The public and the unfolding events will determine who wins or loses. I repeatedly emphasize that we don't have a presidential system, and everything happening in recent days and weeks is an attempt to move closer to such a system. That's the essence of it. The situation stems from the results of last year's October elections. A government with a clearly different worldview was formed than that of the president. Therefore, this conflict was bound to happen sooner or later. In this sense, it is a standard political conflict with its own unique Czech characteristics that I don't like.
I believe that a serious political discussion should have taken place, and they should have resolved this differently than they are doing now. However, the underlying issue is clear. Nowhere in the world is it mandatory for a president to attend NATO meetings. There are countries where presidents have never attended NATO meetings because it is considered so much a function of the prime minister or chancellor that it would never occur to anyone to send the president. For example, in Germany.
But I don't think so; it's more about a different worldview in many respects. The non-appointment of Turko is a consequence, not the cause. I believe that the fact that presidents have previously attended NATO meetings is simply because they haven't been as distanced from the government as President Pavel has been. This is often overlooked. Just because I, as president, may not have loved Špidla's or Topolánek's governments doesn't mean I would allow such a rift to occur. Sometimes one must be willing to remain silent and accept a different situation. Macinka exacerbated the situation with his clumsy – or however you want to describe it – methods. This has heightened the tension, allowing the other side to avoid addressing the core of the problem and focus on the superficial aspects.
I have repeatedly said throughout the past six months that resorting to the Constitutional Court is an attempt to avoid a political solution to the problem. For me, this is completely unacceptable and I would never have done it. Another issue is the way the Constitutional Court responded. I have seen their materials; it's a complex legal text that must have taken weeks to create. It couldn't have been written in a few hours. This clearly indicated that the Constitutional Court, or someone within it, essentially wrote the president's complaint and therefore had a prepared response ready. That is also a Czech peculiarity.
I don't pretend to be a constitutional lawyer. Partly because when two constitutional lawyers meet, they will have two, sometimes even three, different opinions on any given matter. The question of whether it is possible, according to a proper interpretation of our laws, to issue a provisional measure for this constitutional complaint... I don't want to comment on that. But the arguments of those who say that it is not possible seem logical to me.
We did not use the word "coup" in our Institute's statement, but in our terminology, we used something that essentially conveyed the same meaning. It is an attempt to change the nature of our constitutional system. The word "coup" is already a marginal issue. But the problem that there is an attempt to make this change must not be downplayed by using the word "coup," whether appropriately or inappropriately.
Of course, this is the intention of those people who reject the foundations of parliamentary democracy and want us to move to a completely different system. Yes, it's perfectly logical that this is coming from STAN (the "Mayors and Independents" party). If I were to use a bon mot, I would say that what STAN proclaims is nonsense. I would dare to say that over many years of observing the STAN movement.
It is fundamentally inappropriate for the government to dictate the composition of his entourage, just as it is inappropriate for the Constitutional Court to determine what a delegation should look like for such an international event. Both are inappropriate. If I am correctly informed, the presidential office initially announced that the president's entourage would consist of about 35 people. And after a few weeks, they sent a request for a smaller number. I cannot confirm this, but it seems funny to me. When I was president, I traveled with a much smaller retinue. So, again, it seems like an attempt to move our system towards something completely different.
Last week, I was at a conference in Berlin and mentioned this issue in the corridors. People looked at me with surprise, saying they had never heard of such a thing. On Friday, Erwin Pröll, the former legendary governor of Lower Austria, visited me. When we talked about it, he clearly indicated that he had not even registered it. We tend to overestimate ourselves. In this matter, we are not the center of the world, and the world will only know about it if our opposition constantly tells the world.
Let Donald Trump deal with that; I cannot make decisions for him. But again, let's not exaggerate this. Whether Trump knows about it, whether he is aware of similar statements made by other presidents or prime ministers who have said something similar, I do not know. I would not overestimate it.
In Ankara, besides other matters, there will be discussions on the annual payment of 70 billion euros to Ukraine. Andrej Babiš has already stated that we will not block this but nor will we participate in it. Could things turn out differently if the delegation were led by a president more inclined toward such measures? Is the leadership of the delegation crucial for matters like these?
It is both and neither, depending on perspective. First, I believe that people here vastly overestimate the role of such a summit. Indeed, there are many topics being discussed day in and out by ambassadors at NATO headquarters in Brussels; they propose this or that, hear counterarguments from other sides, send reports home asking whether certain proposals can be accepted. Thus, 98 percent of the decisions made at the summit have long been resolved through prior negotiations at this level. In the vast majority of cases, nothing like that is actually decided upon during the real NATO meeting. That is a misconception people hold.
