Is the old world over?
The world is neither worse nor better. It is simply returning to a more familiar state. The past thirty years were, in many respects, a historical anomaly: peace, globalised capitalism, seemingly risk-free opportunities This description exaggerates somewhat, but not completely. Human history includes only a handful of periods marked by such stability and prosperity.
The first was during the Roman Empire. The second followed the Napoleonic Wars, when Europe experienced nearly a century of relative peace and industrial growth between 1815 and the First World War. The third came after the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, when three decades of expansion fostered the illusion that history itself had ended. But it had not. The world has reverted to its natural condition, where conflict feels normal and power and politics again matter greatly.
What has changed?
If we accept that those thirty years were an anomaly, then politics has rediscovered its strength, especially in the West.
Not elsewhere?
In Asia, the state and power have always come first, with business and money following behind. Jack Ma briefly believed he mattered more than the Chinese president, and reality corrected him quickly. America has also changed; even the wealthiest now defer to Donald Trump. Europe was the last place where we convinced ourselves politics no longer mattered. The war in Ukraine shattered that illusion.
Where did Europeans go wrong?
We grew accustomed to the belief that the world operates according to rules, everywhere and all the time. That if you order a container of paper cups and plates online to sell in a stationery shop in Moravia, someone in China loads it onto a ship, and forty days later the goods arrive. No complications. No risk. War, pirates in the Indian Ocean, major supply disruptions—these possibilities never crossed our minds. Above all, we stopped considering that someone might actively seek to break those global rules.
But all of this is happening, and no global policeman stands ready to punish those who ignore the rules. The United States once played that role and played it well. But that era has ended.
Was globalisation a dead end?
On the contrary. Globalisation made us wealthier, especially the poorest people in the poorest countries. Global capitalism is clearly a positive force, but it works only if the majority respect the rules.
Once those rules stop applying, two paths remain. One involves clinging to the old model and occasionally crashing into a wall. The other means deciding that we want independence in certain areas, such as energy, food, medicine. This choice reflects the fear that closed borders might leave shelves empty. Covid offered a preview. So did Russia’s weaponisation of raw materials. So does Donald Trump’s habit of overturning core policies overnight.
Autonomy, however, carries a cost. Everything becomes more expensive when global trade falters. Politicians rarely say this openly.
It seems we have entered a time when simply functioning demands more money and more effort.
The post-Cold War decades, when Germany prospered on cheap Russian gas, American security guarantees and exports to China, belong to the past. Every business decision now must account for geopolitical, supply and security risks. Risk has a price tag. That explains why everything costs more.
Is there a positive side to this? Is self-sufficiency the upside?
From an economic standpoint, self-sufficiency never ranks as optimal. Ideally, security would never enter business calculations, but reality dictates otherwise, not as we might prefer. This new reality costs money. We pay for stable supply, for production closer to home, for certainty that goods will arrive at all. The economy is drifting back towards borders, alliances and physical presence. That is the real turnaround. One positive outcome is that whether we like it or not, it will kick us into action. The question is whether we respond by working harder.
How important today is nearshoring, the strategy under which a company moves its business processes or production to a nearby country, often a neighbouring one, to shorten supply chains and benefit from geographical proximity?
Consider rare earth elements. China controls them;, America does not. That gives China a strong hand, because modern defence systems, from fighter jets to submarines to supercomputers, depend on them. The United States would prefer such materials closer to home, or at least inside allied territory.
As borders re-emerge, the world divides into "us" and "them". These lines follow alliances as much as geography. The European Union, NATO, and the wider West, joined by Japan, South Korea and Australia—in this environment, strategic resources increasingly belong either inside one’s borders or inside those of trusted allies. This reality shapes nearly every strategic decision today.
What investment potential does Europe still have?
Europe is a great place, though we don't appreciate it enough...
Few people would say that today.
But it's true! Europe is safe. Its economy functions. Healthcare is excellent. Rules exist and generally hold. Even small details matter, like drinkable tap water. Critics will object, pointing to flaws in healthcare systems or varying water taste across Europe. But compare Europe honestly with the rest of the world and ask where you would choose to live long-term?
So what went wrong?
Just as we forgot that power defines global affairs, we forgot that prosperity never lasts forever. We are finite. States rise and fall; companies expand and collapse. Europe peaked about twenty years ago and now faces tougher times. It’s not decline, but slower growth. Others innovate faster, adapt faster. Europe missed that train because life felt comfortable, not because it has been hard.
Europeans started behaving like ageing rentiers. Defence spending stalled, innovation slowed, all in the name of keeping things pleasant and unchanged. In that sense, Putin and Trump have served as wake-up calls. Europe has lived under “parental care” for too long, and now reality has forced us into the cold. We have to start turning things around, even if it hurts.
