- 1 minute ago
«Мне все равно, поддерживаю ли я Россию»: премьер Болгарии отвергает ярлык промосковского политика
Премьер-министр Болгарии — один из главных лидеров ЕС, призывающих к переговорам с Москвой по войне в Украине, за что его называют пророссийским.
ЧИТАТЬ ДАЛЕЕ : http://ru.euronews.com/2026/10/01/dont-care-about-supporting-russia-bulgarian-pm-hits-back-against-pro-moscow-label
Подписывайтесь: Euronews можно смотреть на Dailymotion на 12 языках
Премьер-министр Болгарии — один из главных лидеров ЕС, призывающих к переговорам с Москвой по войне в Украине, за что его называют пророссийским.
ЧИТАТЬ ДАЛЕЕ : http://ru.euronews.com/2026/10/01/dont-care-about-supporting-russia-bulgarian-pm-hits-back-against-pro-moscow-label
Подписывайтесь: Euronews можно смотреть на Dailymotion на 12 языках
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:26Продолжение следует...
00:42Продолжение следует...
01:09Продолжение следует...
01:12Продолжение следует...
01:21Продолжение следует...
01:24Продолжение следует...
01:40Продолжение следует...
01:42Продолжение следует...
01:58Продолжение следует...
02:18Продолжение следует...
02:34Продолжение следует...
02:37Продолжение следует...
02:57Продолжение следует...
03:07Продолжение следует...
03:09Продолжение следует...
03:21Продолжение следует...
03:24Продолжение следует...
03:35Продолжение следует...
03:38Продолжение следует...
03:41Продолжение следует...
03:45Продолжение следует...
03:47Продолжение следует...
03:48Продолжение следует...
03:50Продолжение следует...
03:51Продолжение следует...
03:52АПЛОДИСМЕНТЫ
04:22I'm not envisioning Ursula von der Leyen.
04:25I'm not envisioning any
04:26European leader, but that was
04:28a common accepted approach
04:30for that time. Now we see
04:33a result. Hundreds of
04:35thousands
04:37more victims.
04:40Devastation
04:41of the country.
04:42Do you know, I'm afraid about
04:44the latest Russian
04:48strategy
04:49because they have
04:51shifted their strategy
04:52transportation. But is the answer saying we give you
04:55less? Because what the Europeans would say, the answer
04:57is not to say we cut military aid
04:59or equipment. It's the opposite.
05:01It is not enough because we don't have
05:03enough on stock already.
05:05We have delivered everything
05:07we had in stock and our
05:09defense industry needs
05:11time to produce it.
05:13And what is going on? That will
05:15be extremely heavy winter because
05:16now Ukraine cannot oppose
05:19enough, successfully enough
05:21this intrusion of
05:22ballistic missiles
05:23and thousands
05:25of drones.
05:26They cannot counter these
05:28drones anymore with light
05:30arms and
05:31small
05:32men
05:34carried
05:37defense
05:38systems. So it is
05:39a huge challenge and
05:41and if it continues
05:43like that, this will reflect
05:45from inside to
05:47outside, from the
05:48center of the country
05:49and industrial power
05:51back to the front
05:52line.
05:52So what is the path then?
05:54If you had it your way,
05:55then what is the way forward
05:56diplomatically?
05:57My way is to achieve
05:59this tiny
06:00balance,
06:01extremely needed
06:02balance again,
06:03between military,
06:04economic and diplomatic
06:05instruments.
06:06We have not exhausted
06:07the power of
06:09diplomacy.
06:10We need to do
06:11and to speak more
06:12about diplomacy.
06:13What do you mean by that?
06:14Because over the weekend
06:15we saw the German
06:16foreign minister
06:16took a meeting with his
06:18Russian counterpart.
06:19In the end,
06:20I don't see any progress
06:21that came out of that.
06:22I do see that the Russian
06:23foreign minister
06:24played games and
06:26to some extent
06:27insulted his
06:27counterpart
06:28after the meeting
06:29and I don't see that
06:30moving the goalpost.
06:31So is this a question
06:32of the people who
06:33should conduct democracy
06:34or diplomacy
06:35are not the good ones?
06:36Other people should go?
06:38Who should go?
06:39I think some years ago
06:40my good friend
06:42the prime minister
06:43of Belgium
06:43at that time,
06:44Xavier Bettel,
06:45stated this clearly.
06:47We must stop
06:48speaking about Russia.
06:50We must start
06:53talking with Russia.
06:55So we need to hear
06:56the concerns
06:58of both sides
06:59because
07:01at the final end,
07:02yes, of course,
07:03we need
07:03and we should
07:05continue supporting
07:06Ukraine.
