The most likely version of the drone that fell in Bulgaria is electronic warfare and loss of control of the device as a result of Russia's actions, says Prof. Todor Tagarev to DV.
DV: Prof. Tagarev, before we get to the questions raised by the drone that exploded on Bulgarian territory, let's summarize the known facts about it - what kind of drone was it, where did it come from, how did it explode…
Prof. Todor Tagarev: According to information from the Ministry of Defense, it was a decoy drone. These are extremely cheap products made to imitate a larger drone. Several dozen are launched to activate the enemy's air defense and anti-drone defense. It is expected that he will turn on radar stations, which can be so easily detected, and use expensive anti-aircraft or aircraft missiles to hit these cheap drones. In this way, the enemy's air defense is exhausted and he becomes more vulnerable in a real attack.
DV: If it was a decoy drone, why did it carry a warhead?
T. Tagarev: Some of these drones also have a small warhead, so that if they are not shot down, they can inflict some damage.
DV: Are we sure that the drone came from Ukraine?
T. Tagarev: There is also an unpopular version in our country, but discussed by our allies, that Russia collects grounded Ukrainian drones and repairs them in order to then use them to attack NATO countries in so-called false flag operations. So far, the government has not presented evidence that our case is not like that, and we must remain open to considering this version as well.
DV: Could evidence of Russian interference “under a false flag“ be presented?
T. Tagarev: It could be, but it has not been done so far. If we have a system for monitoring the electromagnetic environment, it could show whether electromagnetic interference or manipulation of satellite-based navigation systems (so-called “spoofing“), regularly used by the Russians, were detected during this period. Spoofing misleads where the aircraft is. Things are quickly forgotten, but such was the case with Ursula von der Leyen's plane last fall, whose landing in our country was hindered by spoofing.
DV: But even if it wasn't a false flag operation, it would still be spoofing, i.e., there's no way, in your opinion, that the drone could have flown in without Russian interference?
T. Tagarev: Definitely. And I think that our Foreign Minister was very quick to summon the Ukrainian ambassador, not the Russian one, because it doesn't matter whose drone it is, but because of whose actions it got here.
DV: Isn't it possible that it was simply a misguided Ukrainian drone that flew in due to a technical error?
T. Tagarev: This is a one in a thousand chance, or even less. And it may not be exactly spoofing, which is a specific technique, it is enough to cause electromagnetic interference that would jam the GPS signal and cause the drone to lose orientation. An accidental technical error is practically ruled out.
DV: Why, since Russian interference cannot be ruled out, is this point of view almost absent from the public discussion at the expense of the opposite - that Ukraine is the cause? We send it aid, and it sends us drones, Putinists gloat.
T. Tagarev: We should not be surprised by such a reaction, because it also comes from the government. It seems to want the case to be perceived the way you describe it. Rather, I see that they were unprepared for the situation that arose and their messages were confused. For example, the Minister of Defense explains that after similar cases in Romania, we have taken all measures to strengthen our anti-drone defense system, but it turned out that we can't do anything.
DV: Why can't we?
T. Tagarev: Because it can't be done with 50-60-year-old Soviet stations, for which we spent hundreds of millions supposedly to modernize them. Because we don't invest in new defense systems. Because we stay away from any allied processes for their development. Because, instead of solving our current problems, we are preparing to buy another squadron of Soviet MiG-29s.
By the way, at his meeting with Zelensky, Prime Minister Radev raised the issue of obtaining technologies for the production of drones – quite hypocritical in my opinion, after he had just stated that we would no longer help Ukraine in its defense against Russia.
DV: Do you see a strategy for Bulgaria to remain defenseless against a possible Russian attack?
T. Tagarev: The goal is hardly to be defenseless, but it seems that we are trying to stay away from the collective defense of our allies.
DV: Have there been any Russian provocations with drones in Bulgaria so far?
T. Tagarev: Three years ago - when I was a minister, there was a staging in Tyulenovo with pieces of a drone mounted on a rock by the shore, and a grenade taped to it, but this case was never investigated, which was a clear provocation. There was also another drone pushed by the waves onto the shore, which was blown up by a Bulgarian team, without again clarifying what exactly happened.
DV: But I wonder now, when the Bulgarian government is taking positions that could be interpreted as more tolerant towards Russia, whether it would carry out such a provocation.
T. Tagarev: Why not? This is a way for Russia to demonstrate to NATO that it can do whatever it wants. But I say again that it is less likely that this was a false flag operation specifically targeting Bulgaria. The Bulgarian authorities have the necessary information to possibly rule out this hypothesis, and they must do so because it is a hit near compressor stations on a gas pipeline that Ukraine also relies on for gas supplies, especially during the winter months. And there is already intelligence information that this year the Russians will begin attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure much earlier.
DV: Finally, can you repeat - what is the most likely scenario?
T. Tagarev: Electronic warfare and loss of control of this drone as a result of Russia's actions.
DV: Can we then expect the Foreign Minister to summon Ms. Mitrofanova?
T. Tagarev: It should.