Daily Audio EN

1. English Translation

Petros Michopulos: The Glass Jaw of Andrej Babiš

The prime minister, who governs with two extremist parties (yes, I also consider the Motorists extremists because no one but extremists would call for the abolition of the Constitutional Court), has decided to show sharp teeth to voters and prove that he is a tough guy. He does not want to be overshadowed by either Macinka or Okamura because he believes that in this election period he will manage to "eat up" the voters of his coalition partners just as he did with the social democrats.

We can observe a gradual radicalization since the elections, which resembles extremist poker, where Babiš responds to each boundary shift by one of the coalition partners by raising the stakes. We saw this in the conflict between the Motorists and the president, in the pre-election campaign, and most recently in the law on public media. Babiš was always lured by the Motorists and SPD to raise the stakes so he would not be seen as a coward. He clearly still dreams of a future single-party government after he once gains 45 percent or more at the expense of these parties. In doing so, in my opinion, he stopped noticing the level of the game he reached and how far from his middle-class voters he has moved.

Just like several times in the past, he underestimated Czech realities and the Czech collective memory, with which he never merged and for which he has no developed empathy. Surrounded by his Slovak and Hungarian advisors and in permanent contact with his senior voters, he did not notice that over the past fifteen years a new, invisible generation has also grown up, on which some of his tricks no longer work. Macinka and Okamura dragged him into a place in the game over Czech Television and Czech Radio where he probably did not want to be, and it strongly resembles the half-year-old conflict with the Castle (the presidential office). In June, we could hear strong words from both Babiš and Macinka, including jihadist videos by the prime minister aimed at Petr Pavel, only for the whole fight to end almost with love and pacification of the Motorists including Filip Turek.

Today, Petr Macinka supports Petr Pavel’s candidacy for the position of European negotiator, and after extreme cohabitation, the ground has settled. It actually took very little. They met someone who faced them head-on and challenged them to a direct fight in the ring. Petr Pavel is clearly a person for whom such confrontations are not a problem and who has probably had a few in his life. Petr Macinka and Andrej Babiš have not. Both are masters of side attacks and ideally with great superiority. In such a situation, they turn into tigers. In the last clash around public media, we can observe a similar course. Very strong statements, bending with the force of almost everything the post-revolution parliament has experienced, aggressive attacks on journalists, confident statements about a thousand percent certainty of victory.

The public’s reaction is appropriate to the pressure used. Also extreme. The improvised demonstration at the Old Town Square caused a complete blockade not only of the square but the entire Old Town, and the following demonstration on the eve of November 17 at Letná Plain, I think, will exceed all expectations of both the organizers and Andrej Babiš. Meanwhile, as in the case of the conflict with the Castle, we can see the gradual retreat mainly of ANO movement politicians including Andrej Babiš. We hear sentences about the second reading where everything can still change and compromises can be reached, we even hear further compromise proposals, and there was also self-criticism from Patrik Nacher that the way the discussion was conducted was not tactical. In addition, in connection with the way the law was pushed through, at 4:36 a.m., the first MP from the ANO movement left, and in the corridors, the bloody conflict between the ANO club chairwoman Malá and Minister Plaga is cheerfully discussed. He refused to participate in the pressured vote at half past four in the morning and left the parliament.

The whole situation was certainly not helped by Tomio Okamura boastfully telling the media that the entire discussion had a conspiratorial prelude from the coalition parties, which included a plan to prevent discussion in parliament. The Constitutional Court will surely examine this in detail, and Andrej Babiš sees and hears all these things. In the coming days, we can expect many demonstrations, many statements, and I think we will also witness what a glass jaw looks like.

Glass jaw is a boxing term for a fighter who cannot take a hit and goes down after the first precise punch to the face. We will see if, as in the case of the president, the government and Andrej Babiš will face this time a fighter or fighters who, knowing that the other side has a glass jaw, will be able to deliver precisely aimed punches. Petr Pavel recently showed us that it is possible.

Petros Michopulos is co-author of the podcast Kecy & Politika.

2. Summary

The article discusses the political strategy of Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babiš, who governs with two extremist parties. Babiš has been increasingly radical since the elections, raising the stakes in conflicts with his coalition partners to appear strong. However, he has underestimated Czech realities and a new generation of voters who no longer respond to his tactics. The recent conflict over public media laws led to strong public protests and political retreat by Babiš and his party. The author compares Babiš to a boxer with a "glass jaw," vulnerable to precise attacks, and suggests that opponents like Petr Pavel are capable of exploiting this weakness. The situation is expected to continue with more demonstrations and political tension.

3. Reading Comprehension Exercise

1. Why does the author consider the Motorists an extremist party?
2. How has Andrej Babiš reacted to the actions of his coalition partners since the elections?
3. What mistake has Babiš made regarding Czech voters, according to the article?
4. What was the public’s reaction to the law on public media?
5. What does the term "glass jaw" mean in the context of this article?