But isn't it too late?
That depends on us; fate is in our own hands. But I see reasons for optimism. Change has begun. Europe’s strongest army today belongs to Ukraine. The second strongest? Poland. Economic growth concentrates in Central and Eastern Europe. Germany and Poland are rearming. And the good news is that the Czech Republic and Poland are growing despite Germany’s stagnation. That's not a failure, but an encouraging sign.
Why is that happening? Are we catching up, or do we hold a real competitive advantage?
Central Europe is growing from a lower base, which makes progress easier than in mature economies. The region also keeps a level of drive that many Western countries have lost. People want to work, build wealth and seize opportunities. Despite regulatory hurdles, the Czech Republic is a gold mine compared to Paris or Berlin.
Industry never vanished here, and that now works in our favour, where investment is returning to security and manufacturing. Poland proves that success did not come by chance. When it joined the EU, poverty dominated. Over the past decade, growth has doubled ours, driven by large-scale infrastructure and industrial investment.
Should we follow the same path?
Industry is vital, but the region is also developing into an IT hub. Nearshoring and friendshoring is pushing companies to place key IT centres among trusted partners rather than in Asia. This shift creates a real opportunity.
So that these companies don't choose Warsaw...
Or Prague. Global firms such as the British bank Barclays, the FNZ pension fund and the American pharmaceutical company MSD already operate IT centres in the Czech Republic. This confirms that Czechs combine traditional industry with innovation and start-ups.
Of course, Poland is also doing well, and Poland’s success benefits the entire region. The same applies to Croatia and the Balkans. Despite inflation and minor downturns, Central Europe, or the Visegrad region, continues to perform well and still offers room for expansion.
Has Visegrad reached its limits?
From an economic perspective, our countries remain tied together. Replacing exports to Poland or Slovakia with exports to Argentina or Nigeria, for example, makes no sense. Strong relations with neighbours are important, regardless of political orientation, and dialogue to find common ground wherever possible matters more than ideology. Economically, Germany and Poland stand out as neighbours.
Should the Czech Republic focus on deeper European integration, as recommended by the Draghi report and various think tanks, to remain prosperous at the international level? What is our starting position?
I reject the idea that prosperity depends on EU federalisation or a "United States of Europe". I don’t hold this position from a Eurosceptic view. On the contrary, EU membership brings clear benefits. I say this because domestic work is still unfinished and our attention shifts towards new ambitions.
What do you mean?
The European Union's greatest strength is the single market, but it is by no means complete. Thousands of internal barriers hold Europe back, not America or China. Before we talk about deeper integration, Europe should finish the single market, build a capital union and liberalise finance. Europe should also acknowledge its limits.
The Draghi report promises everything at once: cheap energy, the Green Deal, economic growth, social harmony, strong business and trade unions, and global influence. But reality resembles a household budget. Trade-offs exist, or some things cannot be done within the budget. The Green Deal illustrates this clearly. Europe produces only seven percent of global emissions, and even if it applied extreme regulations, it would not change global outcomes, only weaken itself. This has already happened.
Europe does not need more federation or constant value signalling. It needs a return to its original purpose: connecting economies so they remain strong and competitive, and investing seriously in security. After all, we have a war zone six hundred kilometres from our borders. The Green Deal no longer fits today’s budget.
How has the war in Ukraine accelerated change?
It has triggered profound changes. Croatia reintroduced compulsory military service. Finland, neutral for eighty years, joined NATO under Prime Minister Sanna Marin. Sweden, proud of its independence, also joined NATO. Poland’s military is purchasing tanks at a scale rarely seen elsewhere. These changes are reshaping Europe at a fundamental level.
Migration policy also changed. In 2015, Central Europe faced ridicule for rejecting a wave of migration from the Middle East. Today, Denmark enforces the strictest migration rules, and Germany plans to follow. The ridicule has stopped.
You attend forums like Davos and the Munich Security Conference. A huge amount of capital is currently flowing into defence. Will armaments create growth opportunities for the Czech Republic?
The Czech Republic benefits from a strong industrial base, including arms manufacturing. We never let it disappear. At the same time, the automotive sector, long a pillar of prosperity, faces structural change. People's relationships to cars have shifted, Chinese manufacturers and electromobility are entering the market, and younger generations no longer view car ownership as a life goal. Škoda Auto is currently Volkswagen Group’s most profitable brand, and it deserves recognition, but reliance on automotive production will not suffice ten years from now..
