The Kremlin continues to wage a hybrid war against Ukraine, including on the information front. In this direction, Russia actively uses various types of opinion leaders in Western countries, primarily political scientists. It cannot be said that all of them are financially motivated, but for one reason or another, they all play along with the aggressor country.
One such expert is Oskar Krejčí, director of the Institute for Global Studies at Jan Amos Comenius University in Prague. It must be mentioned, that Oskar Krejčí often translated by Russian media as INOSMI.
«Drunken Europe and the end of Ukraine»
Krejci gave another completely pro-Russian interview to the influential Czech media ParlamentniListy. The expert began, as is done in such cases, with pseudo-humanistic considerations:
«The conflict is destroying Ukraine. No matter how it ends, Ukraine will lose hundreds of thousands of human lives; economic losses will be calculated in hundreds of billions of dollars; cultural life will be destroyed. On the other hand, Europe is intoxicated by the unity of the West, and it does not understand at all where it is going.»
The Czech political scientist then called the Revolution of Dignity a «coup d’état», just like the Russian pro-government media. Then there is a block of opinions about the reduction of the influence of the West in the world, especially the countries of the European Union, including his native Czech Republic. Also, according to the expert, the Russian Federation does not pose a military threat to Prague. And this is despite the fact that official Russian propaganda and even officials directly talk about the next goals after Ukraine, in particular, about Poland and the Baltic states — NATO countries. Another thing is that currently the wishes of the representatives of the Russian authorities do not match their capabilities, but denying the fact that Russia is an aggressor country and, accordingly, carries risks for the entire world is beyond the scope of understanding.
According to the Kremlin methodology, the expert continues to present arguments for the final conclusion: there is a war of devastation, a radical change at the front is impossible, the supply of Western weapons to Ukraine will not change anything, etc. The meaning of the key phrase of this interview can actually be guessed from the first words of Oscar Krejci:
«The most likely option for ending the armed conflict in Ukraine is the one associated with territorial concessions from Kyiv. And here, no mass media hysteria and ministerial protests will change anything. And it doesn’t matter what you or I want.»
The real situation differs from the vision of a political scientist
First, the so-called «conflict» has covered the entire Ukrainian-Russian border and has been going on for over a year. It is surprising that the political scientist did not call this war a «special military operation».
Secondly, the European Union is really more united than ever with one exception (Hungary) and knows perfectly well where it is going, and understands the level of threat posed by the aggressor state, the Russian Federation. That is why the red lines regarding the supply of certain types of weapons to Ukraine have been constantly shifting.
Thirdly and most importantly: according to Oscar Krejci, the most likely option for ending the armed conflict is unacceptable and completely unrealistic for the leadership of Ukraine, as the President of Ukraine has repeatedly said. Therefore, such analysis is nothing more than pro-Russian propaganda.
A political analyst, candidate of philosophical sciences, and associate professor of Kyiv National University named after Taras Shevchenko Valentyn Gladkyh believe that the technology of engaging scientists, journalists, and public opinion leaders to promote Russian narratives in the West will continue to be used:
«This tool has been used, is being used, and will be used. We must be ready to counter it. If at first, we won this information war, now, I think, the Russians have recovered a little and are beginning to actively mobilize available resources — media, opinion leaders, etc. But will they be able to achieve real success? No, they won’t be able to.»
According to Mykhailo Katsyn, political analyst, and candidate of sciences at the National University of Odesa Law Academy, Russia uses all available levers of influence, because the aggressors’ choices are quite limited:
«Russia is still trying to be guided in its policy by the old Soviet principle — ‘it is not important how they vote; it is important how they are counted.’ Defeats on the battlefields and the failed winter offensive, the aggressor state tries to compensate through agents of influence in the West by creating the perception of the need to negotiate to avoid an even greater escalation.
One such example is the Czech political scientist Oskar Krejci, who is a «no name» on a pan-European scale. But, as the second Ukrainian president said, «We have what we have.» Currently, only those experts who did not have any international reputation can work with the aggressor state, so they do not care about it. It is now absolutely necessary for Russia to obtain territorial concessions from Ukraine because otherwise, the regime of the dictator Putin will suffer the fate of the regimes of Ceausescu and Gaddafi. It is clear that Ukraine’s return of all temporarily occupied territories, including the annexed Crimea, will have serious consequences for the future of the aggressor state.»
Russia continues to wage war against Ukraine in the global information field. Such information attacks have two main goals: to make Europeans pessimistic about the outcome of the war and to try to sway Western political elites to put pressure on Ukraine to sit down at the negotiating table. Of course, on Russia’s terms, that is, with the renunciation of part of the territories. However, the year of the war has already shown the absolute futility of such information attacks, to which Ukraine responds with high-quality diplomacy and competent foreign information policy.