Черен лебед

The regulation. So that a higher fee is charged, and the minister from BSP did that, and that everything was good in >> and it goes to some specific companies. Why exactly in them, and not in more. >> It is a licensing regime. Now I am not fully familiar with the topic, but isn't the ministry clearly licensed? They are not even companies, but such organizations that utilize, which are like consortia of several companies, >> which amounts to serious sums. Can the sums be calculated? >> Well, someone had calculated it, that it's about a billion annually, right? Until now, the sums have been, on the one hand, serious, and on the other hand, there is still some commitment that you undertake, and 10 times lower, probably, they were for 100 million. >> Yes. Now, however, they are jumping to a billion. >> Now they are jumping quite daily. Yes. And whether the work and the useful activity are increasing 10 times, I'm not going to >> I'll grab onto the sentence that for a month nothing has been heard about Taki. However, before, remember this sentence, let's turn back the conversation a bit, when you said that you expect Dogan's associates to join Radev. >> Well, no, I'm speculating about that. After all, Dogan was one of the first to congratulate Radev on entering the political arena, right, the presidency, and then Vasil Bozhkov. >> And based on that, I am building such a hypothesis, even more so based on the fact that if the sections in Turkey are reduced to 20, the chances of DPS alone entering parliament may not seem particularly great. Although I am insuring myself that the situation is extremely fluid. Moods today and moods in two months can be completely different. Accordingly, we cannot assume any outcome of these parliamentary elections, as we have a huge black swan, right, such as the former president Radev, right, has spread his wings, whether he will manage to utilize his full potential or not, or on the contrary, right, his result will be very modest. Hardly even the pollsters can try to predict or want to predict it. So yes, most likely no one knows what will happen, but considering that Rumen Radev as president gave the last mandate to DPS, he himself extended a hand. >> Well, these are some nuances. Yes. >> And after all, Dogan, while he was still Ahmed, Dogan, had a home, Saray, and after all, he also had a role in electing Radev at least for the first term. >> Yes, and he is a man of nuances. From nuance to nuance, but yes, indeed, no one knows what will happen. How do you see the PP-DB as a coalition? >> I joked about this with friends today, because we were talking about BSP with them, right, that when we look at BSP, we actually calm down that the situation in PP-DB is not as dramatic as some people want it to be, right. BSP will still have a congress next week, where they will elect their chairman and figure out how to run in the elections. And this [laughter] is practically just before the start of the election campaign. When will these people form lists, when will they elect their national leadership, that's another question, but it's good that [laughter] there's more talk about them, that they have bigger, someone has bigger problems than us. PP-DB again, it's very realistic to predict anything about the final result of these elections. The statement for 121 MPs before New Year's, at the height of the protests, was good, because one must have high goals. And the most complicated will be, right, if they don't have, if we enter the not very likely hypothesis that they will not have 121 MPs. And the interesting thing will be what exactly will be done in the new parliament, right? The clear thing is that if the MPs from GERB and Novo Nachalo are under 80, then the rest should gather a majority for changes in the Supreme Judicial Council, to elect new members from the parliamentary quota, so that the election of a new chief prosecutor can be unblocked in the end. How much he weighs, so much he weighs. From there on, the talks about a government, in my opinion, will be extremely complicated. Especially when we look at the statements at the moment, right, and to some extent the different statements of the leaders of PP-DB, right, General Atanasov is the most extreme, that there can be no cooperation with Radev, while towards the others, they set certain conditions. So this will be a very interesting moment, whether it is even possible to form a government within the next National Assembly. Now, when we look at the parties and the hatred between them, the visible hatred between them in recent years is so public, and it is transmitted to the party supporters, and at one point it becomes very difficult to talk about any coalition with fines or whatever you think of, because they have already insulted each other so much, cursed at all levels from leaders to ordinary voters, that sitting down and talking becomes a great luxury and also a great risk for the parties that are now talking to each other. >> Only that Rumen Radev and PP-DB have not exchanged such insults, and let's say they can sit at a table, but we remember the ideological charlatans. Also, Asen Vasiliev, who said that Rumen Radev is a disgrace. Well, not only last year there were accusations of which parties are getting on the Russian train. Now, I can't imagine PP-DB getting on the Russian train, for example, how that would be interpreted by their supporters, including representatives of PP. Now, Blagomir Kotsev, the mayor of Varna, said that he didn't say exactly that >> towards Rumen Radev, that he is a potential partner. I think I'm quoting him almost literally. However, I'll slightly focus the spotlight on Rumen Radev, because whether there will be a new "assembly", which, in my opinion, will definitively finish PP-DB after the defeat and damage from the first "assembly". But these are huge >> Yes, yes, but that's another topic. Let them think, >> but we still hope to get 121 MPs, so >> let PP-DB think. We, however, should think and look at Rumen Radev a little. Not that he is very surprising with his moves in recent days. But now Rumen Radev came out yesterday at an economic forum. I want to find the exact quote where he announced that we must follow the way the USA, China, and Russia are industrializing. And now, as an economist who understands these topics, can you tell us relatively briefly what is good about Russia's industry? >> Now, I was surprised that he included Russia along with China and the USA, because I have often given the example that the European Union is lagging far behind in innovation, and consequently, we are progressing in deindustrialization, which is not good. Unlike China and the United States, where innovations are happening, only Russia, right, is not a place for innovation at all. Perhaps it hasn't been in the last few decades, right. If we look at all the new technologies that have been implemented in the world in the last 10-20 years, they either happen in China or in the United States, generally speaking, right. Every industry is surprised by the mention. I