Yordan Bozhilov: Regional connectivity is the key to affirmation of Central and Southeastern Europe

Vladimir Mitev

Yordan Bozhilov is the founder and President of the Sofia Security Forum. He is former Deputy Minister of Defense of the Republic of Bulgaria. He has been a career government official in the Ministry of Defence, holding various positions in the period between 1992 – 2013, including Head of the International Organisations and Arms Control Department, Director for International Cooperation, Deputy Director for Security and Defence Policy, and Head of the Political Cabinet of the Minister of Defence. He also served as a defense and security adviser to the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.

Yordan Bozhilov is a lecturer at Sofia University. His papers on European defense, Black Sea security and other topics have been published in Bulgaria and abroad.

Mr. Bozhilov, after the 2024 European elections, we have a curious situation which creates a certain theory that the center of power in European Union perhaps could be moving towards the East, because on one hand there is some political weakness in the center of the European Union with Germany and France both quarreling between themselves and also having political problems at home, where the ruling forces are challenged by new parties, and on the other hand there is this affirmation of Poland, which Politico likes to write about, and there are also ongoing negotiations for the accession of Moldova and Ukraine to the EU. What is your take on this theory? Is really there any movement eastward of the center of power in the European Union?

Yes, there is a notion that the center of power in Europe is moving eastwards. It’s a new idea, actually it’s the first time it appeared after the Russian invasion on Ukraine. Why?

Because the main risks and challenges for European security, for Europe as such, comes from this war. This is one aspect. The other aspect is that the countries to the east, mainly, as you mentioned, Baltic countries, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and some others, they first recognized this threat.

That’s why they came with many initiatives, mainly in the spheres of security, that Europe should focus most on protecting its eastern part, most on developing defense capabilities to the east. This is one part of this notion, I would say. 

The second part is that the countries to the east put a lot of effort into modernizing their economies, their infrastructure, and the linkage between countries to the eastern flank. That’s why they attracted more attention, more resources. This also creates the idea that this part of Europe is more dynamic. Whether this tendency will continue will depend on several factors.

First of all, it will be up to the countries to the eastern flank to continue this pace of development. Second, to keep attraction on the flank. I think that in some countries, we see some kind of stagnation of development. The level of economic development is unfortunately going down. We must see whether the European Union and NATO as such, Europe as such, will keep being engaged in this part of Europe. I think that this will, to a big extent, define whether the center of gravity is still moving eastwards, or Europe will be engaged with other issues.

Okay, as I understand, this process, if it takes place, is somehow happening by itself, because it was provoked by external circumstances, at least partially. If there is really such a process going on, how should the countries of the region, like Romania, Bulgaria, and others, relate to it? Should they somehow encourage it and engage more actively in this process? And what could be the contents of this process of engagement should it be limited to just enjoying and discussing about “the eastward shift of power”, or should it be related to some new content, maybe of politics, which is done in this region?

As I said, it is just a notion. It’s just a theory. This is a theoretical concept that the center of gravity is moving eastward, mainly because it is security-driven. It is because of the war in Ukraine. It is because of the sense that Europe is threatened again by Russia from the east. This is why this idea arose, firstly and foremostly.

But, of course, the eastern part of Europe is still underdeveloped in many spheres. Take the economy. Although many countries are investing a lot, many countries from the region are catching up, I would say, with the European level of development, still the region, as such, remains far behind the average European development, let alone countries like Romania and Bulgaria, countries which will have to invest much more to catch and reach the average level.

This is one thing. The second is that this idea will depend very much on the developments in Ukraine. I’m afraid that Europe is losing focus.

Europe is a bit fatigued on what is happening in Ukraine. Europe looks mostly at what’s happening in the United States and mainly looks towards American elections. I do hope that the United States and America will keep engaged with assistance to Ukraine because this is the key for European security.

But, again, there are several tendencies which will affect Europe very much and the topic we are discussing.

