The former Bulgarian ambassador to the US comments on the delay in the arrival of the planes at the “Bezmer“ airbase, the protests against them and our country's role as a NATO ally.
– The arrival of the American planes at the “Bezmer“ airbase was postponed by a few days. In your opinion, what is the most likely reason for this delay - purely logistical, operational or diplomatic? Could it be related to the increased public tension and international reactions to the decision?
– I think that this issue concerns very few people. It mainly concerns the people who gathered in Bezmer to protest - their organizers and participants. Obviously, the idea was to have a more staged event, when there are planes and there are protesters against them. I think that there is probably some disappointment that the protest will be like any other square protest.
Now, why are they delaying - frankly, this is really a technical issue. I personally assume that it is related to the technical readiness of Bezmer, because, unfortunately, this is another reason to remember how far behind we are in modernizing everything in the army - of course, and the types of armed forces, not to mention the Air Force, but also including the sites from which they must operate. We know this as a fact about Graf Ignatievo, the same is the situation with Bezmer. I rather associate it with the preparation of the site.
As for the international reactions – what are they? There are none. There is a note from Iran. And that's it. Period!
The truth is that the decision has been made and it has been made, as they say, according to all the rules of the art. There is a decision of the Council of Ministers, submitted to the National Assembly, voted by an impressive majority and we only have to implement it.
And, in the interest of truth, if we remember the situation from a month ago with those other planes that were at the civil airport in Sofia, they did not lead to anything – There was neither tension nor any consequences, although they are of the same type.
It is true that now, in this new note, in the second request from the American side, participation in operations is already specified. And this is because the situation on the ground has changed. When the first planes arrived and the first note from the American side, it was stated that it was about an exercise. This was not a deception and it was not a lie, insofar as at the same time negotiations were underway in Switzerland and the signing of that memorandum was expected, which was subsequently signed. Unfortunately, however, after that the process changed and President Trump actually thwarted the continuation of negotiations to sign a real agreement.
While now we are already talking about a military-political request, because the situation is also highly escalating. If you want my honest opinion - it will not improve in the near future. I think that this escalation will at least persist. It is quite logical to assume that it will even deepen, because there are two main issues on which there is a divergence between Iran and the United States - the Strait of Hormuz and the nuclear program.
How will these two issues be resolved? At the moment, there is no path to their diplomatic resolution.
Rather, we see something else. For four years, the Houthis remained passive, and now they have come on the scene again with the threat of blocking Bab el-Mandeb. So we really have a new situation, and in this new situation we have a differently formulated demand.
I think that everything has been fulfilled, everything has been resolved so far. We have no grounds to talk about international tension or international reactions. And when we put them on the scale - they are not a factor in this case.
– It is planned to station up to eight aircraft at the base, as well as up to 250 American servicemen. Why is such a large number of personnel needed for a relatively small number of aircraft? What functions do these servicemen perform, and does this indicate that the real scale of the operation is greater than it seems at first glance?
– This should not even be allowed to be put forward as an argument! Two hundred and fifty servicemen! First, under the agreement, they can be up to 500. Second, it says “up to 250“, which means that this is the maximum number, and they can be much less.
This is a completely visible circle of servicemen, whom we can see face to face, person to person, if we are there on the ground.
I see an added value in this. This is an opportunity for our pilots and servicemen to have working relationships with the allies. This exchange of everything - of experience, of conversations, of assessments, and precisely in a live scenario, in a live frame, with our allies - is invaluable. On the contrary, I see only pluses in this.
– Residents of the area organized a petition and protests against the deployment of American aircraft. In your opinion, is there a real chance that such public pressure will change or limit the implementation of the decision that has already been made, or does the opinion of local communities have practically no influence on such strategic issues?
– I know of one such case when there was a very strong protest in Germany about the American bases there, when a public intention was expressed to close them. And then the local authorities came forward - very sharply and categorically. I don't know if this was exactly what influenced the suspension of such an intention, because it deprived local municipalities of jobs, of the development of local and larger industry. In other words, all the benefits that the Germans have from such bases would have been put at risk.
I give this example to expand the picture and see how our long-time close countries, partners, allies - whatever you want to call them - like Germany reacted.
