1. Introduction 2019 marks the 30th anniversary of the beginning of democratic changes in Bulgaria. While neighbouring Romania underwent a bloody revolution, and Yugo- slavia, a series of violent civil wars, Bulgaria managed to go thought the system change peacefully. There was a fundamental shift in the geopolitical position of Bulgaria in that period. Ideological priorities have been re-evaluated and the political and economic relations were thoroughly reoriented geographi- cally. The same happened to the Bulgarian govern- ments’ approach to internal geopolitics. The most fundamental changes occurred in the state’s policy towards its Muslim minority, especially towards the Turks. In the mid-1980s, at the end of the communist Journal of Geography, Politics and Society 2019, 9(4), 12–23 https://doi.org/10.26881/jpgs.2019.4.02 BULGARIA’S GeoPoLItICAL AND GeoeCoNoMIC ReoRIeNtAtIoN (1989–2019) Valentin Mihaylov Institute of Social and Economic Geography and Spatial Management, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Silesia, Będzińska 60, 41–200 Sosnowiec, Poland, ORCID: 0000-0002-5888-6583 e-mail: valentin.mihaylov@us.edu.pl Citation Mihaylov V., 2019, Bulgaria’s geopolitical and geoeconomic reorientation (1989–2019), Journal of Geography, Politics and Soci- ety, 9(4), 12–23. Abstract Until the late 1980s and the dawn of the end of the Eastern Bloc, communist Bulgaria was considered to be the closest ally of the Soviet Union. Now, 30 years later, the Bulgarian state has been integrated into the main Euro-Atlantic organisations. Taking these radical changes as its starting point, this article outlines the process and consequences of post-1989 geopolitical and geoeconomic reorientation of Bulgaria. The aim was also to present the main geopolitical challenges in Bulgaria’s relations with Russia and Turkey. These states have been influencing the political, economic and cultural development of Bulgaria for centuries. The effects of their influence have remained problematic to this day. As Bulgaria remains a country with a complex geopolitical position, it continues its twentieth-century strategy and tries to maintain balance between its own national inter- est and the influence of the main centres of power. The author draws particular attention to the fact that the model based on the variability of geopolitical priorities was once again confirmed in the analysed period. This model is not only based on pragmatism in relations with the outside world, which is traditional for the Bulgarian political elite, but is also dependant on the temporary distribution of power within the Balkan geopolitical knot. It seems that the model will continue to be valid, at least in the near future. Key words Bulgaria, Balkans, European Union, Russia, geopolitical reorientation, energy geopolitics. Received: 10 October 2019 Accepted: 04 November 2019 Published: 31 December 2019 Bulgaria’s geopolitical and geoeconomic reorientation (1989–2019) 13 era, the state apparatus began to use various meas- ures aimed at denationalising and assimilating this population, a significant part of which was forced to flee to Turkey. As a result, Bulgaria was interna- tionally isolated. However, when Todor Zhivkov was removed from power, the discriminatory laws were very quickly removed from the books. Bulgaria has become an example of ethnic and religious toler- ance (Lütem, 1999; Anagnostou, 2005), which has undoubtedly become a great asset in the process of Euro-Atlantic integration. Given the fundamental transformation of Bul- garia’s geopolitical position on the map of Eurasia, the article attempts to formulate a synthetic over- view of the results of this evolution, indicating the most significant changes which have taken place in 1989–2019. It is an important and timely issue, as 30 years after the political changes, there has been a recent increase in Eurocepticism. Just like Poland and Hungary, Bulgaria is influenced by an internal, heated debate over advantages and disadvantages of its presence within the European community and the issue of its national sovereignty. One of the main reasons for addressing this topic in this article is the fact that publications devoted to the geopolitics and foreign policy of contemporary Bulgaria are few and far between in English-language literature and their scope is often limited to repeating general stereo- types. There have been several comparative analy- ses of Bulgaria and Romania with an emphasis on the countries’ economic problems, their difficulties with adopting the EU regulations and their contribu- tion to NATO military operations (e.g. Linden, 2009), as well as publications focused on Bulgaria’s role in the security policy in the Balkans and the Black Sea region (Tashev, 2005; Triantaphyllou, 2007) and Bul- garia’s place in modern energy geopolitics (Tchalak- ov et al., 2013; Maltby, Hiteva, 2017; Tchalakov, Mitev, 2019). This article presents and discusses the ideas of selected Bulgarian geopoliticians and takes into ac- count the deeper historical context, which is neces- sary to understand the complex geopolitical situa- tion of Bulgaria and its centuries-old attempts to conduct multi-vector relations on a European and global scale. Without this context, knowledge of Bulgaria’s geopolitical identity would be not even in- complete but simply devoid of objectivity and cog- nitive depth. These are the factors that are necessary to predict possible scenarios of future actions of the state on the international stage. 2. Bulgaria’s geopolitical identification The geopolitical orientation of each state, Bulgaria’s in particular, depends on the dynamics of European and world geopolitics, as well as internal political and ideological conditions. In the era dominated by the confrontation between the Eastern and Western Bloc (1945–1990), the socialist identity of Bulgaria, and of other Eastern Bloc countries, was the only applicable or rather the only possible option. There were no alternatives during this period, because there was only one geopolitical division in Europe – into socialist and capitalist states. Understanding Bulgaria’s geopolitics is impossi- ble without knowledge of its long and complicated history (the beginnings of the Bulgarian state date back to the end of the seventh century), which is inextricably linked to Bulgaria’s location within the Balkan geopolitical knot, between Europe and Asia, at the meeting point between Orthodoxy, Western Christianity and Islam. The interests of great pow- ers have always collided within this complex space. These conditions and complex environment, espe- cially