The rulers in Bulgaria stubbornly refuse to answer the question of who the aggressor isPhoto: BGNES
The more Bulgaria becomes directly affected by Russian aggression in Ukraine, the more the rulers desperately cling to Andersen's fairy tale “The Tsar's New Clothes“. They supposedly put on ever finer clothes to shine before the audience with recitatives for peace through diplomacy, and the nakedness shines more and more. And instead of gratitude for the efforts, Russia is sinking merchant ships ever closer to our shores.
On October 6, 130 km from Byala, the ship “Alpha Vatan“ sank, along with its ten sailors, and the 18-member crew of “Able“ was rescued. A week later, 31 km from Krapets and Byala, the “HS Dignity“ sank, with only five of the 16-member crew saved, and “Chelsea-3“ was hit and set on fire, but its 15-member crew was rescued.
No sympathy for the dead sailors
The ugliest thing is that no statesman thought of expressing sympathy for the relatives of the 21 dead sailors, some of them only 19-20 years old - never mind that they are officially listed as missing. In contrast to European Commissioner Marta Koss, who expressed condolences to the families of the dead and missing, and the German Foreign Ministry, which wrote: “Our thoughts are with the missing and their families”. Bulgarian civilian and military sailors saved many lives and we are all grateful to them, but those who could not be saved are, firstly, people to whom respect is due, and secondly, innocent victims of the same monstrous war that took the lives of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children.
This is not cynicism from absent-minded neglect. It begins with the stubborn refusal to name the aggressor - a refusal by the prime minister, the ministers, the members of the ruling parliamentary majority and the president. To finally reach Yotova's hard-won formulation in her latest interview, barely concealing the word “aggressor“, which clearly should never be uttered: “the war is being waged by Russia against Ukraine“.
Because the truth will not please some voters
Striping down to the bare truth is very difficult when you know that it will not please most of your voters. With the first pair of attacked ships, you say that it is not clear whose drones hit them - fifty-fifty whether they were Ukrainian or Russian, although the services, according to the opposition leader, admitted during the KSNS that they were Russian. With the second two ships, the half-admission is dropped that the attack was “in favor of Russia“, as the prime minister says, and according to the defense minister, it is not logical for Ukraine to attack its own ships. But apparently it still cannot be completely clear who is to blame for a strong reaction.
Prime Minister Radev summoned the Russian ambassador Mitrofanova, but only to explain to her that we have no evidence who is to blame for the sunken ships Photo: BGNES
Prime Minister Radev finally summoned the Russian ambassador, even though she is below his rank and it is proper to summon her to the Foreign Ministry, and if the prime minister himself summoned her, it must be to scold her firmly or to tell her outright that he is chasing her. But no - he explains to her that we have no evidence who is to blame for the sunken ships, she tells him that she knows nothing, but that a third party could also be to blame. If it is neither Russia nor Ukraine, in this closed Black Sea, which is shared by only 6 countries, it remains to be Georgia, Romania or Turkey. On October 5, a Turkish cargo ship sank in the Romanian exclusive economic zone, and distant Georgia, which is 1,000 kilometers away, is already under pro-Russian rule, and there is no evidence that it has any drones other than aerial ones.
Without NATO Article 4, but with the UN Security Council
Then the ruling party told the opposition - we will not ask for consultations under Article 4 of the NATO Treaty, because according to the defense minister, after Article 4, Article 5 followed. The terrible Article 5, which means NATO war with an aggressor, by the same logic, but with the opposite sign, has as a safeguard Article 4, which means consultations - precisely so that the trigger is not immediately pulled. And last September, due to a violation of their airspace, Poland and Estonia activated Article 4.
The Minister of Defense announces that we will deploy two more unmanned surveillance systems on the Black Sea coast and strengthen air defense with additional anti-aircraft missile systems, but that there are no systems that can monitor drones 130 km out to sea anyway.
President Yotova will demand an investigation into the attacks on the surviving ship on October 13, together with partner services, “so that there is no doubt who is to blame“ (although they probably already know who it is and have told us, according to opposition leaders). We would also have referred the matter to the UN Security Council, even though Russia, as its permanent member, can impose a veto – it is important to report activity at the highest level.
A coast guard ship returns rescued sailors from the sunken ship on October 6Photo: Petko Momchilov/REUTERS
In the fight for peace, the president also attacks the EU for not offering a concrete peace plan for a year and a half, but “standing in the lobby and on the menu”. And the EU, since that time, in which it is supposedly “in the lobby and on the menu“, is proposing a ceasefire as a condition for negotiations for lasting peace. Which would be guaranteed by a “Coalition of the Willing“ of 35 countries, from which Bulgaria withdrew under the current government, because multinational forces are also envisaged to guarantee the ceasefire, and the president, while she is such, swears that “not a single Bulgarian soldier will go to Ukraine“ – nothing, that most of the “wishers“ will not send their units either.
Camouflage trinity for peace through diplomacy
President Yotova finally has her own concrete plan for peace in Ukraine - in the form of three different scenarios, in an attempt to get out of the simple wish for “peace through diplomacy“. The first scenario – "a policy of small steps", including an energy truce, which, however, collapsed hours after its triumphant announcement by President Trump. The second scenario - a truce based on a European proposal, developed together with Ukraine and Russia, which in itself is nonsense, because Ukraine wants a ceasefire as a condition for peace, and Russia wants military action along with an endless imitation of negotiations mediated by Trump's relatives and friends. The third scenario is a comprehensive peace agreement, with “all claims being put on the table“, taking into account the legacy of the Minsk agreements and the Normandy format of 2014-2015. This is already a simple good night wish, which is why the President does not hold out much hope for it, because the legacy of these agreements is gone.
Peace or just peace
The rejection by the Prime Minister and the President of the formula “peace through force“, in which Russia would be forced to truly negotiate, is a direct consequence of the refusal to answer the question “who is the aggressor?“. Because this is the question of a just war, from which follows the possibility of a just peace, which alone can be lasting. A just war is for the one who defends himself, and if he persists in his defense, he can obtain a just peace. Unjust peace means capitulation to the aggressor.
For the aggressor, the question of a just war does not arise – he is faced with the question of a successful war, and peace is the completion of the goals achieved. So, when our rulers refuse to answer who the aggressor is, and talk about peace, they are obviously not for a just peace, but for the peace of the conqueror. The question is whether those of their voters who think like them will change their minds if our country, God forbid, continues to be treated by Russia not only as an enemy, but also as a victim. By the way, on this day in the old style 111 years ago – On October 14, 1915, Russian ships bombarded Varna.
This text expresses the opinion of the author and may not coincide with the positions of the Bulgarian editorial office and DW as a whole.
Source: www.dw.com