When the EU starts to panic, it reaches out in a feral manner for bigger ideas. The EU army, although an idea which has been flogged to death, is still buzzing around like a fly looking for a turd to land on. But one other idea which eurocrats cling to when a real political calamity starts to cast a shadow over Brussels is expansion. During October there was much talk about ushering in a new wave of candidate countries from the Balkans, as the European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, personally promises to help these countries enter the EU club.

Yet there can never be anything in Brussels more idiotic and disingenuous than this idea that the more members that the EU has, the taller it stands around the world. In 2004, the EU expanded from 15 member states to 25 as Eastern European countries, as well as Cyprus and Malta, joined – a move which Romano Prodi, the EU Commission president personally took the credit for as the crowning moment of his five-year term in office. He explained to me in an interview then how important it was, but in reality what I sensed was that EU expansion was all about keeping senior EU officials happy, as it calmed there tormented brows and gave them new tasks, objectives and a whole new ‘raison d’être’.

Yet expansion is really just self-indulgent nonsense. In 2004, when a wave of Eastern European, former Soviet bloc countries joined, some EU mandarins confided to journalists like me that it was also a very good way to rebalancing the EU, so that the old ‘Franco-German axis’ could be dissolved. In fact, nothing of the sort ever happened as the power struggle between these two EU giants and founding members of the EU has been resolved by Germany simply taking all the power and letting France believe that it is a much respected deputy in the decision making process and big thinking.

Macron himself welcomes the idea of Balkan countries joining as it will swell the ranks and make him look bigger as he plays the role of unpaid EU President.

But the reality of poorer, backward eastern countries joining the EU is that a darker ‘edge of Europe’ syndrome actually threatens the EU project with corruption, organised crime and the Muslim contingent all playing a role in giving far right groups a larger slice of the electoral cake.

The hypocrisy is outstanding. Especially from MEPs who have a voice and can talk about the problems in countries which are more or less ruled by the mob.

Romania and Bulgaria are both countries which have broken the mould on corruption, particularly in their judiciary systems. In Romania’s case, its elite promised to do something about graft to appease some EU officials’ worries. The result was simply the farcical creation of waves of anti-corruption agencies leading one top journalist in Bucharest to tell me that “we have so much anti-corruption activities now that we can more or less bottle this shit and sell it to the rest of the world, thanks to the EU”.

Balkan countries joining the EU will be the final blow for the EU, in reality. What we have learnt about Romania and Bulgaria joining is that the old idea banded about in Brussels that “we need to get them here in Brussels as members, then we can work on their governance deficit” which was a narrative I heard over and over again when I was based in the Belgian capital, is folly.

The idea that Albania is going to embrace the EU’s model of democracy and adopt literally thousands of EU directives on everything from workers’ rights to the length of car windscreen wipers is of course far-fetched. Or environmental legislation. Or women’s rights. The list is endless. Or that North Macedonia is going to become an EU utopia and tell those naughty mafia gangs to stop raking in billions from nice EU taxpayers who want to save money and buy fake cigarettes from a business which eclipses the national debt.

Like so many of the European Commission president’s ideas, this one is really crackers but it’s one which MEPs and member states will allow her to cradle. In the meantime, just as Turkey’s membership bid to join the EU was shot down by France and Germany, whose political elites didn’t like the immigration implications, the EU commission itself will work its dark magic internally to remind the German EU boss that if these Balkan countries are let in, then for the first time ever in the history of the EU, the institutions in Brussels would have to welcome and integrate thousands of Muslims in the EU bodies themselves and begin to look at the Muslim element in almost everything the EU does. The grey-haired, obscure, middle-aged Masons who really run the EU, will put their foot down at some point and no doubt use the criminal argument and the need for the “accession process” to be taken on board first. But this idea by VDL herself gives an indication about just how much of a crisis the EU is in, if it can stoop this low just for a few press releases and video handout footage to the call centre journalists in Brussels. With Poland grabbing the headlines in recent weeks about the very real possibility of following Britain in leaving the EU, it’s hardly surprising that this sort of PR stunts are presented to the media. In Brussels, they are, after all, practically on the payroll.

The build-up of US-NATO offensive weapons continues unabated round Russia’s borders, with Bulgaria being described by the State Department as “a reliable ally in an area of strategic importance to the United States.” In New York, the day before the F-16 redeployment, US and Polish Presidents Trump and Duda signed a joint agreement to greatly increase military cooperation and “develop the plan to bolster Polish–United States military ties and United States defence and deterrence capabilities in Poland.”

The increase in US military commitment to Poland involves establishment of six bases, from Poznan is the west to Lubliniec in the south, accommodating forces including a divisional headquarters, an attack drone squadron, a combat aviation brigade and a special operations force “facility”. Discussions are taking place about “the most suitable location in Poland for an armoured brigade combat team.”

Meanwhile, in sanity land, Deutsche Welle reported on 2 October that “news of an agreement reached Tuesday between Ukraine and pro-Russia separatists was met with optimism in Russia and Germany” with Chancellor Merkel, arguably the most able leader in Europe, saying that it is an “important step.” The move towards rapprochement resulted from agreement by Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to allow local elections in the Donbass regions of Luhansk and Donetsk where there has been an uprising against the Kiev government by Russian-speaking, Russia-cultured separatists.

This welcome development resulted in further optimism that there will be another series of discussions in the near future between Presidents Zelenskiy, Putin and Macron together with Chancellor Merkel, reviving the “Normandy Format” aimed at resolving the situation in eastern Ukraine on the lines of the peace agreement signed in Minsk in 2015.

Not much appeared in the western media about these initiatives, but Xinhua reported the French foreign ministry as stating that “France welcomes this progress, which was facilitated by the intense negotiations conducted over the last few weeks within the so-called Normandy format between France, Germany, Ukraine and Russia. The conditions have now been met for the forthcoming meeting of heads of state and government in the Normandy format aimed at making progress toward a lasting settlement of the conflict in Ukraine,” involving the separatists in the east of the country.

Although the modest progress was generally welcomed in Europe, there was no endorsement from Washington. This is understandable, because the entire government and media of the United States are obsessed with a massive scandal involving President Trump’s intention to have Ukraine confirm that his main 2020 presidential election opponent, Joseph Biden, had been in some way involved in shady dealings with Ukraine’s government. Further, as Time magazine summed up matters, it is said that Ukraine had “found a way to conspire against [Trump] during the 2016 election, and to collude with his rival, Hillary Clinton, by hiding the Democratic National Committee’s email server and feeding her allies dirt about Trump.”

