Andrey Novakov to FACT: Let's have a "Black Sea Dome" for protection

The Black Sea is no longer just a geographical border, but a matter of security, economy and political will. The drone incidents, the risks to commercial shipping and the threats to maritime transport pose the question to Bulgaria of how ready it is to defend its interests and when it will ask for more decisive support from its allies. MEP Andrey Novakov (GERB/EPP) spoke to FACT.

- Mr. Novakov, you insist on a stronger presence of the allies in the Black Sea after the series of incidents near our coast. Why are there no more NATO ships in the Black Sea?
- It is not correct to say that there are no NATO ships in the Black Sea. Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey are members of the Alliance and have naval forces there. As someone who has served in the military, I know that presence is not measured only by the number of ships. What matters is what capabilities we have against new threats - drones, attacks on civilian vessels, risks to crews, cargo, food supplies and regional economies. That is why I am pushing for better surveillance, anti-drone protection and coordination between allies, in line with existing international rules. The goal is to protect people, not create new grounds for tension.

- What exactly do you want to change in NATO's actions - more warships, a permanent military presence, additional air defence systems or a new common plan for the region?
- I would start not from the number of ships, but from the threat we have to face. If a drone appears over a merchant ship tomorrow, how do we detect it, who makes the decision and what do we do to stop it? These issues are more important than a pretty picture of a few frigates in the harbor.
It is fashionable to talk about Iron Dome, Golden Dome… Let's have a “Black Sea Dome“ for defense, covering from underwater to space defense capabilities. Better surveillance, exchange of intelligence and other information, anti-drone systems, air defense, and coordinated action plans are needed. There is also economic logic: we cannot endlessly use expensive means against relatively cheap drones. Europe must invest in fast, affordable technologies that can be produced and used on a sufficient scale. This is one of the reasons why I insist that defense and innovation be given a serious place in the next European budget.
NATO remains the foundation of our collective defense. But European countries must take on more of the practical work of their own security.

- You recently asked NATO to update its plans for the Black Sea. What answer did you receive and has there been any concrete progress since then in strengthening the defense of Bulgaria and Romania?
- I only expect progress now, when the situation has already put pressure on us. One of the things I want to happen is for the plans for a Black Sea coordination center to materialize. Some time ago, Bulgaria was pointed to for its successes in the fight against illegal migration along the EU's external border. I see an opportunity to become a good example in the fight against drone attacks and irregular flights into EU airspace. This is precisely what it means to be a reliable partner for the EU and NATO and at the same time protect your own exclusive economic zone, territorial waters and population.
Emil Radev and I took a concrete step. We are organizing a working visit of our colleagues from the European Parliament to Sofia and Varna on October 29 and 30. Meetings at the political level and visits to structures related to security and crisis response are planned. I want the people who will be involved in decisions on European defense and the budget to see firsthand what we are talking about.

- You are proposing a European naval mission along the lines of “Aspides“. What is “Aspides“…
- I believe that it is high time for action, which is why I initiated and negotiated the European Parliament resolution on the response to hybrid attacks in the Black Sea. My idea for a naval mission along the lines of “Aspides“ was unanimously accepted by all political groups.
“Aspides“ is a European naval operation of a defensive nature, created to protect commercial shipping in the Red Sea region. The idea is that when civilian ships pass through a dangerous area, military ships can accompany them and protect them from attack within certain rules.
Why am I giving this example? Because I am not proposing something that no one has ever done before. Europe already has the experience and the naval assets to organize such protection. The principle is applicable: civilian sailors should not become targets while doing their job. These are people who have gone to sea to provide for their families. It is not normal to leave them alone against military threats.

- What should its mandate be and how will it be coordinated with NATO, without duplicating structures and costs?
- First, we must be absolutely clear about what the goal is: the protection of civilian ships and the safe passage along certain routes. Not an offensive operation, not participation in war, not a new structure to compete with NATO. The rules for the use of force must comply with international law and be subject to defense protocols and a mandate. All this is within the framework of NATO.
Then comes the practical part: who observes, who exchanges information, who commands, how to react in case of danger and what the rules for passing through the straits allow. The Montreux Convention and the role of Turkey are factors that no serious plan can ignore.
NATO has its role in collective defense, and the EU can organize specific instruments for the protection of shipping. I want the two to work together. People are not interested in whose stamp is on the plan, but whether the ship will reach the port safely.

