Bulgarian prime minister Rumen Radev has aimed veiled criticism at Romania over drone attacks in the Black Sea, suggesting that a supposed provocation of Russia followed those strikes. In an analysis of the dispute, Gabriela Ciot, a professor at the Faculty of International Relations of Babeș-Bolyai University in Cluj-Napoca and a former state secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, says Sofia is counting on a calculated recalibration and on traditional ties with Moscow, while Bucharest’s diplomatic silence could be a strategic error.
Radev indirectly accused Romania in connection with the Black Sea drone attacks and said his country had responded correctly to the maritime incidents, without making charges it could not support with evidence. He did not name Romania, but left it clear which country he meant, and he said Russia had been provoked in this way. In his view, Romania blamed Moscow without any preliminary analysis and, through that, bears responsibility for the drone attacks in the Black Sea.
Speaking at the start of the week at the seventh Sofia Economic Forum, and quoted by trud.bg, Radev said he was the only prime minister among the three NATO member states on the Black Sea who summoned the Russian ambassador and stated his position very clearly. He added that he has principles: when he accuses someone, he must have clear evidence, and he cannot do so on the basis of slogans. Radev is otherwise generally regarded as a politician favourable to Moscow. His remarks drew reactions inside Bulgaria as well, and opinion was divided. Although he did not name Romania, some of his compatriots reproached him for accusing Bucharest.
Ciot, an expert in international negotiations and a former candidate for European commissioner, set out how Radev’s criticism of Romania over drones that Bucharest attributes to Russia should be read. In her view, his reaction also came against the background of the electoral campaign for Bulgaria’s presidential elections. Perception in the neighbouring country south of the Danube is generally favourable to the Russian Federation, and Sofia and Moscow have historical links that have survived Bulgaria’s choice to join the European Union.
She said Radev’s claim that Romania’s public attribution of the drone attacks to Russia provoked new attacks can be read in part as an electoral posture, strengthening his domestic image as a pragmatist who protects Bulgaria from a confrontation. More fundamentally, she said, it shows the foreign-policy lines Sofia intends to consolidate: a deliberate recalibration toward keeping channels open with Moscow, even at the cost of allied cohesion.
In her opinion, Romania acted correctly when it accused Russia, and the direct result was more serious involvement by NATO, the European Council and the European Parliament. She said Romania’s attribution produced concrete results that diplomatic silence would not have brought: the direct involvement of NATO secretary general Rutte, conclusions of the European Council, and a European Parliament resolution calling for an EU naval operation.
Ciot’s lesson for Bucharest is to link any future attribution to demands for coordinated action, for example with Ankara, while building a faster, more consistent and more credible capacity on the Eastern Flank to reject claims diplomatically in matters of Black Sea security.
She also said Romania did not react in any way to Radev’s statements, and that Bucharest should have done so. In her view, the lack of a formal response was probably because Radev was calculated enough not to name Bucharest explicitly, giving Romanian diplomacy a comfortable pretext for not feeling directly targeted. She concluded that Romanian diplomacy may have been too diplomatic in this case, mistaking the elegance of silence for strategic prudence, when a quick and firm reply, even one formulated indirectly, would have stopped the narrative from taking hold.