4. Key Vocabulary (English → Czech)

- Prime minister → předseda vlády
- Extremist → extremistický
- Coalition partner → koaliční partner
- Radicalization → radikalizace
- Public media → veřejnoprávní média
- Demonstration → demonstrace
- Compromise → kompromis
- Empathy → empatie
- Conflict → konflikt
- Vote → hlasování
- Boxing term → boxerský termín
- Fighter → bojovník

1. English Translation

Ivan Mikloš: Searching for Rationality in Trump’s Politics

Almost no day passes without Trump doing or saying something foolish, nonsensical, harmful, but mainly self-centered. In other words, he regularly shocks, but no longer surprises.

His weakness for dictators is strikingly obvious, and it is clear that he not only admires them but also envies them.

Although it is true that he shocks but does not surprise, and although since the beginning of his second term he has been more on Russia’s side than Ukraine’s, his latest open embrace of Putin and rejection of Zelensky, including the cancellation of the ban on importing Russian oil to the USA, surprised me.

This happened only three weeks before the US midterm elections, at a time when Trump’s party faces the risk of losing the majority not only in the House of Representatives but also in the Senate. This move is usually explained by the fact that one of the important reasons for Donald Trump’s (and thus his party’s) unpopularity is high prices, especially high fuel prices, with Trump claiming that the main cause is Ukraine’s bombing of Russian refineries. He says that importing Russian oil to the USA will solve the problem.

None of this is true, which of course does not mean that this untruth cannot politically work in favor of Trump and his party. Politics is like that – reality is not important, but how and what reality people perceive. That is the magic of effective propaganda. However, in this case, in my opinion, it is obvious that it cannot even work as purposeful propaganda.

According to all surveys, support for Ukraine among Americans ranges between 57 and 66 percent, while support for Russia is between 2 and 3 percent. If in this situation Trump attacks the victim and supports the aggressor, if he criticizes and rejects Zelensky and embraces the war criminal and mass murderer Putin, then his story about high fuel prices caused by Ukraine simply cannot work. Moreover, prices at American gas stations will not change before the elections, and if they do, it will be upwards. Some influential Republican congressmen and senators who publicly criticize his pro-Russian and anti-Ukrainian policy also understand that this is counterproductive.

The question then is – why does he do it? After all, the fact that he had exceptionally good political instincts in the past, not so long ago, is evidenced by the fact that he was repeatedly elected president of the USA.

I do not know the exact answer, but I think he has lost these instincts. I realized this already in spring, a few weeks after the start of the war against Iran, when asked by the media if he minded that as a result of this war and the closure of Hormuz, American households pay higher prices for fuel and other goods, he answered no, that he does not mind.

I feel that his ego, under the influence of the power he holds, has grown to such proportions that it has suffocated any rationality and thus basic political instincts. Recently, I listened to a long interview with Trump’s niece Mary Trump, who is a clinical psychologist and who wrote a book about him in 2020 with the telling title Too Much and Never Enough. I recommend the interview – his niece describes Trump’s childhood without parental attention, love, and empathy, in a toxic family environment where ruthlessness, hardness, and cruelty were preferred, and generosity, sensitivity, and empathy were despised. This could not have left him unaffected.

The most alarming rational explanation for his politically irrational behavior, however, may be that he no longer cares because he not only admires world dictators but wants to join them. So he may see elections only as one of the obstacles to overcome on the path he has taken.

Ivan Mikloš is an economist, former politician, and political advisor.

2. Summary

Ivan Mikloš discusses Donald Trump’s irrational and self-centered political behavior, especially his recent support for Putin and rejection of Zelensky. Despite the political risks before the US midterm elections, Trump canceled the ban on Russian oil imports, claiming it would lower fuel prices, which Mikloš says is false. Public opinion strongly supports Ukraine, making Trump’s pro-Russian stance counterproductive even within his party. Mikloš suggests Trump has lost his political instincts, possibly due to an inflated ego and a toxic upbringing. He warns that Trump may no longer care about rational politics because he admires dictators and wants to join their ranks.

3. Reading Comprehension Exercise

1. What is Ivan Mikloš’s opinion about Trump’s daily behavior?

2. How does Mikloš explain Trump’s support for Russian oil imports before the midterm elections?

3. What do surveys say about American support for Ukraine and Russia?

4. Why does Mikloš believe Trump’s political instincts have changed?

5. What does Mary Trump’s interview reveal about Donald Trump’s childhood?

4. Key Vocabulary (English → Czech)

- foolish – **hloupý**

- harmful – **škodlivý**

- dictator – **diktátor**

- embargo/ban – **zákaz**

- fuel prices – **ceny pohonných hmot**

- propaganda – **propaganda**

- victim – **oběť**

- aggressor – **agresor**

- political instincts – **politické instinkty**

- ego – **ego**

- toxic – **toxický**

- empathy – **empatie**

1. English Translation

Marek Torčík: What forms of resistance still work

In March 1811, hundreds of textile workers gathered in Nottinghamshire, England. They protested against low wages and unbearable working conditions. They opposed new machines that took away their livelihood and produced goods that threatened their craft with below-average quality. That evening, some protesters in the town of Arnold broke into a factory and destroyed several knitting machines.

