The visit of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to Varna and the idea of establishing a maritime security center in the Black Sea raise important questions about Bulgaria’s role in regional security. What commitments could our country undertake, where does cooperation with NATO extend, and is there a risk that it could turn into de facto participation in the military conflict between Russia and Ukraine… Here is what Kuzman Iliev, chairman of the “Bulgaria Can” political party, told Lily Marinova in the “FAKTI” studio and on the “Conversation” program.
- Mr. Iliev, one of the issues that deserves the most serious attention is related to the Black Sea and the idea of creating a maritime security center. This is the diplomatic part of the European Commission president’s visit, who is in Varna at this very moment. But is this enough for us to understand the Commission’s true intentions regarding the future of the Black Sea?
- Hello, good afternoon to you and your viewers. My condolences for those who died on the “Trakia” motorway, my wishes for a speedy recovery to the injured and strength to their families, and, incidentally, to all of Bulgaria. This is a trauma involving immense human tragedy, but, of course, also political problems that, unfortunately, lay the groundwork for such extremely terrible things to happen.
- Do you mean that you have a theory about why this horrific accident happened?
- No, I do not know why this particular incident, this particular crash, happened. We are human; anything can happen. But it is a fact that Bulgarian roads are extremely dangerous. It is a fact that there is no third lane, that the motorway is compromised in the right lane and trucks drive in the left, while at the same time people drive there at enormous speed. This creates great tension every second, a feeling of war, of an impending complicated situation in which people on the road have to decide how to cope.
Unfortunately, when fog also descends and there are no road markings, you see what happens. Again, this is a phenomenal tragedy, but we must make the conditions such that this type of accident is as rare as possible. It is also a matter of driving culture, because in Bulgaria it is often aggressive—without waiting, without humanity. People with more powerful cars really do behave arrogantly. Perhaps they do not realize how the speed at which they travel affects people in smaller cars and how much tension it creates for them.
On the one hand, this is a reason for all of us to humble ourselves, reflect and pray for the souls of the dead. On the other hand, we must ask ourselves whether we are using our money and common resources properly. Because the subject you are directing the conversation toward—the Black Sea—is once again about money and security policy.
Ursula von der Leyen says: “Create a security center in the Black Sea.” Most likely, commitments will also have to be undertaken to participate in protection operations in the Black Sea, which is a serious commitment and could endanger Bulgaria’s security. On the other hand, if you do not do it, the card that there may be no money for you is played once again.
The next budget framework is now being voted on. Ms. von der Leyen wants to increase this framework by practically 60%—from 1.2 to 1.8, even 2 trillion euros. States may have to pay much more if they do not increase their contributions. The European Commission also wants to collect additional funds through carbon emissions, excise duties on tobacco, electronic goods and services, as well as from large companies with revenues exceeding 100 million euros.
This is a loss of sovereignty and an opportunity for Brussels to dictate the rules. You know—whoever has the money and distributes it dictates the rules. The Poles and Hungarians know this painfully well because European funds were suspended when they refused to agree to certain policies. Now the issue is war.
- But do we have any more specific outlines of this center, apart from the fact that the amount to be allocated has been discussed? What exactly would it be?
- Most likely, it would be a coordination center that would make strategic decisions and have databases, satellites and surveillance capabilities over the Black Sea. Very often, American aircraft pass through Bulgarian territory, conducting intelligence activities and gathering data. This data is provided to the Ukrainian side. Russia knows this.
In other words, we are directly and indirectly involved in the conflict. After all, we also have three American bases, airports and ports. In the event of, God forbid, an escalation of tensions, if Europe refuses to be a mediator and wants to be a participant in the war, we must realize what that means. It is no coincidence that Ursula von der Leyen is coming here and then going to Romania. She knows where the potential battlefields might be.
