Topic: The conflict (Russia-Ukraine) and the conflict that has now arisen and is partly being resolved in the Middle East currently affect not only local but also global security and are at the center of attention of superpowers, regions, and individual states that feel threatened by this situation and feel obliged to address it. Compare the causes of both conflicts, the goals set by those who initiated the conflicts and why, and what their ultimate ambitions are. Assess what the immediate impacts on the security of the Czech Republic and its inhabitants may be in the short and long term and what security measures in the Czech Republic you propose and why?
Shadows of the Past, Storms of Today
Looking at what is happening in the world today, it becomes increasingly clear that we find ourselves in a time of great transformation. The old rules that were supposed to ensure peace seem to have stopped working, and we find ourselves in a state of certain uncertainty. The previous balance of power has been exhausted and a new order is only just being born, unfortunately more through conflicts than at negotiating tables. Henry Kissinger aptly warned that a world that abandons old rules before creating new ones becomes a very dangerous place for everyone. It is precisely in this empty space that we today observe actors who no longer hide their ambitions behind diplomatic phrases but bet on brute force and control of territory or resources. It is as if the world is returning to 19th-century maps, but with the destructive technology of the twenty-first century.
This breakdown of rules in many ways also confirms the ideas of Samuel Huntington about the clash of civilizations. It turns out that the main conflicts today are not being broken just because of politics, but increasingly along cultural and religious fault lines, where reasonable compromise is almost impossible. The new world order is thus not being formed through agreements, but in tension between the interests of superpowers and the reality of deeply divided societies. In such an environment, the sovereignty of states becomes an uncertain variable, determined rather by the momentary ability to assert one's will by force, which directly affects the security of all of us in Europe.
It is precisely this dynamic that is key to understanding two crises that are shaking the world today. On one side stands Russian aggression against Ukraine as an attempt to violently redraw the map of Europe, on the other side the situation in the Middle East, where the Israeli-Palestinian dispute collides with a broader game for influence in the region. Looking at these clashes and at what their actors are actually pursuing, we must ask what our own security looks like in this new arrangement. It remains to consider whether we are still able to influence our stability in this process, or whether we are becoming mere observers of a reality that we may have forgotten to be prepared for in recent decades.
Russian Federation
In a deeper analysis of Russian aggression against Ukraine, we encounter the fundamental concept that state sovereignty in Moscow's eyes is directly proportional to its ability to physically control its historical and ethnic space. For current Russian politics, it is as if internationally recognized maps ceased to apply the moment they collided with the conviction that where there is a Russian, there is Russia. This optic fundamentally changes the perception of the entire arrangement; neighboring states in Russian thinking cease to be partners and turn into mere temporarily alienated provinces that simply belong to the sphere of natural Russian interest. The main cause of the conflict is thus Russia's rejection of the results of 1991 and the attempt at violent correction of history. Moscow has never internally accepted the collapse of the Soviet Union as a definitive legal and political fact, but rather as a temporary strategic weakening that was exploited by the West. Russia refuses to accept that former Soviet republics should have the same level of sovereignty as nuclear powers. The attempt to restore the so-called strategic depth – that is, a physical buffer space that would isolate the Russian core from the influence of Euro-Atlantic structures – thus becomes a priority that exceeds the interests of economic stability and international reputation.
However, this claim to control of space is not just about ideology; it also has a very concrete and material dimension. Modern politics teaches us that control of territory in the 21st century is inseparable from control of resources that will define the winners of the next technological era. When we look at the map of Ukrainian subsoil, it is clear that the fight is not just about soil and symbolic borders. Ukraine has enormous reserves of lithium – a raw material that is today a strategic asset of the first category, comparable to oil in the last century. For Russia, whose economy still stands on a dying model of fossil fuels, Ukraine's potential in rare metal extraction represents a direct threat to its future position in the global market.
The geographical distribution of these deposits overlaps with the lines of Russian advance. Key lithium deposits are located primarily in the Donetsk region (Shevchenkivske deposit) and in the Zaporizhzhia region (Kruta Balka deposit), that is, in places that were among the first targets of the Russian invasion and where the most brutal attrition battles are still being fought. The Kremlin's strategy here is obvious: it is not just about conquering territory, but about physically cutting Ukraine off from its future export revenues. In occupied areas, systematic looting (so-called "weaponized mining") is taking place, where Ukrainian resources, including coal and rare metals, are forcibly extracted and exported to Russia or sold on global markets through illegal networks. In this way, Russia partially finances the war itself directly from loot on conquered territory. The Kremlin is trying to ensure that Europe's dependence on Russian gas does not transform in the future into dependence on Ukrainian lithium, thereby seeking to gain a new tool of global blackmail in the era of technological transformation and chip production.
