"Ukraine turned the game around. It became clear that principles can stop one of the largest armies, the Russian one. Europe woke up and mobilized, as it has not done for a long time. The question is what kind of world Bulgaria is for", says Nadezhda Neynski.
DV: Did you believe that a quarter of a century after the great national dream, to which you also contributed seriously – our entry into NATO, the EU and Schengen, plus the lifting of visas in early 2001 – we will still be talking about “orientation“ of Bulgaria?
Nadezhda Neynski: Building democracy in Bulgaria is a long and complex process that does not end with membership in unions or the abolition of visas. All of them are rather tools through which we gain the opportunity to participate in the mechanisms and processes that are the basis of the democratic world. But they do not guarantee in themselves a smooth transition from a totalitarian to a free society. Because at the heart of true democracy is democratic thinking, and it is formed most difficultly and does not depend on whether you can vacation in Greece or work in Germany. And we see this more and more clearly today, when - despite the fact that we enjoy all the advantages of a free European life - a significant group of people in Bulgaria mourn the time of Todor Zhivkov, support Putin's authoritarian regime and curse Europe.
DV: I have a theory – that the invader Putin ultimately achieved approximately only one thing: the creation of a crushing Ukrainian army with the help of the West, as well as a huge revolution in military affairs, namely - drone warfare. Please comment.
"Putin underestimated Ukraine's ability to resist"
Nadezhda Neynsky: Ukrainians reminded the world what it means to fight for your land, for your future, and ultimately for your honor. It was as if we had all forgotten what it meant. Europe had forgotten. The US had forgotten. But what is more interesting is that Putin had forgotten. That is why he underestimated Ukraine's ability to resist. I was in Ukraine, I saw the people there. These were not scared people. These were brave, determined people who knew that there was no way back. There was only flames. This determination turned the tide of the war. Instead of taking over Ukraine in 3-4 days with the “special operation”, Putin has been waging war for more than four years and has not even reached the borders of the administrative regions that he is trying to appropriate by a decision of the Duma.
DV: What do you think about our foreign policy and diplomacy at the moment? And who, if you allow this joke, is its “missing sleeve” in a more general sense?
Nadezhda Neynsky: In my opinion, the “missing sleeve” is the clear strategic vision. When it is missing, diplomacy begins to compensate for politics instead of implementing it. To have successful diplomacy, you must have successful politics. When you don’t know where you are going, you end up where you least expect. It is convenient to hide behind the cliché "national interest", but only until the moment when you have to explain what exactly you understand by this formulation and how exactly you defend it. In politics, it is important who your allies are, and if these are not the partners from the democratic unions in which you are a member, your choice is not great. You are left with authoritarian states. And we have already experienced that.
DV: What would you do right now if you were foreign minister again? And - most of all - how would you react to the half-spoken threats from Iran?
Nadezhda Neynski: What I have done during both terms as foreign minister - I would restore the trust of our partners. I would participate in the development of common solutions that benefit Bulgaria. I would speak with reason and self-confidence about Bulgaria's capabilities and its interests. As for the threats from Iran - this country threatens the democratic world. When you are part of it and you are convinced of the rightness of your position, threats do not work. Such are the rules in politics and in life. When you are wavering and indecisive, your opponents sense it. Just as predators sense the smell of the victim's fear and become more agitated. The advantage of having partners is also in the fact that you benefit from collective defense and security.
DV: Recently, Gen. Nikolai Plotnikov from the Russian FSB Academy hinted that Bulgaria provided a large part of the weapons and almost 40% of the diesel fuel for the Ukrainian army. How does that sound to you?
Nadezhda Neynsky: It is no secret that Bulgaria has been providing assistance to Ukraine since the very beginning of the conflict. Bulgarian military factories are operating 24/7 and the provided weapons were key, especially in the first months, before the EU's military assistance was structured. Taking skeletons out of the closet by Radev's government in this case is populist and irresponsible.
DV: Why is there a feeling, especially among those in power recently, that we do not sympathize with the attacked Ukrainians, but are looking for Slavophile and Russophile justifications for Putin's aggression?
"The biggest strategic failure for Putin"
Nadezhda Neynsky: Unfortunately, it is not just a feeling. I want to remind you that Ukrainians are also Slavs, more precisely “Eastern Slavs”, and the Ukrainian language is an East Slavic language, along with Russian and Belarusian. Ukrainians are Orthodox Christians and this is precisely where Russia's problem lies. That the Ukrainian Church received autocephaly (the right to self-government) from the Ecumenical Patriarch, and thus Moscow lost a significant part of its claim to exclusive church control and influence over Ukraine. For Putin, Ukraine was key not only geopolitically, but also civilizationally religiously. With the long-established concept of “Holy Rus“, encompassing Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. However, Ukraine turned the whole structure upside down and this is the biggest strategic failure for Putin. That is why I do not understand Radev's geopolitical lobbying for the lifting of sanctions against the Russian patriarch. And what makes some Bulgarians hate Ukrainians - for not wanting to cede their land to the aggressor - is difficult for me to understand. Sympathizing with the aggressor, not the victim, is a serious diagnosis that psychiatrists should pronounce on.
DV: What do you think about Trump's foreign “transactional“ policy, as I call it? You even met with Kissinger, so you can probably make the comparison with the entire current group in power there, headed by Hegsett. I will also add a quote from the latter – that there are no longer and should not be alliances based on principles, but only periodic “renegotiation“.
