 It's my privilege today to welcome and to introduce Foreign Minister Mitov. I have had the pleasure of meeting lots of senior government officials through the years, but my lunch with Minister Mitov, gosh about, half a year ago, was the most unusual I'd ever had, because it was, we spent our time talking about the history of Western civilization. I hadn't expected that. I had expected it to be a more narrow cast sort of a discussion, and about the challenges. Goodness knows that Bulgaria's had some real challenges these last two to three years. He's been in the middle of it, he's been right in the center of most of it. But instead we talked about the challenge facing Western civilization, and I thought that was remarkably fresh, remarkably interesting, and far more timely than I had ever anticipated. And I think we're seeing this question played out very unevenly in front of us every day. Certainly the drama in Brussels this weekend was a big debate about the European construction and about the direction of Western civilization in Europe. Certainly the great, you have to call it both a civil war and an insurgency and a surrogate war in Ukraine is about this question. And of course, the foreign minister has had these last years, he's been living in the middle of it, trying to understand what does this mean for Bulgaria and how does Bulgaria succeed and survive? I know some of the answers to that. We're part of it, it's NATO, and we have to be part of it, but we also have to be wise about what Bulgaria's understanding is of this challenge it faces. So we need to spend some time listening to that, and we're going to have an opportunity to do that today. The foreign minister is, he knows America and we're grateful for that as well. He worked for the National Democratic Institute in Iraq, helping to build civil society in Iraq. It gives you just an insight into the content of his character. You're going to enjoy this very much, and we're all going to learn from it. So could I ask you with your applause to please welcome and thank the foreign minister of Bulgaria, Daniel Mitov. Well, John, thank you very much for the wonderful introduction. I'll have to try and live up to it and live up to the challenge. And would like to express first my appreciation of being here among people who are not only interested in foreign policy affairs, but also trying to find solutions and trying to find the ways how we can tackle the challenges we have today and this very dynamic geopolitical situation, which we haven't faced for a while. It is a particular pleasure as well because it's always great to come back here to DC and talk with white-minded people, people who understand what's going on and try to find common solution to the challenges I already mentioned. I have the habit recently to start when I have to speak to start with the following that some time ago I asked a friend of mine how to approach this type of events and he said, when it comes to the speeches and he said use the miniskirt tactic and when he saw my stunned face, then he explained short enough in order to cover the essentials, and short enough to keep the attention of everyone. And I'm particularly happy to see NDI friends here. I just saw Rob. Anyway, so let me as a way of setting the scenes, catch out three important elements of what is happening today. We are living in a peculiar times. We spent over decades discussing the risks of globalization and when they are materializing more and more, we are beset by inaction. Actually, in the last, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, there was this notion among us that history has already stopped. Liberal democracy will prevail little by little and we are bound to see how autocratic regimes will little by little transform into something different, something close to what has proven to be an efficient social architecture. And we stopped making history. And when you stop doing that, someone else is going to make it for you. So that is what is happening to us today. When risks are expending, we need to take a brave step forward, meet the challenges we talked about for so long and globalization and its effects have come out of the academic books and have been for a while in our lives. We need to act with greater urgency these days. Another key point is to appreciate fully that globalization has not turned out to be a one-way street for the West. Reaping solely benefits, continuing to shape the rules of the system, et cetera. We need to be more aware and better at addressing the consequences of this question globalization. Rise of the other players, greater general uncertainty, risk of fracturing of alliances, social challenges in our nation states as a result of geo-economic displacement. Many people have spent the last few years predicting the coming apart of the transatlantic alliance. Well, they have been proven wrong. Fortunately, Europe and the US have reached similar conclusions in the wake of the global crisis and have renewed commitment to the transatlantic bond. Europe has taken a while, but realize that only via further integration can it continue to be the factor in the years to come. The US, on the other hand, has recommitted itself to that bond realizing that weakness at the core of the liberal international system will have dire consequences. In my brief introductory notes, I will touch on only a few of the challenges facing both Europe and the US. First, let me focus on persistent and expanding terrorist threats. The geographical expansion of the terrorist threat is a major worry. The same holds for the growing variety of terrorist acts, sole perpetrators who simply go after people in public spaces or at work. The cultural dimensions in the recruitment of the so-called foreign fighters are also an increasing concern. While terrorism abs and flows, it is rising in scope and complexity. Limiting space for terrorist autokies is essential and that is why the fight against ISIS is of such major importance. International interventions also need to remain a viable option in the areas where terrorism is expanding. We all know they are politically difficult, legally a challenge, costly, et cetera, but this has to remain on the table. We also need to take a deeper look at European society to figure out why people continue to choose ISIS