91498 | 17 Aug. 2025 | 09:51

The battle is not for territories, but for a place in the new world order. Russia shows that it will have a place in it alongside the USA, China, and India. If Zelenski does not accept the proposals of the USA and Russia, he and his allies will have to be

Simeon Nikolov is a long-time diplomat, former deputy minister of defense and chief expert in the administration of the president. He is a member of the Board of Directors of the Bulgarian Diplomatic Society. He is also the founder and editor-in-chief of the online publication "Expert-BDS" which focuses on analysis in the field of international politics, security and diplomacy. He is currently the director of the Center for Strategic Security and International Relations.

 - Mr. Nikolov, there was a lot of tension before the meeting between Putin and Trump in Alaska, as if something was expected to happen that would push for peace in the situation in Ukraine. However, after the meeting, most observers claim that nothing happened. Did Trump leave empty-handed, as reported by the Associated Press?

 - Were you surprised by what happened in Alaska? - The excessive expectations of some are due to the misunderstanding of the complex nature and complexity of the multiple problems, the lack of knowledge of diplomatic practice and regularities in the negotiation process, and in others - to a biased political leaning towards one or the other side of the conflict or simply to propaganda techniques. Of course, we could not expect a "miracle" from the first meeting between the two presidents. Between the readiness for negotiations and the successful decisions there is a very wide gray area of politics, known only to diplomats in reality.   

 The second important moment is that the interests of the two great powers extend not only to the war in Ukraine and naturally, the issues in the disarmament sphere and economic relations have taken a certain place. A shortcoming in their communication is that no new information has been shared on their intentions in these important areas, on which the understanding and international security largely depend. Let's not forget about their geopolitical interests, for example, the United States' desire to undermine the relationship between Moscow and Beijing, as well as to push Russia out of the Caucasus region.

 In previous meetings, Trump's representatives in Moscow have worked on many issues, which allowed for the meeting between the two presidents to take place. Therefore, it is not fair or correct to claim that it did not bring anything. If that were the case, Trump would have left after five minutes, as he had previously stated. He also did not impose new sanctions on Russia, with which he had threatened before the meeting. In his interview with Fox News, President Trump emphasizes that "the negotiations have made great progress despite the lack of a deal. We agreed with Putin on many, many points. Only a few remain." The fate of the deal now depends on Zelensky to see it through. "The problem is that Zelensky is not willing to make any concessions and is supported in this position by the largest European countries.

 The arguments of critics that the meeting was short and "nothing" was achieved should know that according to diplomatic practice, all issues are negotiated in advance and the meeting between presidents only formalizes them with or without some minor additions.

 - " An interesting and brief comment was made by "The Guardian": "Trump did not achieve a deal for Ukraine, but advised Zelensky to do so." How do you interpret it? Does this mean that Zelensky will be under pressure to accept a peaceful agreement, regardless of the conditions?

 - It is strange that there was no public discussion of the issue with the illegitimacy of President Zelensky and the implications of this on the validity of signing any document. The goal is not to pressure Zelensky or anyone in his position to accept an agreement, regardless of the conditions, but to convince him to reconsider his initial unrealistic positions. It is not possible to expect a complete and unconditional surrender from the currently winning side, negotiation must take place. What will happen to the Russian-speaking population in the four regions if the Russian side withdraws? What actions will the Ukrainian army take after its reconstruction and rearmament? Furthermore, Trump warned Zelensky from the very beginning that Ukraine cannot defeat Russia and must seek an agreement, but he did not listen, for which of course his European allies were to blame.

 The important thing about the achieved agreement now is that the best way to end the war between Russia and Ukraine is through direct peace talks, which would put an end to the war, rather than simply a ceasefire agreement. However, the European countries from the "Coalition of the Willing" wanted to postpone negotiations for territorial concessions until a ceasefire was achieved on the current front line. However, this will now happen not immediately, but later. Europe supports Ukraine in its request for security guarantees, but since NATO membership is no longer an option, the question remains open, except for the vague proposal of the US for guarantees. The repeatedly mentioned proposals for deployment of armed forces from the United Kingdom and other European countries are in violation of international law and unacceptable to Russia. Ukraine is under pressure not only from the threats of the US to accept these conditions, but also from public opinion in the country, which firmly turns against the continuation of the war without political support.