In the following months, similar actions spread to other parts of England. The workers began to call themselves Luddites, after the legendary worker Ned Ludd. He once broke two knitting frames in a fit of rage.

Today, the word Luddite is used to describe a person afraid of new technologies. A Luddite does not understand progress. However, the original conflict was much more complex. Luddites were not just opponents of machines; they tried to negotiate and bargain for the protection of working conditions, criticized child labor, and the poor quality of the products. When their demands met with the indifference of the powerful, they turned to direct action. The British state, together with factory owners, responded with force. In 1812, it introduced a law that punished the destruction of machines with death, and in January of the following year, it publicly executed seventeen men. The state protected the property of factory owners many decades before laws protecting workers, banning child labor, or slavery were established. For them, property always meant more than human lives.

Progress is a strange thing. Once we live in a changed world, the result of the efforts of many people seems natural to us. As if it were inevitable. But it rarely comes from just exchanging opinions or politely expressed disagreement. We have stopped understanding that violence is often just an expression of frustration and helplessness. Saying that history resembles a struggle is a bit of a cliché, but it is still true. Those in power never simply give up privileges just because someone explains why they are unfair.

Today's elites, however, unlike those in the past, like to hide behind the possibility of dialogue. In return for protests, they expect them to come at the right time and have a polite and harmless form. It is a strange paradox that has thrown us into a cynical era. If you want to change the system, you must not disrupt it in any way. Demonstrations must be clean and harmless. They should send a strong message, but what kind of message? What gesture in a time when all traditional and non-violent forms of struggle fail? Perhaps because no one hears it in the surrounding noise. None of the powerful simply care about the best-written petition or open letter.

And if demonstrators happen to block a street, clash with opponents, or even damage someone's property? The whole discussion then shifts from the reason for dissatisfaction to the question of form: do you really want to protest like this? Right now?

It seems like a hopeless situation. But what if we have become too narrow in how we see protest – as a one-time gesture, easily measured by the number of people in a crowd and whether it makes politicians change their minds? Resistance is gaining strength elsewhere too. In the pressure of strikes, in neighborhood initiatives that defend against steps destroying the shared environment for life. In long-term campaigns that connect different people with common problems. It is from such connections that a strength can arise that can no longer be easily dismissed.

The author is a writer.

2. Summary

The text discusses the historical and current forms of resistance, starting with the Luddites in 1811 England, who protested against poor working conditions and machines threatening their jobs. The Luddites were more than just opponents of technology; they sought negotiation but turned to direct action when ignored. The state responded harshly, protecting property over human lives. Today, protests are expected to be polite and harmless, which limits their impact. However, resistance continues in various forms like strikes and community initiatives, showing that strength can come from long-term collective action beyond traditional protests.

3. Reading Comprehension Exercise

1. What were the main reasons for the Luddites' protests in 1811?
2. How did the British state respond to the destruction of machines by the Luddites?
3. Why is the original conflict involving the Luddites described as more complex than just opposition to machines?
4. What paradox does the author describe about modern protests and the expectations of elites?
5. According to the text, where else does resistance gain strength besides traditional protests?

4. Key Vocabulary (English → Czech)

- resistance – **odpor**
- protest – **protest**
- working conditions – **pracovní podmínky**
- machine – **stroj**
- negotiation – **vyjednávání**
- direct action – **přímá akce**
- property – **majetek**
- progress – **pokrok**
- demonstration – **demonstrace**
- strike – **stávka**
- initiative – **iniciativa**
- campaign – **kampaň**

1. English Translation

Nora Fridrichová: The Punished Victim of Psychiatrist Cimický

Psychiatrist Jan Cimický was sentenced to prison. It took five years. Five years from the moment Jana Fabiánová was the first to publicly speak about what he had done to her in the past. After her, other women came forward. Without Jana, they might still be silent.

However, she was also punished. Much earlier than the verdict against the psychiatrist was given.

Jana is a singer and actress. She performed in theaters, appeared on stage, and made a living from what she could do. Then she publicly described her experience of sexual violence. And her professional world changed. They stopped casting her. Who would want an actress on stage around whom such a terrible case hovers? On one side is the victim's statement, and on the other, the previously respected psychiatrist. Jana was lucky in misfortune. She is also a graphic designer and web designer, so she had something to live on. If not, she would have lost her job completely.