am not at all surprised by his words about the United States and China, but I am deeply surprised about Russia, because there is industry there. Only, if we look at the prices of oil, let's say, and gas in recent years, right, we have metals that are rising at an incredible pace due to the increase in money supply, due to global uncertainty, and so on. At the same time, we have a war in Gaza, a potential war in Iran, God forbid. And despite all these events, oil remains in place, which is Russia's main export product. And Russia recorded its lowest trade surplus last month in years. And Russia is recording very serious holes, meaning a serious reduction in the current account surplus. That is, the budget deficit is sky-high. Industrial production is falling there. The state of the Russian economy is not an example at all at the moment, right. One used to talk, at least two years ago, that despite the war, they are recording significant GDP growth. This was due to the wartime economy, when the state gives large orders to military factories to produce tanks, planes, right, everything from below. >> Yes, there will be economic growth, but that doesn't lead to an increase in people's well-being in the end. So this geopolitical line in the election campaign will be quite serious, and also after the elections, when it's time to form a majority and Radev's leaning towards Russia, about which we have no doubt, it seems >> there is no surprise here. You said you are surprised, but he said Crimea is Russian. I am surprised that he includes Russia in the group of countries that are industrial champions and innovation champions and so on, because that's how I understood it, and it's not in that group at all. It doesn't sing in the choir there. >> Could this be a way for Radev, with all these messages, to actually win voters from both Vazrazhdane and Velichie, and BSP? Clearly. >> It's entirely possible. Actually, excuse me, to consolidate that space and actually become the sole representative of all these >> Yes. Including today, one of the pollsters said that she expects there to be even four parties in the next parliament, not five. That is, it questions the entry of Vazrazhdane into parliament, which would only happen if Radev drains those votes. For me, his correct strategy would be to stay in the center and not talk too much, right. We will see his interview on Panorama this Friday, today, in fact, because it is broadcast today, so our dear listeners will listen to us. But I don't think he will make many statements, for example, economically, whether he is a supporter of progressive income taxation, for example, which BSP supporters, who nominated him twice for president. Whether he thinks it's good to spend a lot of budget money, to take out many loans. Other such questions. I don't think he will give specific answers to them. These are the important questions until election day, or at least his correct strategy would be so, because if he gives one of the possible answers, he will alienate half of his voters. If he gives the other, he will alienate the other half. >> Only that if you were his advisor, which you are not, he wouldn't listen to you about what you're saying. to stay in the center, I mean, and not to jump with both feet into the pro-Russian camp. I mean the center in terms of economic issues, otherwise he can jump into the pro-Russian camp as much as he wants and probably will. >> Yes, he jumps, he jumps. >> Apparently, the pollsters have assessed that his voters are there, including non-voters. >> Of course, there are obviously many such people in support of this. Information has been circulating for several days. I even downloaded some screenshots here in Bulgarian. >> Screenshots, as they say, >> yes. How the names of Facebook groups with many users of friends of Russia are changing. They are turning into shared travel in Europe, and in one moment, after a few days, they are Rumen Radev, the future prime minister of Bulgaria, or Rumen Radev, his Bulgaria. One is >> it starts as shared travel Bulgaria Western Europe. Then, in 2022, it becomes support for Stefan Yanev and Bulgarian Rise. This was also a project with serious doubts that it was a Russian project. >> It was very, excuse me for interrupting you. Stefan Yanev's stay in parliament was very interesting. He was in a short parliament for a few months and voted for absolutely all pro-NATO things, in the sense of from A to Z. There wasn't a single pro-Russian vote there, which was relatively surprising. >> It was indicated with a different profile. But we will know them by their deeds. That is, many people, not only Stefan Yanev, clearly migrate from role to role, enter from situation >> or take a pose, right, for the purposes of the election campaign and to win votes, but we shouldn't rest on our laurels, right, >> because in the end, if you are a friend of Russia, I am quoting the Facebook group here, whether you are a politician, you will have to fulfill that friendship, to feed it, as they say, and to maintain it. And this requires certain actions, which we have seen over the years, which have been carried out, including by GERB and by GERB. >> Just to continue, let's go back to the Lukoil delegation, not only GERB has carried them out. >> Yes, and by PP. >> If we go back to Ivan Kostov, who sold it? >> Exactly. Exactly. And we can also go back to the 19th century, right? Who in the 19th century, probably. We don't need to go that far, but still, among the living politicians who are still alive. >> Exactly. Exactly. That's why I say, among the living politicians. I was against going back to Stambolov. >> Just to go back, to see these transformations, because it is clear that they are moderated and bought and fueled with deliberate intent. This is not an authentic group that suddenly does authentic things because people are very interested in one thing or another. It is clear that through such groups, public consciousness, public opinion is deliberately manipulated. David, a mass of followers is accumulated here, and then, right, they start to be fed something into their heads. Exactly. So, let me tell you what has been fed over the years. In 2022, Stefan Yanev and Bulgarian Rise. Then it passed again for shared travel. The political times were a little less turbulent. It passes through used car parts. And it lands on Rumen Radev, the new prime minister of Bulgaria. Now, however, if you look at the date on which this happened, it is also very interesting. Regarding how long Rumen Radev has been preparing to leave the presidency, the date on which this last transformation happened is August 18, 2025, that is, a few months ago. There is another one like this, just to give a nuance. The group was created in '23 and is called "Bulgaria and Russia: Brotherly Nations". Then it was renamed "Support for Russia, I Join". Then it became "Brotherly Nations" again, and since June, this looks unnatural, there is some mistake, it became "The Future of Bulgaria with President Rumen Radev". >> Mhm. >> Yes, >> yes. And maybe if