07:07But the most important
07:09is to prepare
07:09the conditions
07:10for peace
07:12and we should know
07:13that there is a limit
07:14of just delivering
07:16weapons
07:17and supporting
07:18because
07:19the final
07:20peace setup
07:22will be done
07:22by diplomacy
07:23not by delivering
07:25weapons.
07:25So our call is
07:27to listen more
07:28to each other,
07:29to open the lines
07:30of communication
07:31and the problem
07:32is that
07:33no one
07:34is raising
07:35the question
07:36about nuclear
07:38risk.
07:38Does it exist?
07:40Maybe not.
07:42I don't know.
07:43But this is
07:45a risk.
07:45All of us,
07:46we speak
07:47about conventional
07:48warfighting,
07:50support Ukraine
07:51conventionally.
07:52but we have been
07:54trying to achieve...
07:55think we die
07:56in nuclear
07:57destruction
07:57out of this war?
07:58You honestly
07:59think that's one
08:00of the possibilities?
08:00I don't think.
08:02But we always
08:04need to think
08:05about the worst
08:06case scenario.
08:07Are we prepared
08:08for this?
08:09Does anybody
08:10speak about
08:12risk assessment?
08:14Does it exist
08:15at all?
08:16Because we have
08:16been trying to
08:17achieve a
08:17conventional victory
08:18over the biggest
08:20nuclear power
08:22without having
08:23capabilities to
08:24counter their
08:25supersonic weapons.
08:26There is a risk
08:28and we need
08:29to calculate
08:30at what extent
08:31and how is it
08:33possible at all?
08:34I don't believe
08:34in this,
08:35but we should
08:36take this
08:38into account.
08:39We should not
08:39neglect this.
08:40How much can
08:41we press Russia
08:42without Russia
08:43reacting with
08:44something else?
08:45I was listening
08:46also to...
08:47I don't want
08:47to repeat.
08:49I'm not
08:50advocate of
08:51Putin and
08:52Lavrov at all.
08:53At all.
08:54But he warned
08:56a month ago.
08:57I guess that
08:58if there is
08:59a war between
09:01Europe and
09:02Russia,
09:03this war will
09:04be totally
09:05different and
09:07very short.
09:08That was the
09:08warning.
09:09This is a threat.
09:10I don't accept
09:11this type of
09:12speaking,
09:13but they speak
09:14So you condemn
09:14it.
09:15You condemn
09:15that statement.
09:16You want to
09:17listen to this?
09:18No, I just
09:18wonder, when you
09:18hear that statement,
09:19what would you
09:20say?
09:20You say,
09:20I don't accept
09:21this.
09:21I say that...
09:23You're
09:23condemning those
09:24statements.
09:24I say that
09:25there is a
09:26nuclear card.
09:28And when
09:29Russia, when
09:30Putin feels
09:31strong, he
09:33doesn't speak
09:34about this.
09:35When Russia
09:36feels weak, that
09:37happened in this
09:38war about some
09:38years ago, they
09:40start playing
09:40again with the
09:42nuclear card.
09:44So just I'm
09:46reminding that we
09:48need to have
09:49this into
09:49account.
09:50We cannot close
09:51our eyes that
09:52there are nuclear
09:54weapons on our
09:55continent, there
09:58are nuclear
09:58weapons in the
10:00arsenal of
10:01Russia, and
10:02this is part of
10:05the game
10:06calculation.
10:07And my
10:07appeal is that
10:08no one is
10:10speaking about
10:10this.
10:11No one is
10:12taking, you
10:14know, account
10:16of this risk.
10:17We have
10:17multiple analysts
10:18here who said
10:19they really
10:19believe to that
10:20extent it's a
10:21card that is
10:22played politically
10:22because the
10:23Russians think
10:24or seem to
10:25think weak
10:26leaders will
10:26get scared by
10:27it.
10:29You disagree.
10:30That's clear.
10:31Let's look at
10:32the eastern
10:32flank.
10:33There's a
10:34perception that
10:35the security
10:35picture for the
10:36eastern flank,
10:37certainly for the
10:38Baltics and
10:38Poland, has
10:39deteriorated over
10:40the past few
10:41months.
10:42We've also seen
10:42the drone
10:43violations of the
10:45airspace.
10:45What happened
10:46at the German
10:48airport, Romania,
10:49we've seen
10:49constant drone
10:50violations on and
10:52on and on and
10:52on.
10:53Is this now a
10:53time to rethink
10:54if this is
10:55hybrid warfare,
10:57and I wonder if
10:58you use that
10:58word, warfare
10:59yourself, is
11:00this not a
11:01time for the
11:01Europeans to
11:02redefine what
11:03hybrid deterrence
11:04to this
11:05warfare should
11:06look like?
11:06You mentioned
11:07hybrid warfare
11:08with drones.
11:10And other
11:10types.
11:10And other
11:11types, of
11:12course.
11:12It is extremely
11:13difficult to
11:15counter these
11:16drones.
