How the rise of the far-right party, institutional paralysis, and state capture threaten Bulgaria’s democratic path.
Dimitar Keranov
October 15, 2025
In April, Bulgaria’s far-right Revival (Vazrazhdane) party signed a cooperation agreement with Russia’s ruling United Russia party. The signatories were Tsoncho Ganev, deputy chairman of Revival and deputy chairman of Bulgaria’s parliament, and Vladimir Yakushev, deputy chairman of the upper house of Russia’s parliament. While not legally binding, such agreements can create channels for foreign influence and raise questions about Revival’s allegiance to Bulgaria’s democratic and security commitments.
Revival consistently polls among Bulgaria’s most popular parties. It has achieved double-digit scores in recent elections. It could even become the second political power in the ones due next year, positioning it as a possible member of a coalition government. This makes Revival’s international alignments worthy of close attention.
The agreement with United Russia commits the two parties to exchanging experience, ideas, and political practices. While vague in content, it formalizes Revival’s growing alignment with Russia’s authoritarian regime, which officially classifies Bulgaria as an unfriendly state.
Revival has for years used the Kremlin’s narratives and policy templates. It has repeatedly attempted to introduce a Russian-style “foreign agents” law targeting civil society organizations, called for a referendum on leaving NATO, and pursued a sustained campaign to prevent Bulgaria’s adoption of the euro. Earlier this year, it led a large anti-euro mobilization and nationwide protests that resulted in an attack on the EU representation’s building in Sofia.
Revival’s representatives have made repeated visits to Moscow, including in June when they met with Leonid Slutskiy, the chairman of the Committee on International Affairs of the lower house of Russia’s parliament, among others. Russian sources have referred to Revival’s quite explicitly as a party that could “correct” Bulgaria’s position on the war in Ukraine and assist with symbolic projects.
Institutional Paralysis
In many functioning democracies—particularly in the EU—parties’ formal political outreach to foreign regimes considered adversarial or hostile to the country would typically raise concern and, in some cases, trigger institutional scrutiny. In Bulgaria, the State Agency for National Security, the parliamentary ethics committee, or the Prosecutor’s Office might reasonably be expected to assess whether such activity poses risks to national security or contradicts the country’s strategic commitments.
Yet no institution has meaningfully responded to Revival’s actions. There has been no formal scrutiny. That silence is surprising given Russia’s designation of Bulgaria as “unfriendly”, previous espionage cases, and the broader security context.
Revival has been criticized as national outlets reported on the agreement and civic petitions circulated. The Bulgarian Helsinki Committee has called for the dissolution of the party for being anti-democratic, but its warnings have not led to action by the authorities.
The agreement between Revival and United Russia was condemned by the Renew Europe group in the European Parliament, where it was discussed in a plenary session. Yet this too did not trigger concrete institutional action in Bulgaria.
What Now?
The challenge Revival poses is systemic. Bulgaria’s institutional guardrails have already been eroded, and it has entered a phase of democratic backsliding. Oversight is weak, key democratic norms are no longer enforced, opposition politicians are being arrested, and US-sanctioned figures like Delyan Peevski continue to play major roles in government. Government elites face no consequences for conduct that would be unacceptable in other EU democracies.
Brussels cannot ban a national party or annul an interparty agreement, but it should lead the effort to press for stronger safeguards that address the underlying risks from Revival’s actions to EU values and democratic integrity. This can be achieved in several ways:
- The European Democracy Shield initiative should be designed to enhance transparency regarding foreign influence.
- The EU’s Interinstitutional Ethics Body should assess whether cooperation agreements signed by a national party may result in undue foreign influence over its members in the European Parliament.
- The European Commission should address the absence of investigation of and response to the interparty agreement between Revival and United Russia in its annual Rule of Law Report on Bulgaria, specifically under the section on institutional checks and balances.
- The European Commission should encourage national authorities and independent watchdogs to increase vigilance concerning potential foreign social media and electoral interference in Bulgaria, particularly in view of the closer institutional partnership between Revival and the United Russia party.
- The political groups within the European Parliament and their associated European parties, including the Europe of Sovereign Nations group of which Revival is a member, should develop and uphold common standards for interparty cooperation, explicitly prohibiting partnerships with parties that do not align with democratic EU values.
The Revival-United Russia agreement is best understood as a symptom: it is a marker of the ongoing normalization of Russian influence narratives in a member state where institutional guardrails are weak. Better oversight is the appropriate response. And when national institutions hesitate, the EU should use existing instruments to protect the integrity of the democratic process.
The EU can no longer afford to treat Bulgaria’s democratic deterioration as a peripheral concern. What is needed now is not just expressions of concern but consistent pressure. If the EU fails to uphold its own standards within member states, this undermines the credibility of its entire rule-of-law framework, especially as it evaluates the readiness of candidate countries.
*******
Author:
Dimitar Keranov is a program coordinator at the German Marshall Fund of the United States.
The AUTHLIB consortium does not take collective positions. Publications only represent the views of their individual authors.
*******
Photo credit: Belish via Shutterstock
