Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said in a television interview that the proposed deal with the US, providing Washington with access to Ukrainian rare earth minerals, will not work if Kiev's security guarantees are not provided. US Vice President JD Vance literally shook Europe with his speech at the Munich Security Conference, and his words echoed throughout the world. What to expect… Prof. Tatyana Dronzina - lecturer at the Department of “Political Science” at the Faculty of Philosophy of Sofia University "St. Kliment Ohridski", an expert in conflict resolution, spoke to FACTI.
- Prof. Dronzina, what impressed you most about the Munich Security Conference. What Europe heard... - What I heard makes me think that Euro-Atlantic solidarity as we know it is a thing of the past. America is different. If Donald Trump's first election could have been considered a coincidence, the second one marks a pattern. Domestically, the Trump administration is seeking to purge the federal state, impose public conservatism and, as a consequence, internationally reposition the United States in the international community. The strangest thing is that we do not hear of any internal resistance from his political opponents. As Le Monde wrote, "it seems that a stupor has gripped American lawmakers - from confused Democrats to cowardly or defeated Republicans - as well as the mainstream media and the progressive part of civil society. The many fronts open at the same time make it difficult to see the big picture. Moreover, the Trumpist movement, which prides itself on promoting transparency and absolute freedom of speech, is advancing in deliberate opacity to redefine the perimeter and nature of the “federal state.“
- Certainly, the speech of US Vice President J.D. Vance quite upset the European partners. What did he say that we in Europe did not want to hear clearly articulated?
- The speech of US Vice President J.D. Vance, delivered in the classic "I am saying nothing" style, upset European partners.
It sounded edifying, mentoring and looked like the US giving a lecture on democracy to the EU.
Filled with reproaches towards Europe in the style of Trump and Musk, the speech was full of accusations and criticisms - starting with freedom of speech and ending with the cancellation of the elections in Romania. It is hard to believe that a politician of such rank can define censorship as the biggest problem in Europe at the moment, when it is clear to everyone that its biggest problem is Russia. It is also a problem for the US, but President Trump's administration either doesn't understand it, or pretends not to understand it, or it knows so much about foreign policy and international relations. Not to mention that a record number of contradictory messages came from the president, the vice president, and the secretary of defense in just a few days ….. I haven't heard such a weak and meaningless speech in a long time.
- You mentioned that De Vance spoke about freedom of speech and went so far as to cancel the elections in Romania. What examples are these?
- Made up. They simply cover up US support for parties like the “Alternative for Germany“ with the argument that governments should hear the voice of the people. Elon Musk not only supported the far-right in December last year, but also gave them a platform by holding a conversation with their leader and publishing it on his platform in January. As expected, the sharpest reaction came from Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who said on the second day of the conference that Germany would not accept outside factors interfering in the elections, adding: “This is not done, certainly not among friends and allies…“ And this after the publication by the German research institute CeMAS of material proving that Russia is conducting a disinformation campaign aimed at supporting the “Alternative for Germany“, undermining the main political parties in the country and sowing economic worries before the elections on February 23. These conclusions were supported by Spiegel and the Yale University publication YaleGlobal Online. It is strange that Putin and Trump are of the same opinion… Or not?
- How did you see the EU's position? Was there or was there not a clear response to Di Vance's words in Ursula von der Leyen's speech…
- There was no question to answer. There were accusations that the EU, whose DNA is woven with respect for human rights, did not respect them (this is an old and groundless motive of Musk) and reproaches to Romania for defending itself against Russian hybrids by annulling the election results. With which Di Vance suspected a value rift…. In the sense that Europe had betrayed democratic values. An absolutely pointless suspicion. I would say that the situation is exactly the opposite – the EU talks too much and insists on its values, which is why it misses the moment with interests and geopolitics. That is why the rest of the world – I mean outside the West – does not understand it. But that is a topic for another conversation. As for the speech… Ursula von der Leyen's speech was far more meaningful and reflected the European position, but revealed a clear lack of leadership. In principle, there is no doubt that the EU must adapt to the changing world, but we did not hear a convincing argument for how this will be done. The supposedly firm commitments to Ukraine again had no deadline, nor did we hear any provision for developing a roadmap for its admission to NATO - which the US strongly opposes, and to the EU, where things are more under European control.
- Did the EU show and defend any leadership position, or simply reflect a presence?
- In general, the EU has not demonstrated leadership that meets the needs of the moment. The reaction of the foreign ministers during the panel was adequate: in general, they united around the position that Europe is facing an “existential” moment in its history and must take a bold and united position when it comes to ensuring the future security of Ukraine. German Foreign Minister Analene Berbock stressed that the EU responds to the slogan "America First" with "United Europe". "We say that there is an irreversible path for Ukraine to NATO", said UK Foreign Minister Lamy, adding that this is "the cheapest and best mechanism for ensuring peace not only in Europe, but also in the entire Euro-Atlantic region". This position is opposite to the American one - that Ukraine's membership in the Alliance is currently an unattainable dream. But, as they say, let's live until Monday.