- Who should bear the main burden for this operation — Bulgaria, the other Black Sea allies or all EU and NATO countries? How will the costs, ships and responsibility be distributed in the event of an incident?
- If insurance and transport become more expensive tomorrow, this will not only affect Varna and Burgas. It will affect businesses, traders and families throughout Europe. Therefore, I do not accept the thesis that the Black Sea is a problem only for the three NATO Black Sea countries.
Naturally, Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey should have a leading role in planning - they know the area and bear direct responsibility for their own security. But European solidarity cannot end with a declaration of support. If a decision is made for a mission, the countries must agree on real contributions - ships or other capabilities, financing, command, rules for response and responsibility in the event of an incident.
It is not appropriate to speculate in advance who will pay what amount or how many ships they will send. Such an allied operation will also be subject to allied financing from the EU and NATO. This is a subject of negotiations and decisions that have not yet been made. But the principle is clear: when a threat affects the common European market, the response cannot be left to the budget of two or three countries. Let us not forget the positive side effects of such operations - keeping the air force and navy in shape. It will also help with the development, deployment, and improvements of weapons systems for detecting, intercepting, and eliminating unmanned aerial vehicles. This, in turn, will reduce the involvement of manpower on the ground and at sea, which will also reduce the risk to service members.

- Where is the line drawn between protecting merchant shipping and the risk of a direct military clash with Russia?
- The line runs through the objective and the rules of engagement. Protecting a merchant ship from imminent attack is not the same as launching an offensive operation against another country. I am not suggesting that we seek a military clash. I am suggesting that we have capabilities to prevent it.
In military affairs, there is a rule of repelling the enemy based on his known defensive capabilities. The better they are, the thicker the line against kinetic hybrid attacks. Nobody messes with a capable adversary, right? In Europe, we have become accustomed to accepting peace as something that we simply deserve, but the peace dividend after the Cold War has been exhausted and we must once again make efforts to guarantee our security.

- Do you think that Bulgaria should have requested consultations under Article 4 of the NATO Treaty. What specifically should have followed from such consultations and why do you think that the reaction of the Bulgarian institutions was not quick enough?
- I would also like to emphasize another opportunity that the European Union gives us, but we have not yet developed it sufficiently in practice. It is Article 42, paragraph 7 of the EU Treaty. Simply put, if a member state becomes the victim of an armed attack on its territory, the others are obliged to provide it with assistance and cooperation. This may mean providing equipment, defense capabilities, expert or other support. In my opinion, we must have a clear mechanism in advance for how this assistance is requested, organized and provided, in coordination with NATO. Because when a real threat arises, it is not the time to specify who should call whom. There is another instrument - Article 4 of the NATO Treaty. It allows any allied state to request urgent consultations when it believes that its security is threatened. It is not necessary that an attack has occurred. Bulgaria can raise the problem with its allies and together they can discuss what measures are necessary - for example, additional surveillance, air defense or closer coordination in the Black Sea. This does not mean a declaration of war, nor does it automatically trigger collective defense under Article 5. I believe that Bulgaria had grounds to request such consultations much earlier. Not to create tension, but to use the opportunities that membership provides us. No country can respond to all modern threats on its own. That is precisely why we are part of alliances. Asking for support from your allies is not a sign of weakness. That is the point of having allies.

- What does stronger defense of the Black Sea mean for the people of Bulgaria — especially for Varna, Burgas, maritime transport, tourism and commodity prices? Will we have tourists next summer…
- This is perhaps the most important question, because beyond all military terms are people's normal lives and incomes. When we talk about the Black Sea, we are talking about the ports in Varna and Burgas, about transport workers, about hoteliers, about agricultural producers and about the goods in the store.
If the risk becomes too high, insurers will demand much higher premiums or will refuse coverage. Then the ships will either not sail, or the transportation will cost much more. And the more expensive transportation is included in the price of fuel, grain and other goods. Thus, an attack at sea can reach the family budget of a person who has never set foot on a ship. For the tourist season, I will not make either gloomy forecasts or promises that no one can guarantee. There is time to take measures and we must do this. People choose where to rest and according to the feeling of security. Our task is to provide reasons for peace of mind with real actions, not with assurances that there is nothing to worry about.