I was thinking more along the lines of the Russians still pushing the Germans back, in a similar pattern to '41 and '42, but without the benefits of mechanization of parts of their military; a series of offensives rather than the one virtually continuous offensive that we got after Kursk. