- 5 minutes ago
'Don't care about supporting Russia': Bulgarian PM hits back against pro-Moscow label
The Bulgarian prime minister is principal among EU leaders calling for talks with Moscow over its war on Ukraine, earning him a pro-Russia label.
READ MORE : http://www.euronews.com/2026/10/01/dont-care-about-supporting-russia-bulgarian-pm-hits-back-against-pro-moscow-label
Subscribe to our channel. Euronews is available on Dailymotion in 12 languages
The Bulgarian prime minister is principal among EU leaders calling for talks with Moscow over its war on Ukraine, earning him a pro-Russia label.
READ MORE : http://www.euronews.com/2026/10/01/dont-care-about-supporting-russia-bulgarian-pm-hits-back-against-pro-moscow-label
Subscribe to our channel. Euronews is available on Dailymotion in 12 languages
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:08Thank you Prime Minister thank you very much much has been said about you in Brussels but we have
00:13not really heard that much from you in terms of who you really are your perspectives your views
00:19you know and it's not a secret I say this with all due respect in Brussels there was a clear
00:23conversation about a prime minister that perhaps was going to break the European consensus around
00:29Ukraine that would play into the hands of Russia you said at the time that was a parody a simplification
00:36of your views and it is clear you won an election with a landslide when I look at the war
00:40Ukraine
00:41Russia what is the assessment that you make and what is the security assessment that you see from
00:45your perspective coming from Bulgaria I believe that this war challenged his challenge not only
00:52our security architecture it challenged our industrial base it challenged our unity it
01:00challenged our capability but most of all the war in Ukraine challenged our critical thinking and realistic
01:09approach it challenged most of all our ability to design a feasible political objectives and to
01:18translate them into a sound military strategy and to define a desire the desert and state and to define the
01:28victory most of all how to define the road towards this victory and all the circumstances we need to pave
01:39down to
01:40achieve peace finally to achieve peace this is this struggle very often inside of myself
01:47talking about military and political analysis and approach to the world to the conflict to the overall global
01:55situation on the security landscape I don't want to put words in your mouth but what you're saying is the
02:01fact that
02:01you question that there is well no strategy to victory saying victory and peace without a plan is not going
02:07to work that meant that you are
02:09for a while you're to label pro-russia is that what you're saying it is typical and it is very
02:14sad that if you divert from the political
02:17mainstream excuse me you are labeled immediately being a pro-russian this is not the reality I don't care about
02:28supporting
02:29Russian I care about realistic approach and to finally find the road to peace as soon as possible
02:37because this war of attrition is a strong challenge for the peace in global perspective.
02:46It is a growing risk.
02:48This war drains our social and economic systems almost every day.
02:54So we need to find the peace, the road to peace as soon as possible,
02:58and we need to finally achieve a balance between military, economic, and diplomatic instruments
03:06because I don't see the right balance yet.
03:09And our main priority should be to speak and to work for peace.
03:13You remember when President Trump took the office?
03:17He had immediately proposal.
03:20He offered Ukraine and Russia ceasefire immediately, sit down at the negotiation table, and sign a peace.
03:30What was his word?
03:31His word was that there will be no better condition for peace in the future.
03:38And his assessment was that the situation will get worse.
03:45On the other side, we had another offer to continue fighting, of course.
03:50Who put the offer? Let's put it up here in the open.
03:52European leadership.
03:53Okay, so you said the European leader said we'll continue the work.
03:55Absolutely. You remember this?
03:57They said we must continue fighting.
03:59Yes, I support this.
04:01We must deliver more and more weapons and money.
04:07So what is the result?
04:09A year and a half later.
04:11I will tell you perhaps two things.
04:12I'm not Ursula von der Leyen.
04:14I think that is clear.
04:14Everyone can see it.
04:15I'm not.
04:16But she would have said at the time, she didn't say stop fighting.
04:19She said weapons for Ukraine to equalize the field.
04:23I'm not envisioning Ursula von der Leyen.
04:25I'm not envisioning any European leader.
04:28But that was a common accepted approach for that time.
04:32Now we see a result.