they change roles and the elections pass, the group will become something like "Selling a Boiler" again or >> or something funny, humorous. >> Well, we observed that with groups related to Delyan Peevski, right, some >> it happened in 2013, these Bulgarian completely random groups, right, suddenly become politically oriented when they accumulate a certain number of followers, for example, 50 >> and with a lot of pro-Russian propaganda over the years since 2013. Not only not only for Radev. I'm talking about over the years since 2013, when amidst flowers and good morning wishes with a blurred picture of a cup of coffee and some wish, there is also such active pro-Russian propaganda. >> Well, in the end, these are the least pretentious voters, right? If they fall for Russian propaganda, they will fall for any propaganda, right, because the propaganda there is of the type, right, Russia will destroy London in 30 seconds. Things like that. The seven most powerful weapons in the world have been invented so far >> Chemtrails, flat earth, and so on. >> Only, only, I remember something. During his first presidential campaign in 2016, Rumen Radev, at a meeting, I remember the video, even though it's been how many years? 10 years since then, >> Rumen Radev at a meeting with voters, obviously then a candidate for BSP. Apparently, some organized meeting in something like a community center, and he is asked a question from the audience: "What will you do? >> With whom >> to save us and help us not to be sprayed with chemicals by planes flying over Bulgaria." And he says he will conduct an investigation. >> Well, what else can he say at that meeting? >> What can he say? He's a pilot, and he knows physics, and he knows what happens. If you enter the role, >> when a plane flies, chemical processes, >> meet voters in a village, whose level of thinking you don't know, right. If they ask you about chemtrails, you'll say I'll conduct an investigation, I'll do an analysis for six months. >> I think that no person who can be informed and opened up should be underestimated. >> There was a video from before with Kostadinov, who, right, laughed at people who don't believe in vaccines, and then [laughter] took up that topic. >> Yes. No, I know why I'm bringing it up? To realize what kind of omnivorousness we are dealing with and how many absolutely public compromises can be made in order to please a community of people. That's why I think that his advisors would advise him not to take any positions until the elections themselves, because each person projects into their head what they want Rumen Radev to be, >> right? Some want him to be a staunch Russophile, others an Orbán, a third something else. For example, to be friends with Xi in China >> or to save Bulgaria from Peevski. Some want to put all the rich people in prison, others progressive income taxation, a third want to abolish all taxes. Will he manage to remain in this state of saying nothing and being omnivorous to attract everyone until the elections? >> On the one hand, it doesn't seem possible, on the other hand, however, how long has it been since there were leader debates where one leader would pressure another leader to give concrete answers on certain issues, right? Can you imagine, for example, if five parties enter parliament now, there is a debate between Radev, Borissov, Peevski, Kostadinov, and someone from our side from these >> Does the public want that? Because the public wants another savior. People who are looking for a savior in the face of one person, one individual, certainly don't delve into the details of an election program, how the economy will develop, what the taxes will be. They want someone to save them from their poverty, without clarity on how it happens. >> That's why debates are for, because within an hour you can form an opinion, right, who your savior is, so to speak, and who is the candidate you will vote for. Of course, it's probably less than 1% of people who read election programs, and mainly competitors, to find a weakness in your election program. >> No, I meant something else, that when you are looking for a savior in the face of one person and >> you close your eyes and stop thinking and vote emotionally. Yes. >> Exactly. And and that this person, when he is ready to give you everything you ask for, including that, a pilot, >> yes, yes, to say and conduct an investigation whether we are being sprayed with chemicals. A military pilot, who, right, was most likely very good at his profession, but I don't understand this affinity for military people. In the end, Bulgaria has many challenges, and to check the state of a person who, in the end, has been in state service his whole life, and the state and the army, including, are not at some world level, right. >> That's one point. The other is, how is it possible to say everything they want to hear from you? This is concerning, because when you are capable of doing it, and publicly, you can be capable of many other things. >> Yes. And you are capable of speaking differently to any audience, so that it appeals to the respective audience. >> Which is an observation of people who observe Rumen Radev more closely, that he has a different language for internal use, a different one for various European and other institutions. By the way, we have analyzed his statements in "Dneven Red", and I will agree with you. that he, everything he says, can be understood in various ways, because there is a lack of specificity, and everyone can recognize it according to their own prejudices or beliefs. >> Yes. If you think he is the savior, you will weigh every sentence he says through what he wanted to say, and he wanted to say what you think. >> Is that so? >> And he usually says in eight minutes for every audience and for every ear. Yes. But if he can >> you take out what is valuable to you. >> You hear absolutely classic what you want to hear, >> if you want. But can I bring you back to PP-DB, which exist as a coalition? We don't know what Radev will be yet. He is both this and that, as we clarified. And how do you look at this, at this categoricalness of Asen Vassilev, people like Daniel Oreler and Yavor Bozhankov not finding a place on the lists, even of coalition partners, not just of PP, as a requirement that was set. >> Well, this is Asen Vassilev's style, which, right, has been developed over the years, so I am not particularly surprised by this categoricalness. He, right, takes a position and waits for the others to blink, because he is known for the fact that he doesn't blink very often. [laughter] But this, even in a figurative sense, is a fact, and he imposes himself like that. His other favorite way, from my observations, is to announce to the media a decision that the coalition has not yet made as a final decision. From there on, the other partners are a bit in an awkward position. Usually, these are decisions that are later adopted, so there haven't been major problems and consequences from this, but this is his style. Perhaps they teach them this at