instead of the legitimate channels of protest and change. The ISIS phenomenon also creates challenges related to refugee inflows to Europe and displacement of large masses of people. The latter can create conditions for further destabilization of other countries in the Middle region. Then I'd like to take a few minutes and to focus on the challenges we are facing which are coming from the Russian Federation and the recent events related to that. Russian behavior is currently a potent threat to our security and values. Crimean annexation is unacceptable, illegitimate criminal. We called it so many things, but they all lead to the same point. This is something that cannot happen in 21st century. Neither is acceptable the intervention in Eastern Ukraine and the disruption of its transformation into a better functioning democracy and market economy. Such behavior is a gross and unacceptable violation of the values at the core of the modern transatlantic order and this is not an exaggeration as many insist these days. If this is not countered, the temptation to revisit long settled political issues will only grow. I realize that sometimes responding to the obvious is the hardest. One has to put aside the comfort of habit, routine and inertia, even hope that things could have been so much different. So sanctions against Russia must remain despite all their real and imagined shortcomings. Here I would like to extend a little bit my narrative because I believe we are facing a longstanding challenge which has its roots, consequences and even ideological dimensions and this is actually what we talked about on that lunch mentioned earlier. First, we have to outline this and to say that the perception of the European Union is much deeper historically than we tend to think in this very moment. When we say European Union, we always think treaties and complicated bureaucracy. The truth is that the foundations of this juridical and first glance community is another centuries long existing society which is not based on any facts but on deeply rooted cohabitation. This European society exists long before even the creation of the nation states. Second, after the end of the World War II, Europe finally resolved its dichotomy between the European Atlanticism and the European Continentalism. This dichotomy has existed in Europe for centuries and it was only resolved after the end of the Second World War when the natural space for trade and human contacts of that part of Europe that was not under the Communism was the transatlantic dimension. Turns out that even if Europe and America could have looked until that moment as two separate worlds, they cannot think each other as detached. They have rediscovered their common past and roots and for the Europeans, North America begins after the Second World War begins to be seen as the continuation of Europe somehow. Especially after the beginning of the Cold War, the natural expansion of the European space as we mentioned is not which is not under the Soviet control but goes over the Atlantic. In the meantime, the doctrine of President Truman states that the US needs to support and protect the free nations in Europe against armed minorities and external pressure. One cannot help but draw parallels related to our reality of today. We somehow are in a very, very similar situation. On the other hand, we see attempts for revival of the continentalist idea in the Kremlin's contemporary policies. And here I have to make a short diversion and say, when I will speak about Russia, I will speak about Kremlin because that is where the policies of today are shaped. We all have good feelings towards the Russian people. We all want to trade, to have good relations with the Russian nation. We all want to see our democratic world and Russia closer. And we have done all the efforts after the fall of the Berlin Wall in order to achieve that. We have created all the mechanisms and opened all the possible doors in order to bring each other closer. In both in the European Union they mention, in NATO they mention, in World Trade Organization you name it. Those contemporary policies which Kremlin adopts right now and they lead as I mentioned to the revival of the continentalist idea existing in Europe way back. And those are usually articulated through new readings of the Eurasianist ideology aiming at the creation of a multipolar world. The main difference between the Euro-Atlantic idea and the Eurasian one is that Europe has never been an empire of only one of its ethnic components. Europe has been always a community but has never been dominated by one ethnic component. Actually before the creation of the nation states, whether you're German, whether you're French or Italian, that really didn't matter. Europe was an alive organism which was interacting, the different ethnic components were interacting with each other and had different things in common. Also the Eurasian idea has built itself as a projection of only one power center. As opposite, the Eurasian historical space is imperial space of one nation and coincides with the territories of the former Russian and Soviet empires. Europe has always developed without the domination of one nation even if the attempts for that have existed with the time. The Europeans had similar value system and social stratification. If you look back in the history you can see that. In most of the European states or kingdoms, whatever we call them, not nation states but kingdoms, the social stratification was more or less the same. Throughout the centuries there's no common Eurasian history, culture or civilization created. The only attempt for the creation of such community of common perceptions and value system in the Eurasian space was done by the Bolsheviks and we all know how that experiment crashed and burned historically. Europe is a natural continuation, on the other hand, Europe is a natural continuation of something that has always existed while Eurasia historically until nowadays is artificially fed idea. Even today's Eurasian union has to be looked through these lenses and needs to be looked as a community of countries united by the sole idea to resist freedom, democracy, human rights, rule of law, et cetera. Everything on which our civilization is founded. The main ideological differences between