So in this case the big debate is different. It is not whether five or eight planes should come there. The big debate is what the responsibilities of an allied country mean when it has been a member of a defense alliance - NATO, in which the United States undoubtedly plays a major, decisive role.
Let's translate it into simple language - Without the United States, NATO would hardly be able to maintain its current military power and deterrent potential.
Therefore, the attempts to divide opinion at the moment – &ldash; &ldash; but why are we now implementing a bilateral agreement, it has nothing to do with NATO&ldash; – such an attempt to separate the United States from NATO is either very false, or a sign of lack of information, not to say – illiteracy.
Of course, there should be a debate, but it should still be held at some level of awareness. And our mistake, all of us, when I talk about the last thirty years, is that a much more informed debate is not being held. And this decision comes so naturally that we are now going to have a debate on this issue – what it means to be an ally and a member of the Alliance!
I am talking about something else – that we have allowed some illusory ideas about our membership to be nurtured, that it is hardly just on paper. That was the case until real situations and outright crises arose.
I will take you back to a similar crisis in 2002, when we had to cut some Soviet missiles. Do you remember what riots broke out around Stara Zagora then? The same story - from twenty-four years ago. And it began - how national security would suffer, how missiles should not be cut because they were left over from the previous period.
So I want to say - a public rose up again, the reaction was similar. It is easy to excite public opinion. Especially when there is no good explanation for a given decision, as in this case.
In fact, something much more important is happening - the state budget is being adopted, and a very controversial and contested budget at that. It really affects us directly. And these planes will stay there for the specified period, they will carry out their missions somewhere outside Bulgaria and will return, of course. But they will in no way affect, in the interests of the truth, either positively or negatively, our lives day after day. What is being voted on in the National Assembly - this is the big question that public opinion must be aroused about.
– The government argues the decision with Bulgaria's commitments as an ally in NATO and assures that the country is not becoming a participant in a military conflict. Do you think that the cabinet did the right thing, both from the point of view of national security and foreign policy?
– Of course it did the right thing! Yes! It is very important for Bulgaria to show and prove that it is a reliable partner, that it is a reliable ally. Because the other will put us in a “gray zone“, where we will have no protection from anywhere! And that is the scarier thing. And here we are following the path we set out on, I will say it again, twenty-two years ago.
– What is the position of Euro-Atlantic circles on this case? To what extent is the deployment of American aircraft in Bulgaria perceived as a routine fulfillment of allied commitments and to what extent is it a signal for a more active role of our country in the conditions of escalating tension in the Middle East? What diplomatic and geopolitical consequences could this have for Bulgaria?
– The Middle East will continue to be a hot topic – both in the literal and figurative sense of the word. Certainly the European Union, and this means Bulgaria, will have to position itself, to find its place in a very complex configuration that is currently taking shape.
Because the European Union has a tradition of presence in the Middle East, which seems to have given way precisely because of recent events. Mainly because of the war that President Trump started against Iran.
But the events there and our commitment to the Middle East will not end with the war against Iran, which we also do not know when it will end. I believe that by the end of this year, even the Strait of Hormuz will hardly be regulated in a stable and irreversible way.
So, whether we want it or not, this is like natural phenomena. This very serious crisis is happening. Yes, it is true, it has its beginning, it was indeed triggered by President Trump's war against Iran, but the European Union will not remain on the sidelines - neither in terms of interests, first of all, nor in terms of commitments.
Because this is perhaps a relatively soft beginning of engagement. I am not talking about military action at all! I am talking about very difficult and tense diplomacy, including in the field of nuclear policy, in the field of energy, in the field of security - in the broader, more global sense of the word.
And that is why we must have such readiness - both in terms of expertise and capabilities. That is why I say again - closer communication with our allies is useful, because we have to catch up in the field of defense capabilities.
You asked me about the Euro-Atlantic community. Well, look - in fact, all of Bulgaria is Euro-Atlantic due to our membership in the European Union and NATO.
And do you know what has changed recently? Judging by the surveys conducted by various agencies - without saying that this is a sign of enthusiasm - the opinion that the best place for Bulgaria, the best economic affiliation, is the European Union, and Bulgaria's security can only come from NATO, is now firmly prevailing.
Interview with Olya AL-AHMEED