One of the decisive factors that led to the initiation of aggression was, however, an erroneous strategic assumption about the internal fragmentation of the West. Russian political and intelligence elites proceeded from the conviction that the European Union and the transatlantic community are in a phase of irreversible decline and loss of capacity to act. Moscow's goal was to exploit the EU's presumed disunity and bet on the energy dependence of key European players, which was supposed to prevent any coordinated response. Russia attacked in the belief that the West would prioritize short-term economic comfort over the protection of abstract principles of international law. Russian surprise at the subsequent unified political, material, and sanctions response of the democratic world revealed a deep misunderstanding of the internal resilience of institutions that the Kremlin had long considered decadent and incapable of sacrifice.
A fundamental ideological pillar justifying this aggression is the conviction that the state borders of the Russian Federation are not identical with its political borders, but with ethnic and cultural ones. If Moscow defines its sovereignty through the protection of the Russian minority or Russian-speaking population regardless of official maps, it de facto invalidates the validity of the entire European security system. In this logic, neighboring countries become only temporary administrative units on territory that Russia claims as its existential space. This concept turns internationally recognized borders into mere fluid lines that are secondary to the interests of the so-called "Russian World" (Russkij mir). Ukraine is perceived in this optic as a historical mistake and artificial construct whose territory must be reintegrated into the imperial whole so that the strategic continuity of the state can be fulfilled and access to decisive geographical points restored.
All these aspects – from the ideological claim to alienated provinces through control of lithium deposits to control of Black Sea export routes – form one logical whole. This is not a random aggression, but a pragmatic struggle for a return to the position of a superpower that dictates conditions through a monopoly over resources and space. Russia deliberately bets that through its brutality it will exhaust the unity of the West.
Israel and Palestine
Looking at what is happening between Israel and Palestine today, we see above all an enormous gulf that almost no one is trying to bridge anymore. This conflict has long since crossed the boundaries of a mere dispute over territory and has become a fight for survival itself in a space that is too small for both sides to function side by side according to their ideas. On one side stands a modern state possessing crushing military force and on the other side people who feel they have nothing left to lose because they are defending the last remnants of their homeland and national dignity. It is precisely this extreme imbalance of forces that is at the heart of the current crisis – one side dictates the rules and the other responds with resistance because in the established system it sees no meaningful future.
The fundamental problem is that both sides have stopped recognizing each other as people with the same right to life in the given space. For Palestinians, everyday reality has turned into a struggle under constant surveillance and restriction, which logically generates deep frustration and anger. The goals of actors who choose the path of violence on both sides are clear, but absolutely devastating for any vision of peace. Radical movements like Hamas benefit from the fact that the young generation in Gaza sees no other way than confrontation, which for them has become the only way to draw attention to their situation. However, this radicalism is not random; it is the result of decades when the Palestinian question was pushed to the sidelines of international interest.
At the same time, however, it is necessary to critically evaluate the steps of the current Israeli leadership. It often seems as if the political elites in Israel have lost strategic perspective and have come to believe the illusion that security can be enforced by pure force. At present, it is more than obvious that betting on absolute military dominance does not work and does not bring the stability that is supposedly the goal. Instead of seeking a political way out, investments are being made in technologies and weapons, which only deepens the humanitarian catastrophe directly at the site of the clash. It is very difficult to agree with a policy that presents itself as defense but ultimately destroys the very foundations of an entire nation's existence. When leaders stop perceiving the consequences of their decisions and see only an enemy that must be broken, they also lose their moral integrity.
The ultimate ambitions are unfortunately today in complete opposition and lead to mutual negation. Radicals on both sides of the barricade reject compromise and demand total victory. For religious extremists, this is a metaphysical struggle where human life loses its value, while radical wings on the Israeli side strive for Palestinians as a nation to essentially cease to exist or accept the role of second-class citizens. It is precisely here that the clash of civilizations comes alive, which is written about in textbooks – a situation where identity is defined exclusively through hatred of the other.
In this context, it is sad to observe how technological superiority and drones win individual battles but lose any chance for sustainable life. Every destroyed house and every civilian casualty only prepares the ground for the next generation, which will know nothing but the desire for revenge. It is a vicious circle in which force has definitively replaced reason. The ambition to build an impenetrable wall and isolate oneself from the problem is understandable from Israel's perspective, but long-term unsustainable, because security cannot be permanently built on the despair of neighbors.