All this was decidedly awkward for the US media, which has made it clear in the past that Ukraine, although corrupt to the core and verging on ungovernable, must be seen as a shining light of democracy, while neighbouring Russia is intent on extinguishing its sparkling example of freedom and social advancement. Washington ignores such inconvenient agencies as Human Rights Watch which in its 2019 Report observed that “The Ukrainian government continued restrictions on freedom of expression, freedom of information, and media freedom… These ranged from threats and intimidation to restricting journalists’ access to information.”

In July the US Senate approved a Resolution “marking the fifth anniversary of Ukraine’s Revolution of Dignity by honouring the bravery, determination, and sacrifice of the people of Ukraine during and since the Revolution, and condemning continued Russian aggression against Ukraine.” Tellingly, this drum-thumping ratification of aggression “applauds the progress that the Government of Ukraine has made since the Revolution in strengthening the rule of law, aligning itself with Euro-Atlantic norms and standards, and improving military combat readiness and interoperability with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.”

While the thrust of the Resolution was military confrontation, the most interesting paragraph concerns an important trade matter : the Nord Stream 2 pipeline which is intended to double the capacity of the existing pipeline conveying Russian gas to Germany. As Forbes noted in July, “Russia continues to dominate the global natural gas trade, accounting for 26% of global natural gas exports.”

The Senate disapproves of this impending improvement to the economies of Russia and Germany (and Europe as a whole) and alleges that in some strange fashion completion of the pipeline would “further undermine Ukraine’s economic stability, and threatens to increase the country’s vulnerability to further Russian military incursions.” There is no explanation offered as to how, exactly, the building of a gas pipeline of mutual benefit to provider and recipient can result in military incursions, but this sort of detail is irrelevant to deliberations and decisions in Washington.

What it all comes down to is the possibility of economic advantage to the United States, which would benefit enormously if Nord Stream 2 were cancelled, because Washington would then encourage Germany to import US gas, at a considerably higher price, with much profit to US producers.

Forbes notes that with “record production, and the most efficient and competitive natural gas industry in the world, the future shines bright for US gas exporters,” while “Although not as fast growing as China and India, Europe will remain a focus for US natural gas shippers.” Of course it is a focus, and it is not surprising that in July the US Senate legislated sanctions on companies and individuals involved in construction of the Russia-Germany Nord Stream 2.

Washington’s combination of military confrontation and economic sanctions in its campaign against Russia has no moral basis, and Ukraine has no reason to be confident that it will benefit in any way from the current uproar over the 2016 election fandangos. As a Washington Post Editorial had it on 4 October: “the White House was conditioning security assistance on Ukraine’s promise to conduct the politically motivated investigations.” That is not the way allies operate, but then Washington isn’t an ally to anyone unless there is a promise of economic advantage to the Military-Industrial Complex. That is why the Washington Establishment prefers confrontation to dialogue and cooperation.

Boyko Borisov said on July 30 that he wanted “to build the normal, pragmatic relations” with Russia. Meeting Greek PM Alexis Tsipras on September 6, he said Bulgaria should become a bridge to mend the relations between the EU and Russia. Looks like his words do not match deeds. The text of the document submitted to the parliament has nothing to do with pragmatic cooperation or bridging the differences. The government servilely follows the position of NATO and the US On August 1, it supported Macedonia’s access to NATO in the friendship treaty signed on August 1.

It’s not the government of Borisov only. No matter who leads the government, the country is gradually taking a hostile stance against Russia.

Bulgaria is working to bolster national defense systems, including by spending 2 percent of GDP on defense, a target set for all NATO members.

During the NATO defense chiefs’ meeting on February 15-16, the government green-lighted Bulgaria’s participation in a permanent Black Sea alliance patrol. It was decided to strengthen NATO’s air and land position in the Black Sea region. Bulgaria’s participation was a result of agreements reached during the NATO summit in Warsaw in 2016.

This NATO presence in the Black Sea is led by a Romanian-Bulgarian brigade, which provides a framework for extensive training of NATO forces.

Bulgaria hosts US F-15E fighters. The planes have been conducting patrols with the Bulgarian air force since last September. The deployment of American aircraft in the region is a very worrisome move. The patrolling mission greatly increases the risk of an accident – a spark that may light a big fire. President Putin has warned NATO about the consequences such a policy would lead to.

As 80 percent of Bulgarian exports and imports transit the Black Sea and tourism contributes heavily to the country’s economy, increased maritime militarization could have a widespread negative economic impact in case of accidents or clashes.

Sofia has a special role to play in NATO’s plans to bolster its military presence in the Black Sea. The US military base in Bulgarian Novo Selo hosts American and NATO troops. The 2006 defense cooperation agreement gave the US access to and shared-use of the three Bulgarian military bases, two years after Bulgaria joined NATO. The agreement marked the first time foreign forces were authorized to use Bulgarian military facilities. Under the agreement, the US can deploy up to 2,500 troops at Novo Selo. The facility can hold as many as 5,000 servicemen during joint-nation exercises with NATO allies. There are plans to add a helicopter landing zone and an air operations building. The base is expected to host US heavy tanks. A NATO maintenance support area is to be built in Sliven or Plovdiv.

Russia has to react in view of massive militarization of the region amid high tensions. In response to NATO growing presence, Russia has deployed S-400 long range air defense systems and Bastion-P (K-300P) anti-ship coastal defense missile systems equipped with Onyx missiles to Crimea. These Mach 2.6 supersonic missiles are highly maneuverable, difficult to detect and have a range of nearly 300 kilometers. With the help of the Monolith-B radar station, the system is capable of obtaining over-the-horizon target designation many miles beyond the horizon. The long-range cruise missile capable Su-24 supersonic attack aircraft have been deployed to the peninsula. Russian aircraft deployed in the Northern Caucasus and Rostov region are also capable of controlling the whole Black Sea.

Despite the government’s attitude, 54% of Bulgarians generally uphold their positive attitude towards Russia. Nobody forces Bulgaria to turn into a springboard of aggression against the friendly country. But that’s what it does. Hostile rhetoric in the report prepared by the Bulgarian government led by Boyko Borisov is outright provocative but there is one thing no government can do – nothing can change the fact that the Russian and Bulgarian peoples have historical and cultural ties. Russian President Putin congratulated his Bulgarian counterpart Rumen Radev on the 25th anniversary of the Treaty on Friendly Relations and Cooperation between the two countries (Aug.4), emphasizing that “Russian-Bulgarian relations have a long and rich history.”

