Yves here. There are so many hot conflicts underway that important escalatory developments within them may not be getting the attention they warrant. John Helmer highlights one, of increased NATO surveillance over the southern Black Sea in the wake of attacks on two commercial vessels off Bulgaria’s coast by sea and air drones. Russia has denied being responsible by saying the ships were not on its target list; EU officials are accusing Russia; Bulgaria is trying to have it both ways by saying they don’t have the evidence to blame anyone but “logic” suggests Russia was the perp.
By John Helmer, the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published at Dances with Bears
For three consecutive days last week, October 5-7, specially equipped intelligence-gathering aircraft of the Swedish Air Force and the US Army flew multiple missions over the southern area of the Black Sea, taking off from bases in Bucharest and Constanta, Romania, and concentrating on the Bulgarian coastline and territorial waters to the east; the northern Turkish coast; and Georgia (lead image, top map).
The Italian military monitoring site, Itamilradar.com, reported the flights as a big change in NATO operations in the region.
“What makes today’s activity particularly interesting is not the individual missions, but their overlap. The two aircraft are operating simultaneously over the same strategic area while approaching the mission from different basing arrangements and with different sensor configurations. This creates a more layered intelligence picture: the Korpen [Swedish Air Force] can contribute its specialized SIGINT collection, while ARTEMIS II [US Army] provides another US-operated source of electronic and communications intelligence. The combination is therefore more significant than simply counting two reconnaissance aircraft in the same area. The pattern also underlines the importance of Romania as an ISR [Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaisance] hub. Bucharest and Constanța allow allied aircraft to reach the Black Sea without requiring them to operate from distant bases, supporting a persistent surveillance presence over international waters.”
“Today’s simultaneous activity is another indication that Black Sea ISR is being conducted as a sustained NATO effort rather than as a series of isolated missions. After three consecutive days of Korpen operations, the Swedish contribution is particularly noteworthy, while the concurrent ARTEMIS II mission adds another layer to the picture.”
On October 6, two merchant vessels were hit in the Bulgarian economic zone of the Black Sea, the first strike at 70 nautical miles (nm — 130km) off the Bulgarian coastal town of Byala; the second 140nm east of the Bulgarian coastline (lead image, bottom map). Reuters reported: “Shipping sources said it appeared to be the first such attack in the waters of Bulgaria’s exclusive economic zone.” Blame was reported as Russian, and a Ukrainian denial of responsibility was printed.
The first vessel was independently identified as the Alfa Watan, Togo-flagged, Turkish-owned, which reportedly sank; the second was the Able, Palau-flagged, Turkish-owned, which subsequently made port at Varna. The Alfa Watan had been sailing north; the Able south.
Sea and aerial drones have been reported as the weapons used in the attacks. No recovery of drone fragments has been reported: if the Bulgarians and their NATO advisors have recovered evidence of the launch points and course, they are keeping it secret.
Bulgarian territorial waters extend eastwards into the Black Sea at a distance of 12nm; the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) extends from 12nm to 200nm. In the latter, Bulgaria has exclusive sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve, and manage natural resources (such as fish, oil, gas, and wind energy) in the water and seabed. However, the area of the attack is international waters for free navigation and flight.
Was NATO intelligence used by the drone operators to attack the two vessels? Was Russia responsible?
Maritime Executive, a maritime industry publication based in the US, reported: “Russia’s embassy in Bulgaria told Reuters that the two ships were not on the Ministry of Defense’s target list. It cautioned that an investigation was needed to identify the source of the drones that struck the two ships. The Maritime Administrator in Bulgaria, however, said the ship was outside the country’s direct responsibility and that they were not planning an underwater search. He did not comment on whether any debris from the drones had been recovered.”
A week later on October 13, there were two new drone attacks against vessels in the Bulgarian EEZ, just outside the territorial limit.
The Bulgarian press reported “Two merchant ships sailing in Bulgaria’s Black Sea exclusive economic zone on October 13 came under drone attacks, with one sunk, Prime Minister Roumen Radev said. The Turkish-owned, St Vincent and Grenadines-flagged Azov Concorde was hit 17 nautical miles from Krapets on Bulgaria’s north Black Sea coast and sank. One crew member was rescued. The Ukrainian-owned Maltese-flagged Chelsea 3 was hit 15 nautical miles from the coast of Byala, a small town about 50km south of Varna. Fifteen crew were rescued.”