To what extent do you think that the war in Ukraine and other evolutions which we mentioned, like the political weakness of the center or the rise of Poland or the general economic growth of the region – because it really grew significantly in economic terms in the last 20 years, could bring to a situation in which the region gets somehow affirmed as a whole, not only as national states, but really developing certain regional identity in many fields and maybe not only related to security, but also to other domains?

Look, there is a clear view that the region shall be better integrated in NATO and the European Union. A lot of efforts countries from the region have already put in, have already invested a lot of, but still many countries from the region have to catch up with the general development of the European Union. I would say that some countries are doing better than others.

From this perspective, I would say that the region, which is composed mainly of countries from the former Warsaw Pact, has to make a big jump, if you wish, in order to catch up. And this is the tendency which should take probably years, if not decades. Despite the investments, despite what has been done, still the level of capabilities, the level of military capabilities is still significantly low, because countries had to change from old-style weapons to new ones.

Some countries are doing much better than others. For example, you mentioned Poland. Poland is already investing about 4% in GDP in defense. Romania gives close to 3% of GDP for defense. These countries already invested a lot and transferred their armed forces so that they operate now with Western types of weapons. But for example, Bulgaria, despite the effort, is still fighting behind in defense capabilities.

As a region, as a whole, again, there are tendencies, but I’m not sure that we show focus and claim that the region is coherent. Again, look at what happened with connectivity. If you compare the eastern flank, the countries which are former countries of the Warsaw Pact, connectivity is very low. There are no good transport routes. Connectivity in the information sector is still low. All big highways, other lines, etc. go from east to west, not connecting these countries from south to north. This is an issue. There are several initiatives which connect these countries from the region, but still it is not enough.

So, from this perspective, I would say yes, due to mainly political and security concerns, regions attach particular attention from NATO, EU, from Central and Western countries, but still a lot of investments, a lot of effort is needed.

You mentioned that there are some initiatives for building infrastructure and better regional connectivity, and perhaps the Three Seas Initiative is the most prominent of them. It was strongly supported by Poland when the so-called sovereignists were ruling the country, but now the government there is headed by Donald Tusk, and as far as I know, he is not so much interested in the Three Seas Initiative.

What is the current state of affairs and dynamism within this initiative? Does it remain relevant?

Yes, there are different initiatives. One, of course, is the Three Seas Initiative, which is mainly about economic issues, mainly about connectivity, mainly about constructing infrastructure that would help connecting countries to the eastern flank. But there are many others.

For example, the B9 Initiative, which is an informal initiative of NATO countries to the eastern flank, which, of course, aims at intensifying political and military relations. This is positive, but again, despite some good examples, the region still is underdeveloped. Let me give you information about the Three Seas Initiative.

I mean, this initiative has already attracted attention not only from the countries which are at the core of this initiative, but also from the United States, the European Union, some other donors, but there are very few projects which are realized or under realization. By the way, one of them is the reconstruction of the Burgas port on the Black Sea, a Bulgarian port which will probably or potentially become part of a bigger so-called middle corridor, but it is still under development. And if you take some good ideas, you will see that good ideas are still on paper.

For example, between Bulgaria and Romania, there are still only two bridges, despite the idea that there should be at least five connecting Bulgaria and Romania over the Danube. There are no big pipelines which would connect several countries. Of course, I should not be that critical of what is happening because there are good examples. There are already connections of the pipeline systems of individual countries, but if you look at the region as such, you will see deficits.

I thank you for mentioning Bulgaria and Romania, because their relations really got much more dynamic at political level after the start of the war in Ukraine. But that is also a ground for criticism, if I also take your spirit of analysis, because we see that mainly the relations which go between Bulgaria and Romania are in the domain of defense and security, and other domains seem to lack people or maybe political will. But in any case, somehow the security aspect is the active one right now in the region, while others, where maybe the countries have their own subjectivity or dynamism, are not very strong. The security domain is something which is coordinated with our western partners, so there is more trust maybe in this domain than in others, where national states rely on their own dynamism and have to build trust on their own. Should we expect that the cooperation which is undergoing in this domain of security in the whole region be followed in the near future by other aspects of life which also start to cooperate?