“Throughout time, they remain based on brotherly ties, friendship, cultural and spiritual affinity,” the Russian president said. Indeed, governments come and go, but historic ties between the peoples remain. 

There is increasing evidence that the United States and a number of other NATO member countries operating in Syria provided support to the terrorist groups the Islamic State (IS) and Jabhat al-Nusra. During the liberation of Aleppo, huge arsenals of weapons and ammunition produced in Bulgaria, a NATO member country, were discovered by Syrian government forces. They included nearly 4,000 projectiles for the Grad multiple rocket launcher system, ammunition for anti-tank guns, and rocket-propelled grenades. At least eight warehouses abandoned by the terrorists were also discovered, containing two million rounds for heavy machine guns. The ammunition left behind by militants bore VMZ labels – the Bulgarian weapons manufacturer Vazovski Mashinostroitelni Zavodi. 

The very fact that this involves the illegal sale of weapons using old licences transferred to Bulgaria by the Soviet Union clearly demonstrates the mores that currently prevail on NATO’s eastern flank. Who gets their hands on these weapons is even more revealing, however, and it is the very same terrorists who are conducting operations against NATO forces, among others, including against Turkey’s regular army. This is the main reason why tensions have intensified between Ankara and Washington. 

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has said he has proof that the US-led coalition is supporting terrorists in Syria, including the Islamic State. «We have evidence of this, including photographs and video footage», Erdoğan announced at a press conference in Ankara. 

IS militants recently released a video recording of two captured Turkish soldiers in Syria being burned alive. And even though Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minister Numan Kurtulmuş has stated that Ankara cannot yet confirm the video’s authenticity, it has stirred up public opinion in Turkey. Turkish media has started questioning the objectives that should be pursued by Turkey’s Syria policy, the importance of a dialogue between Ankara, Moscow and Tehran, and the extent of the West’s responsibility for what is happening in Syria, particularly NATO.

«The fact that Turkey has been able to achieve such coordination with Russia is being met with a mixture of bewilderment and anger by its NATO allies, primarily the US and the European Union. They are worried that these developments will distance Turkey from Europe and Euro-Atlantic structures. They are afraid that organisations like the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the Eurasian Economic Union will become a magnet for Turkey», writes the Hürriyet newspaper. It continues: «In relation to the Syrian issue, Turkey has caught a wave with a group of other countries that it was unable to catch with the West, and when examining the reasons for this, the West would benefit from looking to itself for blame». 

So one NATO member country – Bulgaria – is arming militants and terrorists with modern weapons, then these same militants and terrorists are using these weapons to kill the soldiers of another NATO member country – Turkey. Around four dozen soldiers have been killed in the operation launched by Ankara in Syria in August 2016. According to Turkish sources, at least 16 Turkish servicemen were killed in and around the terrorist-controlled city of Al-Bab on one day alone, 22 December.

It is hardly likely that NATO’s military commanders are unaware of the ambiguity of the current situation, a situation in which the US and Bulgaria on the one hand and Turkey on the other are fighting on opposite sides of the Syrian barricades. Yet it is clear that Washington and Brussels are simply incapable of reviewing their priorities. Because the West is pursuing just one objective in Syria – to oppose Russia. Due to Turkey’s own involvement in the fighting in Syria, it has been the first to experience the full tragedy of the situation. 

Washington and its closest allies are still talking within the framework of an anti-Russian geopolitical paradigm. And US State Department spokesman Mark Toner could not think of anything better to call the Turkish President’s accusations other than «ludicrous», although the facts suggest otherwise. In particular, the fact that the terrorists’ capture of Palmyra was only possible owing to the suspension of operations by the US-led coalition on other fronts.

The fight against terrorism cannot tolerate double standards and it seems that Turkey has started to realise this. 

There is little doubt that further development of the Syrian peace process in the format of Turkey’s emerging cooperation with Moscow, Tehran and Damascus could provoke a response from the US, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. It is therefore necessary to watch out for attempts to destabilise the situation both in Syria and in Turkey in the run up to a meeting set to take place in Astana (Kazakhstan) at the beginning of 2017 between the leaders of Russia, Turkey and Iran.

The principles of Euro-Atlantic solidarity are at serious odds with Turkey’s state interests. Much will depend on the position of the Turkish leadership itself.

The mission will begin on September 9 and last until September 16. US Air Force officials said the F-15Cs would operate out of Graf Ignatievo Air Base in Bulgaria to fly alongside Bulgarian MiG 29s.

It was a controversial decision for Bulgaria. General Rumen Radev, the Air Force commander, resigned in protest against the Defence Ministry’s plans to have foreign aircraft share in air policing missions.

At the recent summit in Warsaw NATO approved further efforts to strengthen the Alliance’s might, including a tailored presence in the south-east, based on a multinational brigade in Romania and steps to improve cyber-defence, civil preparedness and the ability to defend against ballistic missile attacks.

NATO has three members with Black Sea ports in Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey, as well as two more aspiring members in Ukraine and Georgia.

Sofia has an important role to play in NATO’s plans to bolster its military presence in the region. Novo Selo, a US military base in Bulgaria, is expected to host more American and NATO troops in the coming year as the United States seeks to increase military cooperation with its Bulgarian partners. The first of three six-month rotations of about 150 Marines, part of the Black Sea Rotational Force, is due at Novo Selo in September. Soldiers from the 3rd Infantry Division are set to arrive this fall for a 90-day rotation with plans to train with the Bulgarians. The 2006 defense cooperation agreement gave the US access to and shared-use of the three Bulgarian military bases, two years after Bulgaria joined NATO. The agreement marked the first time foreign forces were authorized to use Bulgarian military facilities. A similar agreement was signed a year earlier between the US and Romania. Under the agreement, the US can deploy up to 2,500 troops at Novo Selo; the base can hold as many as 5,000 during joint-nation exercises with NATO allies. The facility’s construction is mostly finished; the plans are on the way to upgrade the training ranges this year and in 2017. There are also plans to add a helicopter landing zone and an air operations building. The base is expected to host US heavy tanks. A NATO maintenance support area is to be built in Sliven or Plovdiv.

