77504 | 11 June 2026 | 13:04

The United States does not have full control over the dynamics of the processes: whether there will be war depends on them, but whether there will be negotiations depends on Iran. Iran is not in a hurry - because time works in its favor.

" "The thesis for finding a diplomatic solution to the conflict in Ukraine, for which Radev has received considerable criticism in recent years, is beginning to become a political focus for Europe. This is increasingly emphasized by President Zelensky. The new development is that this has now been formulated as a goal for the entire union by European Council President Antonio Costa... In Russia itself, war fatigue is certainly starting to be felt. The effect appears to be two-way. On one hand, there has been a strengthening of extreme voices calling for a quick and decisive end to the war - accompanied by criticism of President Putin. On the other hand, the search for a diplomatic solution includes as a key element the political - and preferably legal - recognition of the occupied territories as being Russian."

In both cases, it is not a question of giving up the occupied territories... This is what diplomat Lyubomir Kuchukov said in an interview for Epicenter.bg.

Here is the full interview:

- Mr. Kuchukov, the peace in the Middle East is either getting closer or further away, as if Israel is primarily to blame for this. The American president has to hit the table, set ultimatums, warn, but so far it has no effect. How do you explain this phenomenon? Are the US losing authority and influence? Or Tel Aviv and Washington have conflicting interests?”

- Immediately after the start of the war, American Senator Chris Van Hollen stated that Netanyahu finally found an American president foolish enough to attack Iran. Even if we disregard personal qualifications, there is enough basis to claim that Israel is practically outsourcing its conflict with Iran to the US. At the same time, it became clear almost from the beginning of the intervention that there is a certain divergence in the goals of both states. For Israel, they were military-political, while for the US - geopolitical. Netanyahu aimed to permanently destroy Iran's ability to enrich uranium, liquidate its military-industrial capacity, first and foremost for the production of ballistic missiles and drones, to physically eliminate its human, political and expert resources, and to cut off the possibility of support for Iranian proxies - "Hamas", "Hezbollah", the Houthis. As he takes advantage of the diversion of attention towards Iran, Trump's main goal was to secure obedient control over the country ("like Venezuela"), gain control over the energy and mineral resources, and limit Chinese access to energy resources in Lebanon. If it weren't for Israel's role, would the US and Iran have quickly reached a truce? It is worth noting that first, the conflict is unpopular in the States and second, it affects the economic goals of the whole world. The US is in a very uncomfortable situation. Trump is absorbing the negatives not only from his own aggression against Tehran, but also from Israel's actions in Lebanon, and paradoxically - even from Iran's actions in closing the Strait of Hormuz. At all levels - globally, regionally, and increasingly within the US. Moreover – the US does not have full control over the dynamics of the processes: the war depends on them, but negotiations depend on Iran. Iran is not in a hurry – because time is working in its favor. At least because of the pressure on the global economy. The situation at the moment is too specific: there has been a formal truce for two months now, which is periodically violated by both sides, but after each exchange of strikes both sides are quick to declare that it remains in force. This state cannot continue indefinitely and the main question is whether the pendulum will swing again towards war, or a diplomatic solution will be found. Because the truce itself does not solve the problems with the Iranian nuclear program, nor does it open the Strait of Hormuz. These are also the key issues on which there is disagreement, but they must also be added the actions of Israel in Lebanon, which were discussed, as well as the lifting of sanctions and the unblocking of assets, which Iran insists on.

- New characteristics seem to emerge in the war in Ukraine. In this case, too, people talk about peace, but it does not come and does not happen, and the policy of the "troika"

- Germany, Great Britain and France, is increasingly precisely followed by President Zelensky. Could this lead to an escalation of the conflict and changes in Russia itself?

- In terms of politics, the novelty is related to the visible disinterest of the United States in the war in Ukraine in favor of the one with Iran, as well as the striving of Europe to be involved in the negotiating process. The goal, besides everything else, is to shift the pressure on Ukraine, exerted by the USA, onto Russia, with the help of the "troika". Naturally, this does not lead to agreement from the side of Russia. Because it is not about a mediating role, but about participating in negotiations on the side of Kiev. Moreover, the USA was also not a mediator - they were an interested participant, but not as much in favor of Ukraine as in their own interest. As for Russia - there, fatigue from the war is definitely starting to be felt. The effect seems to be two-way. On one hand, the extreme voices for a fast and massive ending of the war are growing - now accompanied by criticism towards President Putin. In other words - a potential alternative to Putin's policy would rather be aimed at consolidation towards more power rather than more dialogue.

