27 October 2026
(IMAGE: AI)
Russia has already struck four ships off the coast of Bulgaria in October with drone attacks. However, the Bulgarian authorities have yet to identify the party behind these attacks. This uncertainty evidently influences how the Bulgarian media covers Russian strikes in the Black Sea.
Last summer, when Russia attacked civilian ships near Odesa, most of the publications analyzed published information from the Russian Ministry of Defense claiming that these ships were allegedly transporting weapons for the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Of course, they also included statements from the Ukrainian side. But the effect of this coverage played right into the Kremlin’s hands: the sides are firing at each other, something incomprehensible and dangerous is happening, so it’s better to stay on the sidelines, as if it doesn’t concern us.
However, following the latest attacks, it seems that war is closer than it appeared. And the issue of countering Russian drones is important not only for neighboring Moldova and Romania, but also for Bulgaria.
So how is the Bulgarian media covering the drone threat, and who exactly are they blaming for undermining safe navigation in the Black Sea? Let’s analyze local media reports from August through early October 2026.
According to Suspilne, on October 6, two commercial vessels were attacked off the coast of Bulgaria. One, the Alfa Watan, sank; the fate of the crew is unknown, and only lifeboats and rafts were found at sea. The other, the Able, was damaged, but the crew was rescued. President Zelenskyy stated that Ukrainian defense forces had not conducted any operations near the Bulgarian coast. Despite this, the country—led by the pro-Russian government of Rumen Radev—has been unable to determine who exactly might be behind the attack.
“Is Russia sinking ships carrying Ukrainian grain in the sea near Bulgaria? The authorities won’t say until they see the wreckage,” read an article published by the Bulgarian newspaper “24 Chasa.” “The Bulgarian government refused to say whether the attack was carried out from Russia or Ukraine, despite suspicions that the Russians were behind it. Prime Minister Rumen Radev stated only that the drones were either Ukrainian or Russian,” the publication reports, adding that he convened a meeting regarding the attack. However, the meeting lasted only 20 minutes, the journalists note, and afterward, the politician continued with his schedule for the day, attending an event where drones play soccer.
<picture>
Report on the Russian attack on the “24 Chasa” website. SCREENSHOT: “24 Chasa”
The country’s president, Iliana Yotova, who is also occasionally described as a pro-Russian politician, convened a meeting of the National Security Advisory Council following pressure from the opposition, with the topic “Current Risks and Threats to Bulgaria’s Maritime Security and Critical Infrastructure in the Context of the War in Ukraine.” As we can see, our country is mentioned in the title, but Russia is not.
According to the publication “24 Chasa,” the country’s defense minister also refused to hold Russia responsible. Dimitar Stoyanov noted that it is unclear what cargo was on the ship, since it is on fire, and said that drone debris must be found to confirm who was behind the attack. “I heard President Zelenskyy’s statement very clearly that the drones were Russian, but I cannot confirm that,” he said.
However, the publication “NOVA” reported that debris is not needed to determine who is at fault: “According to experts, satellite data and intelligence already provide sufficient grounds to assume that the drones are Russian.” The Bulgarian Telegraph Agency (BTA), covering the proceedings of the aforementioned Council meeting, presented the positions of the leading political forces. They quoted the country’s former Prime Minister Nikolay Denkov, who said that it makes no sense for Ukraine to fire on its own ships, and Ivaylo Mirchev, co-chair of the “Yes, Bulgaria!” party, who stated that there were sufficient signs of clear Russian involvement in the attack.
Some Bulgarian media outlets joined the politicians who were unable to determine who initiated the attack. For example, the day after the attack, “Telegraf” published a statement from the Russian side denying that the named ships had been hit. The publication illustrated the article with an AI-generated image showing drones and ships firing at each other. This illustration is telling not only for this specific publication—it also conveys the general impression that such coverage might create for readers: everyone is firing at everyone else, drones are flying from all directions, and it’s unclear who is responsible. In the background information for the article, citing the Russian Ministry of Defense, it is stated that “Russian troops carried out nighttime drone strikes on logistics, transportation, and port infrastructure in Ukraine, as well as on ships which, according to Moscow, were being used in the interests of the Ukrainian armed forces.” The text does not include Ukraine’s position.
<picture>
SCREENSHOT: “Telegraf”
Throughout August and September, when Russia regularly attacked civilian vessels near the ports of Greater Odesa, many media outlets reported conflicting information about these events. In particular, it was difficult to determine from the reports what exactly the attacked ships were carrying and whether there was any confirmation of military cargo on board.