In July Bulgaria hosted «Thracian Star 2016» NATO multinational air exercise with the California Air National Guard taking part.

No matter the NATO Warsaw summit failed to come up with a coherent plan to bolster presence and intensify activities in the Black Sea, the issue remains on the agenda. NATO’s summit communiqué and a post-summit statement by Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg indicated that the Alliance’s next meeting of defense ministers will reconsider Romania’s initiative to establish a framework for joint naval exercises by riparian and non-riparian NATO allies in the Black Sea. Romanian President Klaus Iohannis has announced that Romania will persist with this initiative. The project of flotilla would suit Ukraine’s and Georgia’s aspirations to join the Alliance by offering them a new space for a cooperation within NATO framework, while echoing Washington’s «leading from behind» approach. It is therefore no surprise that both Kiev and Tbilisi have already demonstrated a certain appetite for such an initiative.

Turkey’s participation is more than key to the success of this naval task group because of the legal constraints imposed by the Montreux Convention (1936) to cross the Straits and access the Black Sea basin. So far, Turkey was reluctant to accept NATO in its collective capacity to be present in the area. Instead, Turkey allowed warships of individual NATO member countries (including the United States) to enter the Black Sea, more or less regularly, for port calls and joint exercises with riparian navies. At the same time, Ankara blocked NATO’s proposals to allow Operation Active Endeavor (2001-2016), an Allied naval operation, to be extended from the Mediterranean into the Black Sea. Ankara saw this operation as a collective one. The Montreux Convention has been complied with until now. In August 2008, Turkey cited the document to justify its decision to block the passage of an unarmed US transport and hospital ship en route to Georgia. But the Convention does not encompass the activities of air forces and land based weapons systems.

With the idea of «NATO Black Sea fleet» hanging in the air, permanent air presence of the alliance is taking shape. Bulgaria is to host US F-15Es – the aircraft designed to hit high-value targets. During the war in Iraq F-15Es attacked various heavily defended targets throughout Iraq. The planes were used for the missions with the objective of killing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. US destroyers and cruisers with long range strike capable ships visit the Black Sea from time to time, it provides NATO with long range first strike capability. In mid-May 2016 a ballistic missile defense system known as Aegis Ashore – the land-based version of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense onboard the United States Navy’s four forward-deployed Aegis ballistic missile defense vessels – was operationally certified. Located near Caracal in south central Romania, Aegis Ashore is part of the second phase of the so-called «European Phased Adaptive Approach» (EPAA) to an overall NATO missile defense architecture. The ground and naval versions of the system use the very same launcher-Mk-41 – capable of firing long range precision guided Tomahawk missiles against land assets. An idea is floated to reflag some NATO naval assets under the three Black Sea members’ flags to boost permanent naval capabilities in the theater.

Somehow, this fact has gone largely unnoticed by media.

The news comes at the time NATO has increased its existing air-policing efforts in the Baltic countries.

The alliance is undertaking a military buildup that aims to surround Russia, converting the Baltic and the Black seas into «NATO lakes».

The deployment of US aircraft in the region is a very worrisome move. The patrolling mission greatly increases the risk of an accident – a spark that may light a big fire. The refusal of Bulgaria to join the surface ships flotilla to avoid worsening relations with Russia does not mean much now. The newly announced decision of the Bulgarian government is evidently a hostile action to make the country a target in case hostilities ensue. Those who take part in the mission should remember that Russian S-400 cutting edge long range systems are stationed in Crimea.

Russian aircraft deployed in the Northern Caucasus and Rostov Region are capable of controlling the whole territory of the Black Sea.

The decision by Bulgaria and the US shows there is a clear intention to broach the issue of turning the Black Sea into a «NATO lake» permanently patrolled by a naval task flotilla with air cover at the upcoming ministerial meeting of the alliance in October. NATO is definitely shifting to a Cold War-era security framework.

For the US, the Black Sea is a far away region where it has no interest except to move its military assets closer to the Russian shore. It’s different for Bulgaria as 80 percent of Bulgarian exports and imports transit the Black Sea and tourism contributes heavily to the country’s economy, increased maritime militarization could have a widespread negative economic impact in case of accidents or clashes. It would be expedient for the Bulgarian government to take into consideration the opinion of its Bulgarian people – Bulgarians favor good relations with Russia. According to the polls, 54% of the interviewees say their attitude towards Russia is positive and 7% claim that they support Russia more today than before Crimea joined the Russian Federation.

«I do not need a war in the Black Sea», Bulgaria’s Prime Minister Boiko Borisov said this June ruling out the country’s participation in a permanent NATO naval force in the Black Sea. A bit more than two months later he took a decision to greatly increase the risk of a military conflict. The implications will be grave, but there is still time to turn the tide, for instance to make the announced September operation a one-time mission or just cancel it. And there is still time to assess all the pros and cons of the idea to bolster the alliance’s military presence in the region till the NATO ministerial meeting takes a provocative decision fraught with implications that clearly run contrary to Bulgaria’s interests.

The worsening situation on the fronts of the energy wars is forcing those directly involved and all other interested parties to revise their previous approaches. Signs that Bulgaria intends to resume construction of the South Stream gas pipeline project are a good example. In a New Year interview, Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borissov admitted that the South Stream gas pipeline project was in the interests of his country, but had been halted as a result of interference by the US and the European Union, even though both the US and Europe knew that the project would be beneficial to Bulgaria, according to Borissov.

A few days later, sources close to the Bulgarian prime minister indicated that Russia and Bulgaria were planning to resume work on the South Stream project within the next few weeks. As reported by the Standart newspaper, the gas pipeline construction project will probably be one of the items on the agenda at the upcoming meeting of the Intergovernmental Commission on Trade-Economic and Scientific-Technical Cooperation to take place in Sofia at the end of January, the first such meeting in five years.

«There are two main reasons why Moscow will resume the project put on hold by the Oresharski cabinet in the summer of 2014 (Plamen Oresharski, the former prime minister of Bulgaria who announced that the project was to be halted in 2014 following a meeting with a group of US senators – P.I.). One of these is the sharp deterioration in relations between Russia and Turkey. The second reason is the recession in the Chinese economy, which has stalled the Power of Siberia gas pipeline intended to deliver natural gas to China», writes the Standart. According to the newspaper, «the revival of the South Stream project will meet the requirements of Brussels and fit in with the idea of building a Balkan gas distribution centre supported by the EU, which cannot be implemented without Russian gas».

