EditPresidential election: Bulgarians choose a side in Russia’s war
The three leading candidates want the war in Ukraine to stop, but not all of them want Russia to be stopped
Ask the three main presidential tickets in Bulgaria what should happen in Ukraine and they will all talk about peace. Ask them what that peace looks like – and the consensus falls apart.
Behind the same word “peace” stand two incompatible policies toward the war that upended European security: the aggressor must be contained, or its responsibility must be erased and its terms accepted. The difference between them will be one of the big stakes of the 25 October presidential election in a Black Sea EU member state on NATO’s eastern flank.
In contention for a runoff
The 25 October vote pits an incumbent president, a former prime minister and a nationalist leader against one another, and their positions on Russia map the full spectrum of Bulgarian politics.
Iliana Iotova, a long-time BSP politician and former PES MEP, took over the presidency at the beginning of 2026 after Rumen Radev left office to win executive power. Standing with her is Kiril Valchev, director-general of the state news agency BTA. Last year he was unanimously re-elected to a second term at the head of BTA by all political forces in parliament.
Their main rival, Andrey Gurov, is a former caretaker prime minister and former deputy governor of the Bulgarian National Bank whose political career began in the pro-European “We Continue the Change.” As prime minister he visited Kyiv, signed a ten-year security agreement with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and defended continued aid to Ukraine.
Iotova called the agreement “inadequate”; Gurov defended it as a contribution to the security not only of Ukraine but of Europe. His running mate, Georgi Kandev, is a former interior ministry secretary-general.
The third ticket is put forward by the nationalist and pro-Russian party Vazrazhdane (Revival). Its leader, Kostadin Kostadinov, is one of the most consistent opponents of military aid to Kyiv. His vice-presidential candidate, Petar Volgin – a former radio anchor and MEP from the Europe of Sovereign Nations group – defends the same line in Brussels.
The fault line between them can be captured in three remarks. “Here we really do have an aggressor – Russia, which attacked its neighbour,” Gurov says. According to Iotova there is no longer any point in defining who the aggressor is, because in the war “there are two sides.” Kostadinov goes furthest: “Russia is not to blame for this war, Russia is not an aggressor.”
Radev’s line without Radev?
Iotova enters the campaign as favourite. A Global Metrics poll gave her the strongest starting position, and in July Alpha Research named her the politician with the highest public approval in the country. Her advantage does not come only from the presidential office. She also inherited the political line of Rumen Radev, who challenged the sending of weapons to Ukraine.
Radev argued that the war had no military solution, that more weapons meant more victims and destruction, and that Europe had been late with diplomacy. Iotova repeats the same: the war must end as soon as possible, Bulgaria has no place in coalitions that supply weapons, and it should initiate a “coalition for peace.”
But she went further than he did in erasing responsibility, declaring the question of the aggressor meaningless.
Iotova’s peace – convenient for the Kremlin
As arguments she uses two missed opportunities for peace, in her view – the Minsk agreements of 2014–2015 and the Russia–Ukraine talks in Istanbul in spring 2022. Moscow cites them as proof that the war could have been avoided or ended if Kyiv and the West had accepted Russian terms.
The Minsk agreements of 2014–2015 were supposed to stop the shooting in Donbas, but they planted a political mine under Ukraine. Kyiv was to hold elections and grant special status to the occupied parts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions before fully regaining control of the border with Russia. Moscow counted on the territories dependent on it becoming a permanent lever over Kyiv’s policy, including its rapprochement with the EU and NATO.
The Istanbul talks in spring 2022 reached a common framework but not a peace treaty. Ukraine discussed forgoing NATO and permanent neutrality in exchange for international security guarantees, while keeping its path toward the EU. Unresolved remained the territories, the size and armament of the Ukrainian army, and above all who would protect the country and how in the event of a new attack.
In the Russian draft, the international guarantees could be activated only with the consent of all guaranteeing parties – including Russia itself.
For Gurov, peace begins with deterrence
Andrey Gurov starts from the opposite thesis: peace without deterrence does not stop the war, it prepares the next one. For him, military aid must give Ukraine the chance to negotiate without capitulating to Moscow’s terms.
For Gurov a Russian victory would be a threat to European security.
The Bulgarian president does not set foreign policy alone and does not represent the country in the European Council, but can influence the national position and set the tone of the debate on aid to Ukraine. Under Gurov, Sofia would argue about how much and how to help, not about whether Russia is an aggressor at all.
The voice of his vice-presidential candidate is less clear. Kandev acknowledged that Ukraine has been attacked, that there are Russian troops on its territory and that it has the right to defend itself, but on the programme “Off Air” he avoided the unambiguous definition “aggressor.”
Peace without blame for Russia
For Kostadinov and Volgin, peace looks exactly as in the Kremlin’s account: Russia is not an aggressor, the “collective West” is sustaining the war, and aid to Ukraine must stop before the Russian army has withdrawn. The attacked state is obliged to accept the results of the aggression – that is what follows from their position.
Thus peace turns out to be the name of two incompatible policies: Russia must be contained, or its terms must determine the end of the war – more softly with Iotova and without circumlocution with Kostadinov.
The war will not be decided in Sofia. But on 25 October Bulgaria will decide where it stands while Europe tries to stop it. The next president can keep the country among the allies who contain Moscow, or give the Kremlin one more voice from the EU.
Caption: The candidates for President and Vice President of Vazrazhdane, Kostadin Kostadinov [R] and MEP Petar Volgin [L] Photo credit: Yuliya Lazarova, Dnevnik, partner of EUalive
Updated: September 23, 2026 - 07:06