Here, BTA, citing Reuters, reports that Russia claimed to have struck cargo ships heading to Ukraine. The text states that the Russian Ministry of Defense believes the ships were “delivering weapons to the Ukrainian army.” There is no statement from Ukraine, nor any data from other sources. There is only a disclaimer at the end of the article: “Reuters cautions that it cannot independently verify this information.” So if the information cannot be verified, should it be published, thereby helping Russia conceal yet another war crime? In total, between August and October, the website published four articles based entirely on reports from the Russian Ministry of Defense: the ships were allegedly transporting “military cargo,” “military equipment,” and so on. The texts are structured identically: they are based on the Russian position, with no other data provided.
<picture>
BTA articles on Russian strikes. SCREENSHOT: BTA
Here is a report from the “24 Chasa” website titled “Russia Reports Strike on a Cargo Ship Near Odesa.” It turns out that the ship was “carrying military equipment for the Ukrainian Armed Forces.” The website cites BTA; there are no Ukrainian sources. Nor are there any disclaimers stating that the information cannot be verified. So, are we to believe the Russian Ministry of Defense, as if it were a credible and reliable source?
The publication “Dnevnik” reports on a Russian attack on Kyiv on September 28, during which the building of the Academy of Sciences, among others, was damaged. The article includes photographs of injured civilians, but it also features a comment from the Russian Ministry of Defense regarding this attack. Odesa and Chornomorsk are mentioned. It turns out that the cargo ships cited as targets of the attacks “allegedly were delivering cargo to the Ukrainian military.” So, were they delivering cargo or not?
Another news item reports that Ukraine attacked a Russian space center. In the background—once again, the source is solely the Russian Ministry of Defense: “Russia continued to attack Ukrainian ports on the Black Sea and the Danube. Odesa, Yuzhny, and Izmail were shelled overnight. According to the Russian Ministry of Defense, a fuel depot and a patrol boat were destroyed.” So does that mean the attacks were justified? Did the Ukrainian side really not comment on the strikes at all and not provide any photos of the damage?
So it’s no surprise that when the attacks took place near Bulgaria, journalists also didn’t immediately understand what was happening…
On October 13, another attack took place off the coast of Bulgaria. The vessel “Chelsea-3” was hit, but the crew was rescued. Another vessel, the HS Dignity, sank. The publication “Dnevnik” wrote about this attack: “There is no official information about the origin of the attacking vessels, but this time Prime Minister Rumen Radev summoned Russian Ambassador Eleonora Mitrofanova for a meeting.” Has the ice finally broken?
The “headlines”—the large titles under which the chronicle of events on October 6 and 13 was presented—also differ. After the first strikes, they wrote: “Following the drone strikes, one ship sank, and another was hit in Bulgaria’s exclusive economic zone”—in other words, they simply stated the fact of the attack. A week later, they mentioned Russia: “It’s logical that they’re Russian: Drones again attacked ships in Bulgaria’s zone in the Black Sea.”
<picture>
Headlines on the “Dnevnik” website. SCREENSHOT: “Dnevnik”
The publication also included critical remarks regarding the actions of certain politicians. For example, President Iliana Yotova announced that she would appeal to the UN Security Council regarding the attacks. Journalists commented on this as follows: “Russia is one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and has the right to veto any decision or opinion of the Council, which means that no decision can be made on behalf of this body without its approval or abstention. This calls into question the point of this move [Yotova’s appeal to the Council], since Russia is the prime suspect in the attacks on merchant ships in Bulgaria’s exclusive economic zone in the Black Sea.” Another article quotes the president condemning the attacks but then adds: “The president’s statement mentions neither Russia nor Ukraine.”
Representatives of various political parties also actively commented on the events. In particular, Bozhidar Bozhanov, co-chair of the “Yes, Bulgaria!” party, called the government’s stance on the Russian attacks “toothless.” In his view, the government “backed down,” and this only encouraged Russia to take bolder actions. In contrast, Tsontcho Ganev, a representative of the pro-Russian “Revival” party, blamed Bulgaria itself for the situation. In his view, by supporting Ukraine, the country has become a “party to the conflict.” “He declined to comment on who was behind the attack and said that the authorities must determine that,” writes “Dnevnik.”
Journalists also covered the prime minister’s conversation with the Russian ambassador. She stated that she had no information, but did not rule out that it could be a “provocation by a third party.” Radev, for his part, replied that “Bulgaria will continue to investigate the attacks together with its EU and NATO allies to establish the truth.”
