96345 | 17 March 2026 | 15:27

The trend is for the EU to separate from the US. It is not involved in the war with Iran and does not want to participate in Trump's Council for Peace

The so-called Doomsday Clock was created in 1947 by scientists working on the Manhattan Project to create the first atomic bomb.

 In 1947, the hands of the clock were set at 7 minutes to midnight, symbolizing the risk of a global nuclear war.

 In 1953, during the height of the Cold War, the risk of such a war was at its greatest and the hands were moved to 2 minutes to midnight. After the thawing of relations between the US and the USSR, the clock was moved back to 7 minutes.

 With the creation of the internet, the clock can now be seen on the website of the "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists," where a few years ago it was set at the closest it has ever been in its 75-year history to the catastrophic 12-hour mark - only 100 seconds to the world apocalypse. Closer than the worst years of the Cold War between the USA and the USSR, when it was 120 seconds to the 12th hour.

 Eleven months after the start of the war in Ukraine on January 24, 2023, it had been brought even closer, 10 seconds closer to the 12th hour of the apocalypse and now, according to him, there are only 90 seconds left, i.e. the war with its most devastating forces seems closer than ever before in history. It is now 85 seconds to the apocalypse.

 This is said in an interview for Epicenter.bg by Prof. Vasil PRODANOV.

 - Prof. Prodanov, Trump is stirring up the world stage with moves in different directions, with diverse ideas and threats. One of the latest is towards the NATO countries - to help the USA open the Hormuz Strait or they will face a "very bad future". How did we get to a situation where international relations are being regulated through public replies and ultimatums? And what future can be called bad for these countries? Without NATO? Without the US in NATO?

 - Trump is an indicator of global geopolitical processes that can be analyzed in two main ways - theoretically and empirically. Theoretically, a few decades ago, a group of American scholars, led by Immanuel Wallerstein, developed the idea of the stages of development of the world system, which are connected to the rise and fall of successive world hegemonic powers that impose the rules of the game. In this regard, since the beginning of capitalist development, we have had a leading role of the Italian city-states and Spain. Gradually, however, they were overtaken in their development by the Netherlands and this was connected with the 30-year religious war in Europe between 1618 and 1648. After that, we see a rise of a new geopolitical power in Great Britain, where the industrial revolution begins, and this is also linked to a series of wars.

 Since the end of the 19th century, the USA have surpassed Great Britain in terms of GDP and become a dominant power for over a century, but this is connected with two world wars in which the USA managed to emerge as the ultimate victor.

 The USA have these tendencies in mind and not coincidentally support the development of a certain power at different stages and thus turn it into a tool against their competitors. This is what happened during the rise of Hitler's Germany, when American companies supported its development and ultimately led to World War II, in which they benefited from a huge arms exports, including to the USSR, while their competitors in Europe were weakened by the war. After that, in the 1980s, we saw a rapid rise of Japan and there were talks of it surpassing the US, but since it was under American political and military control, the US imposed the so-called "Plaza Accord", which sharply reduced Japanese exports and slowed down its economy.

 During the Cold War, the US created a united front with Europe against the USSR, while also separating China from the Soviet Union and developing active economic relations with it. In the end, this is how they profit, as the USSR collapses. This is when strategies for breaking up a united Europe are developed in the United States. I personally remember being in the Center for Strategic and International Studies with Zbigniew Brzezinski in Washington in 1992, where I saw a map of Europe divided into 200 small states, which was being worked on at the time. Then, temporarily, they abandoned this in the context of the rise of conflicts in Iraq, Libya and elsewhere. And this happened in the context of the rise of globalization and the US concept of exporting industrial production to China, Vietnam, Mexico and other places with lower labor costs. I will never forget a conversation I had in 1992 with Professor Robert Reich at the "Progressive Policy Institute" - the think tank of the Democratic Party in the US. He was at the head of the team that prepared the pre-election program of the USA, with which Bill Clinton won the elections, redirecting its strategy towards neoliberal globalization. He enthusiastically told me that we are entering a new stage of economic development, in which it is not the industry, but the "knowledge economy" and "knowledge workers" that are leading for the development of a country.

 - What are the results of implementing this program?
 