the Euro-Atlantic world and what Kremlin promotes as a Eurasian idea today could be more or less captured in the following. For Kremlin the foundations of a great society is the heavy and dominating state. For us the basis of a powerful society is the individual and the family, that is the nucleus. The place for formation of solidarity is the city in the Euro-Atlantic sense. The municipality, the local community, that's where common will is formed. The individuals, the local communities, their initiative form a society which the state is called to safeguard. For Kremlin it's exactly the opposite. It's the verticalization, top-down philosophy of what is important for the state and for the community. From the rhetoric of the Kremlin officials we can also detect the idea for the uniqueness of the Russian nation. It's somehow messianic mission, the Russian Renaissance after the post-Cold War humiliation. Even if we tried to avoid it as we mentioned, even if we tried to create all the mechanisms of reconciliation and bringing closeness, obviously the dissolution of the Soviet Union was lived as a humiliation. And what is happening right now is the rebirth of mystical nationalistic ideologies which leads to this perception for a messianic mission for which feeds the Russian Renaissance somehow. Euro-Atlantic societies rely on the fact that the faithful people, the people of faith will realize their religious ethos individually and in interaction with one another in the community, in the police. Kremlin counts exactly on the opposite, that the Russian revival as superpower will go through the mobilization of the Orthodox church as an institution guided by the state. The church has assumed somehow the role of something like a spiritual police, if you will, or sacred nucleus of the Russian ideology, something that has the power to shape, through the authorization of the state to shape the moral standards. The most striking difference, though, related to the perception of power, the most striking difference between the perceptions in the Euro-Atlantic world and the Eurasian concept, in this case, are related to how we perceive power as such. For Kremlin, the power which can assure the nation's glory is inseparable from the territory, the increasing military capabilities, and most important here, the confrontation. The letter assures the maintenance of fear outside the borders, assures the maintenance of a pole and the creation of a multi-polar world perception. Assures also the idea that only in that way, the empire could be kept whole and united. In the past, the main object for confrontation was the main object for confrontation was the Roman and Germanic Europe, let's put it this way, Western part of Europe, the Catholic protestant Europe. Now, it is the United States. That is what is perceived in Kremlin as the core of evil. And Europe somehow is a victim of what comes from the US. So the messianic mission is to save Europe somehow. That is what's going on in my modest estimate. Breaking the transatlantic bond, though, becomes the most important strategic goal. And everything is aimed at that. Also, of course, a lot of effort is put into trying to disunite the European Union. The notion is that the European Union is an unsuccessful project. Something that has not united itself to the extent which is needed in order to take common quick decisions to be able to react on global issues fast and according to the values which the same European Union promotes. And we can see daily proofs for that. Also, I am absolutely sure that liberal democracy is viewed from Kremlin as a concept, a social architecture, a construct which is doomed to fail historically. It is seen, liberal democracy is seen as something weak which will crumble and fall apart under the weight of its own weaknesses. Bureaucracy, moral, relativity, slowness, indecisiveness, too much freedom and openness which opens doors for everything that goes into it. So those notions are seen as problematic on the part of the Eurasian ideological framework and are used against us somehow. Here, of course, we need to say the following. For us it is extremely crucial and important to keep the transatlantic bond alive in any possible manner, not only alive but strong, continue strengthening it and speak in one voice. Speak as a union. This situation gives us also opportunities to wake up and realize what the transatlantic union is and what we need to defend today. Defending our freedom is the most important thing that we can think of, but with that are coming many, many other things. Many have taken a stab at NATO, for example, and it's supposed to decline. Some have even enjoined doing so. But the Alliance has made its smooth transition into the 21st century, despite many remaining issues, and I'm particularly pleased to see the creation of a real, soft and hard infrastructure of the collective defence provisions. NATO's current work along the eastern and south eastern flanks is very much supported by us and we are fully committed to taking this further. The demonstration that Article 5 of the Washington Treaty is alive and we are ready to defend each other is crucial for us, especially the countries on the eastern flank of NATO. A few words about economy. Strong West able to defend its values and protect the liberal international order fundamentally requires vibrant and successful economies on both sides of the Atlantic. Contrary to the expectations of many, globalization has not been a one-way street, going in West's favour. As a result, we face quite a few significant challenges. A geo-economic shift to the east and need to change our economic models to adjust to the 21st century create a better balance between enterprise and inequality. Prepare our citizens for the economy of the future, find drivers of growth in key 21st century sectors, IT, innovation, bio and nanotechnologies, etc. We have much to note that the US is back to solid growth, creating jobs, high-value jobs, creating as ever new innovative products. Europe is also growing again after some reform, hesitation and uncertainty. Economic integration of the continent is deepening. Look at the new Eurozone governance system, the new growth funds under the so-called Junker Fund, etc. No doubt there is a need for much more, but creating a transatlantic