Look, we should not divide military developments and political-economical developments. They are very much interconnected. And we should also not look only at bilateral developments, but look at the region and multilateral projects and developments.

And I will tell you why. Let’s take, for example, connectivity by road between different countries. You need good roads, good connections, in order to have development of the transport, development of transport of goods, tourism.

But at the same time, you need a good road system in order to move forces in case you need to, in case you need to protect one or another country, in case you need to defend allies. That’s why I’m not dividing economic development or civil development, development of civil infrastructure from military, because it’s the same. Look at what is the situation in Western Europe. You can easily move forces from one country to another. And at the same time, all these roads are used to boost your economic development. You move goods through these networks of roads.

The situation in our region is completely different, unfortunately. And I should say that, of course, we have to discuss on a bilateral basis, because some of the projects are related to the political will and financial resources of two or three countries, as you mentioned, for example, Bulgaria and Romania. But at the same, if you take the whole picture, if you take the idea that it is a coherent NATO flank, European flank, we have to say that we have to put much more effort to make it more connected, to make it more suitable for economic development, but at the same time to provide basis for military concentrate, for military movement and for protecting this part of Europe.

I would say that Bulgaria and Romania should put more effort into looking at how the transport, traffic, and tourism between these countries are developing, to put more efforts to provide better connectivity, better transport connectivity, better information connectivity.

Okay. What is the place of human connectivity, if I may ask you? I guess the reason why security cooperation goes so well is because at the level of experts or people who are active in this domain, there is maybe more trust in some regards, given that these are all NATO and EU countries. But should there be any role for relations on the level of people, including from the point of view that if the region is more interconnected at the level of people, it maybe will be stronger?

I mean, at the end of the day, we shall think about people. Everything should be about people, about their businesses, about their interests. I mean, it should not be about the interests only of politicians, political parties, which are on the top of the governance, etc.

I think it’s my strong impression that connectivity between Bulgaria and Romanian people are on a very high level. This is a very good sign. We have very good interpersonal relations.

We do have very good economic relations. So this should be leading for politicians and for governments, and they should follow this tendency. I should say that this good interpersonal, inter-people relation should be a model for other countries as well in the region.

But when it comes to Bulgaria and Romania, I strongly believe that the level of relations are on a very high level.

You mentioned that we have to think for the whole region, and if we look at it, we see that countries in it tend to position differently internationally. I mean, for example, Hungary and Slovakia right now are accused that they’re not so loyal to the standard Euro-Atlantic line. On the other hand, there are also nuances in other countries. Maybe Poland is traditionally more linked to Anglo-Saxon countries besides Germany. Maybe Bulgaria has special ties to Turkey. And maybe Romania has a lot of Western European investment, which also influences its foreign policy orientation. So how does this different positioning at political level, or political-economic level, influence the issue of security and integration in the region?

You put an interesting question, which of course is not just theoretical, but very practical. Indeed, Hungary and Slovakia, they show more inclined policy towards Russia, while other countries like Baltic countries, Poland, Romania, they are more sensitive about Russian threat. This depends on many factors.

The assessment of Russia depends on historical, cultural, economic ties, but also the level of Russian influence through political parties, through different organizations. I think that we shall focus more on denying Russia to use these leverages on the policies of individual European countries. 

Take, for example, the case of Bulgaria. Russia still has a lot of leverage. Many Bulgarians still have a positive attitude towards Russia due to political or mainly historical issues, close history. Many Bulgarians still have a positive attitude, having in mind that Russia played a particular role in Bulgarian history. But this should not be the lead for our society. We shall think that our future is linked to Europe, our future is linked to Euro-Atlantic relations. This should be the most important. Otherwise, our strategic path is in danger. 

This question does not have an easy answer. How to do this?

I mean, we should work on different levels. Of course, we shall have political parties with clear Euro-Atlantic orientation, political parties which defend European values. On the next step, we shall fight against Russian propaganda, Russian influence, etc.

Next should be, to me, fighting corruption. Through corruption, foreign influence is penetrating easily in our societies. And by the way, it’s not just Russian influence, but we also face influence from other countries like China.

