The Speaker of the upper chamber of the Czech Parliament is among the most consistent supporters of Ukraine. This is especially evident now, when statements by the new governing coalition and the majority in the lower house of the legislature have at times raised doubts about the future of Czech support for Ukraine. The shift is visible even in symbolic gestures: while Ukrainian flags have disappeared from some official buildings, they continue to fly over the Senate.
In an interview with Ukrinform, the the President of the Senate Miloš Vystrčil explained what the upper chamber is doing to maintain strong support for Ukraine, why he believes that Tomio Okamura will not succeed in halting assistance to Kyiv and reflected on the Czech Republic’s historical experience, which, in his view, leaves little room for illusions about how an aggressor behaves when not confronted He also outlined why he sees no risk of a repetition of the Munich betrayal this time around.
SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE HAS NOT CHANGED — THE PROBLEM LIES IN DOMESTIC POLITICS
Q: Mr. Speaker, this week the Senate adopted a resolution distancing itself from anti-Ukrainian statements made by the Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies, Tomio Okamura, and reaffirming for Ukraine.
A: In fact, the Senate adopted two resolutions.
The first concerned the Czech Republic and the Coalition of the Willing and was also linked to the Coalition’s meeting held on 6 January 2026. For the first time, Prime Minister Andrej Babiš attended that meeting and finally endorsed the ammunition initiative. As a result, the Czech Republic will continue to coordinate this effort, which I consider a good and appropriate step.
There was also a second resolution, submitted by several senators, including the leaders of Senate caucuses (party groups) from Civic Democratic Party (ODS), TOP 09, Christian and Democratic Union – Czechoslovak People's Party (KDU-ČSL) and Mayors and Independents (STAN). This demonstrates that the resolution genuinely reflects the position of parties that are currently in opposition.
In addition to rejecting Okamura’s statements regarding Ukraine and Brussels—describing them as both offensive and untrue—the resolution also expresses unequivocal support for Ukraine as a country that has been attacked. It further underscores the Senate’s firm belief that all key forms of support for Ukraine must be continued.
In the section addressing domestic developments, the resolutions also rejected certain statements made, for example, during the visit of the Czech Minister of Foreign Affairs to Ukraine—not by the minister himself, but by members of his delegation.
Another issue concerned the events in Vrbětice, where some deputies of the Chamber of Deputies from the SPD party (Freedom and Direct Democracy led by Tomio Okamura) have questioned the established fact that Russia’s GRU was behind the 2014 attack in Vrbětice.
The content of the resolutions, I would say, was intended to “correct” certain narratives.
Overall, the Senate has already adopted nearly fifteen resolutions expressing support for Ukraine, and articulating the Senate’s view on how we, as the Czech Republic, should approach assistance to Ukraine.
Q: We now see that the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate are taking different public positions. Do you believe that under such circumstances normal cooperation is possible between the Parliament of the Czech Republic as an institution and the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine?
A: I would not say that there is a clear-cut divergence between the positions of the two chambers. The reality is that people who currently dominate the Chamber of Deputies largely held the same views in the past; the difference is that they now have a much louder voice. When Mr. Okamura was not yet Speaker, his views were just as radical as they are today, but they were less visible and less influential.
So—and this is the good news—nothing fundamental has changed. Support for Ukraine, in my view, has not changed either.
There is only one real problem: domestic politics. Resistance within the governing coalition to what Mr. Okamura or others say is not particularly strong, because the government—including Prime Minister Andrej Babiš and his ANO party— depends on every single vote within the three-member coalition, as well as on how Freedom and Direct Democracy (SPD) or the Motorists for Themselves choose to vote.
In my opinion, the issue is not that support for Ukraine has significantly declined. Rather, even those within the current coalition who would otherwise say openly that they disagree simply do not do so publicly. ANO wants to govern and shape developments in the country, but it cannot do so without its coalition partners. As a result, it has to be more restrained than it would prefer when its partners make controversial statements.
CZECHS CLEARLY UNDERSTAND THEIR OBLIGATION TO SUPPORT UKRAINE
Q: Mr. Okamura continues to say that he will push for an end to the ammunition initiative and other forms of assistance to Ukraine. Can he succeed?
A: In my view, he will not succeed. In the Czech Republic, it is widely understood that if we were to halt arms deliveries to Ukraine, we would not be supporting peace but Ukraine’s capitulation.
