USA, Europe, Ukraine… What challenges are we facing, after seeing a rather aggressive Donald Trump. Ivan Anchev - co-chair of the Atlantic Council of Bulgaria, an expert on international security, spoke to FACT.
- Mr. Anchev, is this how the “golden times“ for the USA under Donald Trump begin - tariffs, threats, actions from a position of force?
- The “Golden times“ for the USA are currently only in President Trump's head. Such “Golden times“ can only be spoken about from the perspective of history and his past four-year presidential term. At the moment, these are only messages to the public, which largely shine with the light of election messages.
Acting from a position of strength is clearly President Trump's favorite tactic, but I wanted to see such action against Moscow, and not against the United States' closest allies for decades - the European countries and Canada.
Regarding tariffs - I will be as blunt as possible, because I am not an economist, or I cannot give an expert answer. But in short, I believe that if you increase something by 25% tariff, the end consumer will simply pay 25% more. But I say again - I am not an economist and therefore I would not like to delve into the topic of tariffs and tariffs.
- The big topic that is happening now is the talks about ending the war in Ukraine. Trump wants peace and the underground resources of Ukraine. How will this happen?
- I was very hopeful that President Trump would seek “peace through force” - a verbal construction that appeared in the period after his re-election and before his inauguration. At that time, I believed that he would follow in the footsteps of President Reagan and finally bring Russia to the brink of the abyss, where socio-economically it was already, in order to force it to sit down and negotiate with Ukraine and the United States behind it (behind Ukraine). Then President Trump would have every moral right to claim visible American participation in the post-war reconstruction of Ukraine. What is more - he would have every right to claim to stand next to Ronald Reagan, with all the honors due to him from Her Majesty History. Alas, President Trump chose a different approach, radically different from the one I am talking about above. Let's see where it will lead us, although I am very pessimistic about the final and honest result of such a strategy.
- Donald Trump first talked to Russian President Vladimir Putin, then to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. And the US somehow reduced the pressure on Russia. What happened, what was the goal of this?
- I have no idea what was the goal of this. Why did Putin have to be talked to first? This gave a bad sign and encouraged Putin and his entourage that the isolation was over. And it really ended in an unfortunate way, but thanks to Donald Trump.
Who benefits from all this - only Putin and his entourage.
Such an action also gave many arguments to the pro-Putin forces in Europe and in Bulgaria in particular. That is, there is an action on the part of President Trump that cannot be explained by our moral and ethical markers and paradigms. If there is any reason for such an action, it is clear only in Trump's head. I do not say "and his advisors", because I am not sure that there is an advisor who can change the direction in which he has decided that the "peacemaker" Trump should go regarding the war in Ukraine. Rather, we are witnessing a behavioral pattern of "not annoying the boss and doing what he would ask". I am talking specifically about Trump's advisory apparatus in the White House.
- US Vice President J.D. Vance first threw Europe into turmoil with his speech at the Munich conference. What should Europe remember from this speech?
- This speech will be remembered and analyzed for a long time.
It is not a spontaneous vision of some songwriter whose ideas appealed to the young (in years) and inexperienced in international relations vice president of the United States.
This speech is deliberate and purposeful, so as to make demands, outline frameworks and give a clear sign of the views of those who wrote the speech. I do not mean the specific author or authors, as songwriters, but the ideologists behind this speech. Who are they, you may ask? For now, I am building a thesis, but I will refrain from sharing it, because it may still sound like a conspiracy theory - something I am not a fan of. We should only deal with facts and evidence.
But let's get back to the second part of your question - Europe must remember, it has already understood, but it must remember for a long time to come that it must learn to rely only on itself. The peaceful times are over, when Europe exported culture and charm, and imported and enjoyed security, guarantees from across the Atlantic.
- Then Vance and President Trump had a meeting in the Oval Office with Zelensky, at which the agreement on US access to the subsoil resources of Ukraine was supposed to be signed, but this did not happen, because the Ukrainian president left. Was this a conversation from a position of power?