04:34Hundreds of thousands more victims.
04:40Devastation of the country.
04:42Do you know I'm afraid about the latest Russian strategy because they have shifted their strategy.
04:52But is the answer saying we give you less because what the Europeans would say, the answer is not to
04:57say we cut military aid or equipment.
05:00It's the opposite.
05:00It is not enough because we don't have enough on stock already.
05:05We have delivered everything we had in stock.
05:08And our defense industry needs time to produce it.
05:13And what is going on?
05:14That will be extremely heavy winter because now Ukraine cannot oppose enough, successfully enough, this intrusion of ballistic missiles and
05:24thousands of drones.
05:26They cannot counter these drones anymore with light arms and small men carried defense systems.
05:38So it is a huge challenge.
05:41And if it continues like that, this will reflect from inside to outside, from the center of the country and
05:50industrial power back to the front line.
05:52So what is the path then?
05:54If you had it your way.
05:54Then what is the way forward diplomatically?
05:57My way is to achieve this tiny balance, extremely needed balance again between military, economic and diplomatic instruments.
06:06We have not exhausted the power of diplomacy.
06:10We need to do and to speak more about diplomacy.
06:13What do you mean by that?
06:14Because over the weekend we saw the German foreign minister took a meeting with his Russian counterpart.
06:19In the end, I don't see any progress that came out of that.
06:22I do see that the Russian foreign minister played games and, to some extent, insulted his counterpart after the meeting.
06:29And I don't see that move in the goalpost.
06:31So is this a question of the people who should conduct democracy or diplomacy are not the good ones?
06:36Other people should go?
06:38Who should go?
06:38I think some years ago, my good friend, the prime minister of Belgium at that time, Xavier Battelle, stated this
06:46clearly.
06:47We must stop speaking about Russia.
06:50We must start talking with Russia.
06:55So we need to hear the concerns of both sides.
07:00Because at the final end, yes, of course, we need and we should support, continue supporting Ukraine.
07:07But the most important is to prepare the conditions for peace.
07:12And we should know that there is a limit of just delivering weapons and supporting because the final peace setup
07:22will be done by diplomacy, not by delivering weapons.
07:25So our call is to listen more to each other, to open the lines of communication.
07:31And the problem is that no one is raising the question about nuclear risk.
07:39Does it exist?
07:40Maybe not.
07:42I don't know.
07:43But this is a risk.
07:46All of us, we speak about conventional warfighting, support Ukraine conventionally.
07:52But we have been trying to achieve...
07:54Do you honestly think we die in nuclear destruction out of this war?
07:58You honestly think that that's one of the possibilities?
08:00I don't think.
08:02But we always need to think about the worst case scenario.
08:07Are we prepared for this?
08:09Does anybody speak about risk assessment?
08:14Does it exist at all?
08:16Because we have been trying to achieve a conventional victory over the biggest nuclear power without having capabilities to counter
08:24their supersonic weapons.
08:26There is a risk.
08:28And we need to calculate at what extent and how is it possible at all.
08:34I don't believe in this.
08:35But we should take this into account.
08:39We should not neglect this.
08:40How much can we press Russia without Russia reacting with something else?
08:45I was listening also to...
08:47I don't want to repeat.
08:49I'm not an advocate of Putin and Lavrov at all.
08:54But he warned a month ago, I guess, that if there is a war between Europe and Russia, this war
09:04will be totally different and very short.
09:07That was the warning.
09:09This is a threat.
09:10I don't accept this type of speaking.
09:13But they speak this.
09:14So you condemn it.
09:15You condemn that statement.
09:16You want to listen to this.
09:17No, I just wonder, when you hear that statement, what would you say?
09:20You say, I don't accept this.
09:21I say that...
09:23You're condemning those statements.
09:24I say that there is a nuclear card.
09:28And when Russia, when Putin feels strong, he doesn't speak about this.
09:35When Russia feels weak, that happened in this war about some years ago, they start playing again with the nuclear
09:42card.
09:43So just I'm reminding that we need to have this into account.
