The war in Ukraine, Russian conditions for its termination and the position of Europe. Pre-election attitudes, possible shifts in support for candidates and the role of sociological surveys. Compromise and political scandals as a tool in the campaign and their impact on the election results.
Here is what else Rumen Ovcharov, former Minister of Energy and former senior functionary in the Bulgarian Socialist Party, said to Lili Marinkova in the “FACT“ studio and the “Conversation“ program.
– Mr. Ovcharov, we will talk about security in the Black Sea and the impact of the concerns around it on Bulgaria's energy interests. Are these exaggerated fears, or are there real dangers? What would it mean if the Black Sea became a "dead zone" and Russia tightened its control over shipping?
– The question is indeed very complex. Russia is already in a situation where it has nothing to lose in the Black Sea. Over the past four or five years, Ukraine has been gradually, although not completely, practically blocking Russian shipping. Over the past six months, Russia has been actively responding to Ukraine in the same way. In practice, Ukrainian Black Sea ports, such as Odessa and Nikolaev, are in a military zone. Anything that moves and is spotted is attacked there. Until now, the territorial waters of Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey and Georgia have remained protected. They were the only waters in the Black Sea that were free from such attacks. I say "so far" because last week there was an attack in the territorial waters of Romania.
– Do you think Russia can actually stop shipping in the Black Sea?
– If Russia decides to stop shipping in the Black Sea completely, it can do so. A few ships that continue to move in our territorial waters are quite enough to deal such a chilling blow and stop traffic.
Last week I listened to statements from representatives of the grain producers' association that ships are no longer entering. Then I also heard a representative of fertilizer producers who said that there is no such thing. My information from “Lukoil“ is that so far there are no problems with oil supplies to the refinery and things are going normally.
But we must be aware of the risks. Bulgaria imported 27 million tons of cargo through the Black Sea last year. This is 25% of our imports and 20% of our exports. There are goods that we cannot export in such quantities in any other way. For example, grain - these four to five million tons that we want to export. The same applies to oil supplies for the refinery.
– Along with the discussion of whose drones hit the two sunken ships, another question seems to be left in the background. How did ships that were sailing 120-150 kilometers from the Bulgarian coast suddenly end up 15 kilometers from it?
– This is precisely the question that we are missing. How did it happen that in a week ships that had been sailing 120-150 kilometers from the coast of Bulgaria suddenly found themselves 15 kilometers from it, right next to our territorial waters?
If you remember the map of Bulgaria, sailing further from the coast is significantly more economical and shorter than going close to the coast. A satellite image has also appeared, which shows that ships are increasingly pulling towards Bulgarian territorial waters.
– Do you think this is a deliberate provocation?
– I do not think that this is happening by chance. On the one hand, these are the fears of the people who sail. But I do not exclude another possibility — these ships are mainly Ukrainian or fulfill orders from Ukrainian companies. It is possible that they are deliberately directed in this direction and when one of them falls into Bulgarian territorial waters and is hit there, a big scandal will begin.
Now we are hearing: “What is the drone? Whose drone is it? Why was it used?“ But what of it? Let's establish that it is Russian? Look, we have heard similar logic before. In 2022, when “Nord Stream“ was blown up, they explained to us that Russia itself blew it up to stop natural gas supplies to Germany. Then it turned out that things were not exactly like that.
– You also mentioned the events in the Kherson region. What is their connection with this situation?
– There is a city in the Kherson region — Oleshki, on the left bank of the Dnieper, which became the subject of discussion in the Security Council. It is located in the Russian-controlled part, but the Ukrainians are not allowing anyone to enter there because they are remotely mining the roads with bombs and shells. As a result, a serious tragedy occurs.
– Prime Minister Rumen Radev has taken several initiatives for security in the Black Sea — including talks with Romania and Turkey. His critics reproach him for not condemning Russia categorically enough. How do you assess his actions and how do you distinguish the interests of individual countries?
– I would not focus only on the actions of the Prime Minister. I would like to recall that President Iliana Yotova, in her speech to the UN, raised the issue of ending military operations in the Black Sea.
She did not simply propose that NATO countries gather and discuss a moratorium without ever asking Russia what it thinks about the issue. Otherwise, the initiative will pass and go away like many other initiatives of Europe and the European Union.
For the first time, the question of the participation of all six Black Sea countries was raised. By the way, this position was also pushed through as a decision of the National Security Advisory Council. The six countries were named and the idea is that they find a solution together.
This was supported by three-quarters of the participants. It is clear that some of the political forces will not support it due to their domestic political considerations, but in my opinion, these initiatives are a positive sign that Bulgaria is trying to conduct its own policy.