In the broader regional context, one cannot overlook the role of external actors such as Iran, who find opportunities to pursue their own interests in this long-term chaos. However, it is too simplistic to place all responsibility solely on these puppeteers and ignore the failures of political elites directly at the site of the clash, who in pursuit of absolute control have bet everything on the power of weapons. As Henry Kissinger once warned, a world without clear rules and mutual respect becomes a risky space for all involved, which we observe in its most tragic form in this endless Israeli-Palestinian knot.
The current situation thus forces us to consider whether any civilized society can silently accept a state where the right of the stronger is presented as justice. True victory can never consist in physically breaking the opponent or making it impossible for them to live with dignity, because such an approach only sows the seeds for future clashes. If in international politics we give up humanity in favor of hard power ambitions, we risk that in this struggle we will all ultimately lose, regardless of how modern technology we have at our disposal. The final thought of this chapter should therefore be a warning that victory bought at the cost of total destruction of another nation is not a triumph but a definitive defeat of a civilization that has ceased to believe in anything other than the power of caliber and the range of its missiles.
Parallels Between Eastern Europe and the Middle East
When comparing Russian aggression and the Israeli-Palestinian clash, parallels emerge that go deeper than just violence itself. While in Ukraine we observe a classic imperial attempt at violent revision of borders, in the Middle East we have a deep crisis of spatial governance where the state's security interests clash with the right of another nation to self-determination. The common denominator of both crises, however, is the fact that traditional diplomatic tools – such as international guarantees or peace agreements – have become meaningless in the eyes of the actors. Both Russia and Israel act from the position that the only guarantee of survival is absolute military superiority, not international recognition.
The causes and goals of these conflicts differ in details, but they share a willingness to risk global isolation to achieve local strategic points. In Russia's case, the goal is to question the right of neighboring countries to choose their own allies and ensure the role of resource sovereign. Conversely, in the Middle East we see how radical movements deliberately provoke chaos to prevent any political normalization in the region, while the Israeli counteroffensive is gradually turning into a goal of total pacification of territory regardless of humanitarian impacts. In both cases, it is confirmed that the ultimate ambition no longer aims at lasting peace, but at creating such a situation where the opponent will be so weakened that they will never be able to resist again.
An interesting comparison is also how both conflicts work with the factor of time. In both cases we see similar strategic sobering: Russia originally planned its aggression as a lightning, several-day operation that was supposed to confront the world with a fait accompli. When this plan encountered unexpected resistance, the Kremlin's strategy had to change into a cynical war of attrition, where time serves as a weapon to tire the West. In contrast to this Russian calculus stands the Israeli-Palestinian clash, which is rather trapped in an endless reactive cycle. Here time works for no one – each new operation only sows the seeds for future radicalization. This inability to offer any political horizon is typical for both worlds; instead of a vision of future coexistence, hard realism has set in, where security is defined only through the range of missiles and the thickness of concrete walls.
In both these worlds we also observe a dangerous trend where national identity is affirmed exclusively through the existence of an arch-enemy. This radicalization is no longer just a matter of armies but permeates the entire society, making any future reconciliation essentially impossible. The comparison of these crises thus gives us an image of a world returning to the logic of zero-sum games – that is, to the conviction that my gain is possible only if the other side totally loses. It is a reality where victory on the battlefield means defeat for humanity, and where the boundary between defense and aggression dangerously blurs in the dust of ruins.
Czech Republic's Security Horizon
In analyzing the impacts on Czech Republic's security, we must begin with what is most current for intelligence services – namely the total transformation of the security environment in Europe. Russian aggression against Ukraine means for us in the short-term horizon primarily the need to face an intensive hybrid campaign. It is not just about disinformation, but about targeted false flag operations, cyber attacks on critical infrastructure, and attempts to disrupt social cohesion. From BIS's perspective, today's greatest risk is how Russia tries to exploit internal political tensions to weaken our support for Ukraine, which is a key strategic goal for Moscow.
At the same time, we must perceive that the hot phase of the conflict in the Middle East represents an immediate risk for us in the form of imported violence and radicalization. For the Czech security apparatus, this in practice means increased monitoring of risk groups and protection of soft targets. The short-term impact is thus the need to allocate enormous capacities of intelligence services and police to monitoring flows of information and persons who could transfer tension from Gaza to Czech streets.
