Peter Vodenksi has worked at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1978-2020). He has been a Consul General in Istanbul (1990) and an Ambassador in Ankara (1991-1992), Chișinău (1995-2001), and Nicosia (2005-2009). He has served twice as Director of the Analytical Direction at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and twice as Chief of Cabinet of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He is a Colonel in military intelligence. He has been awarded with the Golden Emblem of Honor of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Golden Emblem of Honor "For Loyal Service Under the Flags" of the Ministry of Defense. He is a member of the Board of Directors of the Bulgarian Diplomatic Society. He is also the author of the book "Diplomacy is a Serious Craft".
- Mr. Vodenksi, all eyes are on Alaska. The reason is clear - the meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump on August 15th. Do you expect a solution to the issue of the war in Ukraine and why do European politicians keep repeating that the future of Ukraine cannot be resolved without its involvement? The same, however, is also the thesis of Zelensky.
- Yes, we have all doubled in the meeting in Alaska – hopefully it will take place, because there are not one or two leaders, mainly European, who are trying to sabotage it and make every effort – preparing for terrorist actions in order to blame Moscow and let the "angry Trump" refuse, canvassing Zelensky to talk pathetically about how Ukraine will not agree to a decision without participating in its making, etc. But I also have to disappoint those who expect Harry Potter to wave his magic wand on Friday and solve ALL accumulated and ongoing problems in geopolitics. Let's look at it "from above".
We have the war in Ukraine - it, being closest to us (to Europe), seems most important, but is that really the case? We have "accompanying" Ukraine "details", which are - if you allow me to quote the Bulgarian classic - "petty, small, like little camels", for example the threat of Ukraine becoming a part of NATO, which Moscow cannot accept; Ukraine - without being in NATO - to cooperate militarily with the West, i.e. to provide military bases to countries hostile to Russia; Ukraine to continue suppressing Russian-speaking people on its territory - banning the Russian language, Russian literature, performances of Russian operas and theaters, destruction of Russian and anti-fascist monuments, etc.
As we look at "from the airplane", we see that there are still many major issues to be resolved in geopolitics - security in the Pacific Ocean and the rivalry between China and the USA (including Taiwan, but not only), we see the Arctic, where problems are escalating - it is no coincidence that Trump entered his second term with the bombastic (for those unfamiliar with the subject) statements that he wants Greenland.
Let's not forget about such "small matters" regarding "our province here", such as the recent events in the Caucasus. It is incredibly intriguing that Trump is trying to rename the Zangezur corridor to "Trump's path". This – if it is fully implemented – is devastating for the security of such major players as Russia and China, not to mention Iran, whose rulers have already stated that they would not allow it, even if they had to resort to the use of weapons.
Or another "small matter," such as the war in the Middle East, where for two years we have closed our eyes to genocide, and if some Bulgarian official institution modestly takes a stand from time to time, it is only to pressure the Palestinians to release their Israeli hostages...
Against the background of the enumerated, it can be said that the unipolar model is already in the process of breaking down, and a new model is emerging, whose contours are still unclear. But they are already taking shape. In this situation, I cannot imagine that with just one single meeting, even if it is between Trump and Putin in the "navel of the earth, Alaska" (as Nastadin Hodja would say), all the above problems - and they are interconnected - would suddenly find a final solution.
Rather, this meeting would be a good starting point, and there will be more meetings between the "big players" - Putin will meet with Xi Jinping this month at a multilateral forum, there will be a meeting between the two in Beijing at the ceremonies for the end of the war with Japan - and there is a possibility that Trump will also be there (in case he has already understood the issues in the world and the role fate has given him) and so on; high-level, lower-level, regional, etc. meetings. Level. This is what I see when I look from above, but the details are no less interesting, of course.
- The question remains unclear whether at the meeting with Steve Whitcomb Putin actually offered to withdraw from the occupied territories of Zaporozhye and Kherson or the American envoy misunderstood. What are the preliminary conditions and plans of the two sides entering the conversation according to your interpretation of the recent events, statements, and public signs?
- These details are interesting. I can't imagine a Russian military withdrawing from territories just captured in a bloody battle, in which he has lost comrades. See, in politics it's different - let's remember Gorbachev, who for a pat on the back and applause after a few lectures at prestigious Western universities agreed to "be good" and withdraw militarily from the GDR. . The West then did not fulfill its verbal promises to NATO not to move to the east of FRG, and today we see where this folly has led from both sides.