common market is crucial and it will further embodiment of the transatlantic link as well as a source of much needed economic growth. Bulgaria is very supportive of this process. We have quite an active communication policy on the benefits of TTIP and the fact that it will continue as negotiations and process. Here we have to say probably a lot of you are curious of how do we see the crisis in Greece and the deal reached there. One thing I can say, first Greece is our immediate neighbor and we don't want anything, any term oils there and we don't wish anything bad or problematic for the Greek people. The truth is, though, is that what we want and what the whole Eurozone wants from Greece is to stop accumulating debt. The debt that Greece has until now, it is clear and we have to deal with it together. But the accumulation of new debts and refusal to reform in order to achieve that is the problem of the Eurozone and all the creditors. And I will give example with Bulgaria. In 1997, we were completely and utterly broke. The country, Bulgaria, was, correctly if I'm wrong, but it was, we had hyperinflation and it was something like 700% at the time, huge. We were broke, there was nothing. Our debt was 112% of our GDP. In the frame of a little bit more than a decade, we had to pay 42% of our state budget for covering the debt plus the interest. 42% of the state budget. Austerity, discipline, fiscal discipline, surpluses, no deficits. And we did it. It's very often referred to us as the poorest country in the European Union which I think it's a little bit unfair because we had to go through that, not that so long time ago. So now we're growing, now we have a little growth but we are growing. Before the crisis we were growing even with higher steps. But it is what it is. Now we are fiscally stable, now we are following the rules and the regulations which we all have adopted in the framework of the European Union and the Eurozone. And that's how it needs to be. So we all need to comply with that. A little bit about the energy field which for us is another huge challenge. It is of particular importance for Bulgaria and other countries in Europe and there are a few processes which taken together essentially amount to a quiet revolution. Shell gas extraction, energy transportation advances, greater interconnectivity, growth of renewables, more investment in energy efficiency. These are creating a dramatic change that is causing important shifts in Europe. The EU is making progress on its energy union and those most committed to this idea are actively complementing EU level and national level measures and policies. The current Bulgarian government has picked up the speed of energy reforms. There are now tenders of gas exploration in the Black Sea, long ignored interconnectivity projects with neighboring countries. Those are implemented as a matter of priority. There are more funds for energy efficiency projects, etc. Taken together, all these policies and measures will create a new reality in Europe and one in which monopolistic actors will not be able to use energy as a political weapon and instrument of dependence. Here, we are particularly grateful to the role which the U.S. Administration plays and for the fact that there is a special envoy on energy, Amos Hoxton, a lot of you know him, who has been with us and with the whole European Union and the Commission in order to try and form together the future energy union of the European Union. The future map, the future energy map of the European Union, which depends on us. It doesn't depend on anyone else. This is what I'm trying to convey as a message every single time we are gathering in the format of the European Council. We have to stop being gullible when it comes to energy projects coming from Gazprom. In the minute in which something has been said there, there is at least one country that jumps and starts signing MOUs, which we know what it means. It means, again, a division inside the European environment. We need to realize that we are together in this and we are the ones who will decide where Gaz will enter Europe from. We are a customer and Gaz is a utility. It is something that we buy as in the market and we cannot allow that to be used against us for divisive purposes or as a political weapon for creating political influence in certain countries. That is basically what I wanted to say and I'm absolutely sure that the best part of this meeting lies still ahead of us, the Q&A bits, and we will have time to expand on some of these issues and talk about others. Once again, many thanks for this wonderful opportunity to present some thoughts today and I'm really looking forward to your comments and questions. Thank you very much for the attention. Thank you, Mr. Minister, for those comprehensive remarks. Good morning, everyone. My name is Heather Conley. I'm Senior Vice President here for Europe and I have to tell you, Mr. Minister, from this side of the Atlantic, I'm not sure I am as optimistic as you are on the European construction project, so I thought what we do is I warm the minister up a little bit with a few questions and then open the floor for discussion. Watching the weekend events, as Dr. Henry alluded to, watching where we almost had a Brexit. Greece, economically, is, I think, teetering on the brink of collapse. We hope tomorrow the Greek Parliament will vote on measures, unclear whether other Eurozone parliaments will agree. This is a profound shaking of the greatest project, certainly, I think, for U.S. foreign policy. I can't look that rosy from Sophia, can it? Well, I hope I didn't give the sensation that it's too rosy, but, of course, my hope and our hope is that, in the end, the reason will prevail and whatever happens, it will leave Greece inside the Eurozone. It is sure that the other countries of the Eurozone are strong enough and economically stable enough in order to keep the Eurozone stable and with enough trust in it. It is clear that the Eurozone, after a little bit of shaking, will stabilize. But what we are worried about is Greece itself. We don't want to see social turmoil, we don't want to see problems there. And as I mentioned as immediate neighbor, that concerns us not that much in economic terms because whatever we needed to do in order to prevent huge impact on