Harvard, which, obviously, has been winning so far. >> So, what do you see in this ultimatum, really? Because he doesn't give Democratic Bulgaria a choice, which, after all, >> which we saw are not in agreement. This can also be interpreted as a basis for negotiations. For me, the problem is rather that he announced it publicly to the media, because usually such conversations, negotiations for lists, he even went as far as to announce to the media that there would be the same ratio for members of sectional election commissions, which I don't remember being publicly discussed in any party or coalition. But he uses, in my opinion, the fact that he says it to the media to gain additional points in this game between the parties. But we can also interpret this as a basis for negotiations, which can be finalized in one way or another. >> Can it be interpreted as a readiness on the part of Asen Vassilev to dissolve this coalition after all? >> Well, I wouldn't want it to go that far. After all, he set the goal of 121 MPs, right. If this coalition dissolves within the next few weeks, this goal will clearly hang in the air. So I hope there is no such prerequisite. >> And you said a little while ago, and Ani said, to remember the thought about Taki, that for a month no one has heard anything about him, and you say that's strange. Tell us more, because he, Taki, is a bit mythologized. >> No one has seen him. Yes, we have heard of him. >> Various people have seen him, but we are not among them. And he still has a career that is quite colorful, from a criminal from Lyulin, a thief, to a criminal of international caliber, and finally to become an economic factor in the country. >> All sorts of rumors are heard, right? The last thing I was told was about the RICO law in the United States. It's something related to financial fraud, but >> what, that he is sanctioned >> or >> it's not a sanction, it's a case, >> that there is some case, yes. So it will be interesting in this direction whether any information will come out in the coming days or months. Now he spoke about Taki and suddenly went silent. Is that what you're saying? >> Well, he was a candidate, right, for certain districts for the Sofia waste management, right, I think for other cities too. Suddenly, his companies won nothing >> and they are not appealing, right, on that >> it was somehow expected that they wouldn't win. But why >> why >> why aren't they appealing >> and and why is there no pressure from the majority in the municipal council for his companies, right, there isn't one in practice? >> What happened? It's interesting. Well, we don't know >> assumptions. >> Maybe he is abroad, not of his own free will. >> Mhm. That is >> no, I don't know, only rumors that I wouldn't want to speculate on air. >> Beyond the rumors, someone said: "But now I can't find it, but officially in "Dneven Red" in an interview, that there is a conflict between Taki and Peevski. Now, I don't know, I'm not very familiar with the background, right, after all, Taki is considered to hold the system. In the sense that he is an economic factor. >> It's possible, but I don't have any evidence of such a conflict. It's possible, of course. >> And if we are still on foreign territory with a very important Bulgarian sign, and I would like to use your expertise, the Bulgarian public, the mass audience, perhaps three or four weeks ago, heard for the first time about MERCOSUR. They started asking what that is. It's an abbreviation. You will tell us exactly what is behind it. That is, this is a big, big deal, which the European Union has been trying to achieve for 20 years. >> Introduce a little, tell us what the deal is, a little background, because it seems to me that the topic is still not popular, but it is extremely important in this context, in which Europe, the European Union is bombarded by both the USA and Russia >> and, right, with threats of imposing tariffs on European goods. This is an extremely important topic, >> because all pro-Russian parties jumped against this deal. >> Can you tell us about the deal with India? >> What is it about? Because let's not look at it black and white and not condemn everyone who doesn't understand and is worried. >> Globally speaking, if we look at Europe, there is currently a problem that from its main market in the United States, last summer Trump imposed and threatens repeatedly with new tariffs. Europe is obliged to diversify its markets, that is, not to be dependent on one market, to win its economic independence, so to speak. That is, if someone imposes tariffs on it, it will have the opportunity to sell in other markets, and this will not have a significant impact on the European economy. That's why it's important, as Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau said in Davos, it's important for us to conclude trade agreements for trade liberalization with the main markets. He concluded such an agreement with China. There was such a delegation in Canada two weeks ago, literally, right? Europe is talking with MERCOSUR, which are four countries from South America: Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay. Bolivia also became a member last year, but has not yet joined the agreement with >> This is a conversation that has been going on between Europe and these four countries for many years. Tell us a little more. And here we are talking about, right, the elimination of tariffs on most goods. And we are talking about why these conversations have been going on for many years. Naturally, the strong lobbies of agricultural producers in France and elsewhere are against it, because who, right, who receives huge subsidies, if you ask him do you want competition or not, he will say yes, I really want competition, right, from cheaper goods from South America. No one will say that. And consequently, until now, there was no such political climate. What kind of exchange are we talking about? What kind of products? Well, from there. Yes, yes, yes. Let's explain it like that, >> right, >> right? It is said that Europe's main export product there are German cars, which is not all. We also have chemical metals and so on, industry. >> And from there will come. >> From there will probably come mainly industrial goods, right? That's why farmers are on the sidelines throughout Europe, food. >> I looked at, right, our balance with Brazil, because there are no data for other countries. We really have a negative balance with them. For example, we import goods worth 1 billion BGN for 25 years, and export for 60 or 70 million, that is, about 1 to 15, something like that. But the goods we import from there, the main one is coffee, which, our coffee producers will not protest against [laughter] against imports from Brazil. We also import other agricultural products. We will probably import Argentine wine and Argentine beef at more favorable prices, for which our wine and beef producers may be concerned. Only, I can't imagine how the shelves in the stores will be full of Argentine wines, >> because as far as I understand, there are