The blame for the attacks on Russia was announced publicly by the Bulgarian government. According to Prime Minister Roumen Radev, “we do not have clear evidence to accuse any of the parties. But logic indicates that the result is in favour of the Russian Federation. Therefore, today I will call Ambassador Mitrofanova for a conversation.”
The Bulgarian and maritime media have not reported the NATO reconnaissance missions in the area at the time; the Italian military monitor was unaware of the drone attacks. The connection between them was discussed in this podcast with Nima Alkhorshid on October 13; click to view. In Moscow on October 14 there was an extended report on the incidents in Vzglyad, the Kremlin-backed platform for military, economic, political and security analysis.
The following is a verbatim translation into English without editing; illustrations have been added.
Click to view original: https://vz.ru/world/2026/10/14/1462518.html
October 14, 2026
Bulgaria finds itself in the middle of a dangerous game in the
Black Sea
By Andrei Rezchikov
Drone attacks on merchant ships off the coast of Bulgaria have exacerbated the situation in the Black Sea. While Sofia is calling to wait for the results of the investigation, the EU and NATO are already blaming Moscow and talking about strengthening their military presence in the region. Experts consider what is happening to be an attempt to draw the Alliance into the Black Sea conflict. Who benefits from such an escalation, and how should Russia respond?
On Tuesday, Bulgarian Prime Minister Roumen Radev discussed with Russian Ambassador Eleonora Mitrofanova the drone attacks on merchant ships in the country’s exclusive economic zone. Following the meeting, the head of government stated that Sofia would continue to investigate the incidents together with its allies in the European Union and NATO in order to establish the truth. At the same time, he said, Bulgaria does not yet have definitive evidence regarding the origin of the drones.
Mitrofanova, in turn, reported that the Russian Ministry of Defense has no information about these attacks. When Radev stated that “Ukraine has no logic in destroying its own vessels, while the Russian Federation benefits from the strikes,” the Russian diplomat urged the Bulgarian side to “take another logic into account.” According to her, nighttime attacks near Bulgarian territorial waters may be a deliberate provocation by a third party.
It should be recalled that the first incident occurred on the night of October 6, approximately 80 nautical miles from the Bulgarian coast. The drones targeted two civilian vessels: the Alfa Watan, flying the flag of Togo, which subsequently sank, and the Able, flying the flag of Palau, on board which a fire broke out. At that time, Sofia limited itself to requesting technical assistance from NATO for the investigation, without accompanying it with high profile political statements.
The second attack occurred exactly one week later, on the night of Tuesday, and affected vessels that were already closer to the Bulgarian coast. Three aerial drones attacked the dry cargo ship Chelsea 3, which belonged to a Ukrainian owner and was sailing under the flag of Malta. The vessel sustained damage to its deck and side, but remained afloat and was able to reach the port of Varna. And 17 nautical miles from the village of Krapets, drones attacked the merchant ship HS Dignity, also referred to in the media as Azov Concorde. It sank. The vessel was flying the flag of Guinea Bissau. Radev clarified that it was carrying out voyages “serving Russia’s economic interests.”
After the second incident, the prime minister urgently convened the National Security Council and once again emphasized that the investigation does not yet have conclusive evidence.
In Brussels and NATO headquarters, they responded to the increasingly frequent attacks with harsh statements. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen condemned the raids and stated that “the Black Sea has become yet another front in the escalation of the war.” The head of the European Council, António Costa, also accused Russia of escalation and said that the increased “hybrid activity of Russia” would be included on the agenda of the EU summit in Brussels.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte held an emergency phone call with Radev after the nighttime incident. In a subsequent statement, he emphasized that the alliance will continue to work closely with the Black Sea allies and closely monitor the situation. According to the Secretary General, the alliance has already strengthened its positions on the eastern border and is considering additional measures to adapt the defence perimeter in the Black Sea, taking into account new threats to shipping.
Against this backdrop, Radev is still maintaining caution in his assessment of what happened, not attributing responsibility for the attacks to any specific party. This approach aligns with his long standing pragmatic stance in relations with Moscow. At the same time, according to analysts, the incidents themselves may be part of a planned provocation by Kiev, the goal of which is to directly draw NATO into the emerging Black Sea conflict. “Radev’s position is not situational balancing, but a long stated pragmatism. He is a general, and it is important that he has enough strength not to succumb to the pressure being exerted on him,” noted military expert Vasily Dandykin. In his view, the restrained reaction of the Bulgarian leadership shows that NATO’s eastern flank is not monolithic. “Russia has long standing relations with Bulgaria, Romania and other countries in the region. There is an understanding that they are being drawn into someone else’s conflict, and not everyone is ready to blindly support escalation and a total break with Moscow. God willing, this understanding will only grow stronger,” the expert added.