11:17Why?
11:17It is extremely
11:18difficult to
11:18detect them.
11:19They fly low,
11:20they use
11:22non-metal
11:22materials.
11:23It is
11:24extremely
11:24difficult to
11:25detect on
11:26the radars.
11:27So if you
11:28apply anti-drone
11:30systems, they
11:32need to be
11:32very, very
11:33congested on
11:34your boiler.
11:35That means a
11:36lot, a lot, a
11:38huge number of
11:39such systems.
11:40And their
11:41integration, and
11:42this is a huge
11:43technical challenge
11:44to all of us.
11:45And that's
11:46why my call is
11:47to think about
11:49this balance,
11:50about different
11:51instruments of
11:52power, and to
11:53design, to
11:55formulate a
11:56feasible end
11:57state of this
11:58war.
11:58Because we have
11:59changed our
12:01desired end
12:03state about
12:04seven to eight
12:04times.
12:05I don't remember
12:06even the
12:07formulation of
12:07these end
12:09states from the
12:10beginning of the
12:10war.
12:11That position is
12:11still a minority
12:12in the European
12:13Council.
12:13You say it's
12:14very different or
12:15very difficult to
12:16intercept the
12:17drones, the
12:18constant violations
12:19that we're seeing
12:19repeatedly.
12:20Is it because the
12:21European and NATO
12:21leadership is weak, or
12:22is it because they're
12:23not sending the
12:24right message?
12:24If you escalate, so
12:25can we.
12:27So what is your
12:28proposal?
12:28To send a very
12:30hard warning to
12:32Russia?
12:33I agree.
12:34Okay?
12:35What about
12:36escalation?
12:37So you just
12:38accept they can do
12:38whatever they want?
12:39They can put
12:40explosives on an
12:41airport?
12:41They can...
12:42No.
12:42What's the
12:42alternative?
12:43No.
12:44My alternative is to
12:46open the lines of
12:47communication, to sit
12:50down and to discuss.
12:51This is my proposal.
12:53And sooner or later, it
12:56will be achieved.
12:57Again, it depends.
12:59This is a war of
13:00attrition.
13:01It reflects our
13:02economies.
13:02It reflects the price
13:03of the fuel, the
13:04price of the gas.
13:06It reflects the
13:07shortage of fuel and
13:09gas in the European
13:11Union as well.
13:12My question, however,
13:13on the money, you
13:14will have to be in a
13:15consensus question, both
13:17at NATO and at a
13:18European Union level.
13:20When you get told at
13:21NATO you have to pay
13:225%, you have to buy
13:24weapons that are still
13:25continue to be
13:26American.
13:26At the same time, we
13:27need to build our own
13:28European industry.
13:30How do you go about
13:31this?
13:32Because what I see from
13:33the outside is you pay
13:36for American weapons
13:37while trying to build
13:38your industry, while
13:39talking about made in
13:40Europe.
13:40you appraise your
13:41visit with Macron, but
13:42to me, these are two
13:43strategies that at some
13:44point it's difficult to
13:45keep them on one lane
13:46because they're quite
13:47contradictory.
13:48So which one is it
13:48going to be?
13:49A made in Europe
13:50preference or not?
13:51The problem is that
13:52the European defense
13:54industry is highly
13:55fragmented.
13:56And, of course, we
13:57need to strengthen our
13:59defense industries.
14:00Safe instrument is
14:02extremely good
14:02instrument.
14:03Bulgaria is a very
14:04active participant in
14:06this instrument.
14:07Would you want a
14:07round two?
14:07There's been debate that
14:08maybe if the first round
14:09was successful, there
14:10could be a second one?
14:11Yes, there could be.
14:12And this is the right
14:14approach to strengthen
14:15our industrial base, to
14:17work together, to
14:19communicate, to
14:20coordinate, and this is
14:21the future for Europe.
14:22But as the prime
14:23minister of Bulgaria, if
14:24you have to sign a
14:24contract, and in the
14:26future you have two
14:26weapons that ultimately
14:27do the same job, one is
14:29European, one is made
14:30in the U.S., would you
14:31say, of course we go for
14:32the European first?
14:34We need a European
14:35preference.
14:35Yes, of course, this
14:36is the part of the
14:38European strategic
14:40autonomy concept, and I
14:42fully agree that, and
14:43we have been working
14:44for this.
14:45We need to strengthen the
14:47European pillar of NATO,
14:50because we need to take
14:51care about our defense
14:55capabilities, and we need
14:56to do it in a smart way.
14:58We cannot exclude the
15:00United States, because
15:01the United States is a
15:02leader in defense
15:04technologies.
15:06We need to cooperate.
15:07But of course, we need
15:08to protect our defense
15:10industries, otherwise
15:11they will disappear.