There is a desire to mobilize NATO’s eastern flank. Let us hope a direct clash between Russia and NATO is avoided. I have told you that, in my opinion, this is an extremely dangerous potential scenario. There is something that is not discussed much—hundreds of drones pass through the territories of Finland and other Baltic states and strike St. Petersburg. The Ukrainians use this route because Russian air-defense systems in Russia and Belarus could prevent them from entering by another route.
However, this is again interpreted in the East as complicity in the war. When you provide your territorial airspace, waters and land for such actions, you are participating in the conflict. You remember how concerned we all were when the issue of the Strait of Hormuz arose and the Iranians said that states providing their airspace could be attacked. At that time, quite naturally, people in Bulgaria asked themselves: “This is extremely dangerous. What should we do?” Imagine the same thing, but in the context of the other conflict.
Ms. von der Leyen’s arrival is a reason for reflection and a red flag. I hope Prime Minister Radev, in communication with our partners, will be able to defend the national interest properly and tell them that being a good partner and protecting the Black Sea and shipping is one thing, but this must not be a euphemism for participation in military operations.
What does protecting Ukrainian ships mean, for example? How do we imagine that in the Black Sea? Our ships travel alongside the Ukrainian ones, and ours are warships. If they are hit, who will suffer? Will we be directly drawn into these processes? Whose idea is this convoy?
- This is one of Ms. von der Leyen’s ideas that she has brought here. The official statements say that such a proposal could also be put on the table. Of course, we do not know whether specifics have been discussed...
- Regarding the differences with Romania—as far as it was said, there is a difference in how Bulgaria should respond—could you clarify them? And what is happening with the insistence of the liberal right-wing camp that Bulgarian authorities must respond to these drones at all costs, that they must fire, as Boyko Noev put it?
- Look, this is normal within the framework of the Bulgarian political debate. There are two camps. One side is what we might call the “doves,” who say: “People, we are in the Black Sea. We could become a frontline state. Realize what it means to fight Russia. Realize that the Ukrainian army, which is essentially a quasi-army of NATO and is made up of exceptional fighters with extensive field experience, is suffering today. The economy and the state are suffering. If we enter this, how will we get out of it? Will we survive as a nation at all?” The others are the “hawks.” In my opinion, they do not even believe themselves when they claim that Bulgaria should fire at drones. If they are Ukrainian, we will not fire at them. They may enter and fall in the Ruse region, but if they are Russian, we will shoot. With what and how?
- The very principle of firing at any drones that enter our territorial waters seems reasonable to me. No drones—neither Ukrainian nor Russian. But we must make a distinction. The ships that were hit in the exclusive economic zone are in waters that legally are not entirely our territory. We must be clear about what we can and cannot do in these spaces. We must not create a pretext for war with a nuclear power that is much more prepared than we are.
The escorting of Ukrainian ships in the Black Sea is also dangerous for those who will carry it out. The Turks have conducted similar experiments and lost ships. But Turkey plays both sides. With the Russians—tourism, a gas hub, gas supplies to Europe. With the Ukrainians—the sale of drones. They trade with both sides. When a Turkish ship is hit, the Turks often remain silent. Usually there are Syrian sailors on board who die.
- When the ministers’ meeting was held in Sofia, the Turkish idea of creating two corridors was put forward, which they are advocating diplomatically—one to serve Ukraine and the other Russia. What do you think about that?
- I will tell you what I predict today in your studio—on this sad day for Bulgaria, when we are talking about a national catastrophe but also about geopolitics. The Turks will be forced to open the Dardanelles to NATO ships.
- Under the influence of what will they be forced?
- Under the influence of the geopolitical situation and the problems on the ground in Ukraine. This is contrary to the convention, which the Turks value greatly. But I say “forced” because that is the exact word—there will also be political pressure. Britain has a clear strategy and vision for control of the Black Sea and is reminding the Turks that they cannot relinquish the initiative in the region.
Russia is genuinely gaining points. It is practically mining Ukrainian ports and controls Crimea—a territory over which there has been a centuries-old dispute between Turkey and Russia over who is stronger in the Black Sea. Now it seems that Russia is acquiring too much power, and Turkey has no interest in that.