Only now, when the verdict was passed, did Jana describe in my interview how exhausting it was to watch the change in people's behavior around her. How colleagues and acquaintances began to look at her after her testimony was published. Is she not making it up by any chance? On the internet, they threatened her, saying they would destroy her and her family. They wrote that she wanted to become famous at the doctor's expense. Jana even seriously considered leaving the country.

For deciding to speak out as a public figure, she paid a high price. And she was lucky that the court finally reached a condemning verdict. How many women will not get this because of a lack of evidence or less thorough police work? How many then live with doubts from others about whether they made it all up?

Jana Fabiánová deserves our thanks. Not only for the courage with which she broke the silence but also for what she had to go through for a long five years. And also because, thanks to her, other women could speak who would otherwise have remained alone with their painful experience.

Thank you, Jana.

Nora Fridrichová is a journalist.

2. Summary

Psychiatrist Jan Cimický was sentenced to prison after five years since Jana Fabiánová first publicly spoke about his sexual violence. Other women also came forward following her testimony. However, Jana faced professional consequences and social pressure much earlier, losing acting roles and facing threats online. Despite the difficulties, she continued to speak out, which helped other victims find their voice. The article emphasizes the courage Jana showed and the challenges many women face when reporting abuse, including disbelief and lack of evidence. Jana’s actions are recognized as important and deserving of gratitude.

3. Reading Comprehension Exercise

1. How long did it take for psychiatrist Jan Cimický to be sentenced after Jana Fabiánová spoke out?
2. What professions does Jana Fabiánová have?
3. What happened to Jana’s career after she publicly shared her experience?
4. How did people react to Jana’s testimony?
5. Why does the article say Jana deserves thanks?

4. Key Vocabulary (English → Czech)

- psychiatrist – **psychiatr**
- sentenced – **odsouzen**
- victim – **oběť**
- sexual violence – **sexuální násilí**
- testimony – **svědectví**
- career – **profesní svět**
- threats – **vyhrožování**
- courage – **odvaha**
- silence – **mlčení**
- verdict – **rozsudek**
- evidence – **důkazy**
- journalist – **novinářka**

1. English Translation
Jana Matesová: The state is not a company, but if it were, voters in a democracy would be shareholders.

Voters are not subordinates of the government; they are not employees. You cannot take their money away just because they gave you the right to manage it, due to a lack of unconditional loyalty. Voters are not clients of a company either. Voters are shareholders. If, from the position of the board, you accuse them angrily or threaten to take away the money they entrusted to you, guess what will happen.

The state is not a big company. It is not a company at all. There are many differences. Even in terms of decision-making, the state and a company only have some overlaps, but some are significant, and therefore, for analogies between the management and governance of a democratic state on one side and the management and governance of a corporation on the other, the terminology of corporate governance and management can be used without much hesitation.

Voters are not employees of the state. They are not subordinates of the board or the government. They are not clients of a company either; this is a serious misunderstanding. Companies decide which group of clients they will serve; it is their right and, in most cases, a necessity for efficiency and manageability. Clients not served by one company become clients of another company. Most voters do not move away from a democratic country if they are unhappy with how the government manages their country. Only the young, most capable, and those without strong commitments leave. We have observed the exodus of very educated and capable young people from Slovakia for several years.

In corporate governance terminology, voters are shareholders. Shareholders who have chosen the board to manage their country. If, as a board member, you accuse shareholders angrily because they were not friendly enough to you or because they do not rely only on you as a source of information, and you threaten to take away their property with the words "I have the budget," what will happen? Some moderate shareholders will just delay voting on your fate and give you a second chance. Some will vote directly against you.

2. Summary
Jana Matesová explains that the state is not a company, but if it were, voters would be like shareholders. Voters are not employees or clients of the government; they entrust the government with managing their resources. Unlike clients of companies, voters usually do not leave their country if they are dissatisfied, except for some young and capable individuals. The relationship between voters and the government can be compared to shareholders and a board of directors. If the government threatens or accuses voters unfairly, voters may react by voting against the government or withholding support.

3. Reading Comprehension Exercise
1. According to Jana Matesová, what is the role of voters in a democracy?
2. Why does the author say the state is not a company?
3. How does the author compare voters to clients of a company?
4. What happens if the board accuses shareholders angrily or threatens to take away their money?
5. What is the observed trend among young people in Slovakia mentioned in the text?

4. Key Vocabulary (English → Czech)
- voter – **volič**
- shareholder – **akcionář**
- government – **vláda**
- company – **firma**
- board of directors – **představenstvo**
- client – **klient**
- management – **správa**
- budget – **rozpočet**
- democracy – **demokracie**
- property – **majetek**
- decision-making – **rozhodování**
- exodus – **exodus**

1. English Translation

Selfishness Above All

"America First," America above all, was the slogan of Donald Trump and his MAGA movement. Some people even outside the USA understand this approach. "They are fulfilling their election program, what is wrong with that?" some discussants write to me on social networks. "Every politician should put their country first."