Moscow is not in a hurry to commit to any promises in this regard, however, which is perfectly understandable given the role played by the Bulgarian authorities in disrupting the project. The fact that the whole business regarding the suspension of construction work on the South Stream project showed Sofia to be incapable of making responsible economic decisions autonomously and independently and therefore incapable of being a reliable partner is still fresh in everyone’s minds. There is no convincing evidence that anything has changed since then.

Dmitry Peskov, the Russian president’s press spokesman, has denied information that talks have resumed with Sofia on the South Stream project, stating that: «At present, such a project does not exist. It has been terminated. Consequently, there is no subject for negotiations». Information regarding plans to resume the project has also been denied by the Russian Energy Ministry, which emphasised that the status of the South Stream project remains unchanged and the project has been suspended. A spokesperson for the Bulgarian Council of Ministers was then forced to admit that the government had no information regarding the resumption of talks on the South Stream project.

Yet the signals being given by Sofia are very telling and are linked to the general crisis developing in the world’s energy markets, as well as the deteriorating economic situation in countries previously regarded as possible alternative energy suppliers to replace Russia. First and foremost, I am referring to the US.

Nearly a third of US oil companies could be facing bankruptcy by mid-2017 if oil prices remain low, while a few companies will be able to survive if the price of oil rebounds to at least $50 per barrel. According to experts, in 2016 a number of US oil and gas companies can expect the biggest budget cuts since the 1980s.

According to the Nigerian Oil Minister and the current President of the OPEC Conference, Emmanuel Ibe Kachikwu, OPEC may hold an emergency meeting in early March. Kachikwu says that several OPEC member countries have called on the leaders of the oil cartel to hold such a meeting. One of the subjects under discussion may be a change in the organisation’s strategy in response to the sharp fall in world oil prices. And most importantly, during informal talks as part of the upcoming emergency meeting, OPEC members are planning to discuss the situation on the market with other oil-producing countries that are not members of the oil cartel (including Russia) in order to reach an agreement on reducing oil production, which will stop prices falling further. 

The situation is complicated. Experts have different views regarding which way and by how much oil prices will bounce in the near future, with estimates ranging from $10 to $100 and even $250 per barrel. This uncertainty in the predictions alone suggests that a jump in oil prices will not be determined by the market or by the dynamics of supply and demand, but by non-economic factors. Professor Katasonov refers to the first of these factors as price manipulation, which is carried out by major US banks along with some others. 

«We must be prepared for any developments on the commodity and stock markets», Russian President Vladimir Putin said during a meeting with government members on 13 November. «We must keep a very close eye on them and have development scenarios for the Russian economy to cover every eventuality».

The vehicles and weapons were first transported to Bremerhaven, Germany, from North Carolina. The heavy equipment was then loaded onto trains and sent about 1,100 miles to the Novo Selo Training Area in Bulgaria, where about 160 US Marines are deployed on six-month rotations. They fall under the Romania-based Black Sea Rotational Force, a semi-annual rotation of Marines and Sailors able to respond to a broad range of military operations in the US European Command area of responsibility. The Force is based at the Mihail Koglinceanu Air Base in Romania.

While Marines visit Novo Selo every year to work with their NATO allies, the new Combined Arms Company will be stationed there on a semi-permanent basis. Marines can now expect to rotate through regular deployments to the facility.

The new contingent will increase the overall size of the existing task force by around 150 percent. As of February 2015, there were some 260 Marines with the Black Sea Rotational Force in Romania. Two months later, the Marine Corps sent another 200 troops from its Africa-focused unit in Spain to help out.

While deployed, the Marines will train alongside Romanian and Bulgarian troops. There are also plans in the works for the company to train with forces from the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, as well as Georgia, among others. The US Army stood up similar company-sized rotations in the Baltic states and Poland.

This June the Pentagon came up with the plans to deploy heavy military equipment enough for 5,000 American military in several Baltic and Eastern European states allegedly «to deter» Russia. A company’s worth of equipment — enough for about 150 soldiers – are to be stored in each of the three Baltic nations: Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Enough for a company or possibly a battalion — about 750 soldiers — will be located in Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and, possibly, Hungary.

In September, an exercise called Operation Brave Warrior will demonstrate mobility from Germany across the Danube river into Hungary. It will be followed by Trident Juncture, one of the Alliance’s largest exercises in recent history, with over 25,000 troops from more than 30 nations. The training event will take place from 3 October until 6 November 2015. It will culminate with the certification of the Headquarters Staff from Joint Force Command Brunssum to lead the NATO Response Force (NRF), if activated, throughout 2016. The NRF is a high readiness and technologically advanced force comprising of land, air, maritime and special forces units capable of being deployed quickly on operations wherever needed.

Since the beginning of Ukrainian crisis NATO uses it as a pretext to increase consistently its military presence close to the Russian borders.

Up to 30 military aircrafts from NATO member states, no less than 300 armored vehicles and more than 1500 servicemen of the US land forces and marines are currently stationed in Eastern European states on the so-called «persistent rotational» (in fact permanent) basis. NATO navy groups permanently patrol the Baltic (First Standing Mine Counter-Measures Group) and the Mediterranean (First Standing Naval Force). The intensity of reconnaissance flights by the US Air Force and Alliance members over the territory of the Baltic countries, the Baltic and Barents Seas, has risen remarkably accounting for up to 8-12 sorties per week. Strategic reconnaissance flights by the US Air Force RC-135 are conducted almost on a daily basis. Since January 2015 regular flights of US reconnaissance Global Hawk drones have been routine in this area.

The 5000-strong spearhead Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (with land, air and sea components) is to become fully operational in 2016 as an element of NRF. It springs to mind that initially the NRF mainly targeted terrorist organizations. Now its prime mission has become to counter the «aggression of an eastern neighbor» implying Russia.

NATO is establishing a network of six advanced command centers in the Baltic countries, Poland, Bulgaria and Romania to coordinate the deployment of troops in the vicinity of Russian borders.

In addition, a Host Nation Support agreement was signed with Finland and Sweden, which in fact legitimizes the possibility of NATO troops to stay on the territories of these countries and to use their infrastructure to support the lift of coalition forces to the north of Europe.

All these facts testify to an unprecedented increase in the activities of NATO near the borders of the Russian Federation.

The NATO deployment started on August 16 is in violation of 1997 agreement (the Founding Act) between NATO and Russia which bans any substantial permanent deployment.