after the end of the nineteenth century, have made it impossible to maintain a clear geopoliti- cal line, with clearly defined allies and enemies, for a longer period of time. It is particularly true in the case of small and medium-sized countries that are unable to conduct independent geopolitical strate- gies and always have to take into account the inter- ests of larger, economically and militarily stronger countries when defining their own objectives. As noted by S. Siedlecka and M. Sułkowski (2017), Bul- garian compasses point in the West-East direction, where West means technology and money, and East means raw materials. V. Krăstev (2008) emphasised that Bulgaria’s position in the geopolitical structure of the world is determined by several objective premises: the geographical location of the state’s territory, the neighbouring geopolitical regions (Eurasia, Central Europe, Western Europe, Middle East, etc.); its close proximity of conflict-driven and unstable regions, and location in the heart of the Balkan geopolitical knot. The key elements of Bulgaria’s geopolitical po- tential include the size of its territory (111 thousand km2) and population (7 million people in 2018). An- other indicator is GDP, which shows the country’s global economic position. According to the World Bank, Bulgaria’s GDP amounted to USD 65 billion in 2018, which gave the country 74th place among 205 countries across the world (The Word Bank, nd). All these basic data indicate that the rank of Bulgaria’s geopolitical position is relatively low, both on the global and continental scale. The state’s geopolitical 14 Valentin Mihaylov orientation is highly dependent on strong external influences, mainly those of great powers (Krăstev, 2008). In the early 1990s, many varied, foremost non- standard suggestions concerning the future place of Bulgaria within the political and civilization geog- raphy of Europe were made both by politicians and academics. The place dictates specific geopolitical priorities of the state. In the opinion of political sci- entist Kiril Neshev, Bulgaria’s old strategic path led either in the direction of north-west (Germany) or north-east (Russia). However, according to Neshev, these geostrategic directions did not bring much benefit to the country. He did not recommend com- pletely ignoring the north-west and north-east axes in the new post-1990 reality, but recommended sup- plementing them with another geopolitical direc- tion – south and southwest, aimed at such countries as Greece, Spain or Portugal. This political scientist justified his idea by stating that there are more simi- larities between Bulgarians and southern Europeans not only in terms of their temperament and way of life, but also in the scope of tradition, culture and economy (Neshev, 1994). In one of the few monographs devoted to the political geography of Bulgaria, Todor Hristov com- bined an analysis of the geopolitical situation of the state with an attempt to formulate a list of priorities for its geostrategy and foreign policy. According to the author, Bulgaria’s main assets are its Black Sea coast, which it shares with significant countries, i.e. Russia, Ukraine and Turkey, the fact that the national territory belongs to the Danube’s geopolitical and economic axis, and its location on the routes which connect transport corridors with the Baltic region, Belarus, Russia, Moldova, Romania and the Aegean Sea, as well as Turkey and the Middle East with the Balkans and Central and Western Europe (Hristov, 2001). In the context of the Macedonian-Albanian conflict, which began at the dawn of the twenty-first century, T. Hristov proposed a non-standard solution – reorganisation of Macedonia on a federal basis or even establishment of a federation composed of Bulgaria, Serbia and Macedonia. E. Kazakov, a specialist in foreign policy, whose research and analytical skills were shaped under the influence of the French school of geopolitics, high- lighted two fundamental aspects of the impact of the new post-1990 geopolitical situation on Bulgar- ia’s foreign policy. First of all, in the strategic foreign policy approach, there is a unanimous agreement as to the state’s main goal – belonging to the European Union. Secondly, the structure of Bulgaria’s foreign policy and geostrategic thinking remains divided in an antagonistic way. The main geostrategic dividing line passes between “neutralists” and “atlanticists”. Big differences are also noticeable between “right- wing” and “left-wing” nationalism. “Left-wing” nation- alism sees the Orthodox religion and Slavic solidarity as values, which makes Russia, Serbia and Greece its natural main allies. On the other hand, “right-wing” nationalism is excessively focused, especially in his- toric terms, on Macedonia, defending the thesis of the Bulgarian character of its Slavic population. In the context of the “right-wing” nationalism, Bulgar- ia’s opponents and allies are defined solely on the basis of the principle stating that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. As emphasised by Kazakov, this is the basis upon which right-wing nationalists have identified their enemies (Yugoslavia/Serbia, Greece and Russia) and allies (Germany, Croatia and Turkey) almost throughout the entire twentieth century (Ka- zakov, 2007). Taking into account the dynamics of the situa- tion in Eurasia and Bulgaria’s position in the interna- tional arena, S. Ralchev (2015) describes Bulgaria as a state with dichotomous identity. On the one hand, its membership in NATO and the EU places Bulgaria among the countries of the Euro-Atlantic geopoliti- cal circle whose objectives have been growing in- creasingly divergent from Russia’s since 2013–2014, slowly turning into open distrust and political hostil- ity. On the other hand, the country remains relatively strongly dependant on Russia. This dependency is determined by several factors: energy dependence (e.g.: Bulgaria imports 90-100% of its natural gas from Russia; since 1999 its sole oil refinery is owned by Russian Lukoil); Bulgaria is dependent on spare parts and maintenance of its military equipment, most of it Russian-made; Russian tourists are among the most numerous and well-off foreign tourists in Bulgaria. The fact that relations between the coun- tries of the EU-Russia-Turkey have chilled and be- came more ambiguous has a clear negative impact on Bulgaria as a country located on the border be- tween East and West. The shift is in turn motivated by the fact that whenever Bulgarian governments and their advisers define strategic geopolitical pri- orities, they