It is also widely understood that our duty—including that of Prime Minister Andrej Babiš and his ANO party—is to support a state that has been attacked, whose territory is being seized and whose people are being killed. I am likewise convinced that when Ukraine defends itself against an aggressor, it is also defending us and fighting for our security.
Therefore, I do not believe that SPD will achieve its objective or that Czech support for Ukraine will cease. What could happen, however, is that—due to domestic political considerations—support may become less intensive. In my view, this would stem from the internal political situation and the leverage currently held by Motorists for Themselves and SPD.
Q: Speaking of the new government’s foreign policy priorities, can Ukraine expect support to be among them?
A: The government’s policy statement says that the Czech Republic will consistently defend international law and the sovereignty of states. Ukraine is a sovereign state, and therefore this applies to it as well. But sovereignty cannot be defended by words alone—we must provide tangible assistance. And that assistance, in my view, must be robust: both in supporting refugees, particularly mothers and children arriving from Ukraine, and in providing humanitarian aid, weapons, and other forms of help. Otherwise, how can we credibly claim to be defending the sovereignty of states, Ukraine in particular?
The policy statement also says that we will support diplomatic steps aimed at ending the war in Ukraine and eliminating the risks of war in Europe. But a war is already under way in Europe. Eliminating risks does not mean simply saying that we want peace; it means supporting those who can prevent the aggressor from advancing the war further into Europe.
I am absolutely convinced that we must interpret this as a commitment to comprehensive support for Ukraine, because this aligns both with international law and with our own security interests. By defending itself against the aggressor, Ukraine is in fact contributing to our security—that is, to the security of Europe and the Czech Republic.
I believe that the majority of members of parliament understand this, as do the majority of senators.
THE AGGRESSOR WILL NEVER BE SATISFIED WITH WHAT IT HAS ALREADY TAKEN
Q: Can disagreements within the governing coalition and differing views on Ukraine weaken the Czech Republic’s position abroad, within the EU?
A: Situations in which our position is unclear at certain moments certainly do nothing to strengthen our standing in Europe. I regret this, because I believe the Czech Republic should take the position of an unequivocal supporter of Ukraine—and there are several compelling reasons for this.
We have historical experience that tells us: if you do not stand up to an aggressor and believe that you can somehow reach an agreement with them, they will never be satisfied. If you want peace for yourself, you cannot be indifferent to a war being fought near your borders. And if you want others to help you in the future, you must be willing to help others yourself. These are principles we know well from history.
That is why I believe we must be far more unequivocal. The statements made by our foreign minister in Kyiv were clear and unambiguous—this is exactly how the Czech Republic should speak.
I am convinced that the majority in the Czech Republic – both the people and their elected representatives in the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate -- are supportive of Ukraine in all respects, including the supply of weapons.
Q: What role can the Senate itself play at a time when the war is becoming increasingly brutal and the position of the United States—and Donald Trump—is so… strange?
A: The Senate is a legislative body, one of the two chambers of the Parliament of the Czech Republic. It has three roles.
The first is to try, in some way, to exercise oversight and, where possible, exert a professional influence—also with regard to our historical experience—so that the Czech Republic supports a global order based on respect for international law and on the defense of democracy and freedom worldwide, and so that this order does not weaken, or at least does not weaken as rapidly.
I am convinced that the Czech Senate must insist that the Czech Republic as a whole strive for Europe—of which we are a part—to act as a force that seeks uphold the highest possible level of compliance with international law. I say “the highest possible,” not 100 percent—because that no longer works today. We know, for example, Donald Trump’s statement that he feels constrained primarily by his own morality rather than by international law.
The second role is that the Senate can also act legislatively in this direction: by adopting laws that will lead us, as the European Union, to unite in the areas of defense, energy security, the economic market, and beyond. Because if we do not do this, Europe will not be a force. And that would be a mistake.
The third role of the Senate lies in its foreign policy—more precisely, in what it does within the framework of parliamentary diplomacy. This means that Senate delegations visit Ukraine and other friendly countries, and at the parliamentary level informal coalitions are formed, which then speak with one voice and pursue the goals we are discussing here.
Q: How do you see Ukraine’s prospects for membership in the European Union, and what role can the Czech Senate play in this process?
A: Ukraine’s path to membership in the European Union is a long one, because Ukraine has to meet many conditions. And our main role—and therefore the role of the Senate—is to help and support Ukraine as much as we can. This will not be easy.
