Bulgarian minister Čamova used the phrase „North Macedonian” in one statement, and Skopje reacted instantly. Ljubčo Georgievski, leader of VMRO-NP and former prime minister, weighed in on his own terms - with a point many didn't expect.

According to Georgievski, the terms „Macedonian” and „Macedonian-ness” have always had a permanent presence in Bulgarian historical literature. That isn't a political thesis - it is an empirical fact for anyone who has worked with Bulgarian historiography from the 19th and early 20th centuries. Even at moments when Bulgarian institutions officially rejected Macedonian aspirations, the terminology lived on in the literature as a reality, not as an invention.

Georgievski qualifies the use of „North Macedonian” as a „logical slip” often made by foreign diplomats, rather than a conscious provocation. Still, he stresses that such phrases carry weight because they come after two terms of Bulgarian vetoes against Macedonia's EU integration. The social media outrage at the formulation is the expected continuation of old pain - Bulgarian media and a part of the political class are still fighting battles they lost in the domain of „the Macedonian question”.

One interesting point from Georgievski: he says Bulgaria made a strategic mistake by allowing the two states to publicly present themselves as international opponents. Through the lens of international diplomacy, with Macedonia as a small country attractive to the EU, and Bulgaria as an ambitious regional player - Bulgaria's hardline stance has not earned it any international points. It built an image of a big neighbour using its advantage.

For the Balkan reader, these debates are wearyingly familiar. What is new is the tone - Georgievski doesn't talk about „Bulgarian aggression”, he talks about a „Bulgarian mistake”. That is an analytical, not a reactive approach, and our politicians rarely take it. Once they settle into defensive mode, it is hard to switch into a conversation that requires acknowledging complexity.

How much these rhetorical rearrangements will actually deliver is another question. EU integration still depends on constitutional amendments, minorities, border frustrations. Historical and literary discussions matter for identity, but real progress happens in legal documents, not in tweets.