Ivelin Mihaylov: Behind the Caretaker Cabinet Stand Ivo Prokopiev, Borisov, and Peevski — Ministers Are Dependent on Compromising Materials and Provide Protection for the Oligarchy

On the program “Delnitsi,” Ivelin Mihaylov delivers a sharp analysis of the political situation, claiming that the new caretaker cabinet is controlled by Ivo Prokopiev, Borisov, and Peevski, and uses a personal road incident as a metaphor for the collapse of the Ministry of Interior, while defending the activities of “Velichie” against media attacks and repression.

Here is a detailed description of Ivelin Mihaylov’s thesis regarding the new caretaker government, based on his participation in the program “Delnitsi.”

The Backstage Forces Behind the Caretaker Cabinet

Ivelin Mihaylov expresses a firm position that the composition of the caretaker government is not accidental. He defines the cabinet as a product of interaction between three main political figures: Boyko Borisov, Delyan Peevski, and Ivo Prokopiev. According to the leader of “Velichie,” these individuals arrange the political puzzle in the country and provide protection for specific economic interests. Active citizens observe processes that remain hidden from people with routine daily lives. Mihaylov claims that he has had direct confrontations with the individuals behind this power.

Oligarchic Dependence and Lawlessness

The primary function of the appointed ministers is to serve oligarchs who stand behind public political figures. Mihaylov points to a specific mechanism: the government appoints convenient ministers who allow businessmen to violate the law without consequences.

He gives the example of Hristo Kovachki. According to Mihaylov, thanks to political protection, Kovachki’s thermal power plants can burn waste with impunity and commit severe violations of environmental standards. These schemes allow oligarchs to acquire enormous funds that they did not earn through honest labor. With this money, they can buy influence and destroy any normal entrepreneur or developing business in Bulgaria.

The Role of Ivo Prokopiev and Energy Interests

Mihaylov emphasizes Ivo Prokopiev’s influence over the new authorities. He claims that Prokopiev stands behind political figures and uses power for specific economic goals. The main objective of this circle is to turn Bulgaria into a territory covered with wind turbines and solar panels.

Despite the short horizon of the caretaker government, Mihaylov is convinced that they will have enough time. He predicts that those in power will use the two months to issue the necessary permits for energy facilities and negotiate terms with other stakeholders. In this context, he also mentions the name of Dimitar Enchev, whom Mihaylov describes as the “right-hand man” of Ivo Prokopiev and associates with threats of physical violence.

Compromising Materials and Control over Former Officials

The influence of Boyko Borisov and Delyan Peevski over the formation of the cabinet is exercised through pressure. Mihaylov claims that both hold files and compromising materials on former ministers and political figures. This toolkit allows them to control appointments and the actions of people in power.

As an example of a political figure with unclear capital origins, Mihaylov points to Nadezhda Neynski (Mihaylova). He recalls that she owns a luxury hotel in Golden Sands, acquired during the government of Ivan Kostov. Mihaylov raises the question of why, instead of being held accountable for alleged theft from the state, she continues to appear in political arrangements around power.

Criticism of Specific Individuals: The “Ivan Hristanov” Case

In the discussion about power and its representatives, Ivelin Mihaylov sharply attacks Ivan Hristanov. He describes him as a “liar” and expresses readiness for a direct debate with him. Mihaylov claims he possesses a recording of a phone conversation that exposes Hristanov’s public statements.

Mihaylov’s doubts are directed at Hristanov’s competence and the possibility of him holding the position of Minister of Agriculture. The leader of “Velichie” recounts that Hristanov repeatedly visited “Bay Riban with the sheep in Velingrad” with promises of assistance, but his real actions reveal incompetence and arrogance. According to Mihaylov, such figures serve foreign interests, and their public attacks against private businesses are defamatory.

Lack of Real Change in the Model

Ivelin Mihaylov’s final conclusion is that the new government does not bring change. He states that it is merely a replacement in which some figures step aside for others, but the corrupt practices remain. The hopes for a “change of the model,” mentioned by President Radev, remain unjustified. Instead of the state imposing its will and helping mayors and citizens, it continues to function as a protective umbrella for oligarchy and a tool of repression against inconvenient individuals.