Yes, it is certainly good to put your country first. The problem begins when someone starts promoting its benefit at the expense of others. It is especially serious when it is done even at the expense of one's own friends and allies. You may want America to be great, but only until you start demanding Greenland or begin betraying your allies because their enemy offered cheap oil. This is exactly where understanding for this principle should end. As Yuval Harari said in his speech at Forum 2000 – the problem with American politics is that it does not want allies but vassals. And it is not good to be a vassal to anyone, not even to a state that long represented the main center of democracy and freedom. Even less so after it stopped being that.

Moreover, let's imagine it in private life. "My family first," says the neighbor, and because he has a smaller garden, you build a pool for your children on your property. He did not even ask, but family first, right? A business partner promised to deliver goods you count on, but someone offered him more, so you are out of luck – own profit first. Would you want such neighbors and business partners? If not, do not wish for a world where self-interest is above all others and solidarity or alliance are unknown concepts.

For countries like the Czech Republic, promoting their own interests at the expense of others is an especially problematic slogan. Our geographical location has destined us to be interested in influence from states to the west and east of us. We have tried being vassals to Germany and Russia in history, and most of us are not comforted by the fact that both countries only fulfilled the slogan "our state (or ideology) first"...

The breakdown of allied ties and interstate relations based on cooperation is one of the greatest geopolitical risks today. Let us not doubt that if they finally collapse, the slogan "Czechia above all" would not help us. Perhaps only those who look forward to vassalage because they would like to be satraps. Selfishness is not a good principle in private life or foreign policy, and in the latter, we could be one of its first victims.

Ivan Pilip is an economist and former politician.

2. Summary

The article discusses the slogan "America First" and its implications, noting that while putting one's country first is understandable, it becomes problematic when it harms others, especially allies. The author warns against prioritizing national interests to the detriment of cooperation and solidarity, comparing it to selfish behavior in private life. For countries like the Czech Republic, which are situated between powerful neighbors, such selfish policies are particularly risky. The breakdown of alliances and cooperative relations poses a major geopolitical threat. Ultimately, selfishness is not a good principle in either personal life or foreign policy, and it could harm countries like the Czech Republic.

3. Reading Comprehension Exercise

1. What is the main problem with the "America First" approach according to the article?
2. How does the author compare selfish national policies to private life situations?
3. Why is promoting national interests at the expense of others especially problematic for the Czech Republic?
4. What does Yuval Harari say about American politics in his speech at Forum 2000?
5. What could be the consequences if allied ties and interstate cooperation break down?

4. Key Vocabulary (English → Czech)

- selfishness – **sobectví**
- slogan – **heslo**
- ally – **spojenec**
- vassal – **vazal**
- cooperation – **spolupráce**
- influence – **vliv**
- geopolitical risk – **geopolitické riziko**
- foreign policy – **zahraniční politika**
- private life – **soukromý život**
- betrayal – **zrada**
- solidarity – **solidarita**
- election program – **volební program**

1. English Translation

Šárka Homfray: Saving on the state means saving on legal certainty

When we go to an office, whether in Prague, Hradec Králové, or a small village, we expect the same rules to be applied equally. A new study by the Public Defender of Rights, which focused on some specific situations arising from the application of administrative law, shows that the practice of individual offices can be surprisingly different. For example, they may handle electronic submissions or requests to inspect files differently. For the person on the other side of the counter, this is not a legal curiosity but a practical fulfillment of the principle of legitimate expectation. They need to know what they can expect from public authority and what exactly is required of them.

It would be very easy to frame such findings as proof that the bureaucracy does not know what to do and arbitrarily creates more regulation and bureaucracy. However, that would be not only easy but also misleading. Administrative law is not a simple discipline, and people who apply it every day work under very diverse conditions. A large office with a legal department and guidelines has different professional support than a small municipality where a few people handle a wide range of agendas. According to this study, the offices themselves want more methodological support.

The Czech Republic has an exceptionally large number of small municipalities, and the state has transferred many of its tasks to them without always adequately coordinating and supporting their implementation. Another study by the Public Defender of Rights this year also showed that small municipalities face a shortage of people, professional capacities, and money, and they also point to the complexity of the agendas they have to perform. Nevertheless, we naturally expect the same quality of state authority performance from them as from much larger institutions.

Debates about the state often go in the opposite direction. There should be fewer offices, fewer people, and cheaper administration, especially because it is necessary to save from the state budget. However, professional capacity, continuous education, clear guidelines, or functioning technology are not unnecessary overhead. They are essential prerequisites to ensure that different people do not receive different instructions and answers just because they live a few districts away.