our economy, we have done it already. But still, this is our immediate neighbor. This is a European Union country, member of the Eurozone. And I'm absolutely sure that we and the other members of the European Union will make all the necessary steps in order to assure that Greece does not fall within the spiral of inflation, Grexit and other nightmare scenarios. You've mentioned specifically, you're concerned about Turkish Stream. The Greece and the Kremlin have just signed a very large energy. You mentioned the MOUs, you're being very diplomatic, but we'll talk about Turkish Stream a little bit. This impacts the Southern Corridor project profoundly. You've spoken out about energy independence again. How do you message this internally to make sure the Energy Union is a successful project? Well, first, there was a very smart comment some days ago on the Internet. I don't know the author of it. It was anonymous, but it was said that all these streams, both South Stream, Turkish Stream, all the other streams, they look like a garden hose already flung around in the Black Sea. We need to realize that, once again, how the energy map of Europe will look like depends on us. There is already infrastructure built. It goes via Ukraine, gas infrastructure for transit of gas. Why would we need to build additional infrastructure and spend billions on projects we really don't need? We need to buy gas from wherever we say, not wherever someone else dictates us. What is important as well is the diversification of sources. Well, the South Gas Corridor is exactly that, and not only that, the LNG terminals. One of the most important projects, actually, for interconnectivity and diversification of sources lies in Bulgaria, and it is the interconnector between Bulgaria and Greece. This is where LNG gas coming from all over the world will go through and be redirected both north and west. The good interconnectivity will give us the possibility to receive gas from west and north. So reversible connections will give us the opportunity to reduce the prices, because right now Bulgaria is one of the countries which pays the highest price for gas in Europe. I mean, from 260, the prices vary, of course, but it's from 260 to 400, which for us is a huge, huge problem, as you can imagine. So this monopoly position of gas from needs to be broken, and we all realize that, but we need to start calling the bluffs of gas from, and saying, look, it is on us. And all the threats that gas transit will be stopped since 2019 via Ukraine, this is not how it works. There's a contract. This contract needs to be respected. We, if the Russian company doesn't trust the transit via Ukraine, we are ready to buy gas on the Russian-Ukrainian border. The transit will be our concern. But there is infrastructure, and to put it in other words, metaphorically, if I have something, if I had something I wanted to buy in the supermarket next door, why would I go 10 blocks away in order to buy the same thing on a higher price? There is already what we need, and now we need to interconnect and build the infrastructure which will allow us to diversify the sources. And the South Gas Corridor is actually one of the crucial projects in that regard, plus the LNG terminals. And that's related to UIS gas, Canadian gas, Australian gas, Israeli gas, Qatari gas, you name it. But this is what will give us more independence and more possibilities to have impact on the prices. One last question before I turn it over to our audience. There are some in the analytical community, I am one of them. It's very concerned about growing Russian influence in Bulgaria through energy. We talked about that through media, financial sector, some of the bank, the state of Bulgarian banks and that. Could you speak to how that influence is making your job more challenging as you're trying to diversify energy and trying to speak about a Euro-Atlantic community that's strong and not divided? I think we'd welcome that important impact, because some suggest that although our focus may be on the Baltic states and Poland, that's where our vulnerability, perhaps the vulnerability is Bulgaria, perhaps the vulnerability is Hungary. Your comment? First, the Bulgarian government has clearly shown where it stands right now. The fact that I'm here and I speak in this way, it is a clear sign where we are and what do we want to see and achieve in the future. We speak a lot about the Russian propaganda. It exists in Bulgaria historically. We have been quite close to Russia. There are many, many reasons for that. There's nothing bad in it if the situation was different. But when we speak about how difficult it is, I have to say in the recent weeks, I had to explain why, I mean it was in the framework of two weeks, I had to explain why a planned military training with 14 US tanks is not a threat to Russia. 14, 1, 4. Some of the political parties in Bulgaria, the opposition ones, have created such a hysterical environment around this military training and there are 78 of those planned for this year. If I have to explain one same thing every single time, I don't know, this will be a little bit too much. It is clear what we have decided in Wales. It is clear that we have created our instruments to implement those decisions. It is clear that every single year we have military trainings, but now those military trainings every single time are used to create hysterical environment and to somehow create the opinion that we are preparing for war or something very, very dangerous. But no one asked me the question, Mr. Minister, how do you take care of the national security when Russia announced the 40 ballistic nuclear missiles and when Russia announced that it is going to allocate heavy weaponry in Crimea, in the Crimean Peninsula? No one asked me that. But all of a sudden, a military training which will last for a certain amount of time and everything will be over, with 14 tanks caused a huge hysterical response on the part of the opposition. I have to say here, probably we're not doing a good job at preventing such things and realizing that every single bit of something that is going on could be used against us and actually blown out of proportion with the appropriate lies a lot could be achieved. And we have seen a lot of those lies in the recent, more than a year