because other way the Kurds do not have. They also can still attract Russia, and then the destructive policy of the United States in the middle East, primarily in Syria, will peak. I think today we do not fully understand and do not see the border, which Turkey does not have to go out, otherwise, as said trump, “aggressive” and will be destroyed. But who exactly will set this boundary? And where the reaction of Damascus and the rest?In addition to the picture of chaos I want to mention the visit of Jens Stoltenberg (NATO Secretary General — approx. author) in Turkey. There he met with the Minister of foreign Affairs. I understand that this is a diplomatic case, but how can the Secretary-General of the Alliance to be sensitive to the interests of Turkey in the field of security and methods of achieving them, if they are the opposite of the Washington Treaty and the first article. And all the NATO countries agree to solve disputes peacefully.It is obvious that Turkey does not behave as a country-member of NATO, yet some of the politicians of NATO member States sympathetic to her actions. However, it is worth emphasizing that France and Germany almost at the same time forbidden to sell weapons to Turkey and urged her to stop the aggression. The question is, will listen it.— How do You see future events?— In my opinion, everything goes to the fact that the conflict is not limited to 30-kilometer area in the North of Syria. In allying with the Kurds, Assad makes it clear that he intends to play on the nerves of the international community. There is a threat that will start a full-scale war, because by and large we are talking about the aggression of the country-member of NATO on the territory of another independent state, even more recently, and engulfed in civil war. Syria is clearly intended to be protected, including those that will play on the nerves of the international community, threatening full-scale war. The Alliance with the Kurds (I don’t know how far are willing to go Syria) can extend the conflict, and he will go beyond the 30-kilometer zone. We can’t be sure that something or someone will be able to keep Erdogan in check, so he went into his manic fight with the Kurds too far— Two months ago terminated the Russian-American agreement on the elimination of intermediate and short range, which forbade both sides to produce ballistic missiles with range from 500 up to 5,5 thousand kilometers. The contract lasted for 32 years. Just a few days after his release from contract both parties have conducted missile tests. Whether the whole world was under threat, as is often said in discussions?— I am convinced that the agreement was impossible to stop. I have heard accusations against Russia for breach of contract, but now I have no way to check whether Russia has violated. So I don’t want unsubstantiated claim that charges were or were not justified. However, I believe that it was worth it to try to negotiate, because to restore a similar agreement to include other countries, such as China, will be a lot harder than Supplement the former. And this is a fact.I’m not sure that the parties sought to negotiate. Unfortunately, it all happened in a moment when Donald trump has a very limited space for maneuver in terms of relations with Russia. It restricts Congress sometimes hysterical, crazed American media, and echo the work of the Commission Muller. I do not think that due to the termination of the agreement sharply reduced the safety of all of these rockets existed for a long time. It is unlikely that they will rapidly and massively to place everywhere, that really worsened the situation in the field of security. I hope that both sides will continue to exercise restraint and not escalate the situation. At least I see no political desire to do so.— The President of Russia Vladimir Putin sent a letter to world politicians, including representatives of member countries of the Alliance. In it, he proposed to introduce a moratorium on the placement of intermediate-range and short range in Europe. But, as writes “Kommersant”, in European capitals this sentence enthusiasm did not cause, as Moscow, according to NATO, has placed the missiles on its territory. Was there a sense from this call? And what, in addition to outright distrust, evidenced by this story?— Western countries believe, echoing primarily the United States that this type of Russian missiles already placed, for example, in Kaliningrad. It is unknown whether they exceed the range of 500 kilometers, is, according to the Russians themselves, only 490 miles. It’s hard to judge how things really are. Distrust of Russia for a long time. How it is justified, each of the parties, of course, looking my way. Someone sees Russia as the embodiment of all the bad and who is good. I would here caution and tried to look at Russian politics, Russia’s reaction to Western policies. Defending Russia reacts aggressively, including expansion of NATO, and resorted to measures which, in her opinion, help her to withstand the most serious threat to her (and again this is the North Atlantic Alliance). Of course, we, and other NATO countries remains a painful question: why, after almost 30 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, we did not manage to convince Russia that we are not her enemies?A simple answer like: “the Kremlin has always needed an external enemy,” it seems to me hasty and erroneous. Need to go back to the period of German unification (we recently celebrated his anniversary). Then the Soviet Union, being one of the victors of the Second world war and a signatory to the Potsdam Declaration, was forced to agree to the unification of Germany. In this regard, Chancellor Kohl, as well as the United States assured Gorbachev that not a single NATO soldier on the territory of the former GDR will not appear.Now, however, the Alliance approached the Russian borders, and Russia apparently regards it as a threat. The question arises whether the expansion of NATO violation of the word of the Soviet Union? Perhaps the West flagrantly disregarded Russian interests in the area of security? And did this step actually enhance security in Europe? Let the readers have answered these questions.