some bypasses to protect domestic production, European ones, and there are quotas, right, that are imposed, so you can't import millions. Radan, who is an MEP, informed on the topic, because he voted, of course, for this deal, >> ah, who says that agricultural goods are 13% of the total deal >> and that in no way should >> yes, but they are the most sensitive, >> yes, and there are many bypasses and extremely many measures have been taken so that the horrors that you are talking about, that the farmers are shouting about, do not happen. The principle is that farmers. I haven't heard a year in which they said they were very happy about something. And the other thing is, if you ask them if they want competition, even 13% or less, they will say they don't want it, right. It is a certain risk for them. Is it beneficial for Bulgaria, is it beneficial for the European Union to have such a deal? >> The pleasant answer is yes. It is definitely beneficial for Bulgaria and for the European Union, because, as I explained, we need to diversify our markets, we need to trade. This will make Europe stronger. >> This will make Europe stronger and richer, most importantly, because okay, German cars will be exported to Brazil and Argentina, but we have dozens of workers here who work in auto parts factories >> who export these auto parts to German car manufacturers. That is, >> the benefit for Bulgaria will be absolutely direct, right? These auto parts factories will not be closed. >> Now, if we expand the topic, why German auto parts manufacturers have been suffering in recent years, because there are over-regulations from Brussels regarding this. There was a danger that from 2035, only electric cars could be sold in the European Union. I think this was postponed or canceled. Yes. by the new majority in the European Parliament, that is, the EPP and everyone to the right of the EPP. These over-regulations are actually a burden on the European automotive industry, but in the end, new markets would be beneficial for it, as well as the agreement with India, by the way, where people say that they read comments, but the Indians are very poor, they live on $2 an hour. Yes, but they have about 20% middle class. 20% in India is 300 million people. Yes, with which Ursula von der Leyen boasted a lot with this agreement, the mother of all deals, who followed the typical mocking tone of the obviously offended >> master of deals Donald Trump on social media. The question is that everyone who doesn't want

Europe, the European Union to be strong, >> they don't want such deals either. Fine, could there be a smuggled emancipation of Europe from the United States, for example, >> without being able to take a definitive stance, because I, like most people, understood about this car deal and for India, I take an absolutely definitive decision. >> Yes, but I cannot express myself definitively, nor am I in the details. Ah, I don't know, but I heard arguments that in fact there is an export to these countries of various chemical industries, which is chemistry related to grain production, it will be the production of various crops, which will then return in the form of some types of food without this high control that Europe has in Europe. Besides this agreement, is this true or is it some conspiracy? >> So, the phytosanitary control at the borders of the European Union is not affected by this agreement in any way. That is, if we have control over our goods, European goods, the same will apply to South American goods. There is no difference. That is, at the border, when the grain from Argentina arrives by ship, let's say, or the beef, it will be examined in the same way. Now, you know, the problem with our border, you know, which Hristanov had revealed to Kapitan Andreev, Taki, and I don't know who else, that it is breached, this control exists, but that is our problem, which we must solve, and not, you know, because of the Kapitan Andreev border, which is breached, to stop our agreement with America. No, no, I am just asking about the risk, you know, because in fact this is one of those points that catches a lot of >> our shoddy institutions, >> that things will return here that we wouldn't want to eat. >> Well, if money is thrown at Kapitan Andreev to let in things we wouldn't want to eat, it's probably possible, but we can't stop, you know, the liberalization of entire sectors in trade between Europe and South America because of that. By the way, South America is also not a small continent. These four countries have a population of nearly 300 million people, and people who don't travel will say, you know, it's a poor region. But I don't think Brazil, Uruguay, well, Argentina and Paraguay are not that poor countries at the moment. If you compare them to Bulgaria, the difference is not that big, but there are 300 million. How do you explain that a certain circle of not many Bulgarian MEPs voted against? They are Volgin, Hristo Petrov, better known as Hazarta, and Elena Yoncheva? >> Well, we read Hazarta's post, you know, that he spoke with agricultural producers and they are clearly against this agreement, and that's why he voted like that. Now, you know, every MEP has the right to vote as they see fit, but I believe, you know, that his vote was incorrect, you know, I can say that, and that it's good for a person to be an MEP, you know, not to listen only to those who are on one side of the barricade, to still have advisors, to ask colleagues about certain pros and cons of every agreement, every vote, especially such an important one, which was practically hanging by a thread. It passed by 10 votes. >> Exactly, >> right? >> That is, it didn't pass by 10 votes. >> It passed to ask the European Court, it was blocked by 10 votes, right? That is, if six deputies had voted the other way, it would not have passed. >> So Bulgaria's contribution in this case is significant. It could block this deal for about two years, until it goes through all the, >> if seven of our deputies had voted against the agreement. That is, if these seven had voted for it, it would have passed. That is, when someone says that Bulgaria is an unimportant country and nothing depends on it, because we are small, poor, and so on, well, in this case, something depended on us. >> Now, I don't, I don't accuse the deputies at all, you know, from Vazrazhdane, from Peevski, and so on. They are No, Peevski actually, they are conservatives. The conservatives voted for the agreement, >> but Peevski's deputies voted against. >> Exactly. Peevski's deputies did not vote with their group, they voted against the agreement. After all, Yoncheva comes from the socialist party. It's still not determined. >> The socialists were for the agreement. Well, >> so she has an identity crisis, so why did Peevski make his people vote against? >> I don't know if he made them, you know, I don't have information, because MEPs usually don't ask their leaders about everything on how to vote. This is an extremely important topic. I cannot go into such details about why Peevski made