The hits on merchant ships in the Black Sea, Bulgaria's reaction and the risks to the security and economy of the region raise an increasingly acute question about our country's ability to defend its national interests. Against the backdrop of the ongoing war in Ukraine, the changing US policy and the growing tension in Europe, Sofia is faced with the difficult balance between diplomacy and real security measures. What are the goals of Russian actions in the Black Sea, can NATO guarantee free shipping and where is the policy of detente leading? About this, as well as about the upcoming presidential elections in Bulgaria and the rearrangement of international relations… Here is what he also said to Lili Marinkova in the studio “FACT“ and the program “Conversation“ Rumen Yonchev, chairman of the PP “Agricultural People's Union“.
- Mr. Yonchev, for more than two weeks in Bulgaria, the hits on merchant ships and the response of our country have been discussed. Has the public managed to understand the meaning of these actions and where they lead?
- Look, the whole effort to clarify the circumstances seems a bit ridiculous both to the public and to the world, because it is more than clear who is sinking ships that have loaded cargo in Ukrainian ports and are traveling somewhere else or are carrying cargo back to Ukrainian ports.
- In both cases, did the ships sail under a foreign flag?
- Ships are always under someone's flag. They are not always from the country in which the owners are actually located. There are such destinations that they register. One of the ships was Ukrainian. So it is more than clear that the drones, submarines or bombs that sank these vessels are Russian. And the question is what does this mean for Bulgaria and what exactly Bulgaria is doing in this situation under the general name of “diplomacy“.
In fact, a permanent doctrine of Bulgarian foreign policy is being revived, which dates back to the tsarist regime. Back then, they said: “Never against Russia and always with Germany“.
That is, the demotion that is being talked about now – a little bit with everyone. Remember that Todor Zhivkov welcomed Brezhnev at the residences one week, and Franz Josef Strauss or some Western politician the next week. In general, this type of politics is not uncharacteristic.
Let's not talk about the times of Borisov, when he spoke to partners abroad, and here “dünner diplomacy“ reigned – everything is calm, everything is fine. But in today's times, this policy is a little more difficult to implement and Radev's government is really trying to do something different, as if for the first time. We will need a little more time to assess whether it makes sense and whether they are doing it consistently, or if it is some kind of improvisation.
They say one thing to external partners, another thing or a little differently here, but the important thing is what they do. That is what we have to judge. That is why we also need time to see what they are doing. Is the strengthening of Bulgaria's ability not to defend itself from military actions, but to protect its territorial waters really going well? Is this being done, is it being invested in, or is it not being invested in? From there, conclusions will be drawn about what exactly is happening.
- How do you assess the Bulgarian initiative, presented at the European level together with Romania, and Turkey's separate proposal for corridors for Russia and Ukraine?
- Unfortunately, the case of Black Sea shipping is starting to resemble that in the Strait of Hormuz. In general, Russia is somehow adapting the Iranian approach to military operations - to wage a slightly cheaper campaign, a cheaper war.
Sinking three or four ships in the Black Sea is not a huge effort for the Russian military machine. At the same time, it gives a much greater foreign policy, military and economic effect on all of Europe than the military operations in Ukraine, where people die every day.
Perhaps there is a shift in the focus of the Russian military campaign towards the Black Sea - precisely through these, not exactly military, methods to control an economic process. The Black Sea is the economic heart of Southeastern Europe.
Blocking the traffic will have huge consequences not only for Bulgaria and Romania, but for traffic in general. Now we are talking about grain transport. The harvest is in full swing throughout Southeastern Europe, and all this has to go through these transport channels. If it does not happen, the consequences will be huge.
- What can Europe and NATO do?
- Obviously, NATO can guarantee the passage of the Black Sea, but this means open conflict. This means shooting down Russian drones, shooting down Russian planes and searching for Russian submarines with NATO's technical capabilities. Don't forget that Turkey is part of NATO. Perhaps the most interested party in the whole mosaic is Turkey, because it is the guardian of the straits at the entrance to the Black Sea - the Bosphorus. Turkey has the greatest interest in this traffic not stopping.