— Putin’s initiative in the Czech Republic openly supported the party “Freedom and direct democracy”, which published the post on Facebook: “most of the nuclear conflict between the powers would suffer we, the people of Central Europe.” Then the recording said the General staff officer of Army of the Czech Republic Otakar of Foltyn, which is not quite usual. “I’ll share, because everyone understands that collaboration with authoritarian regimes our country has swallowed enough.” Otakar of Foltyn sure that such messages party “Freedom and direct democracy” itself discreditied. Whether approval of Putin’s call is a manifestation of collaboration and nizkopoklonnichestva to Russia?— I would like to encourage the dialogue (since we consider ourselves to be Democrats) to refrain from words like “collaborator”, “traitor”, “agent”, “Troll”, “elf”, and other disgusting labels that have spread in the public consciousness, especially among “the whistleblowers”, “gavrailov” (fans of václav Havel approx. transl.) representatives of the so-called Prague pub. This is to ensure that our discussions were substantive, and did not go beyond the limits of decency. Although some people will need to make an effort.I don’t think primarily from missile and nuclear conflict between the United States and Russia would suffer Central Europe. The objectives would be, first of all, objects in Russia and the United States. It is unlikely in the case of missile and nuclear strikes Russia would inflict a retaliatory strike against Prague. In my opinion, it’s just nonsense. Of course, due to radioactive contamination and other consequences, our country would have been under threat. Remember the Chernobyl accident, the consequences of which are felt then Czechoslovakia. Of course, all would depend on the scale of the impact, nevertheless the main purpose would be urban agglomerations and military bases and other important facilities on both sides of the Atlantic. Central Europe would suffer in the second place, and I don’t doubt it. Therefore, be comforted by the fact that a nuclear conflict between Russia and the United States will not affect us, it would also be a big mistake. In General, it is quite clear that unlimited conflict would threaten the entire world.— The movement “Freedom and direct democracy” headed by Tomio Okamura wants the Czech Republic has pursued an independent policy in the field of security without regard for NATO. “Our movement is also required to form its own foreign policy and the CR policy in the sphere of security. Today it is almost nonexistent, and we were completely at the mercy of the globalists of the European Union and the USA”, — is spoken in the statement “Freedom and direct democracy”. What do You think?— We come to this. We are a member of the Alliance. We had great efforts to join it, and many generations have wanted since at least 1968. It’s hard for me to imagine being in NATO, we have conducted defense policy, which would differ from the policy of the Alliance. As for the European Union, which boasted that pursues a common foreign policy and policy in the field of security that I will highlight are words that have no relation to reality. Therefore, against this background, we too stand the lack of defence policy. I apologize for the intentional exaggeration. Generally, if we support some common values of Europe, we should not focus on different ideals.Perhaps the representatives of the party “Justice and direct democracy” meant what in the name of our status in Europe and the vital interests that we should maintain good relations both with the West and the East. However, I don’t want to speak for them. I am not a member of the party, and do not presume to interpret policy. And I still think that this is the way we should go and support him should all the representatives of the political spectrum. In my opinion (and in the statement of the representatives of the party “Justice and direct democracy” there’s no mention), we need not consider the armed forces of the Czech Republic as part of the Alliance. They are the attribute of independence of the Czech Republic. We cannot transform the army in a free many expeditionary units attached to German divisions, then to the Polish. In the army you need to see the Armed forces of the Czech Republic. They need to organize, train, equip with the expectation that we will apply them as a single unit. And now we shattered the army on a separate expeditionary force. We are, as they should, reliable component of NATO and the European Union, but this does not mean that we cannot treat the army as I said.