Of course, we can want a cheaper state. But we cannot want a cheaper state, save on staffing and professional support, and then be surprised that public authority is not equally competent and predictable everywhere. Legal certainty and professional and predictable public administration performance will simply never be cheap disciplines.

Šárka Homfray is a trade union lawyer and expert on gender issues.

2. Summary

Šárka Homfray discusses the importance of legal certainty in public administration. A recent study shows that administrative offices in different locations apply rules inconsistently, which affects citizens’ expectations. The differences are due to varying professional support and resources, especially between large offices and small municipalities. Small municipalities often lack staff, expertise, and funding, yet they are expected to perform at the same level as larger institutions. Homfray warns that cutting costs in staffing and support will reduce the quality and predictability of public administration, which is essential for legal certainty.

3. Reading Comprehension Exercise

1. What does the study by the Public Defender of Rights reveal about administrative offices?
2. Why is it important for citizens to have consistent application of rules?
3. How do large offices differ from small municipalities in terms of professional support?
4. What challenges do small municipalities face according to the article?
5. What is the author’s opinion on reducing costs in public administration?

4. Key Vocabulary (English → Czech)

- legal certainty – **právní jistota**
- administrative law – **správní právo**
- public authority – veřejná moc
- office (administrative) – úřad
- methodological support – metodická podpora
- municipality – obec
- staffing – personální zajištění
- professional capacity – odborná kapacita
- bureaucracy – byrokracie
- guidelines – metodiky
- predictable – předvídatelný
- trade union lawyer – odborová právnička

1. English Translation

Ivan Gabal: Global Contexts of Czech Local Energy

The evaluation of energy sources and the direction of energy policy in our country still carry the ideological imprint of the last century. The consumption of gas, diesel, or even coal is a pride of industrial traditions and supporters of cars with combustion engines, while renewable energy from wind or sun still has the scent of the Greens, that is, a left-wing, anti-industrial ecological perspective that pushes us "back to the trees."

However, times are changing. The agreement between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin to lift the embargo on Russian fossil fuel exports, which were under sanctions for the attack on Ukraine, makes the consumption of gas and diesel a clear security threat and a tool for financing the Russian war. Moreover, neither global nor American prices influence this because the war developments in the Hormuz region and surroundings escalate prices. Europe continues to consume unexpectedly large amounts of Russian gas.

In this light, the shift towards wind power and renewable sources appears as strengthening security by reducing dependence on the political conditions in fossil fuel-exporting countries, specifically regarding the politically motivated negotiations between the Kremlin and the White House. Being dependent today on the Trump-Putin agreements is a gamble.

From this perspective, the overwhelming rejection of wind power plant construction in most local referendums in our country does not take into account the global security contexts of domestic energy. With the help of transparent (dis)information manipulations, someone keeps us (the public) on risky energy tracks. Mainly us. In renewable sources, we lag brutally behind our southern neighbors and multiply behind Poland.

Those responsible are not only the participants of local referendums. Especially the government ignores security contexts and does not try to clearly support the energy path to higher security. The Prime Minister is indeed surprised by the "betrayal" of the USA towards Europe by favoring the Kremlin, but he does not lift a finger for the emancipation of our energy from the fossil age.

We invest tens to hundreds of billions in modernizing the defense and armament of our army and do not consider our own possibilities with incomparably smaller investments in energy? And this is not just the ideological bias of exotics like motorists or the openly pro-Russian SPD. It is a general ignorance of the more complex security contexts of our development and the absence of education and qualified discussion of these agendas.

The government relies on overcoming our lag by building nuclear blocks. However, in financial, time, and climate contexts (for example, sufficient water for cooling nuclear blocks), increasing doubts arise about the realism of local nuclear plans. They seem less feasible in the medium term, let alone the long term, financially, market-wise, and time-wise. Not to mention the Kremlin's fondness for shelling nuclear sources. Will we also invest tens of billions more in missile defense of new nuclear sources?

We see in our rivers and reservoirs that the climate crisis is not an abstract threat but a reality of current lives. And it will deepen. Nevertheless, in energy, we behave as if we do not even see the horizon of the next elections. The situation could be complicated, if not critical, already next summer and in the following years. Should we not look for local possibilities ourselves, without a government that probably needs more time for a more realistic view of energy policy?

The author is a sociologist.

2. Summary

Ivan Gabal discusses the outdated ideological views on energy consumption in the Czech Republic, where fossil fuels are still seen as a symbol of industrial pride, and renewables are associated with left-wing ecology. The recent geopolitical events, such as the lifting of embargoes on Russian fossil fuels, have made dependence on gas and diesel a security risk. The rejection of wind energy projects in local referendums ignores these global security concerns. The government is criticized for not supporting a transition to renewable energy and relying instead on nuclear power, which faces financial and practical challenges. The author warns about the worsening climate crisis and urges for local initiatives in energy policy independent of slow government action.

