Speaker 1: Bloomberg, Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2: Czech Republic prism Petter Povel says he believes his country
Speaker 2: will adot the Euro, but it will take some time.
Speaker 2: He spoke exclusively to Bloomberg's critique dub a subject that
Speaker 2: has been a point of contention here in the Czech Republic,
Speaker 2: which is, of course, the Euro and the potential adoption
Speaker 2: of the Euro. You've talked about this and reopened the debate,
Speaker 2: and I'm curious where you think that debate is going.
Speaker 1: This debate has become truly emotional and irrational. My simple
Speaker 1: argument to our population is that we are dependent on
Speaker 1: your zone, if you like it or not, most of
Speaker 1: our trade is with the euro Zone, and in that sense,
Speaker 1: it doesn't make too much sense. When Eurozone discusses future
Speaker 1: steps and rules, we are behind the door. The sentiments
Speaker 1: are mostly negative because people were told by a number
Speaker 1: of politicians that by adopting Euro they will become poorer
Speaker 1: and everything will be more expensive and we will have
Speaker 1: no freedom and autonomy to adjust the courses. In reality,
Speaker 1: the room for adjusting courses with our own currency is
Speaker 1: so narrow that it really doesn't make too much benefit.
Speaker 1: So sooner or later. I believe that rational reasons will
Speaker 1: bring us to the adoption of Europe, but it will
Speaker 1: take some time.
Speaker 2: How can you sway public opinion from your perch.
Speaker 1: I would say by pointing to examples of countries which
Speaker 1: are often visited by our citizens, like Slovakia. Now Bulgaria
Speaker 1: will also become a country of herosone. And of course
Speaker 1: we look at these countries as some that followed the
Speaker 1: same destiny as we did in the past, and I
Speaker 1: believe if they are successful in adopting euro then why
Speaker 1: shouldn't do we.
Speaker 2: A lot of the strength of the euro at the moment,
Speaker 2: unprecedented strength through the momentum in the last couple of months,
Speaker 2: has come as a reaction function to two key factors,
Speaker 2: and that is perhaps policy decisions coming out of the
Speaker 2: United States and also a massive fiscal impulse from from
Speaker 2: Germany and other countries. As across Europe, where do you
Speaker 2: feel like perhaps the risk is largest from the west
Speaker 2: or from the east.
Speaker 1: They are different these pressures. On the one hand, from
Speaker 1: the East we face a tremendous security pressure, while from
Speaker 1: the West special especially from the United States, it's more
Speaker 1: political financial. Both of these pressures should lead us to
Speaker 1: an understanding that we shouldn't behave as a spoiled child,
Speaker 1: that we have to take care about ourselves economically, politically, diplomatically,
Speaker 1: and even military wise. And in that sense, I feel
Speaker 1: a growing understanding that Europe has to take its own
Speaker 1: destiny to our own hands and to develop our own
Speaker 1: capacities for defense, to develop a further common market, make
Speaker 1: it more efficient and flexible so that we can face
Speaker 1: pressures from any side, and at the same time that
Speaker 1: Europeans should become our own zone of influence.
Speaker 2: The Czech Republic has been crucial in some of that
Speaker 2: aid that you're referencing in terms of Ukraine, specifically in
Speaker 2: the field of ammunition and coordinating some of that. Can
Speaker 2: you talk us about the goals there and what that
Speaker 2: procurement plan basically looks like into going into this year
Speaker 2: but also into twenty twenty six.
Speaker 1: The primary reason for initiating this activity to provide Ukraine
Speaker 1: with ammunition was a feeling of frustration that we cannot
Speaker 1: give them more from our own resources. But we knew
Speaker 1: where this ammunition was to be found, and we found
Speaker 1: the ways and procedures how to deliver it, and we
Speaker 1: got in tounship with partners who were willing to provide
Speaker 1: financial resources and have an oversight of the overall activity.
Speaker 1: And in the meantime we have developed a procedure with
Speaker 1: the involvement of number of allies who are providing significant resources,
Speaker 1: we can ensure a study flow of so much needed
Speaker 1: ammunition to Ukraine. This year, we will't be able to
Speaker 1: guarante the one point eight million rounds of large caliber
Speaker 1: ammunition in average at about eighty thousand rounds one fifty
Speaker 1: five caliber every month, which gives Ukraine a sense of
Speaker 1: stability and guarantee, and of course it gives them clear
Speaker 1: parameters for planning. And we will continue continue that not
Speaker 1: only through this year, but we are also ready to
Speaker 1: continue next year if necessary.
Speaker 2: So it suffice to say that there is a possibility
Speaker 2: this war extends into into twenty twenty six, despite efforts
Speaker 2: from around the world to find a peaceful solution. Talk
Speaker 2: to us about what a peaceful solution looks like.
Speaker 1: I think many of us wish Ukraine in the best
Speaker 1: that means full restoration of their territory, integrity and sovereignty.