This policy coincides with Turkey's interests. Turkey is very interested in the development of the situation in the Black Sea. The ships that sail along the western coast of the Black Sea, that is, past Bulgaria and Romania, go to Ukraine. They serve Ukraine. The ships that pass from the eastern side serve Russia. Unfortunately, over 450 ships have already been attacked in the Black Sea. Over 100 of them have been attacked by the Russian side in the last six to seven months. We cannot stop this with unilateral actions. We must seek a balance between the interests of all the countries involved. So in this direction, I think the actions are correct.
– There is a hypothesis expressed by our interlocutor that Russia is acting like in the Strait of Hormuz. It has calculated that this way the war becomes cheaper, and the control is completely in its hands. At the same time, Russia, unlike Ukraine, has other export opportunities, right?
– Russia is currently exporting huge quantities of grain and grain products, because it has a good harvest. It can export them along a variety of routes — through the North and Baltic Seas, through the Far East and in other directions. However, Ukraine has no other outlet to the sea than the Black Sea. Passing through the Danube is currently extremely complicated and allows the transportation of much smaller quantities with limited tonnage ships.
So the big loser from this whole situation at the moment seems to me to be, first and foremost, Ukraine. In my opinion, reasonable actions can be found in this direction, which in some way would also protect Russia's interests.
– What additional opportunities does Turkey have to influence the situation, given its ambitions to control shipping through the straits?
– Turkey maintains relations with both countries. It supplies military production to Ukraine, but at the same time refused to impose sanctions on Russia. It trades actively with Russia. A large part of Russian oil passes through Turkey.
Why was the price of diesel in Bulgaria so much lower last year than it is now? Then it was the lowest again. Because huge quantities of Russian diesel entered Bulgaria through Turkey.
Now many of those who are making a fuss are asking why the price has increased by 20% or more. Well, because their companies flooded the market with cheap Russian diesel last year, and now prices have risen. Yes, they have increased, but diesel is once again among the cheapest.
– Should Radev support the American deal with Russia on diesel? And what benefit do we get from it at all?
– I think that this deal shows one of the paths along which world politics will probably develop in the future. Let me first tell you the numbers. Russia produces between 85 and 90 million tons of diesel annually. It needs about 50 million tons for domestic needs. The rest can easily be exported. Globally, the daily diesel shortage is about 1.6 million barrels, which can be covered by Russian supplies. I would advise our Europhobes or Europhiles — I don't know what to call them — to calm down a bit. They are no longer Atlanticists, because Atlanticists are different. This deal saves the diesel market in Europe. If Trump had not made this move with Russia, his only other option would have been to stop the export of American diesel to Europe. And without American diesel, the prices we have now would seem like a fairy tale. That is why I believe that this deal, however questionable in some respects, shows the trend and direction in which international relations will develop.
– From now on, can we expect more negotiations between Russia and the United States? We have previously discussed whether Russia would provide “Turkish Stream“ to an American businessman...
– They are already starting to negotiate. Yesterday you probably noticed that Witkoff was in Moscow. They talked, and the deal for “Lukoil“ is already being discussed at such a level.
– Do you think that “Lukoil“ was also discussed yesterday?
– They reported it on Russian television, in the central broadcast of the “Vremya“ program last night.
– Meanwhile, there was also talk of extending the derogation until the end of the period?
– I think I've told you before: it can't be otherwise. Trump's idea is American dominance in energy. This is his main strategic line. That's why the events in Venezuela are happening, that's why the events in Iran were happening. With apologies, someone was told that the same thing would happen - that they would remove several key figures, including Bashar Assad and the ayatollahs, and Iran would collapse, as happened in Venezuela. Well, that didn't happen. Obviously, other paths to energy dominance or shared energy dominance are already being sought.
– But you said something else then - that Putin will not give in...
– He will not give in just like that. He looks after both "Lukoil" and "Nord Stream". If they find a balance between their interests, things will look different. But this will not be the brutal pressure that the United States exerted a year ago.
They imposed sanctions on “Lukoil“. Okay, but who are these sanctions hitting? They are hitting their most loyal ally on the Balkan Peninsula — Bulgaria. So what of it? What will Putin lose? He will wait.
That is why I am telling you that a direction towards negotiation is already noticeable, which may turn out to be more productive than confrontation.
– Is this the main thing and will the so-called long-awaited peace between Russia and Ukraine be a function of this agreement?
– Rather, things are going that way. As sad and ominous as it may be, according to Trump's honest language, this is a deal. A deal and nothing more. He himself says so.
- There is talk of accepting the conditions, of looking for a mediator…
– The sad thing is that while they are pushing, it may happen that… I don't know if you noticed, but the other day Russia announced that the territories it is now taking over in the regions it is supposedly not fighting for — Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov and Sumy, where it is creating the so-called security zones — are no longer subject to renegotiation. That is, Russia has no intention of leaving there. Putin said so too.