Negotiations/deals are coming, literally for everything. It will depend on the resources that the parties have. Whether Putin will have the strength to take Northern Crimea (Odessa) with force, or there will be some kind of political agreement for real Russian control there, but without being nominally within the borders of Russia? What will happen to Western Ukraine, whether Hungary and Romania will be able to make any real claims? What will happen to the Bulgarian inhabitants in Ukraine? And when I say "Bulgarian inhabitants", what will happen to Moldova - there is so called . "The Transnistrian Moldovan Republic" with a Russian military contingent, there are Bulgarian minorities in the Bulgarian region of Taraclia (which the current government of Maia Sandu wants to disband and practically destroy), there is also an autonomous region of Gagauzia, which has fought for the right to secede in case Moldova joins another country. Are the Bulgarian authorities doing anything to protect the Bulgarian minorities and the Gagauz people?
- The location where the two leaders will meet, what does it suggest? Why was Alaska chosen?
I have read different speculations about why Alaska was chosen - for example, because it is an American territory, but far from America, at the same time it was a former territory of the Russian Empire and now is closely located to Russia. But it is also the only (for now) territory of the United States, over which they have claims for the Arctic. Jokes have also emerged - that Zelensky cannot go there "to block their feet", and also from the folklore. I don't know, it's quite an exotic choice, I don't have a competent explanation, but I'm quite far from the "informed sources", I can only try to analyze.
I would guess that the reason for choosing Alaska is quite trivial - security. The most interesting thing for me is that Putin plans to leave Lavrov as his interim replacement in Moscow. This deserves much more speculation and mental effort from the "observers and analysts".
If the agreement between Trump and Putin is not accepted by Kiev, what developments do you expect in Ukraine and what role will the European Union play from now on? Will Bulgaria be affected and how?
For me, Ukraine has long lost the war. Zelensky is wearing headphones, with London dictating to him what to say and what to do. Together with London, there are currently Paris, Berlin, and Brussels, who still haven't realized they have lost and refuse to admit it - as if someone will ask for their opinion. Recently, I read how economic journalist and columnist for TF1-LCI and RTL Francois Lengle said,
"Europe is like a headless duck, confused by the disappearance of yesterday's world." And also Mark de Caciva, who claims that "in the long history of reeds behind, the foot is not always the most guilty." Europe (together with us, Bulgaria) has lost in Ukraine. Only London (MI6) is still working and activating all its resources in order to bet on Ukraine as a future base - see what happened in Bulgaria, let's not go all the way to the Caucasus, where London instigated Georgia, but still did a great job for British interests in Azerbaijan and Armenia, which Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran all missed. In parentheses, and to lighten the weight of what has been said so far - I spoke with a colleague from military intelligence about how MI6 is performing excellently in some regions, and he asked me: "Why do you keep mentioning London, London, could it be that you regret as a diplomat in Turkey that you once refused MI6's recruitment?"
- I wrote about it in my book. And the EU in its current form and leadership is simply moving by inertia. If quick and decisive measures are not taken, this inertia will run out, and then - woe to all of us... There is no one else to save us, but ourselves...
- In your opinion, what is the Bulgarian interest in a situation where our important partners have different positions on a key issue like peace and war?
What does a different position mean for us and our partners? On the bench in the park, I have several partners whose position is to increase pensions for all of us, and I share their position. But my ratio tells me that this does not depend on us on the bench, but rather on the budget. In the same way, Bulgaria shares (now) the position of London and the associated Paris and Berlin, but how much does it depend on them/us?
Europe, in its current form, does not have, I repeat, does not have the weight to solve, it can only hinder, which it is currently doing by preventing an end to the war in Ukraine. But once the US is no longer interested in financing the war in Ukraine and wants to address much more important global issues, what will Europe do? Will we all pay for the killings of Ukrainians and Russians in Ukraine? Where will the money come from? "When the Ukrainians finish, will we send our children to fight? It's easy to talk while lying on the couch...
As for your specific question: I don't have the feeling that anyone/anywhere among our rulers is analyzing the processes in the world, not even just for the pleasure of thinking, let alone offering options for Bulgaria's behavior. At the moment, our official institutions (with some exceptions) are competing to make anti-Russian and anti-Putin statements, which have absolutely no final result, even on the contrary, they work against Bulgarian interests.
- American Vice President Jay di Vans predicts that both sides will be dissatisfied with the negotiations to reach an agreement." Is this forecast realistic or risky and what could Moscow potentially be dissatisfied with?
Various options are being considered in the preparation and negotiation process - full interest, partial interest, red lines for concessions, etc. At the negotiation itself, both sides present their arguments for their full interest. Then there is a break, coffee is had, and the delegations talk to each other and "feel out" the different issues with their colleagues in order to understand where the other side is willing to compromise, while the leaders talk one-on-one, more openly and directly. Then the leaders reconvene with their delegations, consult, and so on. It's a long and tough job, routine yet at the same time different every time. And very interesting. Finally, the leaders - after several rounds - agree on what to present to the media - that the meeting was useful/effective/productive, whether a new meeting has been scheduled, whether only in principle or with a date and place, etc. And we read the communiqué and analyze it. But in principle, there is no case (except for Gorbachev) for both sides to be satisfied with the results, there is a real existing balance of what is possible.