 - This led to deindustrialization of the USA and the rapid development of China, which surpassed them in GDP by purchasing power parity. In addition, they quickly gained the upper hand in the technological race with the USA. According to a study by the Australian Institute for Strategic Policy, China is winning the technological race in 37 out of 44 leading technologies in the areas of defense, space, robotics, energy, biotechnology, and artificial intelligence. Among them are nanomaterials, smart materials, 3D printers, optical communications, algorithms and hardware for artificial intelligence, big data analytics, machine learning, cyber security technologies, electric batteries, photovoltaics, biofuels, nuclear energy, quantum communications, quantum sensors, synthetic biology, biological production, photonic sensors, drones, collaborative robots, and more. Some technologies are based in China, leading the top 10 research institutions in the world and collectively generate nine times more impactful research articles compared to the second-ranked country, mostly the United States.

 This has led to a new cycle of capitalism, in which risks of all kinds are rapidly growing in the world, leading to increasing instability and what scientists have been calling a globally risky society since the 1990s. This coincides with a crisis of liberal democracy and the US's attempt to regain its lost hegemony. The trend, however, is currently towards a separation between the EU and the US. The US is not involved in the war with Iran and does not want to participate in Trump's Peace Council. In all European countries, there is a dominant negative attitude towards him, and he is trying to capitalize on the rise of nationalist leaders and parties in the EU for his own division.

 Do you see any sense/logic in the chaotic behavior of the American president and his hyperactivity on the global stage - Ukraine -Russia, Venezuela, Gaza, Peace Council, Cuba, Iran, Greenland ...?

 - And here we come to the question of his chaotic behavior and increasing conflicts. Trump is not the root cause, but rather a symptom of deeper trends in the widespread crisis of Western capitalism and imperialism, which started in 2007-2008. This crisis has many dimensions.

 During periods of such cyclical crises so far, when the previous globalization of capital has led to sharpening contradictions, the following have entered into the following periods:

 - deglobalization and strengthening of national states;

 - rise of nationalist parties and forces;

 - weakening or breakdown of international rules and institutions;

 - cold and hot wars, increasing conflicts and clashes in a world where the rules are increasingly difficult to apply;

 - accelerated demographic changes in some regions at the expense of others and the emergence of global imbalances in the workforce;

 - technological revolutions that rapidly change global power relations.

 This can also be observed today. Amidst the increasing instability of the global system, the possibilities for predicting processes are decreasing, as in times of heightened conflicts, as is known from previous periods, small changes or the actions of individual personalities can lead to unexpected changes. This is well known from previous periods of history, where the actions of individual personalities could lead to unforeseen consequences.

 - Can you give examples?

 - Let's take the time of World War I, when the October Revolution broke out. Many authors believe that it would not have happened if Lenin had not arrived in Petrograd. In the same way, we can say that if it wasn't for Gorbachev, but a figure like Xi Jinping was at the helm of the Soviet Union, it wouldn't have collapsed.