Industry needs a new direction: chips, ICT, advanced manufacturing, investment in semiconductors, such as Onsemi in Moravia, defence technologies from drones to rocket engines, pharmaceuticals, advanced e-commerce and logistics. This mix shows that the Czech economy retains strong potential. PPF contributes to this mix by building ICT infrastructure, operating advanced mobile networks, supporting the digital economy, and developing intelligent transport systems.
How do you see the future of the alliance between Europe and America? Should we start worrying about the level of this relationship? Is it appropriate for Europe to maintain its independence and no longer trust anyone?
I would put it simply: Europe is our family and America are our cousins. Families can disagree and argue, but the bonds remain, including with cousins across the ocean. Cultural, historical, and security ties connect us more closely than any other alternative.
And NATO?
The transatlantic alliance may be facing strain today, but no stronger alliance exists. European and American elites have misread the story of an America that no longer exists, and Europeans grew comfortable under American protection. Today's America has a different composition, different priorities, and looks mainly towards the Pacific. Europe must accept that reality and move forward without nostalgia. We are mutually dependent and must find ways to keep the relationship functioning. To be honest, I don't think America presents any real alternative to Europe either.
Jan Růžička, Director of External Relations at PPF. | Source: e15 Michaela Szkanderová
How do you view this world? How does PPF respond to it?
PPF has a huge advantage because it is a family business, which lets us make decisions quickly and easily. PPF is not controlled by an anonymous stock exchange and thousands of investors. PPF is controlled by four active owners who set the group's strategic direction and make decisions quickly. After Russia invaded Ukraine, the decision to exit Russia followed immediately in March 2022. Contract signings began by May. A listed company could not move that fast.
You exited Russia and China and sold your businesses in the Philippines, Kazakhstan and Indonesia. Where is your centre of gravity now?
Definitely in Europe. The money from the sales did not sit idly but flowed actively into investments in Poland, Germany, the Czech Republic and the Balkans. And it happened practically overnight.
You are one of those who believe in Europe.
Many claim that Europe has stagnated and is useless. Anyone convinced of that should move their business based in Prague, Vienna, or Poland elsewhere. Europe has fundamental advantages: the rule of law, democracy, predictability, and despite some problems, a functional and transparent business environment. From our perspective, this foundation supports long-term business. Eighty percent of our activity now focuses on Europe, from Scandinavia to Central and Southeastern Europe. PPF invests in virtually all countries of Central and Eastern Europe and views the region as a high-quality, promising area for business.
PPF is pushing digital platforms such as Oneplay. It has also linked O2 and Airbank, and banks with telecommunications in the Balkans. Is this kind of integration the future?
We learnt this in Asia, where people commonly use super apps, unlike Europe, where we have separate services such as Uber, Dámejídlo, Rohlík, Heuréka and others. In Asia, platforms combine everything from food to real estate purchases to dating in a single application. These online platforms in Asia naturally expand into offline business, because people are social beings. They want to meet up, see clothes in a shop or touch the toys they are buying for their children. In Europe, it's basically the same, only it has moved in the opposite direction.
How is it different in Europe?
We are building on a strong traditional business and using it as a foundation for our digital platforms. This is exactly where PPF's advantage lies: it owns a unique combination of telecommunications, media, banking and e-commerce. Anyone trying to replicate this would need to assemble several independent companies to create comparable platforms, which would add unnecessary complexity. In our case, everything already fits together.
The interconnectedness of our key pillars creates enormous value for customers, something clearly visible in the Czech Republic. Over the long term, these segments have proven that they work very well together. In Central and Eastern Europe, we also benefit from having room to build these models. It is no coincidence that one of DHL's biggest competitors today is Poland's InPost, where PPF is the largest shareholder.
Why is it important for PPF to stay anchored in Central Europe?
PPF has a Czech and Central European heart, and I am personally delighted that the Kellners decided to keep this region as our home. This gives us a major advantage in building platforms that demand substantial capital and advanced technology. We have what is often called "patient capital". Our shareholders do not operate under short-term pressure, unlike many American funds that must exit after five years. This approach gives us the time to wait for results and build businesses steadily, with a long-term perspective.
What is the goal?
We have capital, stable financing and a clear DNA. We are not typical "techies", but an industry-focused holding company, a group that knows how to build, operate and improve a business. In a way, we represent the famous Czech "golden hands", only at scale and in a global context.
Nevertheless, the company still has a strong appetite. Although we have sold a several assets over the last three years, we have also invested billions in new companies. We want to grow, we know who we are, and we feel a sense of responsibility. It also matters that we're not alone in this. If the Czech Republic has a deeper strength, it lies in the fact that we are a nation of traders.
The interview was translated and edited for clarity.