them do that, but still, you know, their voters are from the more agricultural regions of Bulgaria. Maybe that's what was considered, or his deputies considered that. I have no idea, >> because from Vazrazhdane it's clear. In the sense, all pro-Russian parties everywhere in Europe with points that weaken the European Union, they will support it. >> Yes. And accordingly, everything, >> that, you know, their ideology that the European Union is evil, you know? >> But otherwise, they exist freely in the center of this evil. Well, what should they do now? They fight evil from within. From within, from within, from within. Yes. So. >> That is legitimate for me. >> No, I just imagine what would happen if similar anti-Russian parties existed within the Russian Duma and what would happen to them. And otherwise, this evil, which is anti-democratic, censoring, and so on, we don't get to other countries, but I'm just trying to somehow understand, you know, generals and so on. Well, from time to time, even in the Iranian parliament, there are debates and different opinions. By the way, I haven't heard of such a thing in China and Russia. >> Do you know which party and which name we haven't mentioned even once in the past hour and 10 minutes, I think, since the recording started. >> Which one? >> Boyko Borissov. >> Aha. It's as if GERB on this terrain in our conversation, at this moment, when the topics are dominated by the day's events, >> well, it's no longer a black swan, you know, as he said, he's not an elephant in the room, because Karbovski is fatter than him or something like that. >> Yes, I haven't watched that interview with Karbovski. >> No, I only read that line, you know, how Boyko Borissov was offended by the elephant. >> Yes, obviously not knowing that it's a metaphor. Yes. And what does it mean to have an elephant in the room? >> Yes. Or an elephant in a china shop? >> According to Karbovski, I listened to that. It's Rumen Radev, the elephant in the room. That is, obviously, we are talking, we are talking about Rumen Radev. He's everywhere. >> Yes. >> But why aren't we talking about GERB? They are the leading political force according to sociological agencies. We walked around with everyone else, but not with >> Well, what can we say about them? They are like a party that has already merged, you know, with Peevski, with a vassal, you know, one feudal lord, you know, some of their deputies and leading figures seem to be trying to break free from that role and perhaps form some kind of rebellion within the party, which, you know, at this stage, as long as Sarafov is the chief prosecutor, cannot happen. Because, you know, if we think, if we consider that Peevski's power passes through the chief prosecutor's office and through the KPK and so on, you know, then the KPK's functions are now divided with the National Audit Office, where the chief >> Commission for Combating Corruption is, I'll say. >> Yes. >> And as long as Sarafov is the chief prosecutor, Borissov will not make any drastic moves regarding Peevski. Otherwise, he might want to make such moves very much. The question is whether he feels threatened that he will be dethroned from the first, perhaps from the second place, because this, ah, this marathon of interviews, given that Boyko Borissov hasn't given interviews for 10 years, probably. >> Yes, he has given 10 hours, has he given a total of that much, three interviews of three hours each. Yes. Now it's clear that on specific platforms, let's say, for Dazhdo Volgin, who defend Radev, these Nashkov and Karbovski >> and Karbovski, who are pro and Capital, who are also a bit, well, that interview wasn't given, but still, you know, Capital, you know, if Boyko told them, let's say, to do an interview with you, he wouldn't say no, of course. Why, in your opinion? >> Well, because it is, they are a media, in the sense, you know, it's normal, besides, they have invited him for a long time, so it's completely normal for a media outlet to invite. No, no, it's >> the leader of the largest party according to sociologists. >> It's not a reproach that there is such an interview. But how was that interview conducted? It's the same for others. >> No. And by whom? Ah, >> also. >> Yes, yes, exactly. And by whom and how, you know, because how it was conducted, I think it depends on who conducted it. >> No, here in this case, when I say by whom, still the position of an interviewer will be from business. >> No, still, you know, I don't want to get into that topic. I like Capital, you know, I was a reporter at Dnevnik, I like Galya and Ivo Stanchev too, the two people who conducted the interview, and I think they asked quite reasonable questions, but I don't want to go into detail. Yes, I It's not the goal to throw you towards that, but the question, rather, my question was whether Boyko Borissov is perhaps worried, since he goes and visits platforms like Karbovski's, for example, which openly promotes pro-Russian narratives, the pro-Russian talking points are quite instructive and successful there for years. Well, look, he is most likely worried, you know, because in the end, we don't have new sociologies that will show where Radev's party stands, and perhaps in the next few weeks we won't have such >> or there are sociologies that we don't know what they are >> or there are sociologies that we don't know what they are, or at least we only hear what they are, and we don't hear that GERB is in first place, which, you know, could be a serious problem for him, >> because 10 hours of talking now, true, to an audience that you have chosen yourself and obviously in a comfortable environment. >> But I just want to open a parenthesis regarding Karbovski, that when Karbovski was on TV7, during the period when TV7 was the television of the government and he hosted the show Direct, if I'm not mistaken, many people from GERB went there. So, Boyko Borissov going to Karbovski is not some miracle of miracles. >> Yes, there is. 10 years later it's a miracle. It doesn't matter at all. This is not an environment for him where he doesn't feel comfortable. >> He's not entering for the first time and doesn't feel comfortable. >> Yes. So. So. I agree. >> In the sense that this is not something exceptional. >> It is exceptional because he is visiting at the moment, because at the moment Karbovski's platform is extremely pro-Russian, including easily refutable things are said there. I haven't observed Karavski's platform, so it's probably true, but, you know, >> which was also not foreign to Borissov, >> but in the end Borissov also goes to Karbovski's pro-Russian themes and to Capital, which, you know, are the exact opposite of >> as he says, he bets on black and red with Dachkov. >> Well, he's watching what Radev is doing, maybe, you know? Radev bets on all colors, not just black and red. >> No, Mira is right. We have talked here and in this podcast on radio television about the demonstration through words, how much of a Euro-Atlanticist I am and how much of a European I am. At the same time, actions, for