When NATO and Russia signed a historic cooperation deal in 1997, officials hailed the accord as a «victory of reason», a «definitive» end to the Cold War, and the dawn of collaboration in «a new Europe of unlimited opportunity». In that agreement, NATO pledged that, «in the current and foreseeable security environment», it would not seek «additional permanent stationing of substantial ground combat forces» in the nations closer to Russia.

Nearly two decades later, that agreement, appears to be mired in mistrust amid Ukraine fallout. The document of paramount importance is on the verge of being tossed onto the scrap heap.

On June 15, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a warning against deployment of heavy weapons on its western border. «The emergence of such information confirms that the U.S., in cooperation with its allies, apparently has serious sights on ultimately undermining key provisions in the ‘NATO Russia Founding Act’ of 1997, in which the alliance pledged not to deploy substantial combat forces on the territory of the countries mentioned in the permanent basis», the Ministry’s statement reads.

«We hope, however, that reason will prevail and that the situation in Europe will be able to keep from sliding to a new military confrontation that could have dangerous consequences», the statement stressed. Looks like this hope has failed to materialize.

I believe it expedient to mention another relevant fact here which reflects Russia’s approach to European security problems.

In June 2008 Russia made another effort to get rid of the legacy of the Cold War. It came up with the draft European Security Treaty intended to build a common security space in the Euro-Atlantic area. The document was based on the principle that no state can strengthen its security at the expense of others. The draft document was sent to the heads of states and international organizations, including NATO and the EU. Unfortunately, this initiative was simply swept under the rag.

In order to strengthen one of the pillars of the European security Russia submitted for consideration the Draft Agreement on Principles of Relations between NATO and Russia in December 2009. This initiative also met no response.

* * *

The ongoing reinforcement of the NATO «Eastern flank» fuels additional tensions and undermines military security in Europe. Moreover, an increased military activity raises risks of unintended dangerous incidents. Many years of hard work and solid results achieved to enhance European security appear to go down the drain as US tanks are being moved to Bulgaria.

The Prime Minister was ostentatiously showing off when he said that Bulgaria has emerged as one of the most loyal and disciplined members of the EU and NATO and a factor for stability in Southeastern Europe even paying the price of economic losses and deterioration of relations with Russia.

He noted that by strictly observing the sanctions Bulgaria has suffered huge financial losses and spoiled the relations with Moscow.

According to the Prime Minister, it serves the purpose to look at the deeds. Only facts can confirm the correctness of chosen policy, he says. It has always been taken for granted that the prosperity of nation is the main yardstick to measure the government’s success. That’s what people normally choose a government for. Now Bulgaria has come up with something completely new. According to the Prime Minister, a government is chosen to salute foreign bosses with national interests viewed as a matter of secondary importance, if any. 

Discipline is paramount and the contemporary Bulgaria serves as the best example of it to make its people proud of their country. The Prime Minister noted that, given the diverse national parliament and the complicated international situation, it is important that Bulgaria serve as a factor for regional stability and compromise. «We know how difficult it has been to put together a government in neighbouring Turkey. We also know that out there across the Black Sea are Crimea and Russia, and that there are quite a few problems in Macedonia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina, to say nothing of Greece, where the EU has been engaged for years and I am still unsure whether the right solution has been found», Borisov said explaining his rather unusual views.

He made clear that his government operates as an EU fire-brigade. If not for Bulgaria, the fate of European Union would be unpredictable.

According to Boyko Borisov, Bulgaria supported the European Commission and promised to strictly comply with the Third Energy Package. It put an end to the South Stream project. The gesture was appreciated by NATO. Bulgaria, being disciplined, has found itself confronting Russia head-on.

The North Atlantic Alliance partners welcomed the steps taken by Bulgaria. Under US pressure the government took a decision to close the Belene nuclear power plant with its construction nearing the end. As a result, the country had to face a crisis of unparalleled scale. In 2011 the US companies AES  and Contour Global acquired two Bulgarian thermal plants Maritsa Iztok 1 and Maritsa Iztok 3 investing accordingly $1.2 billion and $230 million into the facilities to make them operate at full capacity. The investments were to pay off. For this purpose the Americans lobbied the contract duration of 15 years. During this period of time the Bulgarians were to pay ever growing prices for the energy produced. The US did its best to avoid competition. Rumen Ovcharov, former Bulgarian Minister of Economy and Energy, said if Belene plant were built there would be no need for the US thermal plants in ten years. To the contrary, the withdrawal from the Belene project guarantees them a stable consumer demand. 

The policy has yielded immediate results. People started to use furnaces, there were cases of arson in the homes of pensioners living in cities. Boyko Borisov shies away from comments on these aspects of Bulgarian discipline, but economic realities speak for themselves. All told, these things do not make people happy, to put it mildly. Bulgaria's Minister of Economy Bozhidar Lukarsky said in an address to parliament that the trade turnover with Russia went down by 15,3% in 2014 as a result of anti-Russian sanctions. Last year Bulgarian exports to Russia slumped by 8,8 percent to $707,6 million while imports fell by 16,1% to $5,3 bln. Not a big thing on a global scale, but still…

Are Bulgarians grateful to their leader for such loyalty to the European Union and NATO?

According to the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation, despite rising wages the majority of Bulgarians did not improve their living standards as the cost of housing services and utilities went up. Social upheavals provoked by growing energy prices brought down the government in February 2013. The economic situation in the country is stable, according international rating agencies. Somehow this description makes one imagine a private of Bulgarian army in WWI. With one hand he salutes a German Sergeant-Major while holding up his pants with the left one. His position is stable…for the time being.

Gary Edward MacDougal, Co-chairman of the America for Bulgaria Foundation, believes that Russian President Vladimir Putin wants to make a pro-Russian government come to power in Bulgaria. He writes that in a September address in Sofia to members of the America for Bulgaria Foundation, Bulgarian President Rosen Plevneliev compared Moscow’s, as he put it, «stealthy undermining aggression toward Bulgaria» to a «Trojan horse» attempt by Russia to penetrate NATO. Russian won’t need to use force in order to establish control over the country. This is the real fear enunciated by President Plevneliev and echoed by other Bulgarian leaders. Many Bulgarians have long had positive feelings about their former fellow members of the Soviet Union. Besides, Bulgaria is dependent on Russian gas, and Moscow’s ability to turn the energy valve off in winter commands the hearts and minds of Bulgarians. 

