The topic of the F-16 has become a litmus test for loyalty - to NATO, the USA or Russia. This is not a dispute about the qualities of a strategic purchase, but a battle for trust and for the geopolitical direction of Bulgaria. What did the scandal show?
Having barely landed on Bulgarian soil, the first Bulgarian F-16 Block 70 fighter jet found itself in the eye of a political storm. Not only is its serviceability in doubt, but also the trust in the decisions to modernize the army and commitments to NATO.
Within a few days, a technical problem with a Lockheed Martin-made fighter jet developed into a loud scandal, overgrown with conspiracy theories and suggestions. Presidential advisors expressed doubts about its qualities, political figures fanned them, and the media and social networks blew them up.
From pride to failure?
The scandal erupted on the eve of the St. George's Day parade, at which the fighter jet will not fly - only 700 servicemen will march. The expectations were that the fighter jet would be displayed on May 6, after the Minister of Defense had previously wished for the first Bulgarian F-16 Block 70 to participate in the Air Force in the military parade. After the technical malfunction of the American aircraft, a symbol of the modernization of the army, was discovered, the narrative turned - from pride to failure.
The public space was flooded with reactions dominated by three main theses: that Bulgaria had paid dearly and too dearly for “broken American equipment”, such as “Gripen“ was the better offer; that nostalgia for Russian military power is being revived - "better old Russian planes than new American ones"; and that it is about sabotage in the service of pro-Russian interests.
The qualities and shortcomings of military equipment are understandable only to experts and allow for all kinds of suggestions, depending on which speakers the audience has chosen to believe. And Bulgaria's vulnerability to Russian hybrid attacks is well known.
Who set the tone
At first glance, it all started with a statement by GERB leader Boyko Borisov at the European People's Party (EPP) congress in Valencia. It was during Borisov's third government that the contract for eight American combat aircraft was signed. According to him, President Radev "whispered" to journalists that the delivered fighter jet was damaged and not flying. An experienced politician like Borisov knows well that with this revelation - presented seemingly carelessly - he is ahead of the presidency, which is undoubtedly aware of the situation. He also points out the "source" of the information: the commander of the Air Force, Major General Nikolay Rusev, whose closeness to Radev is known. (In addition to the fact that they served together, Rusev's wife - journalist Gabriela Naplatanova, was elected by the president as a member of the Council for Electronic Media.)
With this, Borisov not only shed light on the technical problem, but also demonstrated that he is well informed about state affairs, positioning himself as an arbiter "above" the government with instructions to the military minister to fire the head of the Air Force. His statement gave rise to official reactions - the Minister of Defense Angel Zapryanov and General Rusev came up with explanations, in an attempt by the executive branch to control the topic. But the avalanche of rumors overtook their belated reaction.
In his comment, Rusev said that the plane was undergoing a technical inspection and would not be allowed to fly until it was completely safe: “After landing, a deviation was found in the operation of one of the systems, which does not mean that the plane is broken. The deviation will be eliminated within the framework of the acceptance procedure“. The procedure itself was understood to be quite long - the fighter must complete two flights, and the pilot must also provide assurance that it can be used.
The Defense Minister added that it was a hardware problem with an electronic board that has already been ordered and an American team is working on fixing it. But Zapryanov also admitted that there were other goals in the escalation of the case: “If someone is trying to use a technical problem to worsen our relations with the US, they will not succeed. Our relations are excellent - they respond immediately to any inquiry, including this one.“
Political dividends
In political terms, the topic of the plane has become a litmus test for loyalty - to NATO, the US or Russia. This is not a controversy about the qualities of a strategic purchase, such as a fighter squadron, but a battle for trust and geopolitical direction, waged with “soft tools” such as propaganda.
The president and his entourage have long criticized the choice of the F-16 - that the price is too high and was paid in advance, that deliveries have been delayed and a significant part of the armament has been cut. Presidential advisor Dimitar Stoyanov, who is a former acting minister of defense, particularly actively reminded them in April, after the landing of the first fighter jet. In his response to Borisov, the president repeated the same criticisms: “We paid dearly for the F-16, we waited a long time, it will be very difficult and expensive to maintain it, but such was Mr. Borisov's choice in 2019.” He also called for the purse strings to be loosened to provide funds “so that this otherwise excellent aircraft in terms of combat qualities can be maintained in operational readiness and fly”.
The defense minister assured that the necessary funds have been provided, and the damage is covered by the fighter jet's warranty. On social media, opponents of the F-16 chant “political order”, “bad investment”, “overpriced American equipment - it broke, but we paid for it”. This narrative is also intertwined with the other story of praising Russian weapons. And in a country like Bulgaria, these suggestions are accepted almost reflexively due to historical and political dependencies.
Suspicions of sabotage?
The thesis that the damage is not accidental, but is the result of sabotage (in the service of Russian interests) is built on the well-founded assumptions that there are people in Bulgarian institutions who undermine the strategic choices of the state. In 2021, the services revealed a spy group of former and current military intelligence officers who passed on secret information about NATO and the EU. There have also been repeated attempts to control the Bulgarian arms sector - from the poisoning of businessman Emilian Gebrev to terrorist attacks on Bulgarian arms factories and warehouses (explosions and fires). As a result of these actions, a European arrest warrant was issued last year for six Russian spies.
In addition to mobilizing the pro-Atlantic camp, the sabotage hypothesis shifts the focus from the technical problem to an internal enemy. Suspicions of malicious actions have emerged on social networks, including an attempt to copy the aircraft's software. Such suspicions were expressed by political scientist Ognyan Minchev and co-chairman of the Atlantic Council Ivan Anchev, who even asked: “Is there a sleeper or active cell of Russian services in the Bulgarian Air Force?“
The Minister of Defense and the heads of military intelligence and the National Security Agency, Brigadier General Venelin Venev and Plamen Tonchev, will have to answer this and other questions related to possible sabotage on May 8. They have been invited by the rotating chairman of the parliamentary Committee for Control over the Security Services Atanas Atanasov (PP-DB).
However, the best answer would be if the plane flies soon.
This comment expresses the personal opinion of the author and may not coincide with the positions of the Bulgarian editorial office and the State News Agency as a whole.