Will Moscow accept it? We have already talked about this in previous interviews, Moscow will not accept Ukraine to be in NATO, nor will it accept a NATO military base in Ukraine, nor repressions against the Russian population in Ukraine, etc. In my opinion, these are things that are hardly in the "Russian bargaining bag" and Russians will not retreat from them - unless they have an interest in exchange for something elsewhere.
- In the geopolitical knot around Ukraine there are undoubtedly major players, but it seems like all countries are involved. But there is one question, the answer of which may shed more light on what is happening - who has an interest in ending the war in Ukraine and who to continue it, Mr. Vodenksi?
London has an interest in the war continuing and Russia being constantly deprived of blood. This is also wanted by the elites in several other countries, who have not yet realized that they have lost the war, it is already said. USA will stop financing the arming of Ukraine after Alaska and will leave it to Europe, if they want, and Europe does not have this resource, and will have to reconcile, if they don't want it.
And if you ask about Bulgaria - from the very beginning of the war I have claimed in interviews that Bulgaria has NO interest in this war, 200 kilometers away from our borders, that we must do everything in our power to stop this war, that our Bessarabian compatriots are directly affected and this must stop. But unfortunately, the government - with one single exception in the face of ... out of human decency I won't mention names - took a different line, which, in my opinion, is wrong, and not just wrong, but will lead to the opposite of the desired result, unfortunately...
At the beginning of his presidency, Trump promised to end the conflict in Ukraine within 24 hours and obviously failed. Is Vladimir Putin a more experienced player?
- During 2000-2001 (when I was ambassador to Chisinau), when Yeltsin announced in his New Year's message that he was stepping down and leaving on a temporary basis until the elections for president, no one expected what Putin would do and what he would become. Imagine if we, in Bulgaria, instead of adopting the Archives Act and denouncing the diplomats working for Bulgarian intelligence, had managed to pass such a law in Moscow... Can you imagine? If we had succeeded, Putin wouldn't be in the Kremlin now causing trouble for us, the EU, and NATO, but instead would be presenting his spy memoirs at some local library...
But seriously - both Putin and Trump have their own strengths and weaknesses. Putin has been in geopolitics for 25 years, solving many serious problems in Russia (but not all, only now he is seriously fighting corruption, but it doesn't happen all at once), he has been lied to many times by the West and has a lot on his plate. Trump, on the other hand, is a great businessman, he has fallen and risen again, knows his strong and weak positions, and is dealing with serious problems in his country (the Deep State and its tentacles in Europe). But the most important thing in the talks is: with what resources are the two of them going to this, and future meetings. Because you can deceive the partner across (as Gorbachev and
Yeltsin were deceived back then), but that has a bloody price in the future.
- I am tempted to ask you the following: You have probably come across the social media conspiracy theory that Trump is a Russian agent. Are you tempted to comment on it?
- Yes, it's circulating on the internet. There's also a theory floating around that Andropov was a CIA agent, that he arranged for Gorbachev's daughter to attend a special spy school when she was still in preschool and that she later "disrupted" the USSR for five years, among other interesting claims. When I have time, I read these things, but I prefer to read books instead - I recently rediscovered Hemingway, for example, where men are men, women are women, love is love, the end is not always happy, and other authors - Russian, French, German, American - I don't feel like I'm wasting my already limited time with them.
- Another hot spot of tension separating the world - Israel's incursion into Gaza. How does what is happening in Gaza reflect the crisis of international institutions and the international order as we have known it since the decades after the Second World War?
- What is happening in Gaza is inhumane. Humanity cannot digest something like this. This is an illustration of the collapse of the international order built by the victors after the Second World War. In the short to medium term, I am pessimistic about the survival of Netanyahu, Israel, and the politicians who support him.
- How long will it take to settle layers and interests, from which we expect a new order to be created, and how active should Bulgaria be in these processes?
- I do not expect a quick resolution to all problems. There will be talks between the big players (USA, China, Russia) to outline the contours of future spheres of influence. There will be talks at a regional level (for us, Turkey is very important and how it will be involved in the talks and "what will be given to it"). There will also be negotiations at a lower level. All of this will take years, even decades.
As for Bulgaria, it should have been conducting regular, periodic, or even daily analyses of the current situation and the expected events for tomorrow, based on information from our diplomats abroad and in Sofia, from special services, and so on, and then using the available instruments for actions, on a daily, hourly basis. Unfortunately, I do not see such actions being taken...
148993 | 12 Aug. 2025 | 17:42
Mobile verison
RSS