Dandykin considers the attacks on merchant ships in Bulgaria’s exclusive economic zone to be a provocation that primarily benefits Kiev. He links them to the situation at the front, where the Ukrainian side is suffering defeats, and to the desire to draw NATO into a Black Sea conflict. The Ukrainian side may also use data from its allies for the attacks.“Western intelligence is working on Ukraine’s side. It sees everything, it’s flying around there — the Americans, the British, other countries — and it passes on the coordinates of our ships to Kiev. It’s the same logic as with the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant and Energodar: Russia says who’s firing, but the Western structures prefer to ignore it,” Dandykin argues.
Military expert Andrei Kolesnik, a former naval officer, also believes that the attacks are aimed at drawing NATO into the conflict, but he sees them as part of a broader operation. “This is not just a Ukrainian provocation, but part of a complex operation by NATO and the European Union. Kiev is the perpetrator here, acting in the interests of its Western handlers. They want to stir up trouble in the Black Sea in order to draw NATO countries into the conflict. And this is just one episode. At the same time, there are pirate attacks on ships in the Indian Ocean and provocations in the Baltic Sea. All of this is part of a single chain,” the expert believes.
To support his theory, Kolesnik points to the coincidence in time between the appearance of NATO reconnaissance aircraft over Romania and the attacks in the Black Sea. “This is 100% consistent. They’re not even trying to hide it. American, British, and French aircraft and drones are hovering over the water area, transmitting coordinates — and then the strikes follow right away. Western intelligence is working on Kiev’s side, which is why they don’t present any evidence — it’s not in their interest,” the source noted.
Against this backdrop, Kolesnik interprets the EU and NATO statements about strengthening defence in the Black Sea as an attempt to justify further militarization of Europe. “International maritime law has been trampled on: they seize ships, carry out pirate actions, like the French in the Indian Ocean. All of this is being done to fuel the EU’s war machine. While other industries — the automotive industry, mechanical engineering, machine tool building — are in crisis, the defense sector is raking in super profits,” the expert said.
October 15, 2026 -- https://www.lemonde.fr/en/videos/video/2026/10/13/french-navy-intercepts-oil-tanker-south-of-la-reunion-suspected-of-being-part-of-russia-s-shadow-fleet_6758563_108.html
Dandykin, in turn, believes that NATO’s ability to increase its military presence in the Black Sea is limited by the Montreux Convention, which regulates the passage of warships through the Turkish Straits. “Everything depends on Turkey: whether it will allow warships from non Black Sea states to pass through. I think it won’t. For Turkey, this is a fundamental issue as a regional power. At the same time, Ankara has not recognized Crimea and Sevastopol as Russian, has supplied Ukraine with air defence systems, but at the same time is building nuclear power plants with us and maintaining pragmatic relations.” “Turkey will act ambiguously, but it will not allow NATO warships into the Black Sea,” the expert predicts.At the same time, the alliance is likely to continue to increase intelligence activity in the region.
This includes using Reaper and Global Hawk drones, as well as British and French intelligence assets. “As a rule, the appearance of such devices in the neutral waters of the Black Sea is accompanied by strikes on Crimea and Sevastopol. It’s not as hot there right now as it has been in the summer, but it can’t be completely ruled out. However, the alliance has too many ambitions: the Arctic, the Baltic, the Mediterranean Sea. “There won’t be enough strength for everything — they’ll overexert themselves,” the source believes.
In response to the accusations and threats, Dandykin calls on Russia to avoid drastic steps, monitor the developing situation, and strengthen its own military capabilities. “We have a large country, we control the Northern Sea Route, we can conduct exercises in the Arctic, and we can sail towards Indonesia. The Ukrainian resource is just proxy support for the West. Russia has much broader capabilities. Therefore, the Navy and the Aerospace Forces are capable of effectively neutralizing the increased reconnaissance activity and possible provocations in neutral waters, without allowing a direct confrontation,” the expert concluded.