Nadezhda Neynsky: Technologies have exploded the world we know. Through social networks, the Nobel laureate has become equal in importance to the teenager scrolling in a cafe. Everything now seems easily accessible, information is no longer a monopoly only for the reader and the knowledgeable. Barriers began to fall one after another before our eyes. And if at first this created a feeling of power and freedom, we gradually realized that all the red lines were erased. Principles began to look old-fashioned and those who adhered to them gradually began to lose influence. Everything is a deal, says Trump. There should be no alliances, only renegotiation, says Hegseth. And because these voices come from the most powerful country, everyone is listening. Welcome to Putin. Welcome to China. The little ones just have to adjust and listen. But Ukraine really turned the game around. It was seen that principles are capable of stopping one of the largest armies, the Russian one. Europe woke up and mobilized, as it has not done for a long time. We are about to see what kind of world we will live in. The question here is what kind of world Bulgaria is for.
"The question we must ask ourselves is: what kind of world do we want to have in 10-20 years"
DV: What do you think about diplomacy today in the First World, which is obviously based on short-term interests? Today we almost never have Lord Palmerston, let alone the aforementioned late Kissinger. What do we have?
Nadezhda Neynsky: The problem is not that today's countries pursue short-term interests. They always have. The problem is that more and more often short-term interest is not subordinated to a long-term strategy. This is the huge difference with Kissinger. He knew how to make a deal with an opponent without changing his strategic assessment of him. And this is exactly what is often missing today: being able to talk to the opponent without becoming his political ally, being able to defend your interest without changing your identity and strategic direction.
Today, Radev talks about a multipolar world and a balance between great powers, but there is a huge difference: Kissinger used the balance of power to create a strategy. While with Radev, “multi-layered diplomacy” becomes the strategy itself. That is, America is strong today, so we have good relations with America. Tomorrow, China becomes stronger, we must be close to China. After that, Russia can be a factor, we must talk to Russia. This is not multi-layered diplomacy, this is reactive diplomacy. The strategic logic is the opposite. The question we need to ask ourselves is: what kind of world do we want in 10-20 years and what do we need to do today to achieve it? To me, multi-layered diplomacy means being able to talk to everyone without losing sight of who we are, where we are and what we are aiming for. Kissinger could talk to Moscow and Beijing without anyone doubting where America stands. And Palmerston, as you recall, used to say: “We have no permanent allies and we have no permanent enemies. Our interests are permanent and it is our duty to follow them”. But Palmerston's Britain in the 19th century was an empire and a great power.
DV: Bulgaria is not and will not be.
Nadezhda Neynski: Therefore, we must add: “We have eternal interests and we defend them through alliances that increase our ability to defend them.“ We must have three key things: predictability for allies, the possibility of dialogue with adversaries, and a long-term national strategy.
DV: Okay, and what should the new Bulgarian foreign policy doctrine be, assuming that there is an urgent need for one?
"Strategic meandering in politics is destructive", says the former foreign minister
Nadezhda Neynski: Bulgaria does not have a clear strategic perspective for its place in international relations. “Multi-vector" policy can only work if all its elements are around one strategic axis, because strategic meandering is destructive. Bulgaria does not need a doctrine that tells it what to think. It needs a strategic focus, without complexes, without prejudices and without wasting the already accumulated political weight.
DV: And perhaps an external worldview, according to which we should analyze and calmly internalize the world as it is, and not as we would like it to be.
Nadezhda Neynski: Yes, wonderfully put. Bulgaria must know what its advantages are, where its interests are and how it can turn its geographical position, its membership in the EU and NATO and its regional role into real political weight. This does not mean closing ourselves in on one vector, nor balancing between everyone. It means having a clear direction and enough courage when the Bulgarian interest requires it. The biggest danger today is not that Bulgaria does not have enough opportunities. The danger is that it does not recognize the existing ones and, again, through meandering, loses positions that it has already won. In a world that is changing so quickly, the lack of strategic focus has a price. And lost trust and influence are much more difficult to restore than they are lost.
"To this day, I cannot look at foreign policy as a game of interests"
DV: Can you give me something emotional to end with? Tell me a moment from the initial battle for the Bulgarian medics in Libya that you will always remember - as a foreign minister, but perhaps also as a woman and mother.
Nadezhda Neynski: Libya was one of the first moments in which I very clearly understood how dangerous it is for a country not to have its own strategic assessment of what is happening around it. At that time, Bulgaria had already made its civilizational and political choice. We were moving towards NATO and the European Union. But we were not yet members of either NATO or the EU. This was an important circumstance that Gaddafi understood very well. For him, the medics were not simply defendants in a case. He used the case as a geopolitical tool. That's why the battle was so hard for us - on the one hand, to protect Bulgarian citizens, on the other, to prevent Bulgaria from being turned into an instrument in a foreign geopolitical game. When you are a foreign minister, you see first and foremost the state, the institutions, the diplomatic channels, the international pressure. But behind all this stand six human destinies and six families who wait for their loved ones every day. Then you stop thinking only as a minister.
I also have children, as you well recall. And when you are a mother, there is a line that you cannot cross with professional distance. Then you understand why you have to continue. Not because you know that you will succeed. But because you have no right to give up. The enormous responsibility of knowing that behind every diplomatic decision are human lives. And probably that is why to this day I cannot look at foreign policy as a game of interests. Yes, interests are important, but behind them you always have to see the person. And when you can combine the two - the firmness to defend your interest and the humanity to not forget who you are doing it for - then politics makes sense.
Ivaylo Noyzi Tsvetkov talks to Nadezhda Neynski.