So, it should indeed be a very complex approach. But we shall have this idea that our future is Euro-Atlantic. Our future is related to the liberal society, to the liberal economy, to the freedom of individual people.

Otherwise, and by the way, we shall fight for our liberty, for our democracy. Otherwise, our society will be in real danger.

You mentioned Bulgaria. It is in a political crisis and it will soon vote at its seventh election in three years. There seems to be a lot of fragmentation in Bulgarian politics, as well as polarization between the different fragments of Bulgarian society, and certain difficulty for the political elites to establish a formula for governance and direction.

How is this political crisis influencing Bulgaria’s foreign policy and the issue related to security not only in Bulgaria, but also in the region?

Yes, indeed. Unfortunately, the Bulgarian political landscape is very polarized. Bulgarian society, I would say, is very much divided.

But what is still positive is that the majority of Bulgarian people believe in European values. The recent public opinion poll showed that Bulgarians support the European path of the country by a big majority. This, of course, gives results in the elections. Despite all those divisions you mentioned, in the parliament, we still have a European majority. In the parliament, the majority of the countries support Ukraine, for example. So, from this perspective, I’m positive that Bulgaria won’t lose its general orientation.

Of course, it will be very difficult, even after the next elections, to form a stable government. But it is an overall tendency in Europe. We see in many, many European countries that elections first produce a multipolar and parliament divided of many political parties.

And second, and it should be the main threat and the main focus, elections produce populists and nationalists. In the Bulgarian parliament, populists and nationalists are a minority, although one of such political parties would fight for second or third place in the parliament. So, it is up to European and responsible political parties in the parliament to kind of isolate the ideas which populists and nationalists produce and, of course, defend our European values. 

Because this is what Bulgarian people would like. They would like to have a clear European orientation. They would like to be part of the European Union. They would like to be connected with the European Union and European countries. They are not oriented towards, let’s say, Russia. They don’t want to have corruption or other negative aspects.

But it is, I would say, again, up to the political parties to find a way to make coalitions based on European principles and fight negative aspects of current development.

Bulgaria has neighbors from NATO in the face of Romania, Greece and Turkey. And with regards to Black Sea, Romanian-Bulgarian-Turkish cooperation is very important. So, Bulgaria has a lot of ties, especially to Turkey, given that it also has a population which is of Turkish origin.

Can you evaluate the importance of Turkey for Bulgaria’s security or the importance of Bulgarian-Turkish ties for regional security?

Turkey is very important, not only for Bulgaria, but also for European NATO. Turkey is a key NATO ally, which is on the eastern flank and a lot of initiatives depend on Turkey. On the second aspect, Turkey is an important trade partner. And on the third aspect, Turkey is important in coping with such issues like migration, for example, which is of key importance for European countries. How we will work with Turkey on a bilateral, regional or multilateral basis, of course, will depend on political will, but we shall think that Turkey is indispensable, Turkey is very important. 

You mentioned Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey.

Yes, we are three countries, literal countries of the Black Sea. We shall work much closely together in order to cope with challenges to security and economy in the Black Sea. For example, to fight against free-floating sea mines, Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey recently signed an agreement and established a military organization, whose aim is to identify and destroy free-floating sea mines, which is a huge danger for the traffic in the Black Sea.

But I would also like to think in a big, broader sense and add to this trilateral format also Greece, because Greece is also important, particularly if we take the eastern flank, the issue we discussed just before. Because through Greece, we can provide better connectivity in the energy sector, for example. There are several projects which connect Greek ports with Bulgaria and Romania, with the idea to transport energy resources north-south, which is one of the key challenges for the region.

And I would say if we will be able to establish better relations in this format, Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey and Greece, we can of course move forward with many projects in economic, tourism, energy sector, but also military and security.

