Radev, Yotova and Stoyanov will not harm the campaign of “Progressive Bulgaria“ if they admit the obvious: it is entirely possible that the attacks on ships near Bulgaria are part of Russian attempts to make the route to Ukrainian Black Sea ports dangerous.
Why is it so difficult to say this out loud? Why do Bulgarian politicians behave as if the mere naming of the probable perpetrator is more dangerous than the threat we need to discuss?
Let's start with the simple things. The weapons that European countries are buying from the United States under Donald Trump to supply Ukraine must reach the Ukrainian front. Some of the military supplies can travel along Black Sea routes and through accessible Ukrainian ports. And Russia has a clear military interest in hindering these supplies and limiting Ukraine’s ability to use its ports.
This is war. Weapons are not teleported to the front, nor do supplies for Kiev arrive via Lapland or the Baltic Sea by some magical, untouchable route. Geography matters, and the Black Sea is part of the military logistics of the conflict.
Therefore, the routes to Odessa and other Ukrainian ports are inevitably linked to military action. This does not prove who is behind each individual strike, but it makes the question of whether drone attacks on ships in the region are not part of Moscow's attempts to make maritime supplies to Ukraine riskier and more expensive completely logical.
This is exactly what Radev, Yotova and Stoyanov should explain. Calmly, with arguments and without unnecessary pathos. Even half-heartedly, if they are so worried about the political consequences.
Such a position is unlikely to harm the election campaign of “Progressive Bulgaria“ or upset its supporters. On the contrary - it would show that political responsibility does not end with silence when the situation becomes uncomfortable. Of course, provided that confirmed facts are clearly distinguished from probable explanations and assumptions.
The ships hit may have been carrying ammunition, other military equipment or quite ordinary civilian cargo. Without reliable evidence, we cannot know. But it is entirely possible that the purpose of such attacks is not only the destruction of a specific cargo. The strike itself could be a warning to shipowners, insurers, carriers and traders: this route is dangerous and every passage carries risk.
Thus, military pressure also turns into economic pressure. Insurance costs are rising, carriers are starting to rethink their routes, and businesses are wondering whether the risk is worth it. The consequences are not limited to Ukraine. They could affect all Black Sea trade, including Bulgaria.
For us, this is not unimportant. However, for countries that are waging war and pursuing military goals, economic damage to neighboring countries may prove to be an acceptable price. In war, foreign inconvenience is rarely a decisive argument when military and strategic interests are at stake.
And we continue to struggle. For now, thank God, mostly verbally.
Neither Russia, nor Ukraine, nor the US, nor the European institutions will change their strategic plans just because we have entered into yet another political dispute in Bulgaria. None of the participants in the conflict will be particularly moved by the fact that here we are accusing each other of a lack of courage, national responsibility or correct geopolitical orientation.
And hardly anyone will scold us if the Bulgarian authorities present the most likely explanations for what is happening, indicate what evidence is available and explain what measures they are taking for the security of the country.
Quite the opposite. A country that understands the risks around it and can name them seems more mature than a country that prefers to remain silent so as not to anger someone.
There is also a purely domestic political paradox here. The opposition constantly reproaches the authorities for not naming whose drones they are. Okay, then why didn't the government come up with a clear position? To say what the available data shows, which version it considers most likely, what evidence supports it, and what it is doing to protect Bulgarian interests.
That way, at least, it will remove the basis for the constant accusations that it is hiding behind diplomatic formulations. And if the evidence does not allow a categorical conclusion, let it state it openly. And that is a position. Sometimes it is even more responsible than self-confident conclusions that are ahead of the facts.
Talking about a probable Russian responsibility does not mean declaring war on Russia. It does not mean becoming a participant in a foreign political spectacle. It means recognizing that there is a military logic that directly affects our region, and explaining its consequences.
The Black Sea is not an abstract geopolitical map on which great powers move their pieces. It is the sea by which we live, through which our trade passes, and in whose waters any escalation could affect our security and economy.
We do not need to know everything to say what is probable. We do not need to be sure of every detail to explain the military logic. But we do need to know when silence ceases to be caution and begins to look like fear of our own assessment.
The question is not whether we will offend Moscow, Kiev, or someone in Brussels with one sentence. The question is whether the Bulgarian authorities have the courage to explain to Bulgarian citizens what is probably happening in their own sea — and what risks arise from it.