As a participant in about six NATO summits, I experienced only one where something was genuinely discussed and it became clear that what had been prepared beforehand was insufficient. This occurred in 2008 in Bucharest. Therefore, an extraordinary evening session involving just the heads of delegations was convened to address this issue: whether Ukraine and Georgia would be admitted into NATO. That matter was essentially kept silent before television cameras, microphones, etc. The discussion lasted many hours; we argued fiercely over it then. It was pushed by the American president Bush at that time with help from Great Britain against the will of other NATO members. Nothing revolutionary happened as a result. However, this meeting anticipated reality by 20 years. But such an event is absolutely exceptional. I do not want to completely rule out something similar happening in Ankara either, but I would hardly expect it.
So what will form the bulk of the summit? What should we expect from it?
The main event at this summit will simply be whether one person or group argues with another. That is all there really is to it. Debates about how Trump intends to deal with Europe and vice versa regarding his relationship with Europe will remain in the background throughout the entire summit. In my opinion, the final outcome will ultimately prove far more consensual than anyone might expect.
Let us turn to events in Czechia. Over the weekend, audience members booed Culture Minister Oto Klempíř at a folk festival in Strážnice. Initially responding with remarks about drunkenness and rowdiness, he was then further insulted by Petr Macinka, who even came there later on and cursed the boos among other things as Bolsheviks. What do you say to that?
Well, let me tell you: Macinka is certainly not someone I would consult about his own statements. I only learned of this through media reports. In my view, it was unreasonable for both men to completely fail to appreciate the atmosphere and situation among the public or overestimate their personal charm. So in my opinion, that was an unfortunate incident that should never have taken place.
Klempíř has been under pressure for some time now—mainly due to planned changes in funding public-service media. Do you think it is reasonable to abandon license fees and instead fund Czech Television and Radio from the state budget?
Look, I believe that we do not need public radio or television very much because they are failing to fulfill their actual function according to my opinion. If anything, I would love to see serious films or theatre in TV—but there is simply none of that available. Instead, equally worthless series are broadcast just like those found on any private channel or station. So in my view, nothing dramatic will happen if something were to occur with these media outlets.
But I think the game being played is completely symbolic. Here, employees of these two media outlets are demonstrating that they believe – just as they believed in 2001 – that this television and radio station belongs to them. That it's their property. Now they suddenly feel like someone is infringing on that ownership. Of course, that's absurd. Czech Television doesn't belong to any particular editor. The fact that there's a huge problem with the concept of public service broadcasting is a fundamental issue. If they are so adamant that they don't want anything state-owned, as I noticed Mr. Stach said, then they should recommend that these media be funded by fees. But if that were to happen, it should be voluntary and not mandated by law.
Do you think the government might back down on its plans to change the funding?
I don't know. I don't think it's about the specific wording of the law, but rather that someone is touching something that employees truly believe belongs to them. In my opinion, that can't be changed. It was absolutely clear that this was a volatile issue. I have the feeling that it appeared in the government proposal somewhat hastily or unpreparedly. For example, Minister of Culture Klempíř made it clear at the beginning that he didn't want to pass this law because he wasn't convinced about it. So it's all an absurd situation. But I think that now that the government has taken a bite out of this poisoned apple, it would be good to continue with it.
Let's go back, indirectly, to the tensions surrounding the summit in Ankara, or rather, Petr Pavel. In two years, there will be a presidential election. Do you expect that after this event, the conflict between the president and Babiš's government will continue? How might it develop further?
Well, a war is unstoppable. If this president and this government are in place, I think that war will continue. The president and the people who shape or refine his ideas are in fatal opposition to today's governing coalition. But something completely different is the presidential election. I consider the transition to direct election of the president to be a complete disaster, and I don't think it has any solution. By escalating this issue so simplistically before the public, we have, in my opinion, reached a situation where no meaningful candidate can emerge. No one will definitely get involved; they will be marginal figures who will hopelessly lose to the current president.
So you are convinced that Petr Pavel will defend his mandate? Why?
Absolutely. I don't think there is an alternative in the sense that no one can profile themselves in such a way that they have five years to do so.
The parties in the governing coalition and some others from a similar spectrum are talking about putting up a strong, joint candidate. Do you not believe they will succeed?
I don't know this strong candidate.
Interview with Václav Klaus conducted by Petr Kolář, MF Dnes, July 4, 2026. Photo: Petr Topič, MAFRA.