have to strive to maintain equilibrium between: (1) its current commitments to its allies and democratic values; (2) two Eurasian powers with which Bulgarian society has very deep histori- cal connections and relations, which are additionally determined by geography, demography and econo- my (especially in the energy sector). It can therefore be concluded that although the importance of some of the above-mentioned premises can be slowly mi- nimised, they cannot be completely eliminated from geopolitical and geohistorical awareness of the Bul- garian society. Bulgaria’s geopolitical and geoeconomic reorientation (1989–2019) 15 3. From the closest ally of the Soviet Union to a NAto member. Bulgaria’s re- positioning in the european and global geopolitical space 1989 is the beginning of a new historical phase for the geopolitics of Bulgaria. However, it its worth to start by first identifying the difference between the current geopolitics and the strategies which domi- nated in the previous decades of the twentieth cen- tury. From the end of the nineteenth century to the end of World War II, Bulgaria was politically, militarily and economically connected with Germany and Aus- tria, which it supported during both world wars. In September 1944, the communists, who had hitherto constituted the main force acting against the pro- German regime, seized control of the country with the help of the Red Army, which did not in fact carry out war operations on the territory of Bulgaria. Tens of thousands of pre-war politicians, entrepreneurs and intellectuals who were associated or suspected of having ties with Western European countries, not only fascist Germany, were removed from power, and often killed. This was the context in which a new socialist identity was imposed on Bulgaria, and the state spent 45 years as a member of the communist bloc. At that time, Bulgaria became the state which had the closest relation with the Soviet Union. After 1989, a new radical concept was formed in accordance to which Bulgarians had to make a “civilisational choice” between the “liberal and rich” Euro-Atlantic West and the “totalitarian and poorer” Russia. The freedom, prosperity and security of Bul- garians depended, and still depends, on this choice. Since the beginning of the 1990s, the state’s foreign policy has gradually begun to support the priorities of Western powers and their approach to solving ur- gent international problems, including those taking place beyond the Bulgarian western border. The old ideology of the Slavic and Orthodox “brotherhood” was forgotten, giving way to cool-headed pragma- tism, and the government supported NATO’s inter- vention in Yugoslavia in the spring of 1999. This po- sition was most accurately summed up in the then political slogan – “NATO – yes, Milošević – no”. The right-wing nationalists (in Kazakov’s understanding of the term) were in power at that point. Still, most of the population strongly opposed the use of military to resolve the conflict. However, after the end of the Cold War, Bulgaria’s traditional enemy and historical partitioner, Turkey, became one of its most signifi- cant geopolitical and geoeconomic partners. Since the very beginning of Bulgaria’s political transfor- mation, the country’s bilateral relations with Ankara have been based on an unprecedentedly positive and open dialogue. The two countries are also con- nected by their membership in NATO (Mihaylov, 2010a, 2010b). After the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, Bulgaria had to reorient itself in the new security situation and decided to focus on the NATO membership. After joining this organisation in 2004, Bulgaria be- came a member of the largest military alliance in the world, seven years after the country’s membership aspirations had been first announced by its then president. Political circles which immediately after 1989 opposed such a solution, fearing that it may lead to a direct confrontation with Russia, have long reconciled with Bulgaria’s NATO membership. The country took part in military operations in Afghani- stan, Iraq and Afghanistan, and four military bases were created on the territory of Bulgaria, primarily used by the US. Those who oppose NATO bases in Bulgaria, usually leftist in their political orientations, are critical of foreign bases, arguing that even during the communist era, there was no Soviet army, rep- resenting the “Big Brother” of the time, stationed in Bulgaria. A similar response arose in mid-2019, when a contract was signed for the purchase of eight American F-16 Block 70 fighters, which are to be de- livered by the end of 2023, with eight more arriving in the future. The public opinion does not oppose the idea of purchasing a new generation of fighters for the Bulgarian air force to replace the outdated and depleted Russian air planes. Still, a heat discus- sion arose in response to the high price of the fight- ers ($ 1.256 billion), which was especially strongly criticised by left-wing president, Rumen Radev, a general and military pilot. Additionally, some part of the public opinion opposed the deal due to unfa- vourable conditions, i.e. the requirement to prepay the entire amount, which forced an update of the state budget. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, external relations with the European Union are the most important in both political and economic terms. The rapprochement and integration with the European community was the leading prior- ity of the state after the fall of communism (tab. 1). When Bulgaria acceded to the EU on 1 January 2007, some state politicians described this event as the most achievement achievement in the long na- tional history. Compared to the first half of the twen- tieth century, the direction of the Western Bulgarian geopolitics was significantly diversified in the post- communist period. There have been some changes in relations with the West, which were dictated by the new distribution of forces within this geopoliti- cal and cultural circle. The United States’s presence in the Southeastern Europe became significant only 16 Valentin Mihaylov in the 1990s. Washington took over from Germany, France and the UK, who used to set the pace for Europe for more than a century, especially in the field of security. These European states’ indecisive reaction and policy towards the Yugoslav Wars, the EU’s in particular, was a sure signal that, in both po- litical and military terms, Western European powers’ role in this region would decrease. Traditionally, for Bulgaria, orientation towards the West meant an al- liance with