The survey conducted by Bulgarian Institute of Modern Politics in the period June 26 – July 4 shows that 71, 4% of respondents say no to the plans that envision pre-positioning of US military equipment in Eastern and Central Europe, including in Bulgaria. The «prepositioned» stocks to be stored on allied bases are enough to equip a brigade of 3,000 to 5,000 soldiers. Only 7, 2% supported the idea. It’s not really important how many weapons systems are going to be deployed. What really matters is the fact that US forces will be stationed on the territory of states that were members of Warsaw Treaty Organization. It runs contrary to all the agreements reached during the days of Gorbachev-Yeltsin rule. The host country was not asked but notified. It was done in a rather condescending manner. American military say the decision is sealed and the only thing to discuss is where exactly the equipment will be stored, according to US Army Colonel Steve Warren, director of Pentagon press operations.

As it happened, nobody heard about the plans in the Bulgarian Ministry of Defense. Even Prime Minister Boiko Borisov known for his pro-US stance, was not notified. Why should Americans do it once he is «ours»?

President Plevniev tried to make it look like Washington is expected to ask his consent for deployment. Until now the matter has not been discussed. At the same time he said Bulgaria would act like a responsible NATO member. This position runs contrary to the opinion of his people but he is afraid that somebody overseas would take his cautious attempts to display alleged independence for impermissible freethinking.

Former Foreign Minister Solomon Isaac Passy offered to station in Bulgaria 1400 tanks instead of 14. While on a visit to Washington from July 13 to 17 incumbent Foreign Minister Daniel Mitov said in a servile manner that no other country was as close to Bulgaria as the US and the bilateral relationship is thriving.

Bulgaria assists Ukraine with the rehabilitation of injured punishers who fought in the war zone while tourism from Russia has dwindled by 60% this year. Media has reported on many occasions about Bulgaria providing military aid to Ukraine.

Since some time Western leaders have become reluctant to visit Kiev. They do not want to associate themselves with the regime and what it does. That’s why Petro Poroshenko set much store by the fact that Bulgarian President Rosen Plevneliev paid an official visit to Ukraine. It started with a very symbolic and disgraceful episode. Vigilant supporters of Maidan movement brought down about 200 white-green-red Bulgarian flags. In the dark they took them for Russian tricolor banners. Everything is seen in the context of confrontation with Russia in the contemporary Ukraine.

The guest did not pay attention. He is dry behind the ears and knows how to swallow national pride. Actually the parties did not discuss the bilateral relationship, except making a ridiculous statement about the intent to join efforts in building a bridge across the Danube «in case the European Union provides the funds». President Plevneliev is known as a Russophobe in Bulgaria. During the visit he focused on accusing Russia of violating the Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. He emphasized that Bulgaria supports the EU sanctions against Russia and wants them to continue.

There is a wide gap between this stance and the sentiments of people. The abovementioned survey says 64, 5% of respondents resolutely spoke against anti-Russian sanctions against only 15% supporting them. The sanctions were opposed by people of all ages: the youth subject to ideological brainwashing to larger extent than others (56%) and older respondents (73%). Even among the supporters of the Reformist Bloc, a centre-right electoral alliance in Bulgaria, the idea of sanctions got 37% of support. That’s what Washington is afraid of – the difference of opinion between the government and the people of Bulgaria. That’s what evokes alarm, not the so-called «hand of Moscow».

The White House makes its allies dance to its tune and shoulder the material burden as well. Prime Minister Boiko Borisov acknowledges that the national agricultural sector lost 80 million euros as a result of the sanctions war with Moscow. He wanted the European Union to compensate the loss but was offered only 300 thousand euros. According to Minister of Economy Bojidar Loukarsky, this year the trade turnover with Russia was down by 15% as a result of sanctions. Since last autumn Russians don’t buy real estate in resort areas. Engineering, defense industry and duel-purpose commodities production – all these branches of economy are hurt.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Dairy products, tomatoes and apples from other countries of the European Union destined for Russia ended up in Bulgaria. This process is uncontrolled. They are cheaper than Bulgarian ones due to larger subsidies. As a result, dairy production and livestock farming are on the brink of collapse. Tourism suffers as Russians prefer to go to other places. Many hotels, especially in small urban areas, are empty.

The situation is serious. Boiko Borisov has greatly contributed into frustrating joint projects with Russia, including the South Stream. This time he had to deviate from what President Plevneliev said. According to him, Bulgaria has nothing to do with the Trojan horse. The Prime Minister told in an interview to the first deputy director general of ITAR-TASS agency Michael Gusman in early July that he wanted the US and the EU to iron out the differences with Russia and end the sanctions as soon as possible,.

He said Russia and Bulgaria had two levels of relations – historic ties immune to outside influence and political relations affected by the contemporary events.

Needless to say that Russophobia is a commodity in demand now, but all in all it does not bring profit and is hard to sell. It brings no gains. It’s certainly not an instrument for making a country prosperous.

By the end of 2014 Russian Gasprom said it would cut off gas supplies to Ukraine in a few years. With the South Stream pipeline project cancelled, Europe faces an increasing risk of new gas supply crisis. Slovakia is hardest affected as the route through Ukraine goes to its territory. It is accustomed to stable supplies with transit fees included into the budget. Bulgaria also has problems to face. This country suffered most in the winter of 2009 when gas delivery was temporarily interrupted as a result of Ukraine’s failure to comply with its financial obligations. Serbia and Macedonia are also affected by the cancellation of South Stream. 

SLOVAKIA’S FIСO TAKES A MESSAGE TO MOSCOW

Slovakia is best suited for finding a common language with Moscow as its Prime Minister Robert Fico (unlike Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borisov) enjoys the relationship of personal chemistry with Russian leaders: President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. This spring Fico spoke against the anti-Russian sanctions. Slovak media was happy to report the Prime Minister received warm welcome in Moscow during his visit on June 2. 

Perhaps one of the mission assignments was to provide Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev with details on Eastring, a joint 832 km long link to the Turkish Stream gas pipeline to be built together with Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary. The project was announced at the Riga Eastern Partnership summit. «We offer a project to Russia that should become a joint project of Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and Slovakia with participation of the European Union. This is associated with the Russian-Turkish route where implementation of the project will start in 2016», RT cited him saying after talks with his counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev. The Russian Prime Minister promised to study the plan. In case Bulgaria becomes part of the project, the length of pipeline may be increased up to 1274 km.