In their chronicle of events, “Dnevnik” journalists also reported on a Russian strike against a civilian vessel near Mykolaiv. However, this time the presentation of the information was somewhat different. The publication noted with irony that such reports are usually accompanied by claims about the transport of military cargo or dual-use goods. In this way, the journalists made it clear that they view such statements from the Russian side with skepticism.
The publication “24 Hours” took a more neutral stance than “Dnevnik,” attempting simply to reprint the statements made by both sides. In one of the articles, journalists wrote about a dispute between Defense Minister Dimitar Stoyanov (who does not know who owned the drones) and Ivaylo Mirchev, co-chair of the opposition party “Democratic Bulgaria.” The opposition politician accused the government of being afraid to name the perpetrator of the attack: “Government officials are acting very coy. They are not here to protect their pro-Russian electorate for the elections; they are here to defend national security and Bulgarian citizens.” He also criticized the investigation conducted by the Bulgarian authorities, noting that the damaged vessel was inspected for only 30 minutes. In response, the Bulgarian defense minister suggested lowering Mirchev “on a rope onto any ship you wish—examine, observe, and inspect it as long as you like. I know you have sailing experience; you’ve sailed around there, so you can swim out to the ships to look for drones.”
The publication “Telegraf” reported on the inspection of the damaged vessel. In an article titled “Radev: Mitrofanova Assured That Russia Did Not Strike Any Ships in the Black Sea,” the prime minister is quoted as saying that divers were able to see “serious damage,” but found “no drone fragments that would allow for a definitive determination of the causes of the strikes.”
A review of the Bulgarian media gives us an excellent opportunity to understand what life is like in a country where pro-Russian politicians are doing their utmost to convince people that there is no war nearby. Here are the main tactics used to achieve this.
First, creating a sort of information quagmire where there is no reliable information whatsoever. So whose drones were they? It would seem that after the second attack, things became clear: the prime minister stated that it was logical to assume they were Russian. But the Russian embassy denies this—one publication even put it right in the headline. And an investigation was conducted, but nothing was established... Let’s put ourselves in the shoes of a Bulgarian reader. They’ll likely start to think that no one can be trusted, that everyone is lying. And they’ll become even more vulnerable to various forms of political manipulation.
Second, the politics of humiliation described by Brian Ott: politicians constantly attack one another, expressing opposing views. One politician suggests lowering someone down on a rope to inspect a damaged ship; another calls their opponents “calves.” On the one hand, this helps increase audience engagement, since such content resonates on social media. But on the other hand, it devalues politics and political dialogue as such, undermines trust in institutions, and ultimately creates a cynical voter who thinks that voting is pointless, since politicians behave like clowns.
Third, there is a misplaced balance. Bulgarian journalists continue to actively quote the Russian Ministry of Defense, even though its statements require particularly careful verification. But doesn’t this create the risk that readers will begin to perceive Russian attacks on civilian vessels as justified? Especially when it comes to vessels near the Bulgarian coast.
On the one hand, the media quote representatives of the company that operated the sunken vessel HS Dignity: there was no cargo on board at all. They publish photos of injured sailors and report on those missing. On the other hand, they regularly quote statements from the Russian Ministry of Defense about ships allegedly struck near Ukrainian ports that were transporting weapons for the Ukrainian Armed Forces. If such claims are disseminated without proper verification, readers may get the impression that the Russian strikes are justified. But is there any evidence that these ships were actually carrying military cargo?
It is clear that pro-Russian politicians in Bulgaria are exploiting their electorate’s sentiments regarding the Russian “liberating” empire, Soviet-Bulgarian friendship, and so on. The fear being exploited deserves separate consideration: it is much easier to think of this war as an internal Ukrainian problem rather than a Kremlin campaign against all of Europe.
However, the Bulgarian media finds itself following roughly the same course. Instead of guiding its audience out of the information quagmire created by politicians, most outlets pretend that official Russian sources are just as trustworthy as any others, or maintain a strange neutrality in which both sides deny any involvement in the attacks. So what should be done in this case—continue to “establish the truth” alongside the Bulgarian prime minister and defense minister, while turning a blind eye to the evidence that leads to that truth? Or choose a different tactic?
Perhaps now that Russian attacks have reached Bulgaria’s economic zone, it’s worth asking ourselves: what is the wolf, creeping up on you in sheep’s clothing, planning to do?
Наталія Стеблина
Oct. 27, 2026
The High Anti-Corruption Court has resumed consideration of Trukhanov's case regarding the purchase of the "Krayan" plant