Germany, because their geostrategic in- terests were divergent with the interests of Bulgaria’s regional enemies. France, in turn, traditionally sup- ported the aspirations of Romania, and Serbia/Yugo- slavia, while the United Kingdom offered its backing to Greece. Despite some economic benefits, such as supply of modern military equipment or fostering of social modernisation of Bulgaria, the alliances from the first half of the twentieth century have always resulted in failures. Sofia failed to achieve its geo- strategic goals in their entirety, losing territories to Romania, Yugoslavia and Greece. It is worth mentioning Bulgaria’s relations with another power. In 1985 Sir Jeffrey Howe became the first British foreign secretary to visit Bulgaria in the twentieth century (Curtis (ed.), 1992). As K. Metodiev stresses, Bulgaria has never been among Britain’s foreign policy priorities as it has been underlined in numerous statements by British diplomats, re- searchers and politicians. All neighbour countries, with no exception, traditionally have maintained a closer relationship to London. British-Bulgarian relations started to change gradually, together with Bulgarian application for a membership in EU in the middle of 1990s (Metodiev, 2015). But, in spite of this changes which were mainly symbolic ones, political and economic relations with the United Kingdom do not matter much for Sofia as they are with Germany, United States, Russia or Turkey. The exception is the process of formation of a relatively large Bulgarian emigrant population in Great Britain in the last 10– 15 years. Despite its membership in the EU and NATO, Bul- garia remains a country where the influences and interests of several geopolitical centres intersect. This divisions are visible in the stated geopolitical priorities of the country’s leading political parties and in the politics and positions adopted by many mass media and non-governmental organisations in international politics. Some of the most active foundations and media operating in the country are financed by Western foundations (mainly German and American) and use anti-Russian rhetoric when commenting on ideological, military and economic issues. In turn, other institutions are directly or in- directly financed by Russian entities, especially by known oligarchs or energy companies operating in Bulgaria. They argue that deepening cooperation with Russia would bring economic benefits to the country and work to undermine Bulgaria’s attempts to deepen its Euro-Atlantic integration. A serious scandal occurred in September 2019, when the lead- ers of the so-called “Russophiles”, considered to be one of the largest NGOs in the country, were accused of spying on behalf of Russia and trying to turn Bul- garia away from the West. Relations with Russia have always been an im- portant element of the national socio-psychological discourse. The only exceptions are Macedonia and the EU as a whole. There are more Russia-focused scientific and media publications than publications about any other country. It should be remembered that after several unsuccessful uprisings, Bulgaria finally gained its independence from the Ottoman Empire at the end of the nineteenth century with the help of Russia. Despite this, in the years immedi- ately following the Russian-Turkish war (1877–1878), there was rapid reorientation towards Germany and Austria-Hungary. This behaviour is in line with Bul- garia’s traditional pragmatism in the international sphere, not only in relation to political, but also mili- tary and economic issues. After 1990, relations with Russia went into a slump. However, despite the chosen pro-Western Tab. 1. Major post-1989 events of Bulgaria’s geopolitics and its international relations Date event 10 November 1989 The collapse of the communist regime; Todor Zhivkov is removed from power 04 April 1991 Establishment of the Bulgarian Atlantic Club – the first non-government organisation of this type in a non-NATO country 14 February 1994 Bulgaria joins the Partnership for Peace programme 14 December 1995 Application for EU membership 15 February 2000 Commencement of negotiations concerning Bulgaria’s membership in the European Union 29 March 2004 Bulgaria joins NATO 01 January 2007 Accession to the European Union Source: elaborated by the Author. Bulgaria’s geopolitical and geoeconomic reorientation (1989–2019) 17 course, Bulgaria’s geopolitics and some of its tactical foreign policy decisions always had a very specific character in the context of relations with Russia. Un- like Poland, Lithuania, Estonia or Ukraine, Bulgaria has never been part of the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union. For this and other reasons, the image of Russia does not evoke as strong anti-Russian re- sentments. Bulgarians and Russians share a com- mon religion and use the same Cyrillic alphabet, which, importantly, originates from medieval Bul- garia. However, it does not mean that Bulgarians would always opt for a political or economic alliance with Russia. It should also be taken into account that there have always been large, determined and influ- ential anti-Russian circles in Bulgaria, which did not accept Russia’s political and social system or any fur- ther rapprochement between the two countries in terms of politics and security. The exception was the communist period, when pro-Western groups were eliminated from social life. During the post-communist transition, and es- pecially after joining the EU, a political and media discourse developed which criticised Bulgaria for its “insufficient gratitude” towards Russia for its role in the revival of the Bulgarian state in the second half of the nineteenth century. Key representatives of the Russian state and society tend to have a paternalis- tic or even disregarding attitude towards Bulgaria. For example, in 2016, Pyotr Tolstoy, a well-known TV journalist and MP, representing the United Rus- sia party, almost caused a diplomatic scandal when he stated the following: “We will soon buy the entire Bulgaria. We have already bought a half of the coast” (Ruski deputat...). Out of all other global powers, the one which shows the greatest potential for political and eco- nomic influence is China, which has only recently become more active in Bulgaria. Just as in the case of the other Balkan states, Beijing’s influence is mainly limited to the economic sphere, especially projects concerning energy, infrastructure, as well as rail and sea transport (Sokolov, 2016). At the begin- ning of the twenty-first century, China has become one of Bulgaria’s top ten trading partners, mainly as the result of significant imports from this country. The trade balance is clearly negative from Bulgaria’s point of view, with the deficit of almost 300 million dollars (2018). 