Turkey has traditionally maintained relations with both sides in the conflict and this reflects its position: “We will not take sides, you fight, and we will guarantee two highways - one for the Ukrainians, one for the Russians.“ In order for the traffic in the Black Sea to continue to flow. Obviously, they are trying to come to an agreement, especially with the Russian side, to make this happen. I don't think they will succeed, because the Russians are aiming for something else. They want to carry out the war in this way - cheaper and more effective – and to wring their hands. This is a war of nerves and economic pressure more than of military force. The Russian military machine is tired, exhausted, drained of resources and it will not be easy to continue in the traditional way.
But we will actually see military action in the Black Sea territories, because Ukraine will be obliged to respond. Ukrainian drones will start attacking Russian ships or cargo related to Russia that pass through the Black Sea. This will bring the war much closer to our economic, political and military interests. This is a very bad prospect for Bulgaria. Their rulers have very difficult decisions ahead – first to guarantee the basic criteria for national and territorial security, and then to conduct diplomacy and contribute to the resolution of the larger conflict.
- Is a way out possible through the actions of the American president?
- The American president has actually already passed the peak of his capabilities. According to general estimates, the midterm elections will lead to at least a loss of Congress. A loss of the Senate is also possible, but let's not exaggerate. This does not mean much in American politics, because the government of the United States is structured as a presidential republic and the president remains first. Most likely, there will be strong control of Congress over military spending from the elections onwards, from January onwards - a contraction of military budgets and the president's ability to wage wars.
This will mean an even greater withdrawal of America from world politics and a focus on domestic problems. So expect an America that is more distant from world problems in the next two years. The problem remains European, remains ours, and remains with the main victims – the European Union and the countries surrounding it.
- Can we expect a change at the top of the European Union because of social protests and high prices?
- A, as they call it, perfect storm with multiple factors has gotten involved in Europe. It is not just the social problem in Europe. Europe is not poor. Europe has never really lived richer and better. But there are social problems and there is a rise in prices because of fuel and energy sources. Note that the main strikes in a purely protest, revolutionary, so to speak, are in Spain, France, and Italy. Three countries that quite strongly opposed Russia in the war against Ukraine, being leaders in the process of opposition, and also quite strongly opposed America, that is, Trump in their mutual relations. It is probably no coincidence that you allow incitement. Why are there no similar processes in Austria or Slovakia? Do Slovaks, Hungarians and Poles live more contentedly than the French and Spaniards?
- Incitement from the American or Russian side?
- From all sides. Understand first that Europe does not have many friends at the moment on the world stage for one reason or another. All this, combined with the current economic and macroeconomic crisis in these countries, because the problems with debt, with social inequality, with the sharp jump in prices, all this exacerbates the situation and creates objective conditions for boiling.
- The least close to mind is that they invest so much money in the war…
- And this is so carefully promoted on social networks, because today the world is completely different. You could also say that you spread information instantly in a wide circle, without much control over it, especially in the liberal environment of Europe, where information travels unhindered. I don't want to be a fan of conspiracy theories, but I think there's a lot more behind these conflicts and these protests than just the social problem. And the ethnic problem is also being pumped up quite carefully and carefully by some factors, including overseas.
Follow the statements of J.D. Vance in recent days, who explained everything that is happening in France with the ethnic problem. Trump today explains that Paris will soon be a Muslim city. This is not a coincidence at all and is in no way benevolent towards Europe, towards the French, towards the Spanish, because the conflict between Trump and the leaders of these countries is quite obvious. Both have elections coming up and in such times things start to boil over. A brutal political clash is beginning, which is already seeking expression in similar processes. It is no wonder that there will be such processes in the United States after the elections or before the elections.
- Speaking of this terrible bloodshed Russia-Ukraine, who holds the initiative? What will be the outcome?
- The initiative is obviously on the Russian side, because only Russia can end the war. Ukraine alone cannot end it, because for Ukraine this means capitulation and a Russian regime in Kiev. In general, this is the condition as of today. That is, Putin and Russia hold the cards.
