Comment by Emilia Milcheva:
Thirty-four years after the first direct presidential elections, Bulgaria is once again faced with the question of its place in the world. However, this time it is not a question of where to go, but whether it is ready to defend the choice it has made.
In the elections for the head of state in Bulgaria, communists and anti-communists, leftists and rightists, candidates for the status quo and its opponents have clashed. Now another stake is added to the battle for “Dondukov“ 2 - the geopolitical one. This turned out to be the main dividing line between the leading candidates. It was sharply manifested after Russia's aggressive war against Ukraine landed in Bulgarian territorial waters, sank two ships and caused 21 casualties. The government prefers to say that these dead sailors are "unknown".
Geopolitical orientation
According to a Gallup survey from October 8, the geopolitical orientation of the candidates is decisive for 15.6% of voters, while their overall election program is leading for 10.1%.
In 1992, the nation was choosing its direction after communism, in 1996 it voted on the eve of the economic catastrophe, and in 2001 and 2011 the presidential vote was primarily domestic. In the last two presidential elections, Crimea and relations with Russia entered the debates, but remained in the shadow of the power struggle.
In 2026, the circumstances are completely different. The war in Ukraine has been going on for five years, the Black Sea is becoming an area of immediate risks for Bulgarian security, and relations with Russia are no longer a matter of historical sympathies and political rhetoric. The presidential candidates must answer how they see Bulgaria's place in NATO and the EU, what kind of defense it needs, and how the country should react to a threat.
The Red Line
It is no longer a question of the usual opposition of “Russophiles-Russophobes”. The question is about the real cost of the foreign policy pursued by the ruling party, led by Prime Minister Rumen Radev and their presidential candidate Iliana Yotova. This cost may turn out to be far higher than diplomatic isolation. The attacks on merchant ships in the Black Sea, the burning of 11 Starlink antennas at a secret site, and the explosions in military warehouses show how vulnerable the country's security is. To point to Russia as the perpetrator would mean admitting that the caution shown towards Moscow does not protect Bulgaria from Russian threats.
Unlike Bulgaria, however, the Lithuanian services managed to prevent the burning of Starlink antennas, and Vilnius accused Russia of an attempt at sabotage. Their Bulgarian colleagues claim that they are investigating, which is why they cannot provide any information.
Bulgaria did not become the “Switzerland of the Balkans“, but the government is trying to turn it into something similar by demonstrating neutrality. However, the Bulgarian version of it looks like this: we do not know who sank the ships and who is responsible for the victims, but we want allied aircraft to protect us, and allied teams to investigate. At the same time, in Brussels we agree with the conclusions of the European Council, which point to Russia as responsible for the attacks in the Black Sea. In Sofia, however, the story is different.
Differences in the response
Both Yotova and her main opponent Andrey Gyurov insist on coordination with the allies, but propose different actions. Yotova is betting on a European security mechanism in the Black Sea and supports the idea of a moratorium on military actions, also proposed by Prime Minister Radev. For Article 4 of the NATO treaty, she prefers a joint initiative of several Black Sea countries. Gyurov insists on immediate consultations on the same article and a specific plan for the protection of the coast and shipping.
The reaction of the authorities to security threats is already causing civil discontent. For October 20 in the “triangle of power” - the square, locked between the parliament, the Council of Ministers and the presidency, a protest was announced under the slogan “Enough inaction with Bulgaria's security. Your “peace“ is capitulation, your diplomacy is isolation“.
In fact, everyone is talking about peace. The difference is in the answer to the question of how it is guaranteed - by keeping quiet about the aggression and bowing down to Moscow or by strengthening defense and common European security.
A Third World War?
The world is on the brink of war, but salvation lies in a “very strong prime minister“ - at least according to GERB leader Boyko Borisov, who warned that the world has never been closer to war, and announced that none of the presidential candidates is fit to be the supreme commander-in-chief. Moreover, GERB is not proposing its own candidate for the post. Borisov reproached Radev for agreeing in Brussels with European leaders who pointed to Russia as the culprit for the attacks in the Black Sea, but refraining from the same conclusion in Sofia.
A day earlier, the chief foreign policy commentator of the "Financial Times" Gideon Rahman raised the question of whether the world is not sleepwalking towards World War III. In February 2022, many Europeans did not believe that Russia would attack Ukraine - despite the warnings of Western intelligence agencies. Today, Rahman also sees the danger in the misjudgments of the great powers. If Putin decides that NATO will not defend an attacked member state, the consequences could be catastrophic. That is why trust in allied commitments is part of deterring aggression. That is why the Bulgarian dispute over peace cannot be reduced to the question of who is more cautious in relations with Russia. Deterring aggression requires not only military capabilities, but also political determination to be used.
Calls for peace alone are not enough
If a country expects its allies to defend it, but it itself hesitates to name the threat, what message does it send to the potential aggressor? This is also a question for the candidates for “Dondukov“ 2. The president does not single-handedly determine foreign policy, nor does he command the army operationally, but he is the supreme commander-in-chief and represents the country in international relations. Therefore, his position on Russia, NATO and European defense cannot remain at the level of general calls for peace.
Bulgaria has long decided which side to take. Now it is about to elect a president who will not hesitate if the government puts this choice to the test.