An American analyst said: “There is no need to guess what Putin will do. He simply says what he will do. We must listen to him.“ But they are not listening to him. Two or three years ago, at a meeting at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Putin had stated: “Now the conditions are these. In a year there will be others, in another year there will be a third.“
That is why it is time to think and make decisions. I am really sad about what is happening in Ukraine. This is the greatest misfortune of our generation. In terms of civilization, perhaps there has never been such a perverted war.
– Absolutely. Therefore, this war must be stopped as soon as possible…
– All these slogans… Yesterday I listened to the Latvian Prime Minister, who said that we should deprive ourselves of one beer in order to give Ukraine money to fight. That is, if you want to drink your coffee and eat your croissant in the morning, Ukraine should continue to fight. Wait a minute, what is this? This is already something bloodthirsty. I can't understand — we are killing people! Sit down, understand yourselves! What is the problem? What did Putin want five or six years ago? To give people the right to speak Russian.
– Let's not get into that topic. Let's talk about the problems of governance now. One of the sociological agencies reports a decline in the government's rating. If we use this word, do you think there is a risk that the difference between Iliyana Yotova and Gyurov will gradually melt away and lead to a very contested second round of elections? Then all parties will be able to actively participate and, as they say, act vengefully...
– Look, in my opinion, this is a purposeful trend. On the one hand, they are trying to keep the intrigue alive, and on the other - to maintain the fear that Kostadinov and Volgin could overtake Gyurov and Kandev.
– Do you think this is possible?
– No, I don't think so. But apparently some people are afraid of such a development. After all, this part of Bulgarian society is not unambiguously directed at Iliyana Yotova. There are concerns that she may somehow mobilize people to support the Kostadinov-Volgin couple.
– You mean voters who do not support “Progressive Bulgaria“ and the Bulgarian Socialist Party, but are close to them and are now disappointed with both?
– Yes. These people are standing and watching the situation. Apparently some are afraid that they might go to vote. Someone had mentioned that there is also an increase in voter turnout. In my opinion, this is part of the whole political game. However, I don't see these candidates conducting a particularly visible campaign. They probably hold meetings in places, like everyone else, but this is not particularly noticeable.
– I would say that Kostadinov's campaign is also largely disappointing…
– Absolutely. But, to be honest, I don't see a serious danger. I said it three months ago. I don't see another candidacy that can objectively threaten the main favorite. Look, they got to the point where the only emphasis in their election campaign is the case of the pardoned person. They continue to develop this topic, but they do not understand that through compromising material they fall into what I call “brother Peto's trap“.
– Do you mean Petar Stoyanov and the 2001 elections, when he tried to solve his problems with Bogomil Bonev, who constantly criticized him because of Ivan Kostov and corruption, with a compromising material?
– Yes. He imagined that with a compromising material against Bogomil Bonev he would deal with his biggest critic. Parvanov did not criticize him so strongly.
Of course, I do not fully accept this explanation. The compromising material had some effect, but not that much. The BSP had already regained its strength. If Simeon had not come in 2001, the BSP would most likely have won the elections in June. Simeon attracted precisely those votes that would otherwise have been directed against Ivan Kostov and most of them would probably have gone to the BSP.
So the BSP had already restored the trust of its voters, and Parvanov reaped the fruits of this restoration. Petar Stoyanov simply helped him by getting involved in this whole story himself.
– But there is another point of view. Petar Stoyanov failed not because of Atanasov's report, but because the parties had withdrawn from him. He did not receive sufficient support even from the blue ranks that had promoted him. Some of them were disappointed or, under the influence of Kostov, did not vote for him. This means that the parties were not sufficiently mobilized to support him...
– There is also such a moment, but let me finish my thought. Stoyanov imagined that with one compromising piece of evidence he would solve his problem with Bogomil Bonev. But the situation was much more complicated. The BSP had already restored the trust of its voters, and the emergence of Simeon changed the political picture.
The other mistake was that Simeon's candidacy for president was not allowed.
– This was already Ivan Kostov's mistake…
– I think we should leave these elections in the past. They were a long time ago. But it seems to me that at the moment such tactics are playing a bad joke on the candidates. There is nothing else to draw from. The other day I was reading an article that listed seven prosecutorial requests, thirteen medical examinations and various decisions of institutions. And from all this they are trying to make the president guilty because he pardoned someone. Everything was respected. Nothing substantial can be drawn, but despite this the topic continues to be fanned. It makes no sense.
– However, is it possible that other revelations will come out between the two rounds?
– These are compromising materials. You remember Sofianski's booklet, right?
– The question is whether it is possible for sociological surveys to mislead and for someone to have a hollow rating, as happened with Petar Stoyanov. We will find out in the first round?
– Looking at these sociological agencies, in my opinion 50%, even 60-70% of them have nothing to do with either Iliyana Yotova, or with “Progressive Bulgaria“, or with the left. They are an independent product of democracy. So I don't think they have any interest in misleading someone with a high rating for Iliyana Yotova.
See more of the conversation in the VIDEO.