 - Putin said the following: "Today we hear President Trump saying that if he were president, there would be no war. I think that would have actually happened. I confirm it." Obviously, the Russian president is returning events to the eve of the war. Can we make the conclusion that the conditions from the end of 2022 are the conditions that Russia is setting today?

 - Partly "yes", partly "no", because the conditions today have changed. But the highest priority is the security in Europe and Russia's place in the emerging new world order and the possibility for peaceful political and economic relations and mutually beneficial development. Against this background, strategic positions from the Middle East and the Black Sea region to the North Sea are not insignificant. But not separate front positions from the current war in Ukraine. Today, Putin is turning to a new multipolar world, in which Russia will once again have influence. In return, Trump might even receive the coveted Nobel Peace Prize. And Putin needs at least some sanctions lifted to save the country's economy.

 - How do you interpret the "USSR" inscription on Foreign Minister Lavrov's sweater?

 – Lavrov is a diplomat of the highest class in the world. That is why I am surprised by the use of such means of influence and the reminder of history. Especially since there is no comparison between the USSR and today's Russia. Another issue is that a visit by a head of state is an official event that requires strict adherence to protocol, including clothing.

 – Who was more persuasive and successful – the spy (Putin) or the businessman (Trump)?

 – Of course, Putin was more persuasive and successful, but mostly when compared to the impulsive and self-confident Trump. Compared to him, Putin has much more experience, a geopolitical perspective on events, and foresight. The winner is not the one who knows and speaks the most, but the one who acts most correctly. This applies, of course, to the meeting in question, but not to the start of the war.

 Putin proved that diplomacy is more reliable in such cases, but Trump relied on a business approach and no one can deny the result of the combination of the two.

 - The contrast is striking between Zelensky's reception at the White House a few months ago and Putin's reception in Alaska - red carpet, fighter jets, armored "Cadillac", smiles. Europe does not seem ecstatic about this, Mr. Nikolov. What signs did Trump give with the lavish reception and how do you expect the leading European countries to react from here on out?

 - I do not find the reception "lavish". Many elements from it were even shortened, including lunch, one-on-one talks, etc. A significant sign, however, was the greeting with applause upon his arrival. The meeting should not be underestimated, as it could pave the way to avoiding the worst - a future world war. A true strategist builds their ship before the storm hits the ocean. The coalition of European countries preparing for war with Russia can hardly complain about a meeting between Trump and Putin. And those who truly desire peace should welcome any such step. The meeting itself has already had a positive effect. But "Europe" complains? We should not expect immediate solutions, but the meeting between the two nuclear powers in the world is not a reason for complaint, but for welcome and support.

 The EU does not fit either a military cap or huge armament programs. Its call should be "The winner is Peace". At their last meeting, the leaders of the "Coalition of the Willing" began to make concessions on some of their previous positions. So, for example, the Chancellor of Germany, Friedrich Mertz, stated that the front lines should be the starting point in the negotiations, which contradicts Zelensky's statement about "no territorial concessions."

 Has Trump betrayed Europe or increased the cost of security that the US provides?

 - We cannot talk about "betrayal" of Europe when it comes to ending the war in Ukraine, unlike the trade deal between President Donald Trump and Ursula von der Leyen, which was supposed to resolve the customs dispute between the US and the EU, estimated by Laurent Saint-Martin, Secretary of State for Foreign Trade of France, as "an expression of Europe's lack of ability to act." However, there are still differences between the positions of the US and Europe regarding Russia. "From the "Coalition of the Willing" continue to insist that Moscow should not have veto power over Ukraine's membership in NATO. However, the Trump administration has already excluded this prospect by accepting the fundamental condition of Putin.

 The omitting of details on the achieved agreement on a number of issues may also be due to the concerns of leading European countries not to sabotage the upcoming steps. Journalistic juggling on the question of who has won and who has lost, Trump or Putin, is meaningless. However, the truth is that the Trump-Putin meeting has removed Russia from isolation from the West! And this will be difficult for some European leaders to accept.

