In 1932-33, the Soviet authorities subjected millions of Ukrainians to hunger death for refusing to join collective farms and accept the forced collectivization of their land. Then, as now, Stalin and Putin find the same justification for their atrocities and crimes—Ukrainian nationalists.
Ninety years ago, Soviet propaganda denied the existence of the forced famine and its victims in the “breadbasket” of the USSR, an event historically known as the “Holodomor,” which has been recognized by dozens of countries as genocide. Today, Kremlin propaganda denies the crimes committed by Russian troops in Ukraine, while the law punishes anyone who refers to Putin’s actions as a “war” instead of the “special operation” it is labeled as.
How Ukrainians and Russians will forgive each other in the next hundred years is uncertain. The Russian people cannot bear the sins of their dictators, yet they share in the guilt for the victims and the tragedy of the Ukrainians.
Because around 80 percent of the population supports Putin’s war and believes in the propaganda talking points of the self-forgetful ruler in the Kremlin,
despite numerous alternative information channels aside from those shut down by the regime. The remaining 20 percent, particularly from the intellectual circles, began leaving the country within the first week following the onset of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This was the least they could do for their conscience as Orthodox Christians—not to be complicit in the crime.
A 14-year-old Ukrainian girl carries the child of the enemy after being raped by five Russian soldiers. She will give birth to a child already hated in the womb, as decided by her parents. Otherwise, she risks never becoming a mother again, we read in the media about one of the crimes committed by Russian troops against civilians. Behind news like this lies the tragedy of a nation subjected to annihilation. Because Putin is not in Ukraine to save this nation from fascists, neo-Nazis, and nationalists, as official propaganda trumpeted even before the war began. He is there to crush and subjugate it. To punish the former Soviet republic that sought NATO membership by depriving it of access to the Black and Azov Seas.
He is willing to pursue his goals to the end, and nothing will stop him, even if it means using nuclear weapons. Like any other dictator, Putin imagines he acts and thinks “historically” and cannot conceive of any outcome other than “after me, the deluge.”
Therefore, it is unlikely that among world leaders, anyone imagines that the president of Russia could sit at the negotiating table except as a victor determining the new borders of Ukraine and the conditions of a peace agreement. In this sense, it seemed somewhat infantile for the Bulgarian prime minister to find himself on the outskirts of Kyiv to witness stuffed toys being handed out amidst the ruins of destroyed apartment blocks. His theatrically declared position—that this is not just a battle for Ukraine, but a civilizational choice of which side we want to stand on—was largely overdue. However, according to Kiril Petkov, Bulgaria’s voice is clear, as the decision to provide military-technical assistance to Ukraine that the parliament is set to make next week “touches upon morality, ethics, and a vision for how our world should exist.” Therefore, he expects the deputies to vote according to their conscience rather than conforming to their parties’ positions.
It is doubtful that our representatives will experience profound inner turmoil before raising their hands “for” or “against” sending ammunition to the Ukrainian army and repairing heavy military equipment at our factories, TEREM and Avionams, as requested by the government in Kyiv. If the voice of conscience speaks, it will likely be drowned out by party orders.
It is uncertain whether the voting outcome will lead to the collapse of the ruling coalition, despite the threats from the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP).
However, Kiril Petkov and Asen Vassilev firmly welcomed the news of the suspension of Russian gas, labeling this act as “extortion” by Russia. For the first time, with an unexpected decisiveness that contrasts with their previous management style, Kiril Petkov and especially Asen Vassilev stated that “We Continue the Change” would vote in the National Assembly to send military aid to Ukraine. Furthermore, for the first time, the two former ministers from Rumen Radev’s caretaker cabinet dared not only to publicly oppose the president but also to denounce his behavior regarding the Russia-Ukraine conflict as “shameful.” The topic of whether Bulgarian weapons and ammunition are being sent to Ukraine ignited tension and sharp exchanges between the head of state and the leader of the socialists, Kornelia Ninova—who is also the relevant deputy prime minister in the government and signs all contracts for the sale of products from Bulgaria’s military-industrial complex.
At first glance, it appears that in Bulgaria today, everyone is against everyone else, but in reality, the war in Ukraine has stripped away the masks of political hypocrisy.
In the debate on defining our national interests and the position our country should take regarding the war in Ukraine, parties can no longer play double roles. Each must clearly establish which side of the demarcation line they stand on. Evasion and indecisiveness will not yield dividends—politically, economically, or even morally and historically. Sociology does not measure public sentiments regarding early elections, as the country faces the threat of increasing inflation and crises caused by the ongoing war and the lack of vital energy resources. The ruling parties must “fight” on many fronts they have opened—against corruption, against a mafia-style state, against the Chief Prosecutor, and more. They face fierce resistance from powerful and cunning adversaries who will fight to the end for their positions, power, and money.
Unfortunately, in this format, the coalition is unlikely to make difficult management decisions, let alone implement them.
In just a month, around 6,000 Ukrainian refugees will have to leave hotels due to the onset of the summer season. How will their relocation from these facilities be managed? Does the state have a solution for where they will be housed, and has it assessed how many of them are in dire need of support? Or will everything once again be transferred to the non-governmental sector, which bore the brunt of the first wave of refugees? And this is just one of the problems this cabinet must address. The war has simply shifted the focus from other issues that remain.
And the opposition is preparing for a comeback.
In Turkey, the leader of the Movement for Rights and Freedoms (DPS), Mustafa Karadayi, has mentioned elections after May. The “We Continue the Change” party is organizing protests, where its leader is hysterically demanding the cabinet’s resignation and seizing power. Meanwhile, former Prime Minister Boyko Borisov, with his keen political instinct, adjusts the sails of GERB according to the political winds. We have seen how he attempts to leverage the confrontation between Rumen Radev and the BSP, as well as “We Continue the Change,” who primarily secured his second presidential term, alongside the rifts within the ruling coalition, to try to turn his arch political opponent into an unconventional ally by offering him to become the godfather of a new ruling coalition within this National Assembly.
With the sole aim of “saving his skin”—his and that of the former ruling elite in the name of “national consensus.”
Others with political ambitions, such as Stefan Yanev, also see the crises as an opportunity, with his party project set to launch under the grand name “Great Bulgaria.” Three candidate ministers from the failed cabinet of Slavi Trifonov, disillusioned with the policies of “There Is Such a People,” have formed a new party called “Development.” There were also aspirations for new political formations from former Deputy Prime Minister Atanas Pekanov, Maya Manolova, and who knows who else. The struggle for power in Bulgaria looms against the backdrop of an ongoing war in Ukraine—without a visible horizon and under the threat of nuclear apocalypse.
