Bulgaria refused to support the special tribunal for Putin and is isolating itself from its European partners along with Hungary, Slovakia and Malta. The signals that Radev is sending to the EU and Russia are unambiguous, writes Emilia Milcheva.
Does Bulgaria support the pursuit of criminal responsibility from the Russian leadership for the war against Ukraine? No matter how much the ruling party tries to evade the issue, their answer is no.
The Bulgarian drift from the European position on the war in Ukraine and the regime in Russia becomes visible not only with the refusal to support the special tribunal for Putin. The idea of including the crime of "aggression" in the Criminal Code, which would allow the prosecution of the military-political leadership that issued the orders for the aggressive actions in Ukraine, was quietly abandoned.
How Bulgaria isolated itself
The signals were clear from the beginning of the rule of Rumen Radev and "Progressive Bulgaria". During his first visit as Prime Minister to Berlin, Radev was evasive on the topic of Russian aggression and spoke of "a return to peace" and diplomacy, while German Chancellor Friedrich Merz promised "more pressure on Moscow" and confirmed unconditional support for Kiev. Or as Bulgarian MEP Radan Kanev clearly put it on Facebook: "Merz wants negotiations and peace through pressure on Russia, Radev - through pressure on Ukraine."
Radev's position is not a surprise after his nine years as president, during which he followed the same line, which became particularly prominent after February 24, 2022. Thanks to the proactive policy of several governments, Bulgaria avoided isolating itself from the common European position. Until now. By refusing to join the special tribunal to prosecute Russian President Putin for military aggression against Ukraine, Sofia has diverged from most European countries on one of the most sensitive political issues. And it remained in the company of Hungary, Malta and Slovakia. At the same time, the European Commission also joined the tribunal, supported by 36 countries - not only from Europe.
Thus, the new government began to outline its own version of Bulgarian sovereignty, promised in Radev's election campaign. Foreign Minister Velislava Petrova-Chamova, who expressed Bulgaria's position on the refusal of the tribunal, did not present any arguments publicly. Her cautious statement after the meeting at which the decision was made speaks volumes.
"In the service of Putin's regime"
Despite the assurance that Bulgaria will not be a destructive partner in the EU, sanctions against Russia are for her a matter of "balance" and coordination with the US, not a value position. "Each proposed package will be considered separately in order to find the necessary balance. Sanctions are useful when they can cause the necessary economic damage. It is important that sanctions must be coordinated with the US, because the real result is felt when there is unity at the global level," Petrova-Chamova told journalists.
Only two political forces reacted sharply to Bulgaria's position on the tribunal. GERB-SDF described the refusal as a "political mistake", and according to "Democratic Bulgaria" the government is not strengthening Bulgaria's voice, but "with its foreign policy decisions it is weakening it in the service of Putin's regime".
The refusal to participate in the tribunal is not an isolated move. However, it comes after the quiet freezing of the legal changes with which Bulgaria was preparing to introduce the crime of "aggression" into the Criminal Code after the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
A neglected bill
Bulgaria has been postponing changes to the Criminal Code for years that would allow for the prosecution of the crime of "aggression" according to the standards of the International Criminal Court (ICC) - a topic that has become particularly sensitive after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Although the texts reached public discussion twice, they never reached the plenary hall.
During the government of Nikolay Denkov, at the end of March 2024, changes to the Criminal Code were proposed for public discussion. But the "assembly", as the cabinet became known, fell apart and they were not submitted to parliament. A second attempt was made by the acting Minister of Justice Andrey Yankulov, and in April 2026 the project was again published on the Ministry of Justice's public consultation page.
The changes provide for Bulgaria to introduce a more modern definition of the crime of "aggression" in accordance with the ICC Treaty (the so-called Rome Statute). Unlike most EU countries, Bulgaria has not ratified any of the six amendments to the Rome Statute that expand the crimes under the jurisdiction of this court.
The explanatory memorandum makes it clear that in addition to a new definition of "aggression", the draft restructures Chapter 14 of the Criminal Code and creates separate sections for "Crimes against peace", "Crimes against humanity" and "Crimes against the laws and customs of war".
New crimes are added for aggression, aggression using irregular forces, propaganda for war, incitement to war, apartheid and enforced disappearance. Criminal liability is envisaged to be aimed primarily at political and military leaders who plan or direct illegal military aggression in violation of the UN Charter - a change directly motivated by the Russian war against Ukraine.
Consequent retreat from the foreign policy line
The Special Tribunal for Russian Aggression against Ukraine has no direct connection with the International Criminal Court in The Hague. It was created precisely because the ICC has limited capabilities to prosecute the crime of "aggression" against Russia, which is not a party to the Rome Statute. Bulgaria could have joined the tribunal without having adopted the changes to the Criminal Code. However, the two topics are related. Both the draft law on amendments to the Criminal Code and the special tribunal are based on the same principle - that political and military leaders can be held criminally responsible for starting a war in violation of international law.
For Brussels, the special tribunal and the International Claims Commission are key mechanisms for seeking accountability for international crimes and for compensating for the damage caused in Ukraine. Therefore, Bulgaria's refusal is a political signal of distancing itself from European efforts to make Russia bear the consequences of the war it started.
If Bulgaria had pushed through the amendments to the Criminal Code, joining the tribunal would have seemed like a natural continuation of this line. Instead, the first initiative seems to have been abandoned and the second - refused. This is no longer diplomatic caution from a country that is an external border of the EU and on NATO's Eastern flank. This is a consistent retreat from the line that Bulgaria followed at the beginning of the war in Ukraine. Sofia is among the few European countries hesitant towards the Kremlin.