I would like to challenge you on the issue of security once again, because we now see on one hand that there seems to be some clash in Bulgarian politics, between Mr. Peevski and Mr. Radev, who are also somehow, if I understand correctly, associated respectively with the police and with the army. So also there is a division inside the party of Turkish minority in Bulgaria between Mr. Pevski and Mr. Dugan, so a younger and an older elites of the party. To what extent does the polarization which happens in the world and in the region somehow lead to divisions also inside the Bulgarian security circles?

I think you put many questions in your single one, but let me start with political parties in the political landscape. Indeed, there is a division between different political parties mainly related to what’s happening in Ukraine. Indeed, there are political parties which of course declare that Ukraine has the right to defend itself, that it is according to international law and Bulgaria as well as Europe, European Union and NATO should support Ukraine and international law.

These are major political parties. In the previous parliaments, we had a clear majority which provided for even better support for Ukraine. There are political parties with some nuances, like, let’s say, socialists which claim that, okay, we shall support independence of Ukraine, but we shall not provide military aid.

And there are several political parties on this view. And again, this is probably related mainly with the attitude of the population. And the third group of political parties are on the very pro-Russian side. They claim that it was the West, NATO, United States which provoked this war and Bulgaria should should not take any side in this conflict. These are mainly pro-Russian and populist political parties. 

I do hope that next parliament will produce enough political power and there will be enough political parties in the parliament which will be on clear Euro-Atlantis position, defending and on the side of Ukraine and, of course, supporting Ukraine, not only on bilateral basis, but also providing full Bulgarian support within NATO and European Union. I think it will be key.

As far as the division of some political parties is concerned, yes, several political parties already split, like the Movement for Rights and Freedoms. This is the political party which protected mainly the rights and interests of ethnic Turkish minority in Bulgaria. Let’s see what will happen with these two new political entities.

There are several other political parties which split or had internal divisions and crisis. Socialist party or Glory political party. I don’t think they split it on the basis of ideas. They split on the basis of interests, which, of course, is a sign that something went wrong with the Bulgarian political establishment, something got wrong with the political representation of Bulgarian people. Political parties are real representations of the wills and interests of people. But something indeed went wrong. I do hope that there will be also enough willingness among political parties in the parliament to change the situation, to restore the rule of law in Bulgaria, to restore the political process as such, not to allow businesses and other interests to be presented in the parliament, but rather Bulgarian people’s interests to be represented in the parliament.

I also would like to ask you about the energy domain, because you mentioned that cooperation with Greece has been intensifying, and it looks like following the war in Ukraine, there is certainly replacement of the Russian energy interests with others. We see that there is work being one on a new nuclear plant built with investment and participation of an American company. And also the projects related to natural gas – such as the Alexandroupolis terminal for liquified gas or the Vertical Gas Corridor, as well as the funding for feasibility studies about expansion of the electricity network connections with neighbours are all being done with American support. 

And on the other hand, even though there was great resistance to that, Bulgaria was the last country which sent its territorial plans for just transition to the European Commission, but in the end it did it. It looks like just transition is somehow agreed upon, that it will be taking place. Is this enough for us to claim that war in Ukraine or the events that followed it really do change somehow the geopolitical balances in the Bulgarian energy?

Look, Bulgarian learned one important lesson after the war in Ukraine erupted. And these countries should not be over-reliant on one source. We learned that particularly in energy, we should not be dependent, there should be diversification.

Why? Because before the war and when the war started, Russia used energy leverage to pressure the Bulgarian government to try to influence Bulgarian sovereign decisions. In April 2022, Russia stopped gas supply overnight.

Until that day, Bulgaria was almost 100% dependent on gas supply from Russia. We received almost 90% of gas through pipelines which supplied Russian gas. And can you imagine if that was, for example, very cold weather, what would happen with Bulgaria, with the Bulgarian population, with the Bulgarian economy?

That’s why we decided, and it’s a firm Bulgarian policy, diversification, not dependence on one source. Following this general concept, Bulgaria started diversifying the supply of gas. We now receive gas from different sources, through Turkey, through Greece. We are able to receive gas from Romania as well. Bulgaria became a real hub for resupply of gas from different sources to different countries, including North Macedonia, Hungary, Austria, Serbia. So this is one thing.