It’s hard to believe that Fico invited Russia to join the project without EU consent and backing. Macedonian Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski had to face hard times some time ago as a result of his independent position when he came out in support for the Turkish Stream. There is ground to surmise that the invitation for Russia to join comes from the European Union. Unlike in case of Turkish Stream, Eastring will connect the existing gas infrastructure between Slovakia and Romania/Bulgaria. This will create a major European bidirectional conjunction bringing a great transit potential. The basic principle is diversification of gas sources. The planned list of suppliers was announced at the Riga Eastern Partnership summit with Russia trailing behind after Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Iraq and Cyprus.

EASTRING PIPELINE AS THE ROOT OF THE CONFLICT IN MACEDONIA

The attempts to reduce the dependence on Russian gas supplies have been part of EU strategy in recent years. It wants to receive Russian gas supplies without Russia exerting any influence. It’s not about political clout only – the European Union does not want to take into account the economic interests of Russia as a supplier. The gist of EU policy is defined in The Russian Challenge report published by Chatham House, a London-based think tank. It reads, «EU energy policy should aim to deprive Russia of political leverage in energy markets, rather than to remove Russia from the European supply mix».

If the construction of Eastring were viewed as a goal set by the European Union, then it would explain the hostile attitude of the Brussels and Washington towards the government of Macedonia headed by Nikola Gruevski. An attempt to stage an «orange revolution» (like it happened in Ukraine) took place there in May. These events are linked with the dismissal of FIFA President. Zoran Zaev, the political leader of the Social Democratic Union of Macedonia (SDSM), got strong support from US and European media as he tried to topple the government of Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski. To achieve the goal Zaev provoked a snooping scandal. He leaked tapes of alleged wire-tapped conversations of journalists, religious and opposition leaders allegedly gathered upon the orders of Macedonian government. 

With EU backing Zaev had a formal meeting with Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borisov, the most pro-American leader in the region. As the political crisis hit Macedonia this May, Bulgaria announced the decision to reinforce its border with Macedonia in the aftermath of the Kumanovo terrorist attack, publicly stating that it has to defend itself from possible terrorist infiltration (no matter that Eastern Macedonia has never in its history experienced this problem before) and prepare for the (unlikely) possibility that the 90,000 Bulgarian passport-holders in the country could flee across the border. The goal is to obstruct the construction of Turkish Stream going around Bulgaria through the territories of Turkey, Greece and Macedonia. 

Russia appears to understand well what this strategy is about: Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov put it straight talking to media. According to him, Moscow sees the worsening situation in Macedonia as tied to the country’s refusal of economic sanctions against Russia and its support of constructing the Turkish Stream gas pipeline. «I cannot judge with a final definition, but objectively it turns out that these events in Macedonia are developing on the backdrop of the Macedonian authorities’ refusal to join in the sanction policy against Russia, as well as on the backdrop of its active support that Skopje showed in regard to the planned construction of the Turkish Stream gas pipeline, which many in Brussels and those overseas are against,» Lavrov said during a joint press conference with Serbian Foreign Minister Ivica Dacic in Belgrade on May 15.

ENERGY ISSUE: THE EU’S PYRRHIC VICTORY

Looks like the policy of exerting pressure on Macedonia and the neighboring Serbia practiced by the European Union and the United States yielded results, at least temporarily. Macedonia will participate in the construction of the Turkish Stream gas pipeline, but only after the EU and Russia have reached an agreement on the strategic project, Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski said on May 25. «As a country aiming to join the European community, this is exactly the guidelines we follow when making strategic decisions,» the Macedonian Prime Minister told Press24 online portal in an interview.

Before the June 2-4 visit to the United States where he was scheduled to meet US Vice President Joe Biden, Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic told AP in an interview that his government will accept U.S. calls to reduce dependency on Russian gas. AP reported that «in a major policy shift, the Serbian Prime Minister said his country will accept U.S. calls to reduce dependency on Russian gas by adding an American-backed pipeline that would bring gas to Europe from Azerbaijan». «Regarding energy safety, energy security, we are ready to diversify the sources of gas for Serbia, which is very important for our American friends as well», Vucic said. It’s a Pyrrhic victory for the West. Experts believe that Azerbaijan cannot supply enough gas to substitute Russia. 

Russian expert Sergey Pravosudov, the director of Russian National Energy Institute, told Nezavisimaya Gazeta daily that the Trans Adriatic Pipeline will most certainly fail to satisfy the needs of Serbia. The project’s capacity is 10 billion cubic meters. 10 billion are destined for Italy with Bulgaria and Greece to receive 1 billion cubic meters each. It means that Serbia will get 0, 3 billion at most. Evidently, it will not meet the country’s energy requirements. 

Bulgarian media also blast the anti-Russian policy of PM Borisov. They say that with the projects offered by Russia stymied, Bulgaria got nothing from the European Union, except grants to support non-government organizations. 

According to Bulgarian newspaper Duma, «In 2009 Bulgaria was to turn into an energy hub in the Balkans. There were three projects in works: the Burgas-Alexandroupolis, the South Stream and the nuclear power plant in Belene… Six years have passed. Borisov has been engaged in a fierce fight against the Russian threat. Now what we have is a fig sign with the medium finger that more resembles a one-finger salute» (the fig sight is a mildly obscene gesture used in Slavic culture with two fingers and a thumb meaning refusal or disagreement).

The same opinion is spread in Serbia. The country’s Euro Atlantic or European choice has failed to bring about any economic progress. Take, for example, the neighboring Bosnia. The European Union has actually ruled it through its representatives, including Carl Bildt, a Swedish politician and diplomat who was Prime Minister of Sweden from 1991 to 1994, and former High Representative for the peace negotiations in Bosnia and Herzegovina. He serves as UN Special Envoy for the Balkans at present. This politician is known for his strong anti-Russia sentiments. The EU involvement has ended up in failure. Suffice it to remember the deplorable results of privatization in Bosnia resulting in high unemployment. The Belgrade-based daily Danas reported that Vucic and other Serbian politicians have surreptitiously made a turn to the West. At that it Vucic never said anything about the refusal to import Russian gas; he made a point of the need for «diversification» of sources, the newspaper added. 

To my mind, mutual understanding and dialogue – that’s what is needed to spur the process while the aggressive interference of the European Union should be rebuffed.