4. Zero problems with neighbours. the regional geopolitical relations of Bulgaria It is worth to begin this section by commenting briefly on the regional aspects of Bulgarian geopoli- tics, although they are not the primary topic of this article. After all, it is a sphere in which Bulgaria still has some resources and persuasive tools to con- duct its own policy in the field of energy, transport, protection of minority rights, and regulation of dis- puted historical issues, etc. With the exception of Turkey, other countries with which Bulgaria shares a common border (Macedonia, Serbia, Romania and Greece) are inhabited mostly by nations which are ethnically, linguistically or religiously related to Bulgarians. Because of Turkey’s growing significance, it is very important for Bulgaria, and the Balkans as a whole, to maintain a constructive dialogue between Brus- sels and Ankara (Sokolov, 2016). This is even truer nowadays when the migration route from the Mid- dle East to Western Europe passes through Bulgaria, and there are about 3 million refugees in Turkey. Bul- garia itself was affected by the refugee crisis, which reached its peak in 2015, when the largest number of refugees submitted their applications for asylum. In the face of the great number of refugees, the Bul- garian state built costly, over 230-kilometre-long fence on its border with Turkey. A new, ambitious course of Turkey’s foreign pol- icy emerged in the 1980s. Turkey has shown great progress in science, technology and economics, be- coming a modern role model for the countries of the former Ottoman sphere of influence. From the Turk- ish perspective, those are precisely the countries on which Turkey should focus in its geopolitical efforts, especially those related to economy (Hinkova, 2014). One of the most important conditions conducive to the Turkish influence on Bulgaria is the fact that the country has a large Turkish minority which rep- resent about 9.0% of its population. Citing a study conducted among this ethnic minority, S. Hinkova (2014) noted that they have great respect for Turkey, especially ethnic Turks and Pomaks. What is more, respondents to the study emphasised Turkey’s suc- cessful economic development and higher salaries earned by their relatives and friends who live in Tur- key. The Muslim minority in Bulgaria unanimously considers Turkey to be a positive lifestyle model. However, because of the 500-year rule of the Ot- toman Empire over the Bulgarian lands and the in- hibition of the country’s civilisational development, the anti-Turkish ideology is one of the pillars of the modern Bulgarian identity. It is still firmly rooted in 18 Valentin Mihaylov people’s consciousness (Mihaylov, 2015). Nonethe- less, at the beginning of the twenty-first century Bul- garia is probably the only neighbour of Turkey that maintains normal relations with this country, meet- ing all the requirements required by the modern democratic standards (Lütem, 1999; Bishku, 2003; Rusev, 2006). Many post-1989 Bulgarian govern- ments and most political groups have demonstrated openness and willingness to cooperate with Turkey. This is a further proof that pragmatism plays an im- portant role in the Bulgarian geopolitics and foreign policy. However, the Bulgarian state and secret ser- vices are closely following some of the Turkish state’s actions in the country, as Ankara finances Muslim parties and organisations in Bulgaria and regularly intervenes in parliamentary and local elections. As M. Sokolov states (2016), while Turkey is a NATO member, its relationship with Moscow can change the political environment in the whole Bal- kan region. With realisation of Turkish Stream and the renewed friendship between Presidents Erdo- gan and Putin it is uncertain what this will mean for Bulgaria and the Balkan states. Conceptually, instead of an open confrontation, in the first half of the 20th century, Bulgaria chose to apply the tactics of modern Turkey and its poli- cy known as “zero problems with neighbours”. This approach is evident, for example, in Bulgaria’s ap- proach towards Macedonia, which it accuses of fal- sifying history, but still treats much mildly than, for example, Greece. The exception to this rule was the above-mentioned lack of solidarity with Serbia dur- ing the breakup of Yugoslavia, although contem- porary relations between the two countries are un- doubtedly positive. Bulgaria’s relations with Greece and Romania are also constructive and friendly. In the past, these two neighbouring countries and Ser- bia have been the traditional enemies of the state which together pursued anti-Bulgarian policy and in the twentieth century became the main obstacle on the path to the complete unification of the Bulgarian lands. Today, however, Bulgaria does make any ter- ritorial claims against its neighbours (and neither do them) and managed to establish with them proper partnership-like relations within the EU and NATO. Macedonia (North Macedonia) still remains the country which evokes the greatest emotional response in the context of Bulgaria’s geopolitics. His- torically, Bulgarians have long had a complex about Macedonia. This complex is among the biggest ob- stacles on Bulgaria’s road to achieving its geopo- litical goals (Pavlov, 1999). Bulgaria’s relations with Macedonia gained new quality and dynamism after the breakup of Yugoslavia. At that time, the Bulgar- ian authorities demonstrated their independence in the realm of foreign policy. Bulgaria became the first country in the world to recognize Macedonia’s independence on 15 January 1992. Despite this gesture, many unresolved and controversial issues still plague the Bulgarian-Macedonian relations, es- pecially matters regarding their common history, genesis of the language and identity of the Mace- donian nation which has been traditionally treated in a paternalistic manner by Bulgarians, as a regional faction of the Bulgarian nation. Already in 2006, the then President and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bul- garia made it clear that the country’s support for the European integration of Macedonia would depend on Skopje’s willingness to pursue a policy of good neighbourly relations (Bozhinov, Stoyanova-Toneva, 2018). Even more so, as both the EU and NATO re- quire their candidates for members to resolve all ter- ritorial disputes in the accession process. The two agreements for