already. So here it is our common challenge. It's not only a challenge of the Bulgarian government. It is a European challenge. It is a transatlantic challenge. Absolutely. With the minister's permission, what I'd like to do is take a few questions, bundle them together. And then I'll let you have the wrap up. I have two questions here. We'll just work across the room. So if the microphone, Anna, could come here, please. And if you could please introduce yourself and your affiliation. Please, thank you. Hi. My name is Dr. Donna Wells. I'm a mathematician. I make predictive math models. Right now there's a debate on both sides of the Atlantic. Targeted bilateral trade versus group to group trade. I am a big fan of targeted bilateral trade. Can you talk about that dynamic? Thank you. That's a very specific question. I'll let you think on that one a little bit. I'm with Azerbaijan State Information Agency. The first question is President Plimoliev and President Maliev paid official visits to each other's country in March and April, respectively. How would you rate the Bulgarian-Azerian relations overall? And my second question has to do with points you addressed in your speech. Primarily the dependency of Bulgaria and other countries on single supplier of gas. I understand Bulgaria gets as much as 88% from a single supplier. And Bulgaria signed an agreement with Azerbaijan to buy up to 1 billion cubic meters of gas and get it through the interconnector you are talking about, through Greece, Bulgaria interconnector. How much independence will it give to Bulgaria? The economic independence plus independence to renegotiate its prices with Gazprom. And finally, bear with me the last question. A lot of people believe that Nabuka did not happen because of the lack of the commitment on part of the European Union. Does Bulgaria want to promote West Nabuka as part of its strategy? Because it would not only have Bulgaria as a buyer, but it will become a transit country. Thank you. Thank you. We'll take question from Bob right there and then we'll pass the microphone back. So right there and then right behind. Thank you. My name is Ambassador Robert B. Croft. I worked with your government, Minister Pasi, when you were the chair of the OSCE. I was the ambassador for the OSCE in Bosnia. And my question is a neighborhood question. How much attention are you paying to the difficulties in Bosnia and Herzegovina right now? Can Bulgaria continue to play a positive role in dealing with that situation? Thank you. I would just add two points to Bob's question, which you, certainly you and the Minister Lavrov got into a little conversation about Skopje. So I wonder if you might want to add that to the neighborhood in Bosnia. Yes, sir. We'll go right back there. And I'll continue on across. No more three-part questions. We'll have to take just one question. Mehto Kulowski united Macedonia and Diaspora to add on to that and to Skopje for Macedonia, you recently visited Macedonia. And so if you could just build on perhaps, you know, the leadership Bulgaria is taking on Macedonia's NATO and EU membership and maybe elaborate on this Bulgaria-Macedonia agreement that you've proposed. Great. Now we're going to start coming over to the middle section here. I see the two questions. One in the back, one in the front. Hi, Hugh Phillips. I liked what you said about Russia. And I wanted to know if you ever find it difficult to criticize the social contract there when, like she mentioned, there were some issues with the financial system in Bulgaria, a particular corporate commercial bank and some of the money movement around that and the year it took to get rid of the central bank governor and the institutional questions raised. Thank you. I think we had one. Taliq, right? Thank you. My name is Martin Nunoff. I am from the United Macedonian Diaspora as well. So I was actually curious to hear, this is a question that kind of sums up the two previous questions, but I was wondering to hear about your economic, political and security outlook of the Balkan Peninsula, of the Balkan region. I mean, we have Bosnia and Herzegovina classified as a hybrid regime. Macedonia being declassified as a hybrid regime. You know, Kosovo being a semi-consolidated regime and research or scholarship shows that actually, you know, violence and actually civil wars, there's a, you know, happened most of the time in actually hybrid regimes or semi-consolidated authoritarian regimes when countries deteriorated in terms of democracy. So yeah, how is your economic, political and security outlook, especially for the Balkan region? Thank you. So I think we need to have you back for a Balkan seminar. Shom, we're going to have one, there's one hand back here and then I'll hit this corner here and you are going to have to do some fire rapid answers. That's all I can say. Yes, sir, please. Thank you for your patience. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Minister. I'm Albert Nahas from Shanir Energy. There is now a United States gas available at cheaper than any competitive pipeline gas in Europe, including from the east. When do you think Bulgaria would be ready to sign an agreement with a U.S. company? That was a thumbs up right there. Do you have the text? We like to negotiate it here. I think we have two right here in that which. Thank you. Hi. Isn't it a little bit sort of disingenuous to talk about the importance of transatlantic cooperation, especially economic cooperation, when Bulgaria has repeatedly rebuffed, refused and obstructed U.S. investors' attempts to engage in a cooperative and collaborative dialogue with the government regarding the illegalities that sort of preceded the collapse of KTB. And along those same lines, you seem intent on holding Russia to account for its actions, specifically saying, I think Russia needs to be sanctioned and continue to be sanctioned for its illegal actions with regard to the annexation of Crimea. At the same time, the Bulgarian government takes the position that it is not accountable for the illegal actions of certain members of its own government, again, with regard to sort of the events that led to the collapse of KTB. So it seems like the message that Bulgaria is sending is that we're all for cooperation and international accountability when it suits Bulgaria's purposes, but we are not for sort of cooperating with foreign investors when it relates to illegalities and by members of the Bulgarian government. Thank you. If you could just pass the microphone to the colleague right in front of you, please. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, Dave Nelson with GE. Thank you for your comments and your remarks. You suggested that a variety of sources of gas is sort of a geopolitical key. Certainly Sabine passes one option that you should be looking at, but what about the potential for Europe to develop its own shale gas resources? Do you really see that as being something that they'll move forward on despite setbacks that we've seen in the U.K. and other places lately? Thank you. Certainly a significant protest that you had. So the task is respond in about three minutes if everyone would give me a little indulgence into your lunch hour. Mr. Minister, you can take the floor and wrap it up. Thank you very much. Great questions. Thank you. Great questions indeed. I'm really happy that we can converse on that. A lot of them are related, so I'll try to connect them. So targeted bilateral trade versus other type of trade. Well, you know, that's a very specific question as was already mentioned. Both of them have their advantages, but I'm absolutely convinced that here when we speak about TTIP, it has not only economic implications. Okay, right. Well, I'm afraid I'll probably, I'm not the most, let's say, competent person to answer this question. And what I wanted to convey as a message was when we speak about a little bit more global trade agreements in our case, and especially in the case of TTIP, it is a political, it has its political significance as well as its economic impact. And it is clear that targeted bilateral trade could still continue to exist within the framework of the whole trade agreements that are prepared in this very moment. So I don't see an impediment for both to be on the table and to be developed simultaneously. Then the Bulgarian-Azeri relations. In this very moment, they're really good. The Azeri president was half a year ago, he was in Sofia, if I'm not mistaken, with half of the government. As you mentioned, we have signed an agreement about delivery of 1.5 BCM of Azeri gas when the South gas corridor is constructed. Of course, we are looking forward to trying to expand that because someone mentioned a transit country and Nabucco, yes, of course, if Nabucco is an option, of course we will advocate for it. But this needs to be coordinated with all the other European Union countries. And see how, again, together we can somehow create the energy map of the European Union so that everyone agrees that those are the right moves. If the Bulgaria-Greece Interconnector is in place, Bulgaria will be still a transit country. Of course, we need to expand it, of course we need to work on it because the LNG terminals will provide more and more possibilities for gas transit. And this is where we are actually trying to aim at. How much independence it will assure us? All the independence in the world. That's exactly what we need in order to modify the prices, in order to have the leverage on where from gas will arrive to Bulgaria, not only to Bulgaria but in the whole region. Because if we are interconnected enough, gas from Spain can arrive to Bulgaria, gas from Germany can arrive to Bulgaria. If it is on the right price, that's what we need. So this is the whole idea to get out of this type of dependence, but it's not only our dependence. You rightly mentioned, we are almost 90%, even more than 90% dependent on Russian gas right now. And that's not normal. How much attention do we pay to Bosnia and Herzegovina and especially when it comes to the Balkans? Well, one of the priorities in this very moment of our foreign policy is to try and help in any possible manner to the Western Balkan countries. European Union will never be complete without them being part of it. And that is why every type of help, both in terms of financial support through the development programs or expertise which we can provide to share our transition experience, which is quite significant. We've done a lot of things well. We've done probably more, not in the best way, but smart people learn from the mistakes of the others. We can provide even that in order to prevent our neighbors and friends from committing the same mistakes. Anyway, all this is valid for Serbia, for Bosnia. Recently we had a government-to-government session with our Romanian friends and we have formed the so-called Krajava Group where the Serbian Prime Minister was invited in order for us as three countries, both two of them, members of the European Union and Serbia, which aspires to be one, to be able to find all the common grounds and all the possible ways to push the process of the Serbian-European integration as fast as possible forward. So this is the philosophy of it and we are trying to, of course, in the framework of the process for the cooperation of Southeastern Europe, where we just assumed the chairmanship in office, also in that framework we are trying to set priorities which are important for the region, which will help each one of the countries which are candidates for European membership to walk the path quicker. It is clear that the European Commission has excluded the enlargement, the European enlargement from the mandate of this commission, but that doesn't mean that we need to just abandon the process quite on the opposite. In order to maintain the enthusiasm for reform, we need to be more often there. We need to be more often in Belgrade, in Sarajevo, in Skopje, in Tirana, everywhere. I would include here Moldova as well, for example, and Ukraine, of course, and Georgia. All these friends of ours who aspire to European Union membership, we need to visit them as often as possible and give them all the possible support in order to transform and reform their institutions to the maximum extent and bring them closer to the European standards. The Bulgarian-Macedonian agreement and my exchange with Minister Lavrov, well, you know, I'm not very comfortable, on the last point, I'm not very comfortable for someone else, alien to the region, to impose a role on Bulgaria and to somehow assume what Bulgaria or Albania or someone