There is already a memorandum of cooperation between the leadership of the Senate and the Office of the Ukrainian Parliament, so this cooperation is built on a very practical level. Our relations with Ruslan Stefanchuk, as Speaker of the Ukrainian Parliament, are very good.
Of course, today everything is overshadowed by the war. But I believe that assistance in accelerating these processes and support for Ukraine must continue even at a time when the war remains the dominant issue.
The path to Europe is not painless. But our efforts should be focused on working toward it, discussing what can be done, how we can help, and moving forward—rather than using this as a tool to search for reasons why it cannot be done.
WE MUST PREVENT RUSSIA’S SUCCESS AND PRESERVE EUROPEAN UNITY
Q: Czech society is becoming increasingly polarized over the issue of supporting Ukraine. What responsibility do political leaders bear in this situation? Presumably, they should do more to explain why helping Ukraine also serves the Czech Republic’s national interests?
A: The answer is very simple. The Czech Republic is a medium-sized country. There are small states, medium-sized states, and large states. When the world functions in such a way that the same rules apply to everyone, this is extremely important for small and medium-sized countries, because it allows them to live in relative security and to enjoy the same rights and obligations as large countries.
When international law ceases to function and rules begin to be applied selectively, the law of the stronger prevails. The developments we are witnessing today in the form of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine—and which we also partly observe in the United States—are disadvantageous for the Czech Republic, and potentially even dangerous.
The only possible response is to say that we do not want such a world. If the Czech Republic says this alone, it will not help much. But if Europe as a whole says it—perhaps in unison with Ukraine—that will carry a completely different weight. That is why we must seek to prevent Russia from succeeding in its aggression and to keep Europe united.
If we fail to realize that only by acting together—while preserving sovereignty, identity, and independence—can we stand firm, there is a risk that the strongest will rule. Because there will be no one to unite against them and say: this is not how things work.
Q: Where, in your view, does the line lie between legitimate political debate and actions that objectively may play into the hands of Russian propaganda machine?
A: The core issue is what is truth and what is falsehood. Today, in democracies—and by no means only in the Czech Republic—falsehood is often presented as an “opinion.” Society will have to come to terms with this.
There is no simple solution that would definitively draw this line. Our task is to search for that boundary, to try to identify it, and to establish rules that allow certain things and do not allow others. And we must accept that these rules will need to be adjusted, because the world is evolving and we are not capable of finding a perfect solution.
Second, it can indeed happen that a boundary you have set quite reasonably may, at some point, cease to be reasonable because circumstances have changed. You do not treat your children the same way when they are six years old as when they are seventeen. That is how the world works.
So, the answer to your question is that one must be able to distinguish between truth and lies. We must understand that natural laws always stand above political ones.
Q: The Czech Republic has its own historical experience of occupation and loss of freedom. Does this experience influence your personal view of the war in Ukraine?
A: This historical experience only reinforces a well-known fact: if you do not want to find yourself in a situation where someone takes your territory or kills your friends, you have no right to remain indifferent—even if it does not affect you directly.
The second lesson is that democracy and freedom are extremely fragile values and require constant care. If you fail to take care of them, you can lose them very quickly. And we know this from history.
This happened to us not only in 1938, but also after the 1947 elections, when the communists won, and later in 1968, when we believed it might be possible to somehow transform communism or socialism into what was called “socialism with a human face.” We later found out that this was entirely impossible. On the contrary—if free thought is not allowed, the system very quickly turns into a dictatorship.
I believe this is a powerful impulse for us in the Czech Republic to ensure that we have enough strength to defend freedom and democracy.
And it is also a powerful impulse for us to have enough strength to help and support Ukraine as much as possible.
Q: Are you afraid of a repeat of the Munich 1938 scenario?
A: In the broadest sense, I believe that such a danger does not exist in Europe.
That historical experience is strong enough, and the determination of European countries not to allow such a scenario to happen again is significant.
However, we must acknowledge that the situation—given how long the war has lasted—is very bleak and extremely exhausting. What Ukraine is capable of doing, and how it is defending itself, is admirable. But unfortunately, even those who support Ukraine are becoming increasingly tired.
And since you asked what politicians should do, another task is arising here: our task is to rouse ourselves and not give in to fatigue. Because it would be shameful if we grew tired. You, the people of Ukraine, have the right to be tired. We do not have that right. We must do the utmost that lies within our power. It is shameful to speak of fatigue when I look at what you – the people of Ukraine -- are facing.
Olha Tanasiichuk, Prague
Photos via Author