These days the four countries - Germany, France, Britain, and Ukraine - after a meeting in London have formulated five conditions for a "fair and lasting peace". Which of them do you see as the most unrealistic and unacceptable for Moscow? The deployment of multinational forces or?

- What we have been witnessing in the last few months (and even years) is a kind of tactical maneuvering on the negotiation topic. As both sides lay their obvious final demands on the table. On the Russian side, this is the insistence for Ukraine to voluntarily give up the entire Donetsk region - something that would be difficult for any leader in Kyiv to accept. On the other hand - the deployment of multinational forces with the participation of NATO member countries in Ukraine is a red line for Russia - one of the reasons for the start of the war was precisely the expansion of NATO. In addition to this, there is another one of the five conditions: the use of frozen Russian assets for the reconstruction of Ukraine, i.e. a kind of compensation obligation. Here, Russia is sending signals that it may potentially agree to use part of these funds for reconstruction in Ukraine - but in the occupied territories. At this stage, however, the real problem is actually committing to negotiations. The path towards this is not related either to Zelenskiy's trip to Moscow (as invited by Putin), nor to the engagement of both presidents in direct dialogue (as Zelenskiy insists). As a rule, presidents do not negotiate - they finalize previously agreed upon decisions. And the Trump-Zelenskiy scandal a year ago clearly showed what the result of ignoring this rule could be. It is unlikely that anyone expects after a meeting between the two presidents, they will come out in front of the media, shake hands and announce that they have reached full agreement. The result of such a meeting would be the opposite - a declarative announcement of differences and serious doubts about any potential negotiation process. The road to peace involves first and foremost a serious commitment to substantive negotiations - long and complex, which ultimately lead to an agreement. How do you interpret the main thesis of Prime Minister Radev that Europe needs to be more active in its efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the war in Ukraine? The thesis for finding a diplomatic solution to the conflict in Ukraine, for which Radev has received numerous accusations in recent years, is becoming a political focus for Europe. This is now being more insistent by President Zelensky. The new aspect is that this goal has already been formulated as a goal of the entire union by the President of the European Council, Antonio Cocha. This change is mainly related to the evolution of the attitudes in European societies - not so much in the European elites, but which are forcing these same elites to react. It is about war fatigue, increasing uncertainty - not only national but also social, the fall in living standards, plus the energy crisis resulting from attacks against Iran. The question of cost is coming to the forefront - in the crudest, financial sense. Especially after the US moved to a completely commercial approach in supplying weapons to Ukraine - for which Europe is paying. Our, Europe's, problem is that we do not have a clear strategy for when and how the war ends, nor what happens the next day - is there an alternative to a "Cold War 2.0", accompanied by a deep division of the continent and a new iron curtain, aggressive confrontation and escalating militarization, new arms race. In a changing world order, how independent can Bulgaria's foreign policy be? Do you expect corrections from the new government? - Of course, every country takes into account a number of circumstances when forming its foreign policy, including trends and balances in international relations, as well as, primarily, partnerships and commitments within international organizations. Amidst all of this conditionality, however, there is one sufficient unconditional requirement: for it to have its own national position on key international issues. And to argue for and defend this position. In the specific case of Bulgaria - first and foremost within the EU and NATO. This does not mean blocking solutions, but rather involves the country being part of the process of consensus formation. This will also give the country a certain foreign policy profile - different from the context in which Marco Rubio mentioned us: as one of the countries saying "yes" before even hearing the request. In this sense - I do not expect a change in the country's geopolitical orientation (this was a clear pre-election speculation with domestic political goals, which, however, caused international damage to the country as a whole), but I hope that Bulgaria will regain its authority to be consulted, not just informed, when decisions are made in the EU and NATO.