The Turks have no interest in escalating tensions either, but they have many problems. Their rug could easily be set on fire—problems with the Kurds and the creation of Kurdistan, relations with Israel, as well as issues related to keeping Erdogan in power. In Europe, Erdogan is not described as a dictator because he makes extremely strong claims that he can contain Russia in the Black Sea.
Britain cannot do it. Bulgaria and Romania, forgive me, cannot do it either and, in my opinion, should not try. Turkey, however, has the necessary naval capabilities. For us, this would be a negative scenario because it would mean further escalation of tensions in the region.
- In this sense, do you not think there is another trend now? Does what is about to happen in Abu Dhabi offer any hope?
- I hope so. I genuinely hope so. However, I see that the issue is once again being heavily politicized by the more liberal formations. They say: “We kept our heads down until now, and now we are not there; we were not invited.” People, we are not involved in this war. Stop it! Ukraine is not in NATO. Get that out of your heads.
Unfortunately, the Ukrainians have been misled. Even the Americans tell them that they will not be in NATO. Biden told them that, and you can also see how Donald Trump twists Zelensky’s arm. This people is suffering. Stop pouring water into the mill of the warmongers. Do not pour gasoline on this fire. Bulgaria has nothing to gain from it. I welcome this type of negotiations between Russia, Ukraine and the Americans.
- Europe is absent from the diplomatic map...
- Yes, it simply is not there. Despite the attempt to send two representatives, the absence of the European Union is obvious. The European foreign minister, if we can call Kaja Kallas that, says that the great strategic goal is for Russia to suffer defeat on the battlefield and be torn apart.
Imagine a great power whose official in such a position declares that this is the goal of the European Union. At the same time, Europe is militarizing rapidly. One of Ursula von der Leyen’s major goals is for states, in the new budget, to direct more money toward defense. It is natural for Russia to be concerned that this is developing at such a pace.
America says: “Let us sit down at the table for peace.” Europe says: “No, we will not sit down at the table for peace.” NATO officials say that strategic plans are being made for military action against Russia by NATO, without America.
There is one player emerging as a warmonger, ready to participate in a third world war. These are not the Americans, the Russians or the Chinese. The Ukrainians also constantly say they are ready for negotiations. It is Sunak, Macron and Merz, who have extremely low approval ratings and allow themselves to undermine unity in Europe by blackmailing poorer countries such as Bulgaria.
The message is: “You will not receive money unless you agree to take on more loans and pour them in.” This was stated by the German chancellor quite directly, without ambiguity or ceremony.
- This really is very ugly. It is not European practice. Europe is strong in diplomacy. Even when there were tensions between America and Russia, Merkel and Chirac managed to act as mediators. They restrained the situation. There were politicians such as Willy Brandt and Charles de Gaulle who said: “Europe has an interest in the cheap energy resources of the East and in trade with America. Calm down a little and sit down to talk. We are the old civilization”...
- Today, because of the low approval ratings of several politicians, Europe wants to provoke a third world war. And this will not be a war of brave men who board trains and go to the trenches. It will be a war of ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons. There are already small tactical nuclear weapons. This will be a war of “Oreshnik,” of hypersonic missiles with the temperature of the Sun that incinerate everything.
Why, and for whom, is this necessary? I see that the machines are already fueled, the engines are running and both sides are heading in that direction. If there is no diplomacy, we will go through clashes.