friendships signed in 1999 and 2017 respectively were to help solve prob- lems in the Bulgarian-Macedonian relations during the transformation years. The signing of these agree- ments was a testimony to the temporary goodwill of the leaders of both countries, but the documents did not resolve any of the difficult issues. According to V. Bozhinov and Y. Stoyanova-Toneva (2018), Bulgaria should set at least several requirements before sign- ing any agreements for good neighbourly relations with Macedonia – renovation of Bulgarian cultural monuments, honouring the memory of thousands of Bulgarians who gave their lives in the struggle for national liberation, and stop of harassment of Mace- donian citizens who identify as Bulgarians (police interrogations, dismissals from work, no possibil- ity to freely express their views). Relations between Bulgaria and Macedonia should be regulated on the basis of bilateral agreements, which should become part of Macedonia’s future EU accession treaty. 5. Reorientation of Bulgaria’s economic ties and undecided attempts to change its energy geopolitics As part of the global economy, Bulgaria has signifi- cantly diversified the number of its foreign trading partners. The change in geopolitical priorities went hand in hand with the diversification of export di- rections. Significantly, in 1985, Bulgaria maintained trading relations with 113 countries, while 20 years later (2005), the number of its trading partners in- creased to 206. 30 years after the system change, the national economy became more open and flexible (Nestorov, 2002). Bulgaria’s geopolitical and geoeconomic reorientation (1989–2019) 19 Until 1990, the Soviet Union and the countries of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (fig. 1 and 2) dominated Bulgaria’s foreign trade (84.5% of total export and 76.7% of total import). Russia’s importance has been gradually decreasing until it was significantly reduced, mainly through the loss of the Russian/Soviet market for Bulgarian agricul- tural, pharmaceutical, electrotechnical and other products. As shown in fig. 3, in 2018, Russia’s share in Bulgarian export amounted to mere 1.4%, which proves that the significance of this former main trad- ing partner is now incomparably smaller, especially in comparison with Germany, and the EU countries in general. The significant share of raw materials and energy resources is definitely a drawback of Bulgaria’s for- eign trade, with a clear trade deficit on the state’s side. The country’s share in world trade is definitely weaker when it comes to consumer goods. A large part of the foreign trade deficit is caused by the neg- ative trade balance with the post-Soviet countries, mainly with Russia and Ukraine, which supply 3/4 of all of Bulgaria’s imported energy resources (Levkov, 2013). In total, export to European Union countries amounts to more than 52.0% of all country’s export, while import to the EU members represents over 70.0% (Fig. 4). Thus, Bulgaria also has a negative trade balance in relation to this group of countries. The share of EU countries in Bulgaria’s trade in con- sumer goods is particularly high (over 70.0%) (Lev- kov, 2013). Energy policy, especially the supply of Russian gas and oil, is one of the most critical issues in the Soviet Union 62.8% Comecon countries (excluding Soviet Union) 21.7% European Economic Community 4.6% Other countries 10.9% UE countries (excluding Germany) 54.5% Germany 16.3% Russia 1.4% Other countries 27.8% Fig. 1. Structure of Bulgaria’s export in 1988, by economic partners Source: elaborated by the Author on the basis of: National…, nd; Nestorov, 2002. Fig. 2. Structure of Bulgaria’s export in 2018, by economic partners Source: elaborated by the Author on the basis of: National…, nd; Nestorov, 2002. 20 Valentin Mihaylov Bulgaria-EU-Russia triangle. The European Union, as the world’s largest importer of the above-mentioned energy sources, seeks to diversify the supply sources. How do Bulgaria’s interests and possibilities fit into this situation? Although Bulgaria did not give up other en- ergy projects, there was some rapprochement with Russia in the field of strategic energy projects dur- ing the presidency of left-lining Georgi Parvanov (2002–2012). In 2008, the then president announced Bulgaria’s winning “Grand Slam” strategy, which in- volved contracts signed with Russia for the construc- tion of the South Stream gas pipeline, the Burgas- Alexandroupolis pipeline and the second Bulgarian nuclear power plant in Belene. These projects were to solidify Bulgaria’s role as an energy centre in the Balkans. The Bulgarian state was to profit, especially through the transit of Russian gas to Italy and Aus- tria. Bulgaria and other member states felt the con- sequences of the imperfect EU energy policy in the winter of 2009, during suspension of the Russian gas supplies to Europe. Bulgaria was one of the most af- fected countries. It was a clear signal to join the de- bate concerning the common EU energy policy, as individual member states are unable to solve this problem on their own (Pargov et al., 2009). After breaks in supplies of Russian gas, which had a seri- ous impact on the national economy, it became clear that the vision of Bulgaria’s future as an energy centre of the Balkans would not be possible to im- plement in the near future. The most important challenges for Bulgarian en- ergy geopolitics include completion of the construc- tion of the second nuclear power plant in Belene. In Soviet Union 53.7% Comecon countries (excluding Soviet Union) 23.0% European Economic Community 9.7% Other countries 13.6% UE countries (excluding Germany) 52.5% Germany 12.7% Russia 8.9% Other countries 25.9% Fig. 3. Structure of Bulgaria’s import in 1988, by economic partners Source: elaborated by the Author on the basis of: National…, nd; Nestorov, 2002. Fig. 4. Structure of Bulgaria’s import in 2018, by economic partners Source: elaborated by the Author on the basis of: National…, nd; Nestorov, 2002. Bulgaria’s geopolitical and geoeconomic reorientation (1989–2019) 21 2016, the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce in Geneva is- sued a verdict that Bulgaria’s National Electric Com- pany must pay Russian company Rosatom 550 mil- lion euros for the ordered nuclear reactors. Bulgaria resigned from the purchase of these reactors after deciding to cancel the plan to construct the sec- ond nuclear power plant. Finally, in 2017, both Rus- sian reactors were transported to Belene. After the tender announced by the Bulgarian government in mid-2019, several candidates submitted their