example, regarding the construction of Balkan Stream, speak of the exact opposite, and we have commented on it many times, that this de facto frees Putin's hands to attack Ukraine. >> The construction of this stream. >> Yes. >> But when talking about >> stream, as the Russians say. [laughter] >> Well, yes. stream, which to this day. >> Speaking of Borissov's attempt to position himself, I was very impressed by an agreement with one of the employer organizations, Bright, which is related to the IT business, and in fact, Iliya Krastev as a representative of Bright, Borissov, and Tomislav Donchev, who probably knows Iliya Krastev and brought him, gathered. >> Yes. What do you see in >> Well, he's positioning himself in black and red, after all, Bright, you know? This photo was from Friday, I think. On Monday, Iliya also took a picture with Smir >> Bulgaria and Bozhidar Bojanov. They were late again. Well, no, [laughter] in the sense, I don't know if they were late or if that was the schedule of this employer organization, which they made a wolf trap for last year, you know, the new government, when they didn't let them into the test, even though they met all the conditions, you know, for that. That is, they didn't enter as a regular employer organization. >> Now, why are they welcomed so warmly in GERB? >> Ah, probably. Borissov this time, I hope, you know, has promised them, actually, not promised them, but to work according to the letter of the law. That is, if an organization meets the conditions to be part of that test, it must be allowed to it, you know? >> You mean that the last GERB government, DPS, and partners did not allow them. >> Yes. And that, despite the rules that said that if you have so many companies, so many employees, and so on, you must be allowed. That is, could this step by Borissov and GERB be an attempt to emancipate himself from DPS from the new beginning and return to an older GERB from 2009, which claimed that with this type of business it is so >> Well, we started from Dogan's niches, you know. This could be a niche for Borissov, you know, that he has a great desire to emancipate himself. He may have the desire. The question is whether he has the opportunity. Ah, and, you know, I wouldn't bet, you know, on this emancipation happening, at least until the Supreme Judicial Council and the chief prosecutor are changed, and probably many other regulators in Bulgaria, who were, by the way, appointed last year. Just like that, in no time, >> for the next seven. >> Yes. And what do you think would change for Boyko Borissov if the chief prosecutor were changed? >> Well, if there are indeed, as is heard, cases against him that are being held in abeyance and that can be activated at any time, then, you know, these cases could probably be activated again, but then it wouldn't depend on Delyan Peevski or someone else specific, but on, I don't know, in the sense, you know, the whole structure of the prosecution is such that everything depends on the chief prosecutor, and unfortunately, >> despite repeated attempts over the years, >> for constitutional changes, there is already a prosecutor who can investigate the chief prosecutor, you know, >> whose term has already passed and he didn't do much, but >> and didn't investigate him. Yes. >> But my point is, whether I'm still following that picture of Iliya Krastev and Bright, who was in GERB and then went to Yes. Bulgaria. Could this be a sign of where a future coalition might be sought? Who would be with whom? >> Now, everyone can try to lobby for any coalitions, you know, but it's too early and [laughter] a new coalition, in my opinion, is it possible to be formed? Not for the second, for the third time. >> In my opinion, there is no chance of such a thing. Besides, there won't be enough votes, you know, most likely. I don't think such a coalition is >> again >> again >> for the umpteenth time >> at least for the third time I can think of. >> If we count the Reformist Bloc, then >> let's count it. Yes. >> Well, shouldn't we count it? >> Well, I don't know >> where the counting starts. >> The counting starts from Stambolov, as [laughter] let's concentrate on the living, and if you both agree, let's make a sandwich and close our meeting at the end, and let's go back to the beginning, and yes, if you want, we love to bet here, for Maria or for Andrey. Now tell me who do you think will be elected. No, because there are more people tomorrow. >> The National Audit Office is coming up tomorrow, on Friday. Why Glavchev? Glavchev will say yes, probably not. I am for that former MP from Ataka, who is the deputy chairman of the Audit Office. I don't know her name, but she will be the deputy. >> Why are you for her? I must admit, by the way, that I don't even remember this name, and I can't recall the name. I'm joking, of course. I'm not for >> But no, it could really be her. >> Yes. >> No one knows anything about her. >> Well, yes, absolutely. A black swan >> from Vazrazhdane, you say. >> Like the MP from Ataka used to be, she wasn't in Vazrazhdane. They, you know, Ataka nominated quotas for Peevski. >> That's right, that's right. >> When they were in that coalition with the Patriotic Front, or whatever, all the ministers of Ataka were actually ministers of PES. >> Not just ministers, members of regulators, everything >> you know. Volen sold himself, you know. >> Yes, yes, yes. And he, by the way, later admitted, confessions to Sasho Dikov, Volen Siderov, about how he was forced to issue a false document stating that he had work experience in his television for Koshulkov, so that Koshulkov could become >> director of BNT, and so on until today, long after his term expired. >> Do you mean Silvia Kadreva? >> Margarita Nikolova. >> Yes, >> listen now what it says about her. Yes, >> yes. Madam, even >> did she also work for 15 years for the well-being of the people? >> Now I'll tell you. More than 40 years of professional experience in finance, accounting, and public control, with work inextricably linked to the establishment of effective mechanisms for accountability, transparency, and good governance in public sectors. >> That's why this woman shouldn't be a caretaker prime minister? >> In my opinion, she's top. >> Yes. >> And here further, from 2001. This is the official biography in the National Audit Office. I opened it to see. >> 2001-20, she successively held the position of financial director in various state institutions in the State Agency for Youth and Sports. Ministry of Youth, here we have Delyan Kamak. Ministry of Youth and Sports. Executive Agency for Fisheries and Aquaculture. Here is >> she is not far behind Filipova. >> Yes, yes, yes. But >> even further than "fish under a stone". Because Filipova moves more or less in the same sectors. Please. >> Here it jumps. Well, >> here we have a very key person in the Ministry of Labor and Social Policy, in the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works. Oh, >> well, she has [laughter] covered all sectors. So. >> This is the person, because >> I am for her. So >> Oh, and I am here too. >> Yes. Firmly yes. You will turn out to be prophets and >> and then they will beat me, Vladislav will turn out to be a prophet >> he will say yes, this woman. Let's just >> just a little more >> just don't let the yellow media come out with a headline that Vladislav Panev supports this >> I think all our listeners understand that this is a deep, I hope not, I hope not, a bitter irony >> yes >> oh something very key >> under the coat of arms even >> not even under the coat of arms, even plus the person, he is unrecognizable. He looked like that then, as no one else does now. But please, here I want to read you something key. >> From 2010 until her election as deputy chairman of the National Audit Office, which was last year, so that's 15 years, >> she was the financial director of the Bulgarian National Television. >> Here >> that. But this woman really has no sector she hasn't illuminated. This woman, I specifically didn't even realize she had been anywhere. She was in three parliaments. Everything >> and she was a parliamentarian >> MP from >> the 42nd and 44th from Ataka, even >> it doesn't say from Ataka. Deputy Chairman of the Committee on Budget and Finance. So she is Yordan Tsonev's right hand. >> Yes. Yes. >> She reads Yordan's, Dancheto Tsonev's, thoughts. >> And where will we compare her with Andrey Gyurov? >> Well, yes. where will we compare her, and by the way, the moment this woman enters and leaves the presidency, everyone will say she is an ideal, enthusiastic woman, she has an expert appearance because she has an expert appearance and immediately, this is the real, here, this is the person to play, I accidentally paid attention to >> you did very well, let's tell people who the real "Delyan Kamak" is, the fish under the stone is not Filipova >> Filipova is for show, she is for what >> what was that woman's name >> wait, I forgot again, Margarita Nikolova, deputy chairman of the National Audit Office, Delyan Kamak. >> Remember, Margarita Nikolova. I'm betting, what are you betting here? >> We're not betting anything, but then we point fingers, and the one who lost is ashamed with a bowed head. >> But here there is another one with his head held high [laughter] >> Okay. But why, then, for the last time? Why not the other deputy, Silvia Kadreva? What is her biography, >> which I beg you. Now here we have a master's degree in bibliography, librarian, >> not from Sofia University, from the Faculty of Philosophy, however. >> She started working at the National Audit Office in '99, started from the bottom. There is a lot of expert work here, I won't read it. >> But she was only at the National Audit Office. >> No, it doesn't work, it doesn't work. No, no, it doesn't work. >> She was a member of the Commission for Combating Corruption and Confiscation of Legally Acquired Property in 2018. So, in my opinion >> she has chances. >> She has serious chances. >> Yes. >> I'm betting on Margarita Nikolova. Nikolova. >> You managed to remember her name after all. White >> Nikolova. >> Yes, yes, yes. >> Well, one has glasses, the other doesn't. >> Who has glasses? >> Nikolova. >> Well, we're for her. [laughter] >> She looks wiser. >> Absolutely. She looks very expert. >> Yes. Still, I want to emphasize, let's not offend the women in any way, you know, especially these two ladies. I don't at all >> you know, she has rich experience, but I believe, you know, that this is the official part [laughter] I believe that they will not be independent in the >> formation of the cabinet. >> That is, there will be a lot of influence from Mr. Peevski when they propose a cabinet, especially the Minister of Interior to President Yotova, if it comes to that, God forbid. Ah, I categorically consider this an absolutely hypothetical scenario, because while all commentators in the studios here say Andrey Gyurov is PP, Maria Filipova is Peevski, Slavchev is GERB. >> For these two, no one says anything. No one has any time left for a person, like us, they will be summoned at the last moment. >> Well, they are tomorrow. >> The last two are them, even after Glavchev. >> Yes, yes. This is This is a bit like Goritsa Kozhareva, when people heard her name. We agreed to Glavchev, the man was from somewhere and was the Minister of Foreign Affairs. No, it's not that we agreed, you know? But >> I mean as a society. So Dimitar Glavchev was the Minister of Foreign Affairs, people and >> while he was prime minister. >> While he was prime minister. And besides, Bulgaria even wanted him to withdraw his position on Srebrenica. >> On Srebrenica, yes. When a person appeared there, a Bulgarian, a Bulgarian woman, and her name we should remember, who said that we will change our position on Srebrenica, because they had promised something to >> she, by the way, did not withdraw it, >> which she often does, I think she is no longer employed in the service she was in, and >> certainly not part of the household book. >> Probably such behavior does not suggest being part of Glavchev's household book. From Glavchev's time, many things have happened, so I think it's for >> from the old times. from Glavchev's [laughter] time. >> Well, but >> so Margarita Nikolova, remember, with 40 years of professional experience, not like Filipova with 15. >> Filipova also has professional experience, 15 years she worked for the well-being of the people. >> And since they will listen to us tomorrow, we are recording on Thursday evening, so the episode will be released on Friday. This will be the D-day when it will become clear how many more yeses or nos. We will hear from the National Audit Office. So it will be interesting to hear this prognostic podcast without knowing what will happen. A cruel, cruel search for the National Audit Office. Their website will explode, all while the world is going tomorrow, Mrs. Nikolova, and saying. I >> I don't assume there is such an option. >> The National Audit Office says no. >> Yes. >> The National Audit Office cannot function without me. This is a very responsible job. I think she will take responsibility, >> as she has taken it for the last 40 years. >> Yes. >> Okay. I took responsibility >> by the way, she is elected for the 25th year under this constitution. That is >> she knows that this is a hypothetical possibility and she cannot escape responsibility, since she agreed to take this post. And now, I tried to say that I took responsibility before Mr. Panev, our conversation was supposed to last an hour. It's lasting more than an hour and a half, I think, because it's fun. >> And if you want, while we're on a fun note, because we are very capable of going in a direction that doesn't end with a smile. We are on a fun note. >> Ah, so if you want, here on the fun part, on betting, waiting for news from the presidency. Thank you very much to Vladislav Panev for being a guest in our latest episode of Television on Radio. >> It was a great pleasure. >> Thank you, really. >> We thank you. I also thank you. I think it turned out to be an interesting conversation, educational. [music]