3. Reading Comprehension Exercise

1. What ideological views about energy sources are still present in the Czech Republic according to the author?
2. How does the agreement between Trump and Putin affect Czech energy security?
3. Why does the author consider dependence on fossil fuels a security risk?
4. What is the government’s current strategy to address energy challenges, and what are its problems?
5. What does the author suggest about local energy initiatives and government action?

4. Key Vocabulary (English → Czech)

- energy sources – **zdroje energie**
- renewable energy – **obnovitelná energetika**
- fossil fuels – **fosilní paliva**
- security threat – **bezpečnostní hrozba**
- embargo – **embargo**
- referendum – **referendum**
- government – **vláda**
- nuclear power – **jaderná energie**
- climate crisis – **klimatická krize**
- investment – **investice**
- dependence – **závislost**
- modernization – **modernizace**

1. English Translation

Věra Jourová: What does this remind me of...

Today, a few lines about so-called inclusion in schools, meaning the support of children with special needs to achieve standard quality education. Just a language note at the beginning. I have the impression that many things for which we have not found a Czech word are put by part of society, including politicians representing this part, into a drawer: foreign, therefore suspicious. Notice: inclusion, gender, LGBT, GDPR... I would like professional experts and promoters of the Czech language to make greater efforts to find Czech expressions for often used foreign words and abbreviations. That would help a lot. By the way, I like Professor Oliva’s objection to the artificially created word "hostka," which bothers me both in my ears and soul. In the interest of progress, it is not necessary to spoil the native language, I think.

But to the point. In 1981, I had the great fortune to travel behind the Iron Curtain, specifically to a folklore festival in the Netherlands. Believe it or not, at that time I danced and sang – with love – Horácko dances and songs. Folk art was then a way to travel, of course under supervision. I was a beautiful seventeen years old, and those few days "outside" had a lasting impact on me. I traveled there as a girl affected by communist propaganda. They really knew how to brainwash children. Fortunately, my father diluted it by letting me listen to the Voice of America with him. So, in the Netherlands, I saw for the first time in my life people in wheelchairs and mentally disabled. They lived in the village where our group was accommodated. They had beautiful accommodation, access to a pool, could live a normal free life, and most importantly – they had constant care mostly from young and healthy people. Although they had serious physical and mental handicaps, they received full respect and dignified treatment. I was amazed and wondered: Where do these people live in Czechoslovakia? Or do we not have them at home at all? Do I really live in a happy society where only healthy and perfect socialist individuals live?

Gradually, I came out of the shock and began to understand. I thought: When the Bolshevik falls, will we as a society also get rid of the Bolshevik division of people into valuable, quality (from the regime’s point of view) and less valuable (meant to be excluded and hidden from the world’s eyes)? I suspected that we would soon have nice cars and goods in stores, but that change in behavior would be difficult. It was clear that the path to recognizing the dignity of every person would be complicated. The Dutch model began to be slowly fulfilled after 1989. Many years and a lot of effort were needed to remove old layers and prejudices. I was happy about this development and tried to help it in various ways.

But I would never have thought that one day someone would start turning the helm back, in the opposite direction. This turning is happening today, gradually and slowly, it flashes in the speech of the influential, and it is very dangerous. Everything that is somehow different, somehow weak, is also difficult and must get out of the way. Minister Macinka said about inclusion that it is "evil, where not a stone will remain on stone." I cannot believe it: did he really use these words for a system that is supposed to help children? Are we really supposed to get used to the language of Motorists to themselves (to whom else, right?), who commonly call people parasites and inferior?

We need to pay attention. Notice that I used the frightening example of communism, which I experienced myself. I could have gone even deeper into history, as we know. One thing is clear, whether it was the reds or the browns, they could harshly deal with difference and weakness. Attacks on the weakest are usually the beginning of totalitarianism, and their tolerance always ends up bloody for everyone.

I am not an expert on so-called inclusion in schools. Probably system changes – in the sense of maintaining purpose and greater efficiency – are necessary. I also believe that they will pass politically in a solid form. The government will probably approve the amendment soon, and then there will be a lot of discussion about it during approval. And so I ask very much, let us follow the debate and object to anyone who will automatically send children (those who, according to Minister Macinka, do not have their heads in order) to special schools.

Věra Jourová is a former European Commissioner and Vice-Rector of Charles University for Human Resources and New Technologies.

2. Summary

Věra Jourová discusses the topic of inclusion in schools, focusing on support for children with special needs to receive quality education. She reflects on her experience in the Netherlands in 1981, where she saw people with disabilities living with respect and care, which contrasted with the situation in Czechoslovakia under communism. Jourová warns against recent political rhetoric that threatens to reverse progress in inclusion, citing Minister Macinka’s harsh words about the system. She stresses the importance of protecting the dignity of all children and opposing any automatic placement of children with difficulties into special schools. Jourová encourages public attention and debate on this issue as the government considers changes to the inclusion system.

