/ world today news/ The implementation of the Minsk agreements further strengthened Western pluralism on the Ukrainian conflict. For some, this is normal, others find this achievement of democracy to be divisive.
However, where is Bulgaria located, which geopolitically is part of the Euro-Atlantic, although geographically it is in South-Eastern Europe, and even more precisely in the border strip between Europe and Asia? And what position will she take at the upcoming various EU forums by the end of the month.
Two approaches of the West to the crisis and especially to the sanctions against Russia have already clearly formed – peaceful and forceful, approaches of the “doves” and the “hawks”. Let’s start with the first one. Recently, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius stated that the Minsk agreements have led to a de-escalation in Eastern Ukraine.
“I do not count on a long-term isolation of Russia from the European Union,” his German colleague Frank-Walter Steinmeier told Handelsblatt.
“At the moment, we do not need new sanctions, nor their automatic continuation”, adds their Italian colleague Paolo Gentiloni.
“We have to do everything possible to improve the situation and decide later whether there really is an improvement and shorten the sanctions or extend them,” Austrian Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz said.
The sanctions are not to the taste of Cyprus, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Finland and Greece.
But among the “doves” in the West, something else is also being observed – to look at relations with Russia beyond the sanctions. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has already announced that Europe should build its security with and not without Russia.
“The EU is ready to renew its partnership with Russia in compliance with international obligations,” stated very recently the first diplomat of the EU, Federica Mogherini, for whom a confrontational approach with Russia is also unacceptable. By the way, the “hawks” are ready to peck out this phrase “partnership for Russia”. And everything that orbits with or around it.
The very idea of a partnership with the EU’s eastern neighbor hangs in the air on the Old Continent. Last month, a political talk show about Ukraine took place on the German television ARD with several participants, including the German President of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz. According to him, the Ukrainian conflict should be resolved between Europe and Russia, that is, without the USA: “The USA is not a neighbor of Russia. And this war is not at the door of the USA. I want to emphasize that this is a European problem and I think that the USA they must stand at some distance from it”. And Schultz’s words were met with applause from the studio audience.
We all know who Jacques Attali is – a French economist and philosopher. And also the founder and first head of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Here is his opinion on the matter: “…France must urge the Europeans to rid themselves of the influence of those in the US and Europe, and especially in Poland, who continue to confuse Putin with Hitler… It is urgently necessary to offer our European partners to talk to Russia as a potential ally”.
By the way, at the negotiations in Minsk last month, the “Normandy Four” also discussed Putin’s idea from 2010 to create a common economic space from Lisbon to Vladivostok.
And now let’s see how things stand with the “hawks” of the Euro-Atlantic: USA, Great Britain, Canada, Poland, the Baltic states, Sweden, Romania. What did Washington do when the ceasefire in eastern Ukraine was triggered, when the withdrawal of heavy weapons began, and when the conflict de-escalated in general? The Obama administration decided that these phenomena should be “encouraged” by extending anti-Russian sanctions for another year. In a word – with hostility. With the strengthening of the military presence in Eastern Europe. With fanning of confrontational hysteria under the influence of Poland with its revanchist measures and the Baltic states with their post-Soviet phobias. With provocative rhetoric, and also with decisions on possible arming and training of the army and the power structures of Ukraine.
But something else is also observed among the “hawks” of the West. Like the “pigeons”, they also want to fly further, but not for the resolution, but for the inflaming of the Ukrainian conflict. To fly greater distances to obtain funds for the failure of the Minsk agreements. For example, the American commander-in-chief of NATO’s armed forces, Gen. Philip Breedlove said last week that “the situation in Donbass is clearly getting worse every day” because “over 1,000 units” of heavy combat equipment were sent there from Russia. The well-known diplomat Victoria Newland added that 1,000 Russian soldiers were brought to Eastern Ukraine. However, Berlin doubted these claims, and a German intelligence inquiry showed that this was not true. That is, the “hawks” resort to outright lies in order to loot the agreements and return the war to Donbass again. Plus, they cause discontent among Europeans, who believe that “their efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the Ukrainian conflict are being hindered,” as “Spiegel” noted. The magazine also adds that it is not the first time that American “hawks” peck at inaccurate data.
We come to the question of where we are and where Bulgaria is flying to in the Ukrainian conflict. When on February 17, Minister Daniel Mitov presented the country’s foreign policy priorities, he said something that was not paid attention to, but which is a new key statement for the geopolitical views of the current rulers, and also of a part of our right-wing space. The label “infinitely important partners” for our foreign policy he put not on one Germany, one France or any other leading EU country, but on two countries that are not even in Europe.
“Canada and the United States are two extremely important partners, and we must look for all ways to deepen political dialogue and cooperation at all levels. We count on maximum cooperation in all areas, to turn the relationship into something permanent, stable, which guarantees continuity, no matter what government runs the country”.
Now it should be clear why lately our foreign minister has been constantly saying that Bulgaria is in favor of a new round of sanctions against Russia. Why doesn’t he talk about de-escalation in Donbass (like Fabius), why hasn’t he said yet that we don’t need new sanctions or their automatic continuation (like Gentiloni). And why, at the meeting of his colleagues from the EU on March 16, he is unlikely to say anything different from his previous position on the matter.
Add to what has been said so far the decisions on the creation of a coordination and command center and the center near Varna for the management of ships, the leaders of which will hardly be anyone other than Americans, so that it stands out quite clearly that foreign policy flies in the flock of “hawks” in Euro-Antalntica. Although they are definitely in the minority, according to the admission of the British agency Reuters.
Of course, our diplomacy is the work not only of Mitov, but also of the president (despite the German connection in his biography), of our agriculture minister of defense, and other circles in our country. That is why at the upcoming EU summit on March 19, our head of state is unlikely to say a word against the sanctions, he is unlikely to give clear support for Germany and France, let alone transfer Bulgaria to the “doves”.
But this policy has nothing to do with the national interest of the country. And not only because the majority of Bulgarians do not wish to involve their country in any way in the Ukrainian conflict. First, the current rulers are pursuing a hostile policy against a country that has not taken any hostile actions against Bulgaria in recent years and even historically has never been our enemy. And which a number of authoritative non-governmental representatives on both sides of the Atlantic do not find to be the main culprit of the Ukrainian conflict – or if there is blame, it should be shared with the West, especially the US, which provoked Russia. Second, such a policy serves American interests, and in this particular case, to undermine the Minsk agreements in order to displace Germany and France as the main Euro-Atlantic negotiator on the Ukrainian crisis and impose peace according to its own interests. But what is Bulgaria then: a member state of European interests or is it a state of American geopolitics.
Our foreign policy course also serves Poland’s inadequate measure of seeking historical revenge against countries that don’t even exist anymore – either the Russian Empire or the USSR. It also serves the hysteria of the three Baltic states, which are actually trying to weigh more on the scales of geopolitics.
In the end, what comes out – that the Foreign Ministry of Bulgaria is external to its interests regarding the Ukrainian crisis.
————–
Yuri Mikhalkov, head of the International Department at BGNES Agency.
#Bulgaria #flies #foreign #interests #flock #hawks
