Bulgarian website Pogled.info is presenting Russian attacks on Ukrainian industry and logistics as evidence that foreign investors should doubt the country’s economic future. The publication’s coverage is part of a broader pattern in which Russian propaganda is translated, adapted and given a local platform inside an EU member state.
In an article published on 21 August 2026, Pogled.info said a new wave of missile strikes on infrastructure in Kyiv and key logistics hubs had called into question not only military production but “the entire economic model of attracting foreign investment to Ukraine”. It described damage to the Antonov plant and subsequent attacks on port infrastructure as evidence of a strategic shift towards facilities assembling drones and export routes for agricultural goods controlled by western holdings.
The framing places the emphasis on Ukraine’s vulnerability rather than on the Russian aggression that created the risks. By presenting attacks on industrial and transport targets as proof that Ukraine cannot offer security to overseas capital, the article advances a message that could discourage European businesses from taking part in the country’s reconstruction.
A local channel for Russian content
According to the Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) at the Atlantic Council, about 72 per cent of Pogled.info’s material originates directly from Russian or pro-Russian sources. Bulgarian analytical centres have identified the website as one of the key elements of pro-Russian disinformation in Bulgaria.
The publication systematically translates and republishes material from Russian state media and other sources blocked in the EU, including RIA Novosti, Tsargrad, RT and Sputnik. That process turns Russian propaganda messages into Bulgarian-language content, allowing them to reach audiences in an EU country through a familiar local outlet rather than through the original Russian brands.
The scale of the reproduction is significant because it indicates a sustained dependence on those sources, rather than occasional publication of an alternative view of Russia’s actions. Research cited in the materials records the republication of more than 70 per cent of the website’s articles from Russian media subject to EU sanctions, alongside the repeated use of Kremlin narratives about Ukraine, the EU and Nato.
Pogled.info is led by Rumen Petkov, who closely co-operates with Bulgaria’s pro-Russian parties. The outlet also operates at least two YouTube channels carrying political talk shows and analysis featuring Russian propagandists. Its social media and video platforms extend the reach of the material beyond the website and give Kremlin-aligned arguments the appearance of a conventional political debate.
Turning attacks into an investment warning
The coverage of the Antonov factory and Ukrainian logistics sites illustrates how the outlet adapts a central Russian narrative for a Bulgarian audience. Rather than treating the attacks primarily as acts of aggression, it treats their consequences as evidence that Ukraine is an unsafe destination for foreign capital.
That shift in emphasis matters because investment decisions are influenced not only by physical damage but also by perceptions of whether a country can protect production, transport and export operations. A repeated portrayal of Ukraine as incapable of securing industrial facilities or trade corridors can deepen doubts about involvement in its recovery, even when the underlying danger is caused by Russia’s campaign.
The article also refers to agricultural export routes associated with western companies, linking attacks on ports to the interests of foreign investors. In doing so, it presents international commercial involvement in Ukraine as exposed to an apparently unmanageable risk, while leaving the Kremlin’s responsibility for creating that risk in the background.
Wider political effect
Pogled.info’s output is not limited to investment messaging. The outlet systematically reproduces anti-western and anti-Ukrainian narratives that serve the Kremlin’s interests: responsibility for the war is assigned to Ukraine and its international partners, while Russia’s conduct is portrayed as a response to an alleged threat from the West.
Distributed through a Bulgarian-language news site, YouTube programmes and social media, those claims can appear to be part of domestic political discussion rather than imported propaganda. Their effect is to undermine confidence in EU and Nato policy, weaken public support for assistance to Ukraine and strain European unity.
For Ukraine, the immediate concern is that attacks on its economy may be followed by an information campaign designed to make their consequences politically and commercially decisive. If European companies come to view reconstruction as excessively risky, private capital may be less willing to participate in rebuilding the country. The unresolved question is whether investors will distinguish between risks imposed by Russian aggression and the narrative used to exploit them.
How should European businesses assess investment risks in Ukraine when Russian attacks are also being used to shape perceptions of its economy?