 From whom should Europe fear more - Putin or Trump?" Are the concerns of a number of European countries real, that Ukraine will not be the last country to be subjected to a military attack?

 - It is not a coincidence that Putin once again emphasized to journalists after the meeting that "in order for the Ukrainian settlement to be sustainable and long-term, all root causes of the crisis, which have been discussed repeatedly, must be removed, all legitimate concerns of Russia must be taken into account, and a fair balance in the sphere of security in Europe and the world as a whole must be restored." The reason is not only security in Europe, but also the specific reason for the Russian armed forces' invasion in Ukraine. The propaganda formula has replaced the official political positions of Europe and NATO. Despite the statements from the American side (former Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland about funding the coup in Ukraine) and from the European side (German Chancellor Angela Merkel about the intentions of the Minsk agreements), as well as from the leadership of NATO (the chief of NATO's armed forces on BTV just ten days ago stating that "we are already on the border with Russia") and the preparation and arming of the Ukrainian army, there are enough acknowledgements of intentions and goals that have provoked the Russian side. Let's not forget the rejected agreement from Istanbul between Ukraine and Russia after the intervention of the British Prime Minister.

 The nature of the war is determined by the goal of strategically defeating Russia in the process of forming a new world order in which it has no place. This is the mistake of such "strategists". In other words, the fight is not for territories, but for a place in the new world order. And the capacity of Russia shows that it will have a place alongside the US, China, India, and others. Forces.

 Therefore, your question "Who should Europe fear more" can turn into "Who bears more guilt for the war and the casualties and will there be more" and in addition to Putin, should not Europe also be held responsible for fueling and maintaining the war, as well as for its plans for direct involvement in it, if the captured and killed officers from Great Britain, France and other European countries and the Western weapons supplied are not enough evidence for this.

 If Zelensky does not accept the proposals of the USA and Russia, it is obvious that Ukraine and the Western European countries from the "Coalition of the Willing", mainly UK, France and Germany, will be to blame for this and will have to bear the burden of the war.

 However, the thesis of possible conquest actions by Russia on neighboring European countries is completely unfounded. It has been repeatedly stated that for the past three years Russia has been unable to occupy more than 20% of Ukrainian territory. It could try to take over the entire Ukraine, but would not be able to defend such conquests. The deployment of British and European armed forces on Ukrainian territory would provoke Russia to use new generation weapons or even tactical nuclear weapons, leading to a third world war.

 The issue and claims of Russia are not about territories, but about concerns for its security and desire for peaceful coexistence and economic relations with Europe. The Western propaganda about the danger of Russia leads to the conclusion that the voice of "reason" can sometimes be false.

 - It made an impression on me that upon his return from Alaska to Russia, Putin's plane was accompanied by American fighters. How do you explain this fact?

 - An air show in honor of the president in a situation of war, in which both countries are involved, is now going beyond the protocol and can be perceived as a show of strength and power, which is unnecessary. Another interesting point is that the two presidents got into one car, Trump's, without a translator, in violation of security and diplomatic protocol.

 - In this complex knot of problems, which the world has not faced for eight decades, where does Bulgaria stand? Will building a base near Kavala and Bezmer with the capacity to accommodate a brigade, or even a division, give us more security?

 - Bulgaria's place is in Europe. Diplomatic efforts for peace and economic prosperity should precede military security, but not exclude it, but rather strengthen it. The expansion of military bases in scale and capabilities, issuing different goals than self-defense, will turn us into a military target in the event of military action. Before we expand allied bases, we have another more important problem - the rearming of the Bulgarian army with entering combat vehicles on a new technological basis, which changes the nature of the battlefield. For example: the displacement of combat aircraft with drones, autonomous armored vehicles, unmanned ships, electronic and cyber warfare systems, laser weapons, etc.

 The problem is that the Bulgarian leaders do not come up with their own initiatives and positions in the unions we belong to, but rather join uncritically and subserviently to the respective decision, sometimes even remaining in a minority, as was the case with our attitude towards the genocide in Gaza. This behavior makes us dependent, and the dependent cannot demand respect. And in nature it is the same, there are some four-legged creatures who wag their tail more than their tongue.