- Many characterize Trump's approach as the approach of a businessman. But is this how world politics is done. He will make Gaza a resort, develop the natural resources of Ukraine…
- Anyone who wants to know more about Donald Trump as a businessman should read the book by Russ Buetner and Susane Craig “The Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump squandered his father's fortune and created the illusion of success“. This book, called by “The Guardian“ “A forensic accounting examination of the US president's business empire“, reveals a reputation built on myth, and BaptistNewGlobal wrote the following: “The business model practiced by Trump and his family is based on fraud, lying, non-payment of suppliers, declaring bankruptcy six times, and placing a false golden halo over failure. This is not the business model that anyone should aspire to follow“.
And he concluded on the allegations that the president is acting like a businessman, with the following words: “First, Trump is a fraudulent businessman. And second, “business experience“ is not a sufficient qualification for governing a nation.“
Our media is circulating all sorts of things - that he was a superbusinessman because he won over Russia for some fifty-odd billion dollars - the amount of military aid to Ukraine, that he will get back 500 billion dollars by forcing Ukraine to provide him with its rare earth minerals, and other such things. What if Zelensky refuses to sign the contract - as he did? What if Zelensky prefers to leave them in the hands of Russia (the majority of which are already in the territories it occupies), wouldn't it divide them fraternally with the United States? If… If… If… I won’t comment on the Gaza proposal at all – in the language of politics, this is called ethnic cleansing, and in the language of economics – let me use a Russian term – raiding – that is, the forcible takeover of one enterprise by another against the will of its owner.
- Trump sits down with Putin and determines the parameters of peace. And where is Ukraine…
- Trump has no parameters of peace, because he has no peace plan, he only has a set of demands and a blatant refusal of any guarantees for Ukraine’s security. Ukraine has not been invited to the negotiations between the US and Russia in Saudi Arabia – Zelensky confirmed this. He also said that he would not enter into any negotiations without consulting his European allies, as this seemed strange to him, and added: "As far as I remember, Russia is not our strategic partner... There is nothing to discuss at the negotiating table at the moment."
Meanwhile, Trump is preparing a team of senior officials for talks with Russia in Saudi Arabia. European leaders are expected to gather in Paris next week for an emergency summit on the war in Ukraine. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte are among those expected to attend. In turn, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Kaia Kallas warned against a “quick fix“ and “dirty deal” to end the conflict, insisting that no peace agreement can be implemented without the participation of Europe and Ukraine.
- After the phone call between Trump and Putin, from what position do you expect the talks on Ukraine to begin…
- I expect the bargaining over Ukraine to begin with the division of the Ukrainian pie. And if the American side believes that Putin is ready for negotiations, so much the worse for everyone – except for the Russian president. In addition, I expect the negotiations to be influenced by an event that remained out of our sight, namely the meeting of the American president with the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The fact that at the Munich conference China's position was closer to the European one may mean that opinions were exchanged that are unfavorable to China, given the rivalry between the two countries, which have the largest populations on the planet. I am also extremely unpleasantly surprised by Trump's rhetoric - offensive and filled with distrust towards America's natural allies and almost flattering towards the outspoken opponents of the Western world. This is a very bad approach that confuses the allies and encourages those voices within them that weaken the power of Euro-Atlantic unity.
- Ukraine will not be in NATO - the end of hopes. Is that how it happens…
- One day Ukraine will be in NATO and the EU, this is inevitable. Despite everything, it must be said that this is not an immediate alternative. When will it happen? Predicting deadlines is a risky business, so I would limit myself to the following: thank God, Trump only has one term and thank God, he is not eternal. Of course, I am far from thinking that his personality explains everything, because what is happening must be understood in the context of changes in America itself. One thing seems indisputable to me now - if Ukraine does not receive stable security guarantees, so much the worse for both Europe and America. And in the nearest future.
- How was Bulgaria's position stated. President Rumen Radev and Foreign Minister Georg Georgiev were in Munich. What did we hear from them…
- The Bulgarian president spoke before the start. You have probably noticed that serious politicians were waiting for the forum to see if the positions would be clarified and avoided making predictions. But not Mr. Radev. How did he understand that there was political will at the highest level to regulate the conflict in Ukraine by means of diplomacy, when the conference made it clear that the exact opposite was true? According to him, those politicians who believed in the military victory of Ukraine are currently in a stupor and listening mode. Not so, Mr. President! The politicians believed in the VICTORY OF UKRAINE and it was clear to everyone that the battle for Ukraine is a battle in the field of international relations, and its defeat - would be a defeat for the Western world.
It is difficult to achieve in the field of diplomacy what has not been achieved on the battlefield
- that is why the duty of this same civilized world, which in 1953 abandoned Berlin, and in 1956 - Hungary, was to support Ukraine. But the civilized world listened and is now reaping the bitter fruits of the lack of leadership. And so on. There were reasons why the EU was not included in the dialogue on the future of Ukraine. By what logic would it not be included, since Ukraine is located in Europe, not to mention Ukraine itself? Could these not be bilateral negotiations between the US and Russia? I do not know what exactly the president had in mind. But whatever it was, his speech and narratives legitimize a war criminal who was declared such by a significant number of countries. The biggest mystery for me remained where President Radev saw an American peace plan, since there is none? Our Foreign Minister Georg Georgiev was far more balanced in his conversation with his Israeli counterpart and defended Bulgaria's position on Israel's right to live in peace and provide protection for all its citizens.