09:50We cannot close our eyes that there are nuclear weapons on our continent, there are nuclear weapons in the arsenal
10:00of Russia.
10:02And this is part of the game calculation.
10:07And my appeal is that no one is speaking about this.
10:11No one is taking, you know, account of this risk.
10:16We have multiple analysts here who said they really believe, to that extent, it's a card that is played politically
10:22because the Russians think, or seem to think, weak leaders will get scared by it.
10:29You disagree.
10:30That's clear.
10:31Let's look at the eastern flank.
10:32There's a perception that the security picture for the eastern flank, certainly for the Baltics and Poland, has deteriorated over
10:40the past few months.
10:42We've also seen the drone violations of the airspace.
10:45What happened at the German airport, Romania, we've seen constant drone violations, on and on and on and on.
10:52Is this now a time to rethink, if this is hybrid warfare, and I wonder if you use that word,
10:59warfare yourself, is this not a time for the Europeans to redefine what hybrid deterrence to this warfare should look
11:06like?
11:06You mentioned hybrid warfare with drones.
11:09And other types.
11:10And other types, of course.
11:12It is extremely difficult to counter these drones.
11:17Why?
11:17It is extremely difficult to detect them.
11:19They fly low.
11:21They use non-metal materials.
11:23It is extremely difficult to detect on the radars.
11:27So, if you apply anti-drone systems, they need to be very, very congested on your boiler.
11:35That means a lot, a lot, a huge number of such systems.
11:40And their integration, and this is a huge technical challenge to all of us.
11:45And that's why my call is to think about this balance, about different instruments of power, and to design, to
11:55formulate a feasible end state of this war.
11:58Because we have changed our desired end state about seven to eight times.
12:05I don't remember even the formulation of these end states from the beginning of the war.
12:11That position is still a minority in the European Council.
12:13You say it's very different or very difficult to intercept the drones, the constant violations that we're seeing repeatedly.
12:20Is it because the European and NATO leadership is weak, or is it because they're not sending the right message?
12:24If you escalate, so can we.
12:27So, what is your proposal?
12:28To send a very hard warning to Russia.
12:33I agree.
12:34Okay.
12:35What about escalation?
12:37So, you just accept they can do whatever they want.
12:39They can put explosives on an airport.
12:41They can...
12:42No.
12:42What's the alternative?
12:43No.
12:44My alternative is to open the lines of communication, to sit down and to discuss.
12:51This is my proposal.
12:53And sooner or later, it will be achieved.
12:57Again, it depends.
12:59This is a war of attrition.
13:01It reflects our economies.
13:02It reflects the price of the fuel, the price of the gas.
13:06It reflects the shortage of fuel and gas in the European Union as well.
13:12My question, however, on the money, you will have to be in a consensus question, both at NATO and at
13:18a European Union level.
13:19When you get told at NATO, you have to pay 5%, you have to buy weapons that are still continue
13:26to be American.
13:26At the same time, we need to build our own European industry.
13:30How do you pay for American weapons while trying to build your industry, while talking about made in Europe.
13:40You praise your visit with Macron.
13:42But to me, there are two strategies that, at some point, it's difficult to keep them on one lane, because
13:46they're quite contradictory.
13:48So which one is it going to be?
13:49A made in Europe preference or not?
13:50The problem is that the European defense industry is highly fragmented.
13:56And, of course, we need to strengthen our defense industries.
14:00Safe instrument is extremely good instrument.
14:03Bulgaria is a very active participant in this instrument.
14:06Would you want a round two?
14:07There's been debate that maybe if the first round was successful, there could be a second one.
14:11Yes, there could be, and this is the right approach to strengthen our industrial base, to work together, to communicate,
14:20to coordinate, and this is the future for Europe.
14:22But as the Prime Minister of Bulgaria, if you have to sign a contract, and in the future you have
14:26two weapons that ultimately do the same job, one is European, one is made in the U.S., would you
14:31say, of course we go for the European first?
14:34We need a European preference.
14:35Yes, of course, this is the part of the European strategic autonomy concept.
14:41And I fully agree that, and we have been working for this.