ten- der bids for the power plant construction, including Rosatom, the Chinese National Nuclear Company, and Korean Hydro & Nuclear Power Co. Additionally, French company Framatome and General Electric are interested in supplying equipment for the new power plant. Currently, there are several projects underway, at various implementation stages, whose objective is to diversify Bulgaria’s gas suppliers. The “Balkan” gas hub project has received support from the Eu- ropean Commission. The goal of this project is to connect the most important gas pipelines in South- eastern Europe and to guarantee transparent access to a wide range of suppliers, with the exception of Russian ones who have declared that they will not participate in this project in any way. Another project which is meant to contribute to the making the gas market more competitive is the Turkey–Bulgaria gas interconnector (ITB) – a gas pipeline with an annual capacity of about 3 billion m3 and a length of almost 200 km. 75 of those ki- lometres will be located on the territory of Bulgaria. ITB is expected to be completed by 2022. There is one biggest project that is to be completed by the same date. In 2018, an agreement was signed to im- plement a gas interconnector between Bulgaria and Serbia. Aside from other advantages, this project will provide opportunities for gas imports from Serbia in the event of suspension of supplies from Russia. The gas pipeline connecting Sofia with Serbian Niš will have a length of 170 km, and its capacity is estimat- ed to be between 1.8 and 3.2 billion m³. Out of all the discussed group of energy projects, the construction of the interconnector between Bul- garia and Greece (IGB) is the most advanced. The route of this gas pipeline (from Stara Zagora in Bul- garia to the Greek Komotini) is 140-kilometre-long. According to the Bulgarian Ministry of Energy, its an- nual capacity will be between 3 and 5.5 billion m3. In addition to the above-listed initiatives, Bul- garia is taking part in the “Eastring” project which it plans to implement together with Slovakia, Hun- gary and Romania. This project is also supported by the European Union and its objective is to search for alternative gas sources and ensure secure gas supplies for the countries of the region (Bălgaria…, 2019). The most crucial issue remains – what gas will flow through these pipelines? It is quite possible that in many cases it will be Russian gas. All the more so, because in September 2019, the Russian Minister of Energy signed a contract with the Bulgarian govern- ment for building the section of the Turkish Stream gas pipeline which goes from the Turkish border to the border with Serbia. Despite all the declarations, intentions and new energy initiatives, in 2019, just as 30 years earlier, al- most all of Bulgaria’s imported oil and gas came from Russia. The concept of Bulgaria as an energy centre of the Balkans turned out to be a pipe-dream. All major international projects for the transit of natural gas or oil through the national territory (e.g. Nabuc- co, Burgas-Alexandroupolis, South Stream) have failed to materialise, and the earliest date for the launch of the second nuclear power plant is 2030. Bulgaria is still counting on more decisive support from Western partners in strategic sectors, such as natural gas supply and nuclear energy. For example, the fact that investments of EU countries in energy, or support and promotion of “second-hand” ener- gy projects, such as gas hubs, and interconnectors (Marinov, 2017), are very limited leaves an opening for other players, mainly Russia and China. 6. Conclusions This article presents a synthetic overview of the pro- cess of Bulgaria’s post-1989 geopolitical reorienta- tion and its consequences. The model based on the variability of geopolitical priorities was once again confirmed in the analysed period. It is based on prag- matism, which is traditional for the national political elite, and the search for the optimal configuration of relations with great powers. Bulgaria has always had to bear in mind the interests of the Balkans states and the multilateral pressure of great powers. At the end of the nineteenth and throughout the entire twentieth century, Bulgarian governments followed the tactic of joining any coalition which would en- sure implementation of the project of unification of Bulgarian lands. At various times, Bulgaria’s allies included Russia, Germany, Austria, and, during the First World War, even Turkey. After 1989, Bulgaria’s foreign partners in the fields of politics, economy, culture and science became more diversified. Compared to the early years of transformation, in 2019 Bulgaria is a politically stable country with clear foreign policy priorities and geopolitical allies. 22 Valentin Mihaylov Economic and political life, as well as the external relations of the country, are influenced by Russia (although its influence is incomparably weaker than during the Cold War period) and Turkey (whose in- fluence increased significantly during this period). Despite its geographical location at the historical civilizational, economic and political crossroad, Bul- garia is an internally stable and predictable partner within the Euro-Atlantic community. At the same time, the number of threats to national security is increasing in the area of South-Eastern Europe, the Black Sea region and the broader contact zone be- tween Europe, Asia and Africa. Because of the deci- sive role of external factors, the Yugoslavian knot is currently in its peaceful phase. However, the area still includes several countries that do not have a well- established geopolitical orientation and are still not fully internally consolidated. The war in Syria and the migration crisis have had a significant impact on the Balkan geopolitics. The Caucasian geopolitical knot is also located near the region. Other potential threats for Bulgaria include the radicalisation and Islamisation of Turkish society and Turkey’s growing economic and cultural influence, especially among the Muslim population in Bulgaria. The tense situa- tion concerning Crimea and relations between Rus- sia and Ukraine, which are very important countries from the point of view of geopolitical rivalry in the Black Sea region, also indirectly affect Bulgaria and require rethinking of its security strategy. A general overview of Bulgarian geopolitics from 1878 to the present allows to draw one more general conclusion. Bulgaria’s geopolitics are only tangen- tially based on history, or such links as a common language or civilisation. The decisive factors include foremost