The second, Bulgaria decided to diversify the supply of crude oil for the biggest refinery in Europe or on the Balkans, which is in Burgas, in the city of Burgas. This refinery now can receive oil from any source in the world. 

We also established and we built connectivity for electricity. We can receive or we can be a source of electricity for any country in the region, because of connectivity of electricity systems. This is something very key, not only for Bulgaria, but it’s also key for energy security, energy independence of any country in the region. 

You mentioned America. America is one of the key partners of Bulgaria in the energy sector. America came to us in 2022 when Russia stopped gas supply and helped us re-establish the gas flow by sending two ships with liquified gas. So America played a key role in actually protecting Bulgarian interests in 2022, when Russia started the war again in Ukraine and Russia stopped the gas supply.

But America is not the key player, I would say, in Bulgarian energy. America is just one of the sources. And America will play a key role in supplying the fuel for the Bulgarian nuclear power plant. But America won’t be the only source. We already negotiated with Framatom, the French company. So Bulgaria will receive the fuel for the nuclear power plant, not only for America, but also from France.

And we are looking also for other solutions, if there will be any. And for the next, let’s say, for the extension of the power plant, we are also working with a South Korean company. This is in the framework of the idea that there should be diversification.

There should not be over-dependence on only one source. This is the key. And the third issue is connectivity. You should be connected to all regional countries in order to be sustainable, not only for export, but also for import and, of course, transport, when it comes and when it’s needed.

Okay. And finally, I would like us again to return to the big issue of regional cooperation. When watching Bulgarian media, at least in the last years, I have the feeling there is a lot of national centric approach. News is often dealing with Bulgarian issues. And that is maybe one sign that Bulgarian elites are somehow more inward looking right now or in the last years. 

Do you expect that, and under what conditions, Bulgarian state or Bulgarian foreign policy could become really based more on regional cooperation and mutuality, not only with the neighbors, Romania and Greece, for example, but generally in the wider region, which we mentioned starts from the Baltic countries and Poland and goes south to Greece?

I think your question relates not to Bulgaria only. I mean, we see in many countries the growth of nationalism. Let’s make America great. Let’s make France great again. Let’s make Italy, Germany. And Bulgaria is not an exception.

There are political parties which say, we are proud Bulgarians. Let’s make Bulgaria proud again. Let’s get our independence back again.

And we ask independence from what? Do we have a sense of a second-hand country? Some nationalist parties claim that we gave up our national sovereignty and we transfer it to Europe.

So the idea is, let’s take sovereignty back from Europe. But they can’t provide any practical recommendations, any practical policies. What should be, for example, instead of the European Union?

This is just a vague idea. They just want to blame Europe for any deficits in Bulgaria. Yes, there are a lot of people who are disappointed with the general situation, but we have to explain to the people, mainly to the people, that all main issues can be tackled only on a multilateral basis.

It is the economy. The Bulgarian economy is very much dependent on what is happening in Europe, in Germany, and other European countries, mainly. 

We just said that we have to have at least a regional approach. Take security issues. For example, migration. Migration is a key security threat for Bulgaria, but we cannot tackle it on our own. We have to look for European solutions. So we have to explain to our people that only through even stronger integration within European Union, within stronger cooperation with European countries, we can develop better our economy, we can develop better our society, and we can have better salaries for people.

This is what concerns people the most, their well-being. This can be done only if we are better integrated. But, of course, this requires a lot of work. This requires a lot of explanation, why, what we are doing. There is no magic stick that will change everything at night. This requires a lot of effort, and this will require, of course, political will and political leadership.

I am afraid that in the current political situation, there are more populists, which would promise everything to the people, instead of providing and following real policies, which sometimes cannot be acceptable sometimes for people. But this is what we have to do.

Photo: (source: Cross-border Talks)

Subscribe to Cross-border Talks’ YouTube channel! Follow the project’s Facebook and Twitter page! And here are the podcast’s Telegram channel and its Substack newsletter!

Like our work? Donate to Cross-Border Talks or buy us a coffee!

About The Author