Foreign policy is rarely just a matter of values. Much more often, it is the intersection of geopolitics, economic interests, and the price a country is willing to pay to protect its national interest. That is why Bulgaria is now facing an uncomfortable but completely legitimate question - are we buying ourselves out? The reason for it is the coincidence of several events that can be explained separately, but considered together raise serious questions.
Prime Minister Rumen Radev explained why Bulgaria did not participate in the "Coalition of the Willing" format in France, where European leaders discussed the future of Ukraine in the presence of President Volodymyr Zelensky. The meeting was on the occasion of France's national holiday, but it also degenerated into a political collusion on the war in Ukraine. At first glance, the thesis seems logical - Bulgaria is a member of the EU and NATO and has an interest in being where decisions are made, but...
But here comes the political paradox.
It is Radev who has consistently defended positions in recent years that are perceived as significantly more cautious regarding military support for Ukraine and closer to the thesis of limiting European escalation with Russia. Therefore, the question arises whether Bulgaria really wants to be at this table, or prefers to stay away from decisions that could aggravate relations with Moscow.
In parallel, public attention was drawn to the Prime Minister's meeting with representatives of “Litasko“ - the company associated with the ownership of “Lukoil“. It took place at a time when there is a real risk that Bulgaria will be faced with international arbitration with claims for billions of euros in connection with the changes to the refinery's operations.
Here the analysis inevitably comes to the most important question.
If a country is facing a potential financial blow of billions of euros, is it natural for its diplomacy to become more cautious about... Is it possible for geopolitical positions to be influenced - not by ideology, but by economic risk?
There is no publicly known evidence that there is an agreement between the Bulgarian state and “Litasko“, in which a possible refusal to arbitrate would be linked to a certain foreign policy behavior. Such a claim would be speculation. But political analysis does not deal only with proven facts. He seeks the logic of the processes, the intersections between them and the motives that can explain certain behavior.
And they are obvious.
On the one hand, Bulgaria has a strategic interest in avoiding arbitration, which could cost taxpayers billions of euros. On the other hand, the country has allied commitments to the European Union and NATO, which imply a clear positioning regarding Russian aggression against Ukraine. Tension inevitably arises between these two interests.
That is why the behavior of Bulgarian diplomacy seems like a constant maneuvering between European solidarity and the need not to completely cut off the channels to economic factors related to Russia.
An additional nuance in this picture is provided by the discussion of the latest European sanctions packages. No unanimity has been formed in the European Union on the proposals to include the Russian Patriarch Kirill and Vagit Alekperov (head of the Russian “Lukoil“). Thus, fortunately for us, Bulgaria was not the only country (ed. - Italy also said “no“ to the sanctions against Patriarch Kirill and Alekperov) that does not support such an expansion of sanctions. This showed that behind the scenes, European diplomacy often works much more pragmatically than it seems from public declarations.
This is precisely the true role of diplomacy - to protect the national interest, without destroying the alliances to which the state belongs. And when the security of Europe, the war in Ukraine, the strategic role of the Bulgarian refinery and the risk of multi-billion arbitration are simultaneously on the table, every public position begins to be read through the prism of possible economic consequences.
Therefore, the question is not whether Bulgaria should talk to all countries. Of course it should.
The real question is different.
Is the country's foreign policy behavior the result of a strategic assessment of the national interest alone, or does it inevitably reflect the desire to avoid conflict with economic entities capable of inflicting a financial blow of billions of euros on the state? As long as there is no full publicity about the talks, the arbitration risk, and the motives behind individual diplomatic decisions, this question will remain open. And when such questions remain without a clear answer, doubt inevitably becomes part of the political debate.
And then the shortest formulation of the problem remains the same: Are we buying each other out?
------------------------------------
b.r. - Russian Patriarch Kirill and the president of "Lukoil" Vagit Alekperov are dropped from the 21st package of sanctions of the European Union against Russia, after Bulgaria expressed reservations about including the two in the sanctions list, and subsequently Italy joined the position of the Bulgarian authorities. On June 18, before a meeting of the European Council in Brussels, Prime Minister Rumen Radev stated that Bulgaria would not support the inclusion of Russian Patriarch Kirill in the sanctions list. In early July, Italy also joined the Bulgarian position on the issue of Patriarch Kirill. The authorities in Rome expressed concerns related to the position of the Vatican and the reluctance to impose sanctions against the spiritual leader of a Christian denomination.