 Now we have a similar situation with the U.S., which is rapidly accumulating debt, losing its positions on the world stage, and Trump is trying to stop this process. In his actions, he is following strategies that were imposed in the U.S. even during Biden's presidency, who passed a series of laws to stimulate the development of American industrial production and the return of American companies to the U.S. This is known as "Bidenomics", for which the Laws on Inflation Reduction and on Chips and Scientific Research were very important as tools for reindustrialization and attracting capital investments from the rest of the world. The law aimed at reducing inflation was directly linked to the demand for consumers to “Buy American” rather than foreign goods. At the time, European leaders expressed concern over the protectionist nature of this legislation. It even reached the point where China filed a complaint against the US in the World Trade Organization, claiming that state subsidies for private companies in the US “violate fair competition”. Despite this, the US government continued with these actions. Tax breaks were proposed for American technology companies if they were to cut ties with Chinese companies. Restrictions on the export of chips and other technologies to China have begun, with Chinese technological companies being pushed out of the American market. The militarization of the Pacific Ocean is also evident through new military alliances such as AUKUS between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, as well as rapid arming of Taiwan as South Korea and India attempt to counter China. However, this has not been particularly successful as the decline of the US continues. Under the first term of Trump and afterward, there was a process of accelerating the growth of the US government's public debt. That is why stopping this process and strengthening the US is now the main strategy of Trump. As a result, new forms of mercantilism have emerged, such as tariff wars, as well as trade and technological wars. There are tendencies for deglobalization, fragmentation of global value chains and the rise of regional alliances. A typical example of this is the rise of strategies for technological and digital sovereignty, which until recently were mainly characteristic of the USA and Russia. Trump is implementing a strategy typical of the USA during World War II, when it came out of the economic crisis with the so-called "military Keynesianism" - a sharp increase in weapons production and sales. It is no coincidence that he stopped direct arms exports to Ukraine and offers it to the EU in exchange for payment. He struggles to divide Russia and China, just as the USA divided states in previous periods of transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world. "Returning to the Monroe Doctrine - the US strategy from the 19th century to control all of Latin America and directly use force against Venezuela, Cuba, and even threaten Canada. Due to the Ormuz protocol, Trump has made a threat towards Beijing, stating that he may postpone the meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Did the US overestimate or underestimate the other countries in this joint attack with Israel against Iran? And what are China's interests in this complex situation and possible global crisis due to oil? Trump is desperately trying to solve the growing problems he is facing with the Israel-Iran war. Thus, he is struggling to convince major European countries and Japan to send military forces to open the Ormuz protocol, but they have not yet shown any signs of participating in such a battle." Regarding China, Iran stated that it is ready to open the channel for its oil tankers. China is interested in the trade wars led by Trump, as it has successfully managed to protect itself from them, while Western European countries are additionally focused on developing economic relations with the BRICS countries. - How big, in your opinion, is the risk of local wars turning into a global war? - The risk is very high, as in such a transitional period from one world hegemon to another, the dangers of war sharply increase. It is no coincidence that it is constantly being said today that we are entering a world without rules, where actions are taken from a position of power. Trump is doing just that. The book "Thucydides's Trap" by Graham Allison has become popular in the United States in recent years, in which he argues that since the time of the Peloponnesian War, the rise of a new dominant power has inevitably led to wars, and there is a similar trend today. This can be seen in the global trends of accelerated militarization and increased war spending. Capitalism has been characterized by wars over territories and resources throughout its history. However, there have been various stages in these wars, with different scales and participants, weapons, and spheres in which they are fought. In the era of neoliberal, globalized and Americanized capitalism, which has been imposed for a quarter of a century since the 1990s, there was a clear global hegemon who was the main subject of the wars through which he imposed his power in one or another region - starting from the first war in Iraq, passing through the wars in Afghanistan, Libya, Yugoslavia, against global terrorism and in many other places. According to a special report by the research service of the US Congress on the declared and undeclared wars, waged by the US from 1798 to 2022, published in March 2022, there are a total of 469, i.e. an average of about two wars per year, but in fact 60% of them were undertaken in the period between 1950 and 2017. Out of a total of 469 documented foreign military interventions, the Congressional Research Service noted that the US government has officially declared war only 11 times, in only five separate wars. The rest have been conducted without an official declaration of war. The amount of these wars has been particularly high since 1991, when the USSR collapsed and the US became a global hegemon, enforcing its model and interests around the world. In the past 30 years, the US has carried out 251 military interventions in different parts of the world, meaning an average of about 5 per year. This has been accompanied by numerous new forms of coups under the guise of the global hegemon - the so-called "color revolutions" in various countries around the world. In the era of geopolitical changes and movement towards a multipolar world, wars are not decreasing but increasing, taking on new forms associated with new technologies. The