Bulgaria has introduced an additional transit fee on Russian gas, a move that critics warn could jeopardize gas supplies across Southern Europe. This assessment comes from RIA News via expert Alexey Grivach, who labeled the new charge as a predatory extortion tactic that breaches Bulgaria’s commitments and European Union norms. Grivach described the fee as an attempt to rob Russian gas, highlighting the potential breach of contractual and regional supply obligations.
In October, Bulgaria announced an extra levy exceeding 100 dollars for every 1000 cubic meters of Russian gas routed through its pipelines. The financial burden falls on importers and gas transportation entities, who are responsible for accounting and compliance within this framework. The policy shift raises questions about the broader energy security implications for neighboring countries that rely on the same transit routes to secure steady gas deliveries during the winter months and peak demand periods.
Grivach argues that the new charges are designed to create preconditions for a transit disruption reminiscent of a crisis scenario associated with Ukraine, a move he describes as blackmail aimed at influencing European energy policy. He asserts that the primary beneficiaries of such a strategy would be external interests, with the United States seen by some observers as the party pushing for leverage in the European gas market through these kinds of measures. The analyst stresses that the policy risks destabilizing long-standing energy arrangements and eroding confidence in cross-border gas flows within the region.
According to the expert, it is unlikely that Gazprom would be directly affected by a payment demand if the contract terms do not explicitly include the added fee. Nevertheless, the possibility exists that Sofia could suspend transit as a means of enforcing the new charges, a move that could escalate into a broader European gas crisis and force European buyers to seek alternative supplies or reroute flows through different corridors. Such a scenario would likely draw the attention of European energy authorities and market participants, who have been watching Bulgaria’s stance on transit arrangements with a wary eye.
Earlier discussions suggested that Hungary might pursue legal action in response to the evolving transit landscape, signaling that regional governments are weighing options to protect their own energy security interests. The prospect of legal challenges underscores the sensitivity of transit agreements and the delicate balance between national policy choices and collective European energy reliability. In this context, disputes over Russian natural gas and transit terms could become a flashpoint for broader negotiations among European buyers, sellers, and transit states.
There have also been headlines indicating that Ukraine pledged to continue supplying gas from the Russian Federation to Austria even in the absence of a formal transit agreement, a development that reflects the ongoing efforts of European nations to diversify supply routes and reduce exposure to single-channel dependencies. The wider takeaway is that energy security in the region hinges on a mosaic of arrangements, including bilateral contracts, regional interconnections, and the capacity of market operators to respond swiftly to regulatory shifts and geopolitical pressures.
Analysts point out that Bulgaria’s transit policy choices do more than set pricing terms. They influence the reliability of cross-border gas flows, the pricing dynamics within the European gas market, and the negotiating leverage that Balkan and Central European countries exercise in multilateral discussions. The evolving situation invites closer scrutiny from regulators, industry participants, and national governments as they assess compliance with EU energy rules, the stability of supply commitments, and the potential for temporary disruptions to ripple through neighboring economies that depend on shared pipelines for heat and electricity generation. Future actions by Sofia, Gazprom, and other stakeholders will likely shape the trajectory of regional energy security and could prompt further dialogue on contingency planning, diversification of supplies, and the development of resilient infrastructure to withstand market shocks.