We must pay increased attention to the erosion of social peace, which is a direct consequence of polarization caused by events in the Middle East and Ukraine. From an internal security perspective, it is not just about demonstrations in the streets, but about deep splits within communities, families, and digital bubbles. This imported unrest creates ideal ground for the growth of extremism, when local political entities try to parasitize emotions connected with distant conflicts. The short-term impact is thus the need to strengthen prevention programs and monitoring of radicalization in cyberspace, because the boundary between a hateful comment on social media and a physical attack on a so-called soft target has dangerously thinned in 2026.
In the long-term horizon, however, we must prepare for much deeper structural changes. Russian revisionism forces us to fundamentally transform the army and the entire concept of national defense. After decades when we relied on expeditionary missions abroad, we are returning to the need for deterrence of a superpower in our immediate neighborhood. This brings enormous financial costs and the need to build resilience that does not consist only in tanks, but in the overall setup of the state – from energy independence to food security. In the long term, we are becoming a front-line state in a new type of cold war, where the boundary between peace and conflict practically does not exist.
From a long-term perspective, we then face the threat of economic exhaustion and loss of competitiveness. If the conflict in Ukraine definitively turns into a decade-long war of attrition, it will mean a permanent burden on public finances for the Czech state. It is not just about direct military aid, but about long-term care for refugees and the need for massive investments in the defense industry at the expense of other sectors. From the perspective of strategic studies, the risk is that Czech society will eventually tire of solidarity, which would lead to a rise in populist sentiments and demands for isolationism. The long-term impact is thus the need to redefine our social contract so that the state can finance its defense without causing internal social collapse.
Another fundamental risk that we must address is a potential new wave of migration fueled by instability in the Middle East and Africa, where Russia often plays the role of destabilizer. From ÚZSI's perspective, it is necessary to perceive migration flows not only as a humanitarian issue but as a tool of weaponized migration. If there were a massive movement of people that would be deliberately directed by hostile actors to European borders, it could lead to the political collapse of the EU, which would have fatal consequences for Czech security.
As for Specific Measures I Propose...
First and foremost must be investment in cyber and information resilience. The state must learn to actively defend the information space, not just passively refute lies. We need a robust early warning system for cyber attacks on energy and healthcare, which are sectors currently under constant pressure. Citizen security today begins in their smartphones and at their routers – that is where the battle for their perception of reality and trust in state institutions is taking place.
The second key measure is diversification of strategic resources and control of critical raw materials. If we have learned from the gas crisis, we must now ensure that we do not become dependent on new raw materials, such as lithium or rare metals, from actors who could use them as weapons. This includes not only securing alternative supply chains but also strict screening of foreign investments in Czech infrastructure. Strategic autonomy of the Czech Republic within the EU must be a priority, because without control over one's own resources, sovereignty is just an empty term.
The third point is modernization of crisis management and civil protection. A state is only as strong as its weakest link. We need a system that can quickly respond to different types of crises – from blackouts through pandemics to sudden waves of violent unrest. This requires not only technical equipment but above all education of the population to a certain degree of self-sufficiency and ability to recognize threats. A society that knows what to do in a crisis is much harder to manipulate through fear, which is today the main weapon of our adversaries.
Last but not least, we must strengthen our intelligence capacities and international cooperation. In the era of global conflicts such as those in Ukraine and Israel, we cannot function in isolation. We must be able to share intelligence information in real time and coordinate our steps with partners in NATO and the EU. For the Czech Republic, it is vitally important that the rules-based international order survives, because in a system of the right of the stronger we will always be those who lose. Our security is thus directly dependent on our diplomatic and security activity beyond borders.
In conclusion, it is necessary to realize that security is not a state that can be achieved once and for all, but an endless process of adaptation. The Russia-Ukraine and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts show us that the old world is gone and the new one is much harsher and more unpredictable. As a state, we must stop hoping that the situation will calm down and start building a system that assumes permanent crisis.
Conclusion
Perhaps the greatest risk of today is not the destructive power of weapons itself, but the silent acceptance of the fact that rules apply only when it suits the stronger. If we admit that sovereignty and human dignity are merely variables in the equation of power interests, we risk that from observers of foreign crises we will become victims of a system that we ourselves helped legitimize through our indifference. The real security of the Czech Republic does not begin with the thickness of concrete walls, but with the courage to insist on civilizational values even at a moment when it seems that the world believes only in the range of its missiles.
Veronika Kolmanová