3. Reading Comprehension Exercise

1. What was Věra Jourová’s experience in the Netherlands in 1981 regarding people with disabilities?
2. How did communist propaganda affect Jourová’s early views before her trip?
3. What concerns does Jourová express about Minister Macinka’s comments on inclusion?
4. Why does Jourová mention the importance of language and finding Czech words for foreign terms?
5. What does Jourová ask the public to do regarding the upcoming government debate on inclusion?

4. Key Vocabulary (English → Czech)

- inclusion – **inkluzí**
- special needs – **speciální potřeby**
- propaganda – **propaganda**
- respect – **respekt**
- dignity – **důstojnost**
- prejudice – **předsudky**
- amendment – **novela**
- debate – **debata**
- totalitarianism – **totalitářství**
- disability – **postižení**
- care – **péče**
- government – **vláda**

1. English Translation

Lukáš Jelínek: Escape through the Center

Good news is never enough. Therefore, it is surprising that the main message from this year's municipal elections almost went unnoticed: citizens removed extremists from an unexpectedly large number of councils.

The trend across Europe is the opposite. This was recently reminded to us by the state elections in Germany and the selection of senators by municipal councils in France. There, the far right is even conquering the Élysée Palace.

It is a disgrace that, unlike most European countries, we have right-wing radicals in our government. However, this also limits their room for maneuver: they are co-responsible for many unpopular measures and had to forget their pre-election promises, such as withdrawing aid to Ukraine, leaving the EU and NATO, or moving towards direct democracy.

Paradoxically, the fact that extreme parties did not reach double-digit results is thanks to the one who invited them to the government – Andrej Babiš. He declares himself a proud populist, and the ANO movement skillfully gains votes that would otherwise go to SPD, Motorists, or someone even more dangerous. This could eventually cause tensions within the governing coalition.

But what should a dissatisfied voter do? Whom to give a protest vote to when those who once claimed to represent them are now the establishment and form the government majority?

Thus, an "escape through the center" occurred. Support significantly increased for purely urban candidate lists of local movements (all those "elections for the city," "cities for themselves," associations of independents, etc.) and moderate parties leaning towards the political center.

On the other hand, SPD did not enter councils in Prague, Brno, Ostrava, and most other cities. The same applies to the declining communists. After eight decades, they will not even be in the Ostrava council. To succeed in Nový Jičín, their former chairwoman Kateřina Konečná had to run on a joint list of Enough! and PRO Jindřich Rajchl. Once humiliating for the communists, today they even accept a merger with the far right.

If citizens showed any interest in radicalism in these elections, it was radicalism in defending the interests and meeting the needs of their city. There is already a place (for example, Havířov) where the ANO movement joined forces with traditional parties led by ODS against this trend. What if, God forbid, some fundamental changes occurred and someone started investigating management, contracts, or various party "small houses"...!

Deideologization of politics is not the right direction. However, in the municipal sphere, it may be a reaction to endless disputes at the highest levels or the minimal productivity of the Chamber of Deputies. All the more, parliamentary parties should notice the voter message: there is demand for factuality, competence, and a non-confrontational style. Besides various independent movements and candidates, people primarily associate these qualities with centrist parties. That is why, among opposition parties, only the STAN movement is rising significantly in electoral models.

Once secretariats analyze the municipal results, perhaps we will see more factuality and constructiveness in national politics over time.

Lukáš Jelínek is a political scientist.

2. Summary

Lukáš Jelínek discusses surprising positive results from recent municipal elections where citizens removed extremists from many councils. This contrasts with trends in other European countries, where far-right parties are gaining power. In the Czech Republic, right-wing radicals are part of the government but have limited influence due to their responsibilities and broken promises. Dissatisfied voters are turning to moderate, local, and centrist parties, leading to an "escape through the center." Jelínek suggests this shift reflects a desire for practical, competent, and non-confrontational politics, especially at the municipal level, and hopes this will influence national politics in the future.

3. Reading Comprehension Exercise

1. What was the main surprising outcome of this year's municipal elections according to the text?
2. How does the trend in the Czech Republic differ from other European countries regarding extremist parties?
3. What limits the influence of right-wing radicals in the Czech government?
4. What does the "escape through the center" mean in the context of these elections?
5. Why might deideologization of politics be happening at the municipal level?

4. Key Vocabulary (English → Czech)

- extremist – **extremista**
- municipal elections – **komunální volby**
- council – **zastupitelstvo**
- far right – **krajní pravice**
- government – **vláda**
- coalition – **koalice**
- protest vote – **protestní hlas**
- local movement – **lokální hnutí**
- moderate – **umírněný**
- political center – **politické střed**
- deideologization – **deideologizace**
- competence – **kompetence**