Bulgaria does not have a clear strategic perspective for its place in international relations, and a multi-vector foreign policy can be successful only if all its elements are around one strategic axis. This was stated by former Foreign Minister Nadezhda Neynski in the program "This Morning" on bTV.
According to her, the management program of the "Radev" cabinet is not clear enough about what Bulgaria strives to be by 2030.
"I read the program carefully. I understood what kind of Bulgaria Prime Minister Radev does not want to be in 2030, but I could not understand what he wants to be. That is, there is no clarity about the strategic perspective for Bulgaria and this personally bothers me“, she said.
Neinsky raised the question of what happens to the Bulgarian position when the interests of Bulgaria, the European Union and the United States do not coincide.
„In recent weeks, there have been many events that have raised the very important question for me: what happens and where is Bulgaria when the interests of the US, the EU and Bulgaria do not coincide? Where is Bulgaria? How does Bulgaria see it?“, Neinsky asked the question.
„He talks about autonomy, that is, Bulgaria independently defending its national interest, but this requires special resources, requires strategy and requires diplomatic experience. Bulgaria does not have the capacity of countries like Turkey or India, for example, which have such a multi-vector policy“, said the former foreign minister.
The former foreign minister is of the opinion that for Bulgaria the best way to protect its national interest is through the democratic unions in which it is a member, because this way the country increases its weight in international relations.
Neinsky also commented on the management program regarding NATO, the UN and the OECD, as well as the policy towards North Macedonia. According to her, there are no specific criteria by which to measure whether Bulgarian interests are protected.
“With regard to North Macedonia, we are talking about protecting the rights of Bulgarians, which, of course, is extremely important for people with Bulgarian identity. But at the same time, there are no criteria against which to measure whether these interests are protected, and when there are no criteria, it remains a diplomatic declaration“, she said.
According to her, it is not enough for Bulgaria to simply be presented as a connecting country and its territory to be used for various transport corridors, if the country does not have control over the ownership and financing.
“We are talking about the importance of Bulgaria being a non-peripheral, connecting country, but it is not enough for corridors to pass through the country if the ownership is not yours, if the financing is not yours and if the only person providing the territory is actually someone else who controls the processes from outside“, she said.
Nejinsky defined the lack of real actions behind the policies stated in the program as a weakness.
“I have seen and heard many good programs, which, however, are not backed by real actions, and in my opinion, this is the weakness in terms of foreign policy. Not to mention that the role of the foreign minister, as well as the prime minister, is to defend the national dignity of their country. And this is something that should be a priority in all cases throughout all that is planned“, she stated.
Regarding the inconsistency regarding Ukraine and Iran, according to Neynski, in one case there is talk of fulfilling allied commitments, and in the other – of the danger of Bulgaria being drawn into war.
„When we comment on the two major conflicts – Iran and Ukraine, we see that with regard to Iran, there is talk of fulfilling allied commitments when it comes to problems that may arise, while with regard to Ukraine, we are talking about supporting Ukraine leading to war, which is obviously a different yardstick in both cases“, she said, defining it as an example of inconsistency, which creates a problem and in practice Bulgaria is losing its foreign policy weight.
Neinsky defined as correct the fulfillment of Bulgaria's allied commitments and the deployment of aircraft at the “Bezmer“ airbase. However, she made a distinction between the way in which the current cabinet explains the decision and the positions expressed before the elections.
“I immediately answered the question “is it correct“ I will say that Bulgaria is fulfilling its allied commitments and just as the first deployment of the airport in Sofia was correct, so is the deployment of the Bezmer airport.“
According to her, the difference lies in the grounds for the two decisions - the first was related to an agreement with the United States for training exercises, while the second was about logistical support for the conflict in the Middle East.
“In one case, before the elections, Prime Minister Radev, then president and then already a candidate for prime minister in his capacity as party leader, played on people's fears, after which he had to make a similar decision, even under much more difficult circumstances, which he explained in a completely different way with his alliance commitments.“
Neinsky defined such an approach as a problem that creates distrust among society.
According to Neinsky, the situation in the Middle East remains extremely tense. She also pointed to the military agreement between Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey as a sign of change.
“Perhaps another event escaped some viewers, namely the agreement in Mecca, where Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey concluded a military agreement, which is a symptom of change in the Middle East“, explained Nadezhda Neynsky.
According to her, one of the reasons for the change is the unpredictability in the foreign policy of US President Donald Trump, who alternates threats with serious actions, with diplomacy, and some countries do not feel sufficiently protected.
Neynsky believes that this is causing some countries in the region to seek alternatives to American security guarantees.
“However, now this impression is cracking. They do not know how they will treat their allies, which is causing some of them to seek alternative options. And it is precisely the recognition of this that the agreement in Mecca, which, in the opinion of many analysts, marks a serious change in attitudes,“, she said.
According to her, the agreement is not so much important as a kind of “Muslim NATO“, as a factor in changing the geopolitical balance in the region.
“But it has a geopolitical impact on the entire region, bypassing Israel, creating other attitudes, increasing Turkey's weight in the region, increasing Pakistan's weight in relation to the Persian Gulf, where they have always wanted to have influence. And, of course, it cracks confidence in the ability of the United States to defend the region,“, the former foreign minister also said.