THE IMPORTANCE OF THE BLACK SEA

Conference on Black Sea Security, Bucharest, Romania, 06 February 2025 Speaking Notes of Mr. Yordan Bozhilov Ladies and Gentlemen, The Black Sea holds immense significance for Bulgaria, impacting every aspect of our life—from transportation to culture, economy, and beyond. It is particularly vital for those living in settlements around the sea basin, as their lives are deeply connected to the sea. The Black Sea serves as a hub of economic growth, home to a coastal population that constitutes 10% of Bulgaria's total. The Bulgarian Black Sea coast is not only a popular tourist destination but also a crucial pillar of our economy. Tourism plays a vital role, while maritime transport is equally significant, with approximately 70% of Bulgaria's transport activities passing through its seaports. Beyond its economic importance, the Black Sea region is a key link between Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. Its vast gas reserves and potential for energy connectivity—from south to north and east to west—underscore its strategic significance. The ability to transfer electricity and diversify gas supply routes further enhances its role in regional stability. Bulgaria, alongside Romania and Türkiye, recognizes the immense potential of the Black Sea and works together to manage risks while seizing opportunities. However, we all understand that without security, the opportunity to develop our economic potential cannot be realized. First Thesis: The Region is Important for Both the Black Sea Countries and for Europe Unfortunately, until recently, the region did not attract much attention from the EU and NATO. Bulgaria still lacks a commonly accepted strategy for the Black Sea or a unified assessment of the security situation, largely due to political instability over the past three years. Moreover, political divisions have further complicated the process of forming a cohesive approach. The war in Ukraine represents the gravest threat—not only to Ukraine's independence and territorial integrity but to the entire region. Russia will continue this war until it reaches its ultimate goals—unless it is stopped. Russia maintains military superiority in the region, while NATO faces certain capability gaps. Most analysts believe that, at this stage, there is no immediate military threat to Bulgaria or other NATO littoral states, primarily because there is no land border with Russia. However, incidents cannot be ruled out. Second Thesis: Russia Still Fears a NATO Response but is Unclear About the U.S. Position At this stage, Russia is unlikely to directly attack NATO countries militarily. Its provocative activities remain below the threshold of NATO’s Article 5. However, this does not mean the risks should be underestimated. Third Thesis: Russia is Testing Our Reactions, and We Lack a Unified Response Russia poses significant hybrid threats—not just through disinformation and propaganda but also through a wide range of destabilizing activities. In 2022, Russia attempted to blackmail Bulgaria by halting gas supplies, as 80% of Bulgaria’s gas was imported from Russia at the time. Thanks to allied commitments, Bulgaria successfully adapted. Another concerning example occurred in 2023, when Russia declared a large portion of Bulgaria’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) as a "dangerous zone for navigation" under the pretext of military exercises. This not only disrupted maritime traffic but also obstructed key activities, such as fishing and gas exploration. Bulgaria’s response was limited to sending a diplomatic note to Russia. Such actions clearly contradict international maritime law and violate Bulgaria’s sovereign rights. This issue should have been raised more forcefully in the International Maritime Organization and other forums, as it could set a dangerous precedent worldwide. Furthermore, Russia’s activities, such as jamming or distorting GPS signals, pose a threat to transport and other sectors. Russia is gradually testing our reactions, much like boiling a frog slowly. These activities remain below the NATO Article 5 threshold, making it crucial to establish a coordinated and decisive response. Fourth Thesis: The Black Sea Concentrates Many and Various Risks • Floating Mines: These not only pose a risk to ships but also increase insurance costs for vessels, raising overall service prices. Many shipowners avoid deploying new ships in the Black Sea, relying only on older vessels, which adds additional risks. Cruise liners, in particular, are avoiding Black Sea ports altogether. • Environmental Issues: Oil spills, sunken ships, and other ecological threats pose long-term risks to regional stability and safety. All these risks—combined with Russia’s aggressive behavior—demand greater attention from NATO and the EU. Countering Russian aggression and addressing these security challenges require the deployment of additional joint military capabilities and national capacity-building efforts. Russia’s actions must be exposed in international organizations, as they could set a dangerous precedent for global security. Fifth Thesis: The Risk of Weapons Leaving the Battlefield Must Be Addressed There is a serious risk of weapons from the conflict in Ukraine falling into the hands of criminal groups and terrorists. The possibility of such weapons being used in hybrid activities by Russian or pro-Russian forces cannot be ignored. Understanding the Interests of Key Players in the Region Russia’s Objectives: 1. Russia considers the Black Sea-Balkan region crucial to its strategic interests and will strive at all costs to retain occupied territories, particularly in Ukraine. If necessary, it may seek to seize the entire Ukrainian coastline before any peace agreement or truce is reached. 2. Russia aims to undermine NATO and EU unity, primarily through hybrid operations targeting individual member states. The Black Sea has become a focal point for these efforts. 3. Moldova and Georgia are particularly vulnerable to Russian influence. 4. Russia may seek to halt or freeze the war in exchange for sanctions relief while retaining its occupied territories. However, this would not mean abandoning its ultimate goal of subjugating Ukraine. 5. For Russia, everything is a single battlefield—it pursues its objectives across different territories and at different times. United States Position: 1. The U.S. is focused on reaching a strategic deal and assessing its outcomes. 2. Ukraine is not a core U.S. national interest, though Washington remains committed to supporting it. 3. Former President Trump, if reelected, would likely oppose deploying American troops to European soil. 4. The U.S. may seek to distance Russia from China and Iran, particularly if Iran becomes the next major foreign policy focus. European Perspectives and the Need for a Unified NATO-EU Response Different European countries have varying attitudes toward the region. While France and Italy maintain a presence, others seem largely disengaged. NATO and the EU must avoid focusing solely on specific regions, such as the Baltics, and instead take a comprehensive view of Russia’s actions. For Moscow, every front is interconnected—it determines when, where, and how to advance its interests. Russia’s objectives within NATO and the EU remain purely destructive, regardless of how they are pursued. As such, Brussels must swiftly develop a unified position with clear, actionable measures to strengthen security in the Black Sea. This is particularly critical for the EU. Finally, Russia’s influence over our societies through internal actors poses a significant challenge. Addressing this issue requires collective awareness, resilience, and decisive action. Thank you.