15:12And for Made in Europe,
15:14is it the right way to
15:16put this in writing?
15:17Do we need those
15:18percentages?
15:19Do we need that Made in
15:21Europe?
15:21By law, we need to
15:23operate like this, otherwise
15:24we continue our strategic
15:26dependencies on the U.S.
15:28Are you in favor of
15:29legislating in this way?
15:29We cannot immediately
15:33guarantee our security
15:35by ourselves.
15:36Even talking about the
15:38nuclear shield, we cannot
15:40go without the United
15:41States of America, because
15:42they provide the essence
15:44of the core defense
15:46capabilities in NATO.
15:48We should, it is
15:49absolutely clear.
15:50It will take time for us
15:52to recover, to renovate
15:56our industries, our
15:58industrial base, our
15:59technology development.
16:01Should Ukraine be a
16:02core part of it?
16:03We heard from the
16:04Ukrainians saying the
16:05Europeans will need us
16:05more than, at this point
16:06we need them on the
16:07technology advancement.
16:08Should we get them in
16:09this context?
16:10Ukraine has been already
16:12a part of this.
16:14Many European defense
16:15industries have already
16:17invested.
16:18Look at Rheinmetall, look
16:19at other companies.
16:20They have presence, they
16:22have invested, they have
16:24developed strong industrial
16:26sites and presence in
16:28Ukraine.
16:29Ukraine has been sharing
16:32latest state-of-the-art
16:33drone technologies they
16:35have developed through
16:36experimenting them every
16:38day on the front line.
16:39So as an equal partner,
16:40anyway, the Ukrainians will
16:42say we will be joining the
16:43European Union, so this
16:44debate at some point...
16:46Of course, Western Balkans,
16:50Ukraine, Moldova, all of
16:52them, they have place and
16:54their future is full
16:55integration into the European
16:57family.
16:57This is obvious, this is of
16:59course.
16:59As a final question, when we
17:02hear NATO 3.0, the
17:04impression that I get, nobody
17:06will say publicly with these
17:08words, but ultimately it
17:09means that we are going to
17:11have to pay big time in NATO,
17:13we are going to still have to
17:14continue for or pay for those
17:16U.S. weapons, otherwise there
17:17will be a retaliation for the
17:18administration, but then we're
17:20going to have to do all the
17:21hard work of the soldiers,
17:23all the work that means real
17:26defense will be us, and
17:27ultimately all that will be
17:28left is the U.S.
17:30nuclear umbrella that will
17:32protect the Europeans and
17:35still be there as a last
17:36resort in NATO.
17:37That is essentially what NATO
17:383.0 means for the
17:39Europeans.
17:40Is that how you see it, too?
17:41You said you're not
17:43politically correct.
17:43You're not in the
17:44mainstream, so I'm sure you
17:45can speak freely on this.
17:46We, when we speak about
17:48NATO 3.0 and the defense
17:51capabilities of Europe, we
17:54should put on the table
17:57economic part, social part.
17:59We should put tariffs on the
18:01table.
18:02We should put European cars
18:05talking with our most
18:06important strategic ally, the
18:08United States.
18:09We should put, because when
18:12we speak about defense
18:13capabilities, it means
18:15technology and industrial
18:16development.
18:18It should not go just for
18:19military equipment.
18:20It should go for everything.
18:22We cooperate with the United
18:23States.
18:24So tariffs are part of this
18:27approach, and Europe should
18:29put everything on the table.
18:31Your analysis of NATO 3.0, I
18:33still didn't fully understand
18:35it, because you said we need
18:36to put our economic relationship
18:38and even tariffs.
18:39The only tariffs are seen are
18:40the Americans and European
18:41products.
18:42So by 15%, they tripled.
18:45And we pay more into NATO.
18:46I'm just wondering, from your
18:48military background, when you
18:50look at this NATO 3.0 and you
18:51say this is the plan for the
18:52next 15 years, what does it
18:54look like?
18:54Do you have U.S.
18:55troops stationed in Europe, or
18:56you won't?
18:57I think we need also more
19:02effective diplomacy, speaking
19:04with the United States.
19:06So to bring everything in one
19:08basket, because everything is
19:10strongly connected.
19:12We cannot separate defense
19:14industry from technology, from
19:17science, from human capital, from
19:20industrial base, and all the
19:24products with dual usage.
19:26And they mix, especially in AI.
19:28And we are lagging behind here in
19:30Europe in AI.
19:31We should cooperate more, you
19:35know, strongly with the United
19:37States about AI.
19:39And we should go together as
19:42strategic allies and partners,
19:44because there are some other
19:46movements around the world in this
19:48direction as well.
19:49Well, Prime Minister, thank you so
19:51much for your time.
19:52You've been clearly very generous with
19:53your time, so thank you very much
19:54for joining us.
19:55Thanks.