- In my opinion, we all witnessed something that had never happened publicly - in front of cameras and microphones, never before. Maybe it happened somewhere, once, behind closed doors, but not on television, in a live broadcast. It is clear that the effect of force was sought in advance to see “who is in charge here“, but alas, no one gained from this. I am speaking internationally. I am sure that in the domestic political plan for America, millions of Americans said: “Ha, so, bravo to our president!“
But internationally, for all democratically minded people, this scene dealt a very heavy reputational blow to the United States. And this is evident from the reactions of our compatriots in the comments on the page of the American embassy in Sofia under several of their publications. There are, of course, Americans who do not agree with this scene and this behavior, and these people clearly showed this to Vice President Vance during his ski weekend in Vermont. This happened a few days after the meeting in the Oval Office.
- Then followed the suspension of arms supplies to Ukraine, and Zelensky's response was that he was ready to sign the agreement when the US said so. What kind of diplomacy is this?
- I cannot give an exact definition of what kind of diplomacy this is, because I do not see any specific and deep diplomatic motive for such an action. There are no negotiations, so to speak, to defend such an action with a desire to show readiness or good intentions.
Rather, this suspension is on the orders of the US President and is an expression of his understanding of “making a deal“.
But this whole “deals“ thing is gradually becoming such an absurdity that Donald Trump ultimately risks going down in history with this very definition – “deal“. Can you imagine Jimmy Carter saying to Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat (Camp David Accords) “Do you take this deal or not?“. Or Reagan to Gorbachev? Or Bush-father to Saddam Hussein? “Do you take the deal or not?“ The global security system is not a grocery store where countries and peoples are sold by the kilo. You buy/sell. The global security system aims to guarantee peace and civilizational development, preserving the freedom and prosperity of smaller countries and peoples, but while respecting common democratic principles. This is not a game of “Deal or not?“.
- After the Munich Conference, several meetings were held in Europe on the topic of “Ukraine“, but Bulgaria was not among the invited countries. How should we view this?
- How can Bulgaria be invited, when there is a president who talks to Moscow's supporters, who does not know whose Crimea is, and who constantly calls for the war to be stopped on terms that are beneficial only to Russia? How can Bulgaria be invited, when in the seven-party Bulgarian parliament, four of the parties have pro-Russian views and are essentially Russia's Fifth Column in Bulgaria? The leading party itself is torn between Trump and Europe, but three and a half years ago it built the Turkish Stream through Bulgaria and thus gave Putin the opportunity to bypass Ukraine and start the war there in 2022. How can they invite us, when our politicians themselves have begun to declare loudly that we will not send troops to Ukraine, without anyone asking us to do so? In short - Bulgaria is one of those "allies" for which it is not very certain how they will react if necessary. For this - why should we invite them to the diplomatic table?
- Prime Minister Rosen Zhelyazkov expresses his support for Ukraine, but does not sound categorical. Where is Bulgaria in this whole new situation in Europe?
- Prime Minister Zhelyazkov deserves respect for what he is doing at the moment. After the unfortunate meeting on Friday at the White House, he was the first, albeit on the social platform “X“, to express firm support for Ukraine. Also, two days ago he convened the Security Council at the Council of Ministers, again on this topic. Let us just recall that Rumen Radev convened the CSNS on the topic of vapes, instead of on the topic of Ukraine. Vapes are an important topic, but they are not the most important for Bulgaria at this moment, it is not a topic for the CSNS.
Bulgaria currently resembles a ship, but without a captain and helmsman, with a disorganized crew - I mean the political class - in which the disorganized crew each raises or lowers some sail on the ship, as a result of which the ship sways in all directions and wanders without direction. Thank God, there is still no dangerously approaching shore nearby, but if one appears -
the ship Bulgaria will shipwreck cruelly.
Because the officer corps (political leadership) has long abdicated or is locked in the hold, and on deck (in Parliament) are left the most drunk and reckless sailors, who do everything else, but not what is good for the ship Bulgaria and its passengers. Excuse me for this sea-ship reference, but it seems to me a good visualization of Bulgaria in the stormy sea and the stormy times we are entering. Fierce storms are coming and we must prepare for them.
----------------------------------------------------
Ivan Anchev is Co-Chair of the Atlantic Council of Bulgaria. An expert on international security, with several diplomatic mandates in the United States, the last of which (2016 – 2020), as Consul General of Bulgaria in Chicago.