Obviously, he still has the resources and desire to continue waging this war. Perhaps also for internal reasons, because tensions are growing in Russia. Prices in Russia have not become lower either. Fuel is also not more easily accessible and cheaper in Russia.
These processes also oblige him to continue some type of patriotic-nationalist campaign that will maintain the spirit in Russian society, which is susceptible to such things. But in the long run, this is not sustainable.
- The trilateral meeting between the United States, China and Russia, for which information has been received that the American president has confirmed that he will attend and that it will take place in November, does it work for all three?
- It works for all three, because everyone has their own interest in it. Trump desperately needs to show that the world depends on him and that he decides things in the world.
Putin desperately needs to come out of isolation and for the second time Trump needs to bring him out of this isolation by putting him on the world stage on an equal footing with the other two. And Xi Jinping has a very clear goal to continue pursuing a policy of goodwill with everyone, actually promoting purely Chinese interests, mainly economic ones. That is, not to close the doors to either the east or the west for China. People imagine that the world will be divided again. I suspect that those who initiated the meeting would like to divide it. I am glad that this will not be possible, because the world is much more colorful. There are other factors on the scene that have their own weight. Therefore, it is no coincidence that both Trump and the United States are paying great attention to the elections in Brazil, where a second round is coming up and the clash is between Trump's man and the other man. Such elections have taken place in several South American countries. Such elections are coming up in Europe in many places and the clash there will be very similar.
Not to mention India and the major economic countries in the world, which are gaining their own weight. The only ones who take this fact into account are actually the Chinese, because China's foreign policy is quite diverse. They conclude agreements, conduct diplomacy, economic talks and trade negotiations with almost all the major powers in the world. In this diverse range are Canada, Brazil and Latin America. China is not in the center, but it is one step above them, because such is the economic interest of the Chinese state. Unlike the United States, Russia and Europe, which are more playing with tariffs, restrictions and the closure of economic zones.
- How will voters who do not have candidates vote? These are GERB and DPS, which have not yet specified what their sympathies are towards those who are on the scene. Can their votes turn the election in the runoff?
- You are putting too much responsibility on me to say how they will vote. I don't think I can guess how they will vote. Rather, the analysis is different.
Why, for the first time after so many elections in Bulgaria, were Bulgarian voters faced with a double choice, in the sense of binary? There are not many candidates. There are, of course, many marginal ones of all kinds and types, but as you can see, their presence is almost not felt in the campaign. They have nothing to say, because the choice before Bulgaria is such that it implies a two-sided choice, plus-minus.
In this context, the position of GERB, the MRF and many other parties not to nominate candidates is understandable, even though they are obliged to, being or claiming to be a nationally present political force. They have nothing else to say except what the already nominated candidates say. They would document a loss, which is always bad in politics.
At the same time, they are losing now because they are not saying anything. When you abandon your voters, you do not talk to them and do not offer them a solution, they go somewhere else. Going somewhere else, it is difficult for them to come back to you. This is present in politics and it is a merciless process.
I don't expect anything good for those who haven't nominated candidates. And how will their voters and all Bulgarian voters vote? Sociologists are more or less giving us a picture that is generally two to one in the current conditions. We will find out very quickly what is coming this Sunday.
- Is a result possible from the first round?
- I wouldn't rule out a result from the first round. The only problem for this to happen is voter turnout. Due to the sluggish campaign, due to the lack of real candidates and real alternatives, many will not vote on that day, which will lower the turnout below the 50 percent needed for a result.
So I expect the issue to be resolved in the second round. Nothing else and nothing different can happen between the current main candidates.
- But never say never. Surprises are possible…
- The moderate surprise would be if we had an elected president this Sunday. Rather, this would be the surprise, which might be good for Bulgaria, because we would save another round and several tens of millions of euros spent on the next elections. Otherwise, the voters of these parties will permanently orient themselves in one direction or the other, I suspect, in a similar ratio to the current one between the two candidates.
- You warn that whoever runs away, then does not return...
- This is a fact. It is an observed fact in politics, and that is why politicians usually, no matter how hopeless, nominate candidates. It's better to talk to voters who have ever reached for your ballot than to let someone else talk to them.
See more of the conversation in the VIDEO.