Ex-Foreign Minister: Why Is Bulgaria Risking a Russia Sanctions Package Over Patriarch Kirill?

GERB MP and former foreign minister Daniel Mitov questioned Bulgaria’s decision to oppose the inclusion of Russian Patriarch Kirill in the latest European Union sanctions package against Russia, arguing that the move is difficult to justify from the perspective of the national interest.

According to Mitov, it is hard to understand why Bulgaria would risk creating obstacles to a broader sanctions package because of what he described as one of the most visible supporters of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“It is even more difficult for me to understand how exactly the Bulgarian national interest became linked to the possibility of Bulgaria blocking an entire sanctions package because of Putin’s chaplain,” he said.

Mitov stressed that the debate should not be viewed as a matter of religion, church governance, or the canonical position of the head of the Russian Orthodox Church. In his view, the issue concerns the public role played by Patriarch Kirill throughout Russia’s war against Ukraine.

“This is not about Orthodoxy. This is not about church affairs or canon law. We are talking about a person who has used the authority of the Church for years to justify Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and the killing of innocent people,” he stated.

The former foreign minister argued that Kirill’s public statements have often resembled political support for the war rather than appeals for peace and reconciliation. He added that concerns have repeatedly been raised internationally about the activities, structures, and assets of the Russian Orthodox Church abroad, particularly regarding their potential use as instruments of influence and, in some cases, mechanisms for circumventing sanctions.

Against that backdrop, Mitov said the argument that sanctions against the Russian patriarch would represent interference in religious affairs appears unconvincing.

“The claim that sanctioning Patriarch Kirill constitutes interference in church matters sounds more like a convenient excuse than a serious foreign-policy argument,” he commented.

Mitov also recalled that Bulgaria’s current government has repeatedly pledged to pursue an independent foreign policy focused on protecting national interests. However, he argued that independence should not be measured by taking positions that differ from European partners merely for the sake of being different.

“The national interest is not defended by adopting a separate position at any cost, especially when that position coincides so closely with the interests of the Kremlin,” he said.

He further questioned what practical benefits Bulgaria would gain from becoming one of the strongest defenders of Patriarch Kirill within the European debate on sanctions. Mitov asked whether such a stance improves national security, strengthens the protection of Bulgarian citizens, or enhances the country's diplomatic standing.

“Is Bulgaria safer? Are Bulgarian citizens better protected? Has our foreign policy become more successful? Or are we once again witnessing an attempt to present a foreign interest as an independent Bulgarian position?” he asked.

According to Mitov, the distinction between pursuing an independent policy and adapting to the interests of another state is clear and easily recognized by observers outside the country.