two world wars in the 20th century were actually fought during a time of a multipolar world, when the US emerged as the new global hegemon of capitalism in a bipolar world. Now, the multipolar world serves as a precondition for new world wars in various versions and new weapons between the major powers through proxy wars or directly, as well as various regional wars for redefining spheres of influence. This is related to the increasing political polarization, radicalization and intensifying conflicts of various types, including military conflicts, in many countries around the world. Even before the war in Ukraine, about 1.2 billion people on earth were affected by violent conflicts. That is why the number of refugees from military conflicts around the world is now higher than ever in history. At the end of World War II, there were 40 million refugees in the world. According to data from the United Nations Refugee Agency, for the decade between 2012 and 2021, approximately 100 million people have been forced to flee conflicts, violence, and persecution. This trend is currently intensifying through the proxy war between Russia and the West in Ukraine, as well as regional wars in Gaza, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and many other places. A new cold war and new hot wars are raging - currently in Ukraine and Iran we have essentially the first World War of the 21st century, in which the newest technologies are actively involved. The so-called "Doomsday Clock" was created in 1947 by scientists working on the Manhattan Project to create the first atomic bomb. In 1947, the hands of the clock were at 7 minutes to midnight, meaning the risk of a global nuclear war. In 1953, the risk of such a war in the then-bipolar system was highest and the hands of the clock were set at 2 minutes to midnight. After the process of "thawing" relations between the USA and the USSR, it was reset to 7 minutes. After being created on the internet, it can be seen on the website of the "Bulletin of Nuclear Scientists", where a few years ago it was set closest in its 75-year history to the catastrophic 12th hour - only 100 seconds away from the global apocalypse. Closer than during the worst years of the Cold War between the USA and the USSR, when it was at 120 seconds from the 12th hour. Eleven months after the start of the war in Ukraine on January 24, 2023, it was brought even closer by 10 seconds to the 12th hour of the apocalypse and now only 90 seconds remain, meaning that the war with its most devastating forces appears closer today than ever before in history. It is now at 85 seconds from the apocalypse. A report from the World Health Organization urges countries to stock up on medication for "emergency radiological or nuclear situations". A survey of 4449 risk experts from 58 countries around the world, conducted by the global sociological agency Ipsos, shows that 95% of them expect the current crisis processes to continue, 94% expect them to spread worldwide, and 84% expect a global war. Adding to this is the fact that a war is currently being fought in the 21st century with entirely new weapons from the age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, which dramatically increases destruction and death in various wars. This can be clearly seen in Ukraine, where various robotic devices and new technologies for gathering and using information are being used. Swarm of suicide drones carrying explosives are playing the role of a new technological version of the traditional kamikaze. Invisible to radars, unmanned submarines are changing the warfare in the oceans. Production of so-called "smart bombs" based on GPS technology is on the rise, allowing them to maneuver and accurately target moving objects several kilometers away from the launch site. Unofficially, there are global information and cyber wars, and officially, there are technological and economic wars. Cyber weapons, such as armies of bots, troll factories, and deceptive websites, are becoming key instruments in asymmetric warfare. The rising political and social fragmentation in countries dominated by neoliberal capitalism facilitates their impact. - If world leaders were to sit at a negotiation table today, who would they be? - Currently, such a trend is not emerging. It may appear in the autumn, if Trump loses popularity in the midterm elections for the American Senate. In any case, the BRICS countries must be included together with the G-7 countries. - After Trump won his second term, it seemed like a big victory and triumph of conservatism. However, his behavior seems to revive the chances of neoliberalism. How will this clash develop? - The problem is more complex. Trump continues to behave like a conservative when it comes to family values, polygamous marriages, etc. The USA is trying to strengthen its role, despite the fact that its tax system remains favorable to large corporations. At the same time, there is a huge amount of research indicating a trend towards fragmentation of the world, dividing it into spheres of influence and increasing technological and other types of wars. Is there potential for the European Union to maintain its attractiveness and influence as a soft power? For now, trends point to a decline in the EU in economic, demographic, and technological aspects. There is a rapid decrease in its share of global production, especially in comparison to the US and China. It does not have any major technology companies like those in the US, China, and Russia. There is also an accelerated ethnic and religious change in the population. На първо място, има въпрос за доверие. The USA is doing everything possible to divide the EU and force it to buy American weapons. - What will the world look like after the end of the US hegemony (if it happens) and what role do you see for Bulgaria in it? - After the end of the US hegemony, we see a tendency towards multipolarization and regionalization. At the same time, new technological and climate risks will strengthen the need for greater involvement of states and international institutions. - Is the behavior of the Bulgarian political elite adequate in the changing geopolitical reality? Have we lost the compass that used to point solely to Brussels and Washington and we could not go wrong? - The Bulgarian political elite is now facing increasing divisions connected to the divisions between Brussels and Washington. This has many dimensions. Firstly, there is the issue of trust. The most typical example in recent days is the opposition among parties regarding Trump's Peace Council.