Ivo Indzhov: Ukraine’s fate and its absence from Trump’s games with Putin, marginally present in the Bulgarian mainstream media

Yuliana Metodieva, Marginalia, 14.08.2025

In Bulgarian media, the upcoming meeting in Alaska between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin shows a lack of ability or refusal to take a position and commit, beyond routine reporting. Bulgaria’s position is absent. There is insufficient commentary on Trump’s approach to reaching an agreement with Putin while ignoring Ukraine, which is reminiscent of the 1938 Munich Agreement, when Nazi Germany annexed the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia, says associate professor Ivo Indzhov.

Mr. Ivo Indzhov, do you see any differences in the approach, ethics, and objectivity of the electronic and online media in their analyses and predictions regarding the upcoming meeting between Trump and Putin?

Ivo Indzhov: I do not have data from specialized monitoring or my own research on this topic, so I can only comment based on my fragmentary observations. The Trump-Putin meeting in Alaska on Friday occupies an important place in the “agenda” of the electronic and online media in Bulgaria. I get the impression that, at least until today (August 13), it is predominantly reflected in the news—through statements by Trump and his spokespeople, the Putin administration, Zelensky, European leaders, and the repetition of comments by foreign experts. The electronic media, especially the major television and radio stations, are reporting on the meeting in a neutral manner. We found few appearances by analysts in news programs or interviews with experts – these are dominated by sympathy for Trump’s business approach, or “realpolitik,” to ending the war in Ukraine; the secondary, follow-up role of the EU is also acknowledged. The fate of Ukraine and its absence from Trump’s games with Putin are somewhat marginal in these analyses.

Another striking aspect – and this is a long-standing shortcoming – is the lack of commentary and analysis on important international issues, such as the Trump-Putin meeting, by journalists on television and radio stations. Is it a lack of ability or a refusal to take a stand and engage beyond routine reporting? There is no commentary on Bulgaria’s position or absence either.

The picture on news websites, especially in the mainstream online media, is no different. However, from what I can follow, I notice that, especially in some of the more liberal media, more in-depth analysis is also being published – with context and background, with greater depth in addressing this complex issue. Here I would mention the article I read earlier, which highlights the complexity and dynamics of Ukraine’s position on the future of the war with Russia – at the state and society level.

In the electronic and online media, too, there are almost no in-depth historical parallels or references to the Trump-Putin meeting. I have not seen or read any comparisons, however risky, between Trump’s approach to reaching an agreement with Putin while ignoring Ukraine and the Munich Agreement. This was signed in 1938 by Germany, Great Britain, France, and Italy and allowed Nazi Germany to annex the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia. Thus, the aggressor was rewarded and the way was paved for World War II.

Can you say that there are mainstream media outlets that are creating neutral content about this historic meeting? If so, could you point them out?

In the spirit of the above, I believe that most mainstream media outlets are covering the topic neutrally – the positions of the main actors, an overview of the relations between Trump and Putin, how Russia attacked Ukraine and how the war unfolded, etc. Unfortunately, they are following events without taking a proactive and more in-depth approach. Of course, there is no shortage of juicy details: why the meeting will take place in Alaska, which once belonged to Russia, how Trump twice said that the meeting would take place in Russia, etc. However, an impartial approach to the subject does not mean ignoring or marginalizing basic truths: that Russia is the aggressor, that hundreds of thousands of people have died in the war triggered by the Putin regime’s Ukrainian adventure, that Putin is wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, but obviously he will not be arrested in Alaska, because Trump does not recognize the legitimacy of the court, etc.

Do different media profiles influence public opinion ahead of this historic event?

They certainly have an influence, but to what extent and how they have it – that should be the subject of a special study. The interaction between the coverage of the war in Ukraine in the national media and on social media, and the attitude of Bulgarians towards Russia and Ukraine, Putin and Zelensky, Trump’s attempts to end the war, the role of the EU for the future of Ukraine, etc. should be studied.

Based on your experience, what would you recommend to readers when trying to assess the credibility and objectivity of media analyses and forecasts?

They should get information from multiple sources – from “traditional” media, not only Bulgarian but also foreign, as well as from the opinions of experts and intellectuals on social media and online platforms. At the same time, they should be very careful not to fall into the trap of disinformation on the internet.

Photo: Trump and Putin go to Alaska… (source: YouTube)

Subscribe to Cross-border Talks’ YouTube channel! Follow the project’s Facebook and Twitter page! And here are the podcast’s Telegram channel and its Substack newsletter!

Like our work? Donate to Cross-Border Talks or buy us a coffee!

About The Author