else will do. That is why we have initiated exactly in the framework of this process for cooperation in southeastern Europe, we will try to negotiate and initiate a declaration which tends to guarantee and reaffirm the territorial integrity and the untouchability of the borders in the region once again so that we know that no speculations from elsewhere could drive us or deviate us from what we have as goals, both European Union countries and aspiring countries for membership in the European Union. The Bulgarian-Macedonian agreement with the Republic of Macedonia, well, we are talking all the time, there are rounds of conversations. I have to say this is a little bit... it's a stagnant process, unfortunately, for years and in the last year since I'm in office we tried to somehow revive this process but beyond the recent events there was quite an exchange and I think there's a goodwill formed within the government in Skopje to finally solve this and move on. We have agreed that the declaration of 1999 needs to transform into an agreement. That is it, it's simple as that but there are always some moments there which are keeping us from signing it but the last visit to the Republic of Macedonia to Skopje in general, I think with that there was... that gave a little bit of an impulse to move this process forward. So right now we are negotiating the dates for the next meeting of the working groups, the expertise and we'll of course do all our best in order to sign this because the good neighbourly relations are part of the European integration process anyway. We have all the best will to be one of those countries which help the Republic of Macedonia to integrate in the fastest possible manner. We're very close countries and friends just the recent years have been a little bit difficult for us and I think that right now we have the potential to move this process forward and of course for Skopje it's important to find a solution to this stagnant situation inside the country, internal political situation and close the gap between the dissatisfaction of the citizens or great part of the society and the practices of the government. So reforms are needed and we know what kind of reforms, they know what kind of reforms through the efforts of Commissioner Hahn and the so-called Quintet, the ambassadors in Skopje which are deeply engaged in this process we're trying to convey messages all the time we're trying to help and I'm really hopeful that certain very specific steps will be taken soon. But we have a very good cooperation in this moment and I hope it will result at least in signing the agreement. Well, the political and the economic developments in the Balkans, well you know these are challenges which we all have faced throughout the time. I mean very often if you go back in time Bulgaria was in a similar situation as some of the western Balkan countries are in this very moment. Other countries of the new enlargement way they were in the same situation but it takes will, it takes political will, it takes the desire for reform and really joining the European Union and democratizing the institutions and doing heavy choices. The reforms are never easy. They are unpopular. They create social dissatisfaction in certain part of the society. Everyone needs to know that but still the politicians need to take that risk and explain very well why they're doing what they're doing and just move on. I think in some of the countries that will it's very strong, not going to mention names but there is well in others less because of different reasons and of course when it comes to Bosnia and Herzegovina for example the German British initiative was a good thing but we see now that it has been stalled for a while. So we're trying to push those processes further on. On KTB. Let this be the last question I'm recalling everyone. Your time is so valuable. There were some questions there. I didn't really understand how the Bulgarian government has impeded the access of the American embassy to the process. Actually that's something that we were most collaborative on we have very good relations with the US embassy any type of information that has been requested from us on that particular case because we know how sensitive this issue is. We have provided it. We have paid four billion level to the people who had guaranteed deposits in the bank. Of course if you ask me the process for determining the people responsible for the collapse of KTB needs to be quicker. Responsibles need to be brought to justice and we are actually fighting for that. We are trying to change the judicial system in this very moment. As you probably know because you're well aware of the situation we're trying to amend the constitution even in order to bring a change to the judicial system and you know what kind of resistance there is on the other side. I don't think anything is determined in this very moment. Investigations need to be conducted and basically finished in order to really establish whether there were government officials or officials of the central bank who are also responsible. So that's clear. And that is in the process of being done. This is not an easy investigation and it will take time. There's all the will in the world and if you ask me if I could speed it up I would but first that's not my domain really and second I'm not really sure how quick this process will go because there's a lot to investigate in this case and we need to be sure that whenever there's a final result it's really final and that the responsible could be brought to justice in that very moment. There's the will for that. I can assure you about this but it's quite a delicate issue and I wish the Minister of Finance was around. Well we'll have him next. Probably for the first time in my life but no he's very tough. That's why I'm saying this and he is personally engaged in that. Now you know that there's a new governor of the central bank and there will be possibilities to unravel this and untie this knot probably quicker. Mr. Minister you've given us a comprehensive set of remarks. You took nine rapid fire questions. I added three more and we've held you up but thank you for the wonderful questions from the audience and your generosity of time and providing us such great remarks. Please join me in thanking the Minister.