temporary interests of the state and a de- sire for alliances that, in the subjective opinion of the national authorities, can bring the greatest political and economic benefits. References Anagnostou D., 2005, Nationalist legacies and European trajec- tories: post-communist liberalization and Turkish minor- ity politics in Bulgaria, Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 5(1), 89–111. doi: 10.1080/1468385042000328385 Bălgaria ima golemi gazovi ambitsii v sledvashtite 10 godini (Eng. Bulgaria has great ambitions in the gas industry for the next 10 years), 2019, www.economic.bg/bg/news/11/ balgariya-si-postavya-golemi-gazovi-ambitsii-v-sled- vashtite-10-godini.html (accessed 25 August 2019). Ruski deputat: Bălgaria shte ya kupim tsialata (Eng. Russian MP: We Will Buy the Entire Bulgaria) www.monitor.bg/bg (ac- cessed 17 October 2019). Bishku M.B., 2003, Turkish-Bulgarian Relations: From Conflict and Distrust to Cooperation over Minority Issues and In- ternational Politics, Mediterranean Quarterly, 14(2), 77–94. Bozhinov V., Stoyanova-Toneva Y., 2018, Republika Makedonia v savremennata balgarska geopolitika i myastoto na balgarskia natsionalen interes tam (Eng. The Republic of Macedonia in Contemporary Bulgarian Geopolitics and the Place of Bulgarian National Interest There), Diplomatich- eski institut, Ministerstvo na vanshnite raboti, Sofia. Curtis G.E. (ed.), 1992, Bulgaria: a country study, GPO for the Library of Congress, Washington. Hinkova S., 2014, Turkey as a significant geopolitical actor: some dimensions of the country’s political influence in Bulgaria, Diplomacy, 12, 149–160. Hristov T., 2001, Politicheska geografia na Bălgaria (Eng. Politi- cal Geography of Bulgaria), Akademichno izdatelstvo na Agrarnia universitet, Sofia-Plovdiv. Kazakov E., 2007, Geopolitikata na Bălgaria (Eng. Geopolitics of Bulgaria), Faber, Veliko Tyrnovo. Krăstev V., 2008, Săvremennoto geopolitichesko polozhenie na Bălgaria, Geopolitika i geostrategia, 1. Levkov K., 2013, Vănshnata tărgovia na Bălgaria v kraya na XX i nachaloto na XXI vek. Osnovni tendentsii i perspektivi (Eng. Foreign trade of Bulgaria at the end of the XX and the beggining of the XXI century. Main tendencies and problems), Novo znanie, 3, 37–42. Linden R.H. , 2009, The burden of belonging: Romanian and Bulgarian foreign policy in the new era. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 11(3), 270–291. doi: 10.1080/19448950903152136 Lütem Ö.E., 1999, The Past and Present State of the Turkish- Bulgarian Relations, Foreign Policy (Dış Politika), 14, 64–77. Maltby T., Hiteva R.P., 2017, The Europeanisation of Bulgarian renewable energy policy, [in]: I. Solorio, H. Jorgens (eds), A Guide to EU Renewable Energy Policy: Comparing Europe- anization and Domestic Policy Change in EU Member States, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham, 224–246. Marinov G., 2017, Bulgaria: geopolitical and geo-economic forecast at the beginning of the 21st century, Geopolitika i Geostrategia, 4. Metodiev K., 2015, British diplomacy in Bulgaria: 1989 to pre- sent, Przegląd Geopolityczny, 15, 153–164. Mihaylov V., 2010a, Cywilizacyjna tożsamość Bułgarów: trady- cyjne i współczesne dylematy (Eng. Civilisational identity of the Bulgarians: traditional and contemporary dilem- mas), Sprawy Narodowościowe. Seria Nowa, 36, 77–92. Mihaylov V., 2010b, Państwa i narody bałkańskie w świadomości geopolitycznej Rosji. Rosja w świadomości geopolitycznej państw i narodów bałkańskich (Eng. Bal- kan states and nations in the geopolitical consciousness of Russia. Russia in the geopolitical consciousness of the Balkan states and nations), Przegląd Geopolityczny, 2, 77–92. Mihaylov V., 2015, Bałkany w obliczu geopolityki tureckiego neoosmanizmu (Eng. The Balkans in the face of the geo- politics of the Turkish neo-ottomanism), [in:] S. Sitek (red.), Stare i nowe problemy badawcze w geografii społeczno- ekonomicznej (Eng. Old and new research problems in Bulgaria’s geopolitical and geoeconomic reorientation (1989–2019) 23 socio-economic geography), WNoZ UŚ, PTG, Sosnowiec, 21–34. National Statistical Institute, Republic of Bulgaria, www.nsi. bg (accessed 12 August 2019). Neshev K., 1994, Bălgarskiat natsionalizăm (Eng. The Bulgar- ian nationalism), Fil-Vest, Sofia. Nestorov L., 2002, Vănshnata tărgovia i ikonomicheskia ras- tezh v Bălgaria – tendentsii i perspektivi (Eng. Foreign trade and economic growth of Bulgaria – tendencies and perspectives), Dialog, 4, 31–54. Pargov K., Marinova-Alkalay M., Hadzhinikolova E., Angelov M., Mavrodiev V., 2009, Bălgaria v Evropeiskia Săyus (Eng. Bulgaria in the European Union), [in:] Bălgaria v Evropa i sveta (Eng. Bulgaria in Europe and in the World). Tsentăr za evropeiski i mezhdunarodni izsledvania, Friedrich- Ebert-Stiftung, Sofia, 11–32. Pavlov N., 1999, Bălgarskata geopoliticheska traditsia i per- spektiva (Eng. Bulgarian geopolitical tradition and per- spective), Voenen zhurnal, 6. Ralchev S., 2015, Elusive Identity: Duality and Missed Op- portunities in Bulgarian Foreign Policy in the Black Sea Region, [in:] A. Shirinyan, L. Slavkova (eds.), Unrewarding Crossroads. The Black Sea Region amidts the European Un- ion and Russia, Sofia platform, Sofia, 122–150. Rusev, M., 1997, Geografskoto polozhenie i natsionalnata sigurnost na Bălgaria (Eng. Geographical location and national security of Bulgaria), Problemi na geografiata, 3–4, 92–103. Siedlecka S., Sułkowski M., 2017, Trójmorze – perspektywa bułgarska (Eng. Three Seas Initiative – Bulgarian perspec- tive), Arcana, 137, 36–39. Sokolov M., 2016, The role of international actors in the Bal- kans, Diplomacy, 18, 193–196. Tashev B., 2005, In search of security: Bulgaria’s security policy in transition, [in] T. Lansford, B. Tashev (eds.), Old Europe, New Europe and the US, Ashgate, Aldershot, 141–142. Tchalakov I., Mitev T., 2019, Energy dependence behind the Iron Curtain: The Bulgarian experience, Energy Policy, 126, 47–56. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.11.008 Tchalakov I., Mitev T., Hristov I., 2013. Bulgarian power rela- tions: the making of a Balkan power hub, [in]: P. Högselius, A. Hommels, A. Kaijser, E. van der Vleuten (eds.), The mak- ing of Europe’s critical infrastructureр Palgrave, Macmillan, London, 131–156. doi: 10.1057/9781137358738_5 The Word Bank, https://databank.worldbank.org/data/down- load/GDP.pdf (accessed 10 August 2019). Triantaphyllou D., 2007, Energy Security and Common For- eign and Security Policy (CFSP): The Wider Black Sea Area Context, Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 7(2), 289–302. doi: 10.1080/14683850701402227