- Still, this is a very short-term perspective for two of the politicians you mentioned, because of the elections scheduled for next year…
- This is worrying because when you are running out of time, you become much more aggressive and arrogant and start looking for conflict. I have the feeling that Macron does not want elections to be held in France. I have the feeling that he took part in inflaming the protests that were taking place there. There was footage in Metz showing masked police officers, dressed like protesters, throwing grenades and smoke bombs at the protesters, after which they returned to the police. In other words, the conflict was being fueled. Mr. Merz, meanwhile, came out and literally said: “Germany’s problems do not concern me. We face a great danger in the East.” But this is not responsible national behavior. To distance yourself from the problems of the French, Germans and Italians and seek conflict with the greatest nuclear powers—what will you achieve? How will you defeat them? There will be no winner in such a conflict. Under game theory, there can be no winner. That is why the Germans and French themselves must elect governments that are reasonable and diplomatic, that view things through the prism of economic power but also understand the security interests of the East. They must sit down and negotiate, rather than forget the Minsk agreements of 2014–2015 to settle the situation in Donbas. The war began in 2014. We look at 2022 as if there were no history several years earlier. Europe completely abdicated its responsibility to implement these agreements and its commitments. I am not making this up now in your studio—in her memoirs and in interviews, Ms. Merkel and representatives of German politics admit that these agreements were used to arm Ukraine.
Today, the Russians do not want a ceasefire. Well, that is because they fear we will repeat the same scenario. Who ultimately suffers from this? Is Merz suffering, or are German and European citizens? Ukraine suffers most, the country everyone was supposedly meant to help. Of its population of more than 40 million, there are now significantly fewer people, and more will flee to Europe because they have no future there.
Look, Kyiv is dark. And we are continuing the war with Ukrainian blood and by destroying their state. This is extraordinary cynicism. If we are truly concerned about these people, there is no reason to threaten those who fled the war that they will be sent back to the front. Today, Ukrainians and Russians alike are dying while fighting with drones. Can you defeat a drone? You cannot. Who benefits from this? Those who manufacture drones. I am also astonished that during the campaign a presidential candidate who reached the runoff with enormous chances of winning was allowed to admit before the Bulgarian public that he had been financed and had accepted a donation from drone manufacturers. And this is perceived as completely normal. If Ms. Yotova had accepted a similar donation, there would have been a completely different reaction. He should have returned the donation and said: “Yes, I may hold the position that Bulgaria should be active in the Black Sea, but I cannot accept support from people with such a substantial material interest, because this harms my image.” Instead, he comes out and says: “No, I will not sign military agreements as president, but I accept the donation.” If Yotova had accepted such a donation, for example from Russia, people would quite rightly have said: “This is an incredible dependency. This endangers Bulgaria.” It is acceptable for one side but not for the other. When a Ukrainian drone falls, one that everyone had said was Russian, no one comes out to repent and say: “Wait a minute, both are dangerous.” The issue disappears, and the next time everyone already knows which drones hit the ships in the Black Sea. I will tell you: it is not by chance that the government is quietly keeping this information secret.
- But is it actually clear whose drones they are? There was talk of an investigative commission under NATO...
- It is not clear. I do not have such information and assume it is a state secret. If it becomes known, the government has a responsibility to communicate it. But I have valid doubts that the result of such an investigation would please the “hawks.” Such drones are also manufactured by Britain; the Ukrainians are very good at it, and so are the Russians. Both sides strike ships. This information, however, must reach Bulgarian citizens. When people build their political campaigns on the assumption that the drones are Russian, that is a problem. If we look at the political strategy of Radev and Yotova, both mentioned that the drones were most likely Russian. Why did they not say so during the campaign? Why are they silent? They are silent in the same way they are silent about the consequences for those who sent false documents and data to the European Commission and the European Central Bank in connection with Bulgaria’s entry into the eurozone. It became clear that this data was false. What are the consequences? I cannot understand it when Mr. Rumen Radev says: “You saw that the data was false, but is this a state governed by the rule of law?” Perhaps the truth will emerge through the audit reports, but it was enough that Simeon Dyankov officially admitted it. He said it very early on. We all turned a blind eye because we wanted to achieve the goal. I want to tell you that the end does not justify the means. If the means are undemocratic and opaque and even mislead our partners, how do we explain to Bulgarians that they should trust the political class?