Speaker 1: But we are also realistic and we see that it
Speaker 1: will not be possible in full. And that's why we
Speaker 1: understand that part of the territory will be for some
Speaker 1: time temporarily occupied by Russia and that there will be
Speaker 1: necessary concession to be made by Ukraine. But at the
Speaker 1: same time, now I mean all the countries supporting Ukraine,
Speaker 1: we should all collectively strive for the best possible result
Speaker 1: for Ukraine that will be as just for Ukraine as possible,
Speaker 1: recognizing that Russia is an aggressor and Ukraine is a victim,
Speaker 1: and aggressor shouldn't be rewarded for his aggression. And that's
Speaker 1: why we shouldn't allow the situation where Russia would clearly
Speaker 1: declare the victory by imposing all other conditions and Ukraine
Speaker 1: losing almost everything.
Speaker 2: Is a peaceful solution something that can be found without
Speaker 2: the support of the United States. Is this something that
Speaker 2: you're leaders can achieve.
Speaker 1: I don't think so. Russia is a country that respects
Speaker 1: power in all senses of definition, and they see the
Speaker 1: power in the United States, not in Europe. And President
Speaker 1: put In clearly shows that he is only ready to
Speaker 1: talk to his counterpart in the United States, regardless what
Speaker 1: European leaders think. I believe that in that sense, we
Speaker 1: have to coordinate very closely with the United States because
Speaker 1: it is also in their interest not to let Russia
Speaker 1: prevail in this conflict, because otherwise they would see it
Speaker 1: as a confirmation of their approach to foreign policy, to
Speaker 1: their security requirements, and sooner or later it will turn
Speaker 1: against the interests of the United States. That's why we
Speaker 1: are trying to coordinate as much as possible with the
Speaker 1: United States. Our views make our American alliance understanding the
Speaker 1: context in which this war isn't going and what different
Speaker 1: outcomes would mean for United States as well as for
Speaker 1: Europe and the world. Right now, I believe there are
Speaker 1: two major avenues how to push Russia to the table.
Speaker 1: One is obviously on the battlefield, supporting Ukraine militarily and
Speaker 1: financially to hold the territory and hold the defense strong
Speaker 1: to create conditions for peace negotiations that will be favorable
Speaker 1: for Ukraine. And on the other hand, and it's even
Speaker 1: stronger in my view, it's economic and financial pressure on
Speaker 1: Russia to sit to the table because right now they
Speaker 1: are not showing any willingness to negotiate the piece because
Speaker 1: they still see that they can prevailer.
Speaker 2: In the interim. There has been a big conversation, of course,
Speaker 2: about defense spending and ramping it up across the European continent,
Speaker 2: perhaps creating or filling some of the gap that the
Speaker 2: United States has pulled out of ours astempting to pull
Speaker 2: out it. When it comes to NATO spending, I am
Speaker 2: curious though, how long that process will take. A defense
Speaker 2: ramp up, as you know from your former percheon NATO
Speaker 2: can take years. What can the EU and NATO do
Speaker 2: within the next couple of months to affect the outcome.
Speaker 1: Well, first, we will have to preserve unity a NATO
Speaker 1: summit in the Haguen couple of weeks to keep American
Speaker 1: allies engaged in Europe both politically and militarily. And we
Speaker 1: all understand that European allies will have to take a
Speaker 1: much greater responsibility for our own defense. But this transition,
Speaker 1: the handover of responsibility from the United States and more
Speaker 1: to Europeans, will require some time. And even if we
Speaker 1: adopt the decision to increase significantly defense pending, even if
Speaker 1: we apply all the measures of flexibility and efficiency, it
Speaker 1: will really take years to replace some of US strategic
Speaker 1: enablers such as strategic intelligence, communications, logistics, and some others,
Speaker 1: and of course, if we don't want any security gap
Speaker 1: to be created in Europe, we will have to seriously
Speaker 1: negotiate with our American allies about our good transition plan.
Speaker 1: What is realistic to achieve? I understand that United States
Speaker 1: will not try to exert pressure on Europeans to do
Speaker 1: it faster, but even if we do our best, we
Speaker 1: will not be able to do it in just a
Speaker 1: couple of months or or just units of years. Uh.
Speaker 1: Some like strategic intelligence and targeting will may easily try
Speaker 1: to take a decade to achieve that capability. But I
Speaker 1: truly believe that we can achieve good results if we
Speaker 1: have a good and coordinated plan.
Speaker 2: A final question to you, as you say that you
Speaker 2: will be attending that NATO summit, there are reports that
Speaker 2: Donald Trump will be attending as well. What do you
Speaker 2: expect to hear from President of the United States.
Speaker 1: I expect continuation of his approach from his first term,
Speaker 1: which I witnessed in person, uh, and it's even stronger
Speaker 1: now during his second term. He will be pushing on
Speaker 1: European allies and also on Canada to do more and faster.
Speaker 1: So we can expect the push for commitment to defense
Speaker 1: spending at five percent, we can expect some short timelines
Speaker 1: for taking over this responsibility. We can also expect more
Speaker 1: commitments from European allies in terms of support to Ukraine.
Speaker 1: But I personally don't expect any negative surprise because I
Speaker 1: believe that the agenda of the summit is deliberately kept
Speaker 1: to a minimum extent so that we have an agreement.
Speaker 1: And that's that's why I believe that the summit will
Speaker 1: nar iterate unity of NATO, commitment of the United States
Speaker 1: to Article five and a commitment of all of US
Speaker 1: to increase defense spending and overall capability for defense.
Speaker 2: We look forward to seeing what that NATO Summit brings present.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much for your time, a pleasure to
Speaker 2: have this conversation.
Speaker 1: Thank you