The launch of the so-called Peace Council caught many in Bulgaria by surprise. Former Foreign Minister Nadezhda Neynski commented on NOVA NEWS, questioning whether Bulgaria’s participation represents an international agreement requiring ratification or merely a unilateral decision by the US executive branch. Political scientist Prof. Milena Stefanova suggested that, given Donald Trump’s often unconventional approach, his initiative could yield either significant advantages or fade without consequence. She emphasized that it is unlikely the invitation to President Rumen Radev was sent in a purely personal capacity.
Political analyst Slavi Vassilev took a more optimistic view, arguing that Bulgaria benefited from joining the Peace Council. He said the move highlights the country’s independence in foreign policy and does not signal a shift toward any particular geopolitical bloc, despite the participation of other states. He noted that Bulgaria has historically maintained strong positions in Middle Eastern affairs and that being part of the Council aligns with national interests.
Stefanova noted that the potential risks and benefits were likely evaluated, though she suggested the public may not have been given sufficient time to digest them. She concluded that the decision is likely to produce more advantages than drawbacks. Vassilev agreed, adding that Bulgaria now has a direct line of communication with Trump, which could facilitate solutions to various foreign policy challenges.
The discussion also touched on Radev’s political ambitions. Vassilev expressed support for the president, saying he plans to join Radev’s party once it is established. He expressed confidence that Radev could emerge as a political leader capable of lifting Bulgaria out of its current stagnation. Vassilev downplayed questions about whether Radev would contest elections through an existing party or a new formation, stressing that the focus should be on the messages and individuals involved in the initiative.
Stefanova, however, criticized Vassilev for speaking as if he were a partisan rather than an analyst. She argued that, despite nine years in office, Radev has not demonstrated concrete action against organized crime and often relies on populist rhetoric. Vassilev disagreed, contending that citizens will ultimately judge Radev’s record when they vote, implying that the electorate remains the arbiter of the president’s effectiveness.