The latest incidents with ships in the Black Sea show that the war in Ukraine is already having a direct impact on the security and economic interests of Bulgaria. According to Kuzman Iliev, the region is becoming a space of collision between Russia, Ukraine, NATO and Turkey, and attacks on infrastructure and vessels increase the risk for trade routes. Here is what Kuzman Iliev, chairman of the party “Bulgaria moge“, shared with Lili Marinkova in the “FACT“ studio and the “Conversation“ program.
– Mr. Iliev, the recent attacks on ships in the Black Sea have once again raised the issue of shipping security. Is the Black Sea turning into a “dead zone“ and what are the real risks for Bulgaria?
– The Black Sea is indeed turning into a military zone and this is the biggest military risk facing Bulgaria. For years I have been warning that the entire NATO military bloc, on the one hand, and Russia and its partners, on the other, are preparing for such a confrontation. Now we are seeing some of its manifestations.
The problem is that in Bulgaria we very often look at individual incidents in isolation – a ship is hit, another is sunk – without considering the broader context. The Black Sea is a space in which the interests of global geopolitical powers and blocs collide.
– What does this mean specifically for the Bulgarian economy?
– We are already paying the price. Huge quantities of goods and cargo pass through Bulgaria. If only 10% of these flows are reduced due to increased risk, this means millions of tons of cargo less. If additional costs due to higher insurance premiums and risks are added to each ton, we are talking about hundreds of millions of euros of additional costs. This makes production more expensive and creates serious economic challenges for Bulgaria.
– In your opinion, how did the current situation with shipping in the Black Sea come about?
– It is not our job as Bulgarians to give general assessments of who started the mutual destruction first. But it is important to know the political context. Some time ago, Ukraine began intensive attacks on Russian infrastructure, including warehouses and ships related to exports. There were attacks on Russian ships with grain in the Sea of Azov. Then we had to ask ourselves: will there be no response?
And the response gradually turned into pressure on Ukrainian ports. Infrastructure, bridges, warehouses and other objects that had not previously been attacked on the same scale began to be attacked.
– You say that Bulgaria is paying a price for this escalation today. But how should the Bulgarian state react?
– The most important thing is not to rush into assessments when we do not have all the data. Bulgaria is a serious country and must behave as such. We see how after every incident an argument begins about who is the aggressor, who is to blame and how we should react. But we must also ask ourselves the next question: what do we do next? If we just send out an angry note, what do we achieve? We must think strategically, not emotionally.
– You yourself allow for different versions of the origin of the drones and attacks. Isn't it dangerous to make assumptions before there is an investigation?
– That is exactly what I am saying. We must not rush. Most likely, there may be logic in one or the other version, but without having all the data in advance, it is frivolous to draw categorical conclusions. Especially when we are talking about incidents in a war zone where different countries are operating.
– You also mentioned the role of Turkey. What is its significance for the development of the situation in the Black Sea?
– Turkey has its own interests, and in many ways they are in opposition to Russia's. Currently, there may be cooperation between Turkey and Russia in certain areas, including energy and tourism, but Turkey cannot accept the Black Sea being dominated unilaterally by Russia.
On the other hand, Turkey is a member of NATO. Therefore, its role is extremely important. If it comes to a more serious involvement of Turkey on the side of Ukraine or changes in the regime of military ships through the straits, this would be a very serious escalation.
– In your opinion, are Bulgaria and Romania already becoming part of a larger NATO military logistics?
– Yes. Infrastructure and logistics are being built in Bulgaria that should connect Central Europe with the southeastern part of NATO's eastern flank. We are talking about bridges, tunnels, transport corridors and the possibility of faster movement of troops.
We should not imagine that all this is being done in order to have a better infrastructure and get rich. There is also a military-strategic interest.
When talking about billions of investments in infrastructure on NATO's southeastern flank, society must understand that part of this infrastructure is also intended for the movement of military equipment and troops.
– In that case, does the risk of Bulgaria becoming a frontline state increase?
– If NATO strengthens its military line towards Russia and the conflict continues to escalate, Bulgaria may indeed turn out to be a frontline state.
We need to understand something very important – this will not be an ordinary war in which armies clash on the battlefield and then everything ends. We are talking about a confrontation between nuclear powers. If it comes to using ballistic and hypersonic missiles, the infrastructure of countries can be destroyed very quickly – ports, bridges, communications, databases, Internet infrastructure, water supply.
– You call for diplomacy. But is it possible at the moment?
– There is no other workable option than to sit down at the table and understand what the Russians want and what the Ukrainians want. The big problem is that we do not understand the conflict well enough. People think that one day the Russians just woke up and attacked Ukraine. But the conflict has a history. We must also listen to the enemy. This does not necessarily mean taking their side. It means understanding what they think and what their goals are.
– What do you think Europe should do?
– Europe must become a strong mediator and use its influence to reach negotiations. The continuation of the military confrontation has a huge price. Ukraine has suffered enormously economically, the victims are in the millions, and the consequences for Europe are also serious. I don't see how we can achieve a lasting solution without diplomacy.
– You are critical of the increase in armaments spending. Why?
– Because we are entering a spiral. One side arms itself, the other responds, and then we say that we need to arm ourselves even more. Bulgaria has limited resources. If we take out huge loans for weapons and at the same time invest in new systems to counter drones, we have to ask ourselves how far this will go.
Drones are a weapon of the new generation of wars. Ukraine and Russia already have vast experience in this regard. We have to think very carefully about what this means for Bulgaria.
– What would happen if the conflict between NATO and Russia continued to escalate?
– Then the stakes become enormous. We are not just talking about conventional war. We are talking about the possibility of destroying the infrastructure of entire countries. We should not imagine that such a war would be limited only to soldiers and military bases. Citizens, capitals, economies will suffer. That is why I do not understand why anyone imagines that the stakes are small.
– What prevented the Soviet Union and the West from coming to a direct confrontation during the Cold War?
– Diplomats. They found a way to connect Khrushchev and Kennedy. There were treaties on strategic nuclear weapons, on missile defense and other areas. Today, diplomacy has almost become a dirty word. Anyone who talks about negotiations can be accused of being on Putin's side. This, in my opinion, is dangerous rhetoric.
– You are also critical of NATO. How do you see Bulgaria's place in the Alliance?
– NATO has a good idea as a defense alliance. But I think the problem is that the Alliance has started to deal with many things outside its original logic.
When you look to the East, there is a completely different understanding of who the aggressor is. We see one side, and they see another. I'm not saying that we should accept their point of view. I'm saying that we should understand it.
– What should the Bulgarian approach be then?
– Bulgaria must protect its own interest. Our interest is not to be drawn into war. We must see the East not only as a threat, but also as a potential partner. We may have some opportunities, they may have others. The question is to find the intersection of interests.
– Ultimately, what is the most important lesson from the recent events in the Black Sea?
– That this already concerns us directly. The incident will pass, the media will replace it with other topics and in time it may be forgotten. But it showed something very important - that Bulgaria as a society and as an economy is on the verge of becoming part of this war. This is not a joke. And that is why we must think strategically, understand what is happening and look for a path to diplomacy before the escalation becomes irreversible.
See more of the conversation in the VIDEO.