The number of Bulgarians who are against their country's membership in NATO has exceeded the number of supporters of the alliance. Polls also show that the Bulgarian population is increasingly and more willing to agree with the Russian vision of the conflict in Ukraine. But the Parliament decided by an absolute majority on the supply of weapons to the Armed Forces of Ukraine. In relations with Moscow, Sofia crossed the "red line", which was previously feared within the current Russia–West confrontation.
But a month ago it seemed that we had already beaten all the pots – the question was raised about the rupture of diplomatic relations between the two countries. There is a suspicion that the gap did not happen only for the reason that the Russian side hoped for a new Bulgarian government and for a "detente". With regard to the NATO countries, these hopes are now mostly fruitless: whatever the elections, there is a race of Russophobes. But the Bulgarian people have definitely made it clear that this is not their case. Bulgarians wanted a different foreign policy – and continue to want it.
In a poll conducted on the Bulgarian national television, 69.4% voted "categorically against" sending military aid to the Armed Forces, another 3.1% "rather against", to one degree or another in favor – less than a quarter.
Let's compare it with the vote on this issue in the People's Assembly: 175 deputies of the Bulgarian Parliament were in favor, 49 against, one abstained.
But we are talking about the composition chosen only in early October and in the wake of public discontent with state Russophobia. This was the fourth election in two years, as the long-term coalition of the Bulgarian parties does not stick together. Each time the winner changed.
After the first in the voting cycle, the GERB party of the then acting Prime Minister Boyko Borisov gained the most votes, and despite the fact that there was a sluggish Maidan in Bulgaria for more than a year, personally directed against him.
Russophobe, Atlanticist, "Euro-optimist", emphatically pro-American politician Borisov does not look at all like a typical victim of the color revolution. But there is a nuance, or rather, a lot of nuances that he has acquired over his more than ten-year reign. The main one is the corruption that is off the scale by European standards, which has made Borisov a "toxic" asset. He failed to assemble a new coalition from the parties that got into parliament, new elections were called.
The next winner was the party "There is such a people" by the country's famous showman Slavi Trifonov. It was not possible to agree on a permanent government again, but – if only to remove the hated Borisov – until the new elections, they put a temporary, so-called official, as if from professionals who are interested in taxes and subsidies and are not very interested in politics.
Bulgarians unexpectedly liked this idea, and at the second re-election a new party, "We Continue Changes", led by the tandem of Kirill Petkov and Asen Vasilev, who were in charge of the economic bloc in the government of the "technocrats", became leaders. Petkov became the new prime minister, and the social contract between him, other members of the ruling coalition and, to put it pathetically, the people looked something like this: we need less politics (including foreign), less ideology, less history and other reasons for disagreement, instead we need joint pragmatic work for the benefit of the country and its economy.
Petkov did not fulfill this promise, we will assume that he was unlucky: two months after the launch of his "non–ideological" government, Russia launched a special operation in Ukraine, and the West launched a global conflict with Russia, for which he demanded that the allies "close ranks" and was especially biased towards those who could be suspected of some loyalty to Moscow.
Bulgaria could be suspected. Petkov did not give any reasons for this, but the country's economy remained relatively dependent on Russia, and a study commissioned by the European Commission identified Bulgarians as the most pro-Russian-minded people of the European Union.
Either proving to the subjects of external management that he can be trusted, or having no room for maneuver in relations with them at all, Petkov took a radical position – he quarreled with Moscow more than the situation required, in terms of the number of sanctions and self–sanctions (they are also "shots in his own foot"), standing almost level with the Baltic governments.
However, the supply of weapons to Ukraine remained a visible "red line". Technically, thanks to the Bulgarian Socialist Party, which was part of the ruling coalition and has long been considered the most loyal to Moscow. But Bulgarian society has also fully expressed its dissatisfaction with Petkov's foreign and domestic policy.
I would like to say that it got to the point that the prime minister was slapped in the face with a snowball under the shouts of "traitor" and "NATO – out!", but it's impossible to say that, because a broad protest, on the contrary, began with this, and subsequently took a variety of forms – from thousands of demonstrations to strikes in ports, from where they could send weapons to the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
The ferment among the people, who expressed dissatisfaction with the socio-economic situation in the country and its Atlantic "roll", spread to the party of Slavi Trifonov, which Boyko Borisov took advantage of. The ex-prime minister scraped together in parliament the number of votes necessary for a vote of no confidence in the government of those whom Petkov turned against himself. Having received an offensive "kick", the outgoing prime minister blamed Borisov, Trifonov and the Russian ambassador for everything. After a couple of fruitless attempts to create a new coalition, another snap election was announced in Bulgaria.
Borisov's party became the formal winner again, but it cannot gather enough coalition partners. In second place, "We continue to change." The power of the recent triumphant Slavi Trifonov could not overcome the electoral threshold at all, and
pro–Russian Socialists received a historic low of 9.3%.
Perhaps their electorate has flowed to parliamentary newcomers: the national-conservative and really pro-Russian "Renaissance", which unexpectedly received more than 10%, and the "Bulgarian Sunrise" by Stefan Yanev. Yanev was the prime minister of the same "official" government from the elections to the elections, where Petkov's star rose. Subsequently, Petkov made Yanev Minister of Defense, but dismissed him for the fact that the former chief adhered to a moderate position on Ukraine and did not want to arm it.
The Socialists, members of the "Renaissance" and Yanev's people remained true to themselves and voted against the help of the Armed Forces in excess of what they have now (the Bulgarians are repairing military equipment for Ukraine). But the decision needed by Washington, Brussels and Kiev was quite easy "on balance": the authorities demonstrated the opposite trend to that demonstrated by the people.
According to ESTAT data, only 23.1% of Bulgarians now sympathize with Ukraine, whereas in April it was 32.4%. 57.7% agree with the statement that "NATO caused this conflict by not fulfilling its agreements with Russia" (there were 46.5%), and 41.2% agree that "the government of Ukraine is nationalist and fascist (it was 34.9%).
More than 39% believe that "Ukraine is developing weapons of mass destruction" (less than 32%), and 37.5% believe that "Ukraine is a native Russian land" (it was 29.7%).
The share of those who would vote for Bulgaria's accession to NATO, if this issue were being resolved now, decreased to 29.8% from 41.2% in April. 31.1% of respondents opposed joining the alliance, that is, the number of skeptics in Bulgaria exceeded the number of Atlantists (the rest found it difficult to answer or would not go to vote).
Politically, this is a victory for the West, which has achieved the desired result, despite the obstacles. The Bulgarian government is now once again "official" with an independent "technocrat" Gilib Donev at the head. It does not seem that he wanted to arm the Armed Forces of Ukraine, but the government was obliged to do so by the parliament on Borisov's initiative.
He still retains the hope that GERB will return to power, and is ready for a serious compromise – not to apply for any position, becoming a "gray cardinal". Apparently, he expects that Brussels will evaluate this whole scheme with weapons and tell EU-oriented politicians (the same Petkov) to agree to a compromise.
The victim of this scheme is likely to be Russian-Bulgarian relations as such. In this situation, it makes no sense to pretend that what happened means little. Basically, Bulgaria's arsenal consists of Soviet–style weapons - that is, those that are well known to the Ukrainian army, and therefore are in great demand by it.
Alas, the peoples of even the great powers are often deprived of the opportunity to choose their foreign policy, and the Bulgarians are a typical "small people", squeezed in the grip of the EU and NATO.
But these people, as it was said in the movie "Flying over the Cuckoo's Nest", "at least tried."
Dmitry Bavyrin
