According to the results of Bulgaria’s early parliamentary elections, the Progressive Bulgaria coalition, linked to former President Rumen Radev, came in first. According to Reuters, citing partial official results after 91.68% of ballots were counted, the coalition received 44.7% of the vote. GERB came in second with 13.4%, and Continue the Change – Democratic Bulgaria came in third with 13.2%.
According to data from Bulgarian agencies and exit polls, the Movement for Rights and Freedoms and Vazrazhdane also secured seats in parliament, while the BSP – United Left hovered around the threshold. Thus, the new composition of the National Assembly remains multiparty, though the winner secured a significantly stronger mandate than any party in recent elections.
The key issue now is the formation of a government. If Progressive Bulgaria secures a sufficient number of seats (which is highly likely), Bulgaria could see a single-party or dominant cabinet for the first time in a long while. If, however, it fails to secure a majority, the country faces negotiations on a coalition or external parliamentary support. This is particularly important after several years of political instability and frequent changes in government.
For Bulgaria’s economy, the election result is significant in terms of fiscal policy, infrastructure decisions, and managing the implications of the country’s entry into the eurozone on January 1, 2026. A strong government could theoretically accelerate decision-making on investments and reforms, but much will depend on how quickly the winner can translate electoral success into a functioning executive model.
For the region, the election results are significant due to Bulgaria’s role as a member of the EU and NATO, as well as a country in the Black Sea basin. Any changes in Sofia’s foreign policy could affect regional coordination on energy, security, and issues related to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
According to Serbian Economist, the Hungarian opposition’s victory in the parliamentary elections and the upcoming change of government in Budapest have added uncertainty to the deal regarding the exit of Russian shareholders from NIS (Naftna industrija Srbije)—the company that operates Serbia’s only oil refinery in Pančevo and, according to estimates, supplies about 80% of the country’s fuel needs.
This refers to negotiations regarding the acquisition by Hungary’s MOL of a 56.15% stake in NIS, which is owned by Gazprom entities (44.9% by Gazprom Neft and 11.3% by Gazprom). In January, MOL announced the signing of a Heads of Agreement regarding this deal, as well as that it is considering the participation of ADNOC (UAE) as a minority partner.
A key factor is the deadlines set by the U.S. OFAC. In March, MOL reported that it had received an extension from OFAC on its license to negotiate until May 22, 2026. At the same time, MOL is seeking extensions of specific permits allowing it to continue operations and import raw materials during the negotiations.
The issue of price remains sensitive: the terms of the deal have not been officially disclosed. Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić previously mentioned a range of up to €1 billion for the 56.15% stake, while a number of media outlets and analytical publications cited higher estimates.
Why the Hungarian elections have become a risk factor
The deal itself is corporate in nature and requires regulatory approvals, specifically from OFAC and Serbia. However, the change in government in Hungary affects the political backdrop and the pace of decision-making. The new leader, Péter Magyar, has publicly stated his intention to form a government quickly (specifically citing May 5 as the start date), meaning just a few weeks before the May 22 deadline. In this scenario, any additional government-level reviews, disputes over the transparency of terms, or simply the restructuring of interagency coordination could cause delays.
The most likely baseline scenario is that the parties will try to meet the deadline or request an additional license extension from OFAC if they are close to the final closing. Market participants have already seen extensions in this situation.
The negative scenario is a protracted negotiation process without a clear resolution. In that case, the risks for NIS become not a legal abstraction but a matter of supply stability: the U.S. sanctions regime is specifically aimed at the exit of Russian majority owners, and any disruptions with licenses complicate the logistics and financing of raw material procurement and operations.
For Belgrade, this turns the issue into one of energy security. Serbian authorities have previously signaled their interest in increasing the state’s stake in NIS, and if the situation worsens, tougher decisions regarding the ownership structure may be necessary to remove the company from under sanctions pressure and prevent a shock to the fuel market.
https://t.me/relocationrs/2628
According to Serbian Economist, Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić announced from the headquarters of the Serbian Progressive Party in New Belgrade that the ruling party’s lists, featuring his name, had won in all 10 municipalities where local elections were held on March 29. “It’s 10 to 0,” he said following the vote count.
Elections were held in Bora, Smederevska Palanka, Bajina Bašta, Kula, Lučani, Aranđelovac, Kladovo, Knjaževac, Majdanpec, and Sevojno. Even before Election Day, Vučić had said he would be satisfied only with a victory in all 10 municipalities, although at the time he estimated the possible outcome as 7-3 or 6-4.
After the elections, government officials also publicly confirmed this result. In particular, SNS Chairman Miloš Vučević called the party’s victory in all ten municipalities “very significant” and repeated the 10:0 score.
At the same time, opposition and independent commentators interpret the results more cautiously. N1, citing political analyst Boban Stojanović, notes that despite the SNS’s formal victory in all ten municipalities, in nine of them the party, according to his assessment, saw a decline in support compared to previous election cycles.
https://t.me/relocationrs/2532
The leader of the Servant of the People party, First Deputy Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada Oleksandr Kornienko, estimates the cost of holding elections in Ukraine at UAH 6 billion.
“There are no complicated calculations here, since 90% of these costs are the salaries of commission members. Since the last elections, the 2019 parliamentary elections, the minimum wage and average salary have increased by several thousand hryvnia, and some indicators have doubled. Therefore, if elections previously cost UAH 2.5-3 billion, then simply multiplying that figure by two, the current cost would be UAH 6 billion,” Kornienko said in an interview with the Azerbaijani news agency Report.
He also noted a number of issues related to compensation for commission members abroad. “How can this be implemented? If, for example, we follow our regulations, some of these people will be there, and some may be on business trips. These are all additional expenses. So, these issues remain unresolved,” said the first deputy speaker.
According to Kornienko, partner countries “understand that they will finance these elections.”
“We are negotiating with them,” he said.
At the same time, the party leader said that he would not like to discuss the issue of election participants, since “there are more pressing problems in the country right now, such as the energy crisis.”
“Unfortunately, the aggressor country has deprived us of both democracy and the opportunity to hold elections on time… Let’s see how events unfold, including political ones. Now we need to do everything we can to at least be able to hold these elections,” Kornienko concluded.
According to Serbian Economist, Serbia is discussing the possibility of holding presidential and parliamentary elections on the same day, although the next elections are scheduled for 2027.
Political experts link the possible appointment of elections to an earlier date, including 2026, with the political calculations of Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić and the results of regular public opinion polls, rather than with formal calendar frameworks.
Combining the presidential and parliamentary elections could give Vučić the opportunity to head the parliamentary list and position himself as a candidate for prime minister, but the nomination of a strong candidate in the presidential election potentially creates a separate center of political capital within the ruling coalition.
At the same time, the leader of the Serbian Progressive Party, Miloš Vučević, has previously stated that combining parliamentary and presidential elections “is not an issue” on which there is currently a decision or a specific plan, and that such issues are resolved “in accordance with the law and the Constitution,” taking into account the overall political and social situation.
According to Serbian Economist, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic said that early parliamentary elections in the country could be held in October, November, or December 2026, the Beta agency reported.
According to Vučić, the date of the elections will depend on the agreements of the political participants, if they are ready for dialogue.
Student groups have previously demanded the appointment of early elections, while part of the opposition claims that the authorities are in no hurry to announce them.
