Radev says the problem is that we call the Russian attacker by name

Bulgarian Prime Minister Rumen Radev has drawn a peculiar security-policy lesson from the drone attacks in the Black Sea: in his view, Romania was hit by further attacks because Bucharest named Russia as responsible. According to his remarks at Monday's economic forum in Sofia, one of the secrets to calm in the region could be for the attacked countries to show enough tact to keep quiet about who is attacking them, in the hope that Moscow would appreciate the courtesy.

According to a report by Trud, Radev said that Romania had blamed Russia for the drone attacks in the Black Sea, "and this led to further attacks on ships in Romania's exclusive economic zone." The Bulgarian prime minister thus established a causal link between naming the aggressor and the subsequent strikes, while stressing that he himself is only willing to make accusations when there is clear evidence. This argument contains a peculiar contradiction: if, according to Radev, we don't know for certain who attacked, how does he know that the further attacks were in fact retaliation for naming Russia? To establish such a connection with such confidence, he would need to have a fairly firm idea of who chooses the targets and on what basis. So the strictness about evidence apparently only applies up to the point of naming the attacker — but suggesting that the attacked neighbor bears some responsibility requires nothing more than the prime minister's hunch.

Radev meanwhile boasted that, of the heads of government of the three Black Sea NATO member states — Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey — he was the only one to summon the Russian ambassador and clearly state his position to him; he added, however, that he has principles, which is why he expects clear evidence and is not willing to level accusations based on slogans — and whoever wants may forward the cognitive dissonance contained in this to Ottó Gajdics, who will surely appreciate it. The Bulgarian prime minister also spoke approvingly of his country's rescue units, which showed up at the scene of the incidents in Bulgaria's exclusive economic zone despite darkness and difficult weather conditions. Regarding the rescue of the Chelsea 3 vessel, he promised a thorough investigation, and stated that Bulgaria's security rests on the EU, NATO and a strong transatlantic partnership with the United States — all of which fit comfortably in the same speech alongside the idea that another NATO member state's troubles may have been partly caused by speaking too clearly about the attacks.

What follows from Radev's words is that Moscow is watching who dares to call it the aggressor, and chooses its next target accordingly. In this narrative, Bulgaria's restraint plays the role of wise self-defense, while Romania's openness plays the role of dangerous recklessness — in other words, the responsibility for avoiding attacks is neatly shifted onto whoever's ships and security are being threatened. Meanwhile, behind all this lie very real maritime incidents: according to Trud's tally, between October 5 and 23, eight merchant ships were hit or were involved in incidents linked to drone attacks off the coasts of Bulgaria and Romania. Clarifying these would require investigations and evidence, yet Radev himself went beyond that, offering a ready-made explanation for why the attacks continued in the Romanian area. The Bulgarian prime minister thus proclaims allegiance to the alliance while at the same time conveying a rulebook of intimidation: NATO is the foundation of our security, but please choose your words carefully, so as not to offend the attacker. In the end, it may turn out that the most important means of defending Black Sea shipping is well-chosen evasive talk, and that drones only turn back depending on how politely a government refrains from naming who sent them.

Ugar