14:45We need to strengthen the European pillar of NATO, because we need to take care about our defense capabilities.
14:55And we need to do it in a smart way.
14:58We cannot exclude the United States, because the United States is a leader in defense technologies.
15:06We need to cooperate.
15:07But, of course, we need to protect our defense industries, otherwise they will disappear.
15:12And for Made in Europe, is it the right way to put this in writing?
15:17Do we need those percentages?
15:20Do we need that Made in Europe?
15:21By law, we need to operate like this, otherwise we continue our strategic dependencies on the U.S.
15:28Are you in favor of legislating in this way?
15:30We cannot immediately guarantee our security by ourselves.
15:36Even talking about the nuclear shield, we cannot go without the United States of America,
15:42because they provide the essence of the core defense capabilities in NATO.
15:47It is absolutely clear.
15:50It will take time for us to recover, to renovate our industries, our industrial base, our technology development.
16:01Should Ukraine be a core part of it?
16:03We heard from the Ukrainians saying the Europeans will need us more than at this point we need them on
16:07the technology advancement.
16:08Should we get them in this context?
16:09Ukraine has been already a part of this.
16:12Because many European defense industries have already invested.
16:18Look at Rheinmetall, look at other companies.
16:21They have presence.
16:22They have invested.
16:23They have developed strong industrial sites and presence in Ukraine.
16:28Ukraine has been sharing latest state-of-the-art drone technologies.
16:34They have developed through experimenting them every day on the front line.
16:39So as an equal partner, anyway, the Ukrainians will say we will be joining the European Union.
16:43So this debate at some point...
16:46Of course, Western Balkans, Ukraine, Moldova, all of them, they have place and their future is full integration into the
16:57European family.
16:57This is obvious.
16:59This is of course.
16:59As a final question, when we hear NATO 3.0, the impression that I get, nobody will say publicly with
17:08these words, but ultimately it means that we are going to have to pay big time in NATO.
17:13We are going to still have to continue for or pay for those U.S. weapons.
17:16Otherwise, there will be a retaliation for the administration.
17:19But then we're going to have to do all the hard work of the soldiers, all the work that means
17:25real defense will be us.
17:27And ultimately, all that will be left is the U.S. nuclear umbrella that will protect the Europeans and still
17:35be there as a last resort in NATO.
17:37That is essentially what NATO 3.0 means for the Europeans.
17:40Is that how you see it, too?
17:42You say you're not politically correct.
17:43You're not in the mainstream.
17:44So I'm sure you can speak freely on this.
17:46We, when we speak about NATO 3.0 and the defense capabilities of Europe, we should put on the table
17:55economic part, social part.
17:59We should put tariffs on the table.
18:02We should put European cars talking with our most important strategic ally, the United States.
18:08We should put – because when we speak about defense capabilities, it means technology and industrial development.
18:17It should not go just for military equipment.
18:20It should go for everything.
18:22We cooperate with the United States.
18:24So tariffs are part of this approach.
18:27And Europe should put everything on the table.
18:31Your analysis of NATO 3.0, I still didn't fully understand it, because you said we need to put our
18:37economic relationship and even tariffs.
18:39The only tariffs are seen are the Americans and European products.
18:42So by 15 percent, they tripled.
18:45And we pay more into NATO.
18:46I'm just wondering, from your military background, when you look at this NATO 3.0 and you say this is
18:52the plan for the next 15 years, what does it look like?
18:54Do you have U.S. troops stationed in Europe, or you won't?
18:57I think we need also more effective diplomacy, speaking with the United States.
19:06So to bring everything in one basket, because everything is strongly connected.
19:12We cannot separate defense industry from technology, from science, from human capital, from industrial base, and all the products with
19:25dual usage.
19:26And they mix, especially in AI.
19:28And we are lagging behind here in Europe in AI.
19:31We should cooperate more strongly with the United States about AI.
19:39And we should go together as strategic allies and partners, because there are some other movements around the world in
19:48this direction as well.
19:49Well, Prime Minister, thank you so much for your time.
19:51You've been clearly very generous with your time, so thank you very much for joining us.
19:55Thanks.