SKOPJE, May 16, 2026 – As 36 nations and the European Union marked a historic “point of no return” in Chisinau by formally launching the operational and financial framework for the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine, a glaring diplomatic void has emerged in the Western Balkans and Southeast Europe.
Despite their consistent Euro-Atlantic alignment and vocal political support for Kyiv, North Macedonia, Albania, and Bulgaria were visibly absent from the final list of signatories to the Council of Europe’s landmark Enlarged Partial Agreement.
CIVIL and its media platforms – which have maintained exhaustive, dedicated coverage of the Russian aggression against Ukraine and the toxic spread of regional hybrid warfare – are closely monitoring this developing issue. In line with our commitment to transparency, human rights, and international justice, CIVIL has officially submitted formal inquiries to the Government and Ministry of Foreign Affairs of North Macedonia, as well as the Embassies of the Republic of Albania and the Republic of Bulgaria, demanding immediate public clarification on their failure to sign this critical document.
Why Albania and Bulgaria? The standout contrast
While several nations globally have chosen not to participate in this specific framework, CIVIL is deliberately demanding answers from Albania and Bulgaria because their absence stands in stark, baffling contrast to their established foreign policy. Both nations have positioned themselves as some of the most uncompromising and vocal supporters of Ukraine in Southeast Europe.
Albania has consistently punched above its weight on the international stage, utilizing its recent tenure on the UN Security Council and its strong Euro-Atlantic stance to fiercely defend Ukraine’s sovereignty and champion accountability for Russian war crimes.
Bulgaria, a critical EU and NATO member in the Black Sea region, has been vital to Ukraine’s defense infrastructure and just months ago, in March 2026, cemented this relationship by signing a bilateral Security Cooperation Agreement with Kyiv.
For these two nations, who have otherwise been at the forefront of regional solidarity with Ukraine, to suddenly stand aside from the actual operational mechanism designed to prosecute the crime of aggression is a profound diplomatic paradox that cannot go unquestioned.
From political intention to legal action: The Chisinau Summit
On May 15, 2026, during the Council of Europe Foreign Ministers’ summit in Moldova, the project to prosecute Vladimir Putin and Russia’s senior political and military leadership transitioned from a theoretical coalition into a concrete legal reality. The newly established steering committee in The Hague is now officially backed and funded by 34 Council of Europe member states, alongside non-members Australia and Costa Rica.
However, the final roster revealed a troubling divergence between past political promises and current legal commitments.
North Macedonia was historically the 36th country to join the political “Core Group” supporting the tribunal’s creation. Yet, when the time came to sign the legally binding operational framework yesterday, the country did not sign.
Albania, despite its unwavering pro-Western rhetoric, abstained from joining the operational agreement.
Bulgaria stands as one of only four EU nations to opt out, aligning its voting record on this specific file with Hungary and Slovakia, a company it rarely keeps on Euro-Atlantic security matters.
CIVIL presses for diplomatic transparency
The international and domestic public deserve to know why these three neighbors, all of whom position themselves as steadfast allies of Ukraine, stepped back at the exact moment international justice entered its operational phase.
To break the silence, CIVIL’s editorial team has dispatched targeted inquiries to the respective state authorities and diplomatic missions.
To the Government and MFA of North Macedonia, we have requested a precise explanation as to what legal, financial, or political barriers prevented the country from moving its past political intentions into the concrete framework of the Enlarged Partial Agreement.
To the Embassy of Albania, we have requested insights into the procedural or technical reasons that kept Tirana from joining the 36 founding signatories, given its unyielding track record against Russian aggression.
To the Embassy of Bulgaria, we have demanded clarity on the profound diplomatic paradox of signing a bilateral security pact with Kyiv in March, only to decline to fund the legal mechanism to prosecute the crime of aggression in May.
CIVIL’s stance: Accountability cannot be partial
For years, CIVIL has warned that countering disinformation and upholding international law requires more than symbolic declarations. The establishment of the Special Tribunal is a litmus test for global democratic solidarity. Standing on the sidelines of an operational agreement while claiming political solidarity is a contradiction that demands accountability.
CIVIL will publish the official responses from North Macedonia’s government and the Albanian and Bulgarian embassies the moment they are received. We remain unyielding in our focus on the war in Ukraine, regional security dynamics, and the defense of international law.
The public has a right to know whether this non-signature represents a temporary bureaucratic delay or a deeper, more troubling shift in regional foreign policy.
Cover photo: Council of Europe (Chisinau Summit, 15 May 2026) / Used for informational purposes.
(On the left is Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha shaking hands with Alain Berset, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, alongside Mihai Popșoi, the Foreign Minister of Moldova, holding the newly signed operational agreement).
© 2026 CIVIL Media. Shared under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licensing.
Support CIVIL’s fight against lies and propaganda