- When it comes to whose drones they are, the opposition seems to keep repeating this question. Is it not exhausting to insist so much on an answer?
- So that they do not become so exhausted, let the prime minister invite them to the Council of Ministers behind closed doors and tell them: “Colleagues, these are the data we have at this point.” Because I am convinced that quite a lot of time has passed. This did not happen on the Moon, but in the Black Sea. Read the information, look at the arguments and go downstairs before the journalists to explain whose drones they are. Otherwise, you put them in this puzzle, and it is very easy to accumulate political dividends by speaking in hypotheses.
- This may be strategic information for the government. European Affairs Minister Ivo Hristov said that we are not obliged to confess before the European Commission president...
- We are not obliged to confess.
- In other words, keeping this secret puts you in a better position. To some extent, this may also be political PR, because they know their electorate. There are experienced politicians in “Progressive Bulgaria,” and they know that it has a certain sympathy for Russia and is more distrustful of the European Commission...
- Look at actions, not words. And here I do not want to criticize the authorities uncritically; I want us to see whether Ms. Ursula von der Leyen’s main strategic goals are being implemented. Well, they are. The prime minister came out the other day, when he was presenting the budget, and what did he say? That defense was his number-one priority. There may be less money for social policies and we may have to limit spending sensibly. But we will increase it for defense. Why? Because this is the order. Public procurement, companies that manufacture weapons and finance Ms. von der Leyen. You also remember whom Mr. Rumen Radev visited on his first day as prime minister of Bulgaria. He went to Germany and spent a long time meeting investors. Rheinmetall wanted to build factories here. In other words, these connections weigh heavily. There is also enormous pressure through the funds—that we can be deprived of subsidies. It turns out that if you do not agree with the Green Deal, if you do not accept certain ideological policies, if you do not support increasing military spending, you risk being punished financially. Europe became strong because of Christianity, not because of anti-Christianity. And you cannot be forced to buy weapons at any cost, regardless of the fact that you have no motorways. Because two lanes do not make a motorway; they make a country road. The one who provides the bread and cuts it with the knife dictates the rules. We also know what Todor Zhivkov used to say—today, on this date, we look back in history. I have watched him on YouTube; I was not alive to remember him, but he says something along the lines of: “When you have no money, what are you?” Apparently, the one who distributes the pie really does dictate everything. This is where the great political and diplomatic skill lies—be a good partner in these institutions, but also care about Bulgaria and Europe. If something is wrong, tell your partners. Because at some point Ursula von der Leyen might return, for example, as chancellor of Germany, but Europe will be militarized to the hilt and will have got itself into trouble from which there is no escape. Today Europe pays 12 times more for gas than America. And we ask why Donald Trump does not twist Europe’s arm. Because he can.
- Our conversation would not be complete if you did not mention what you expect Donald Trump’s next steps to be, after he lost some of his power...
- Donald Trump will escalate the war in Iran. In my opinion, he will escalate it. I hope that does not happen. I hope I am a bad prophet, but I am looking at the situation analytically. His genuinely good partner in Israel—good in quotation marks, because he basically discredited him with the war in Iran—Netanyahu is facing very serious political problems today. In other words, a distraction is necessary. We see the deployment of very serious military units in the area of the Strait of Hormuz. Now that the elections are over, what does Trump have to lose? Can we imagine America suddenly rising up and removing him? Impeachment cannot happen either in the Senate or in Congress. The Democrats do not have such a majority. In my opinion, there will be an attempt to seize several important islands that are strategic for Iran’s infrastructure, and from there it could even, God forbid, lead to a ground invasion. But this is not defined as aggression. That is why we all remain silent. We remain silent about this, about Gaza, Kosovo, Northern Cyprus and the Golan Heights. And when we remain silent in some cases, we do not have the moral high ground later to say that we know where aggression is. The other side will answer us: “You do not understand us at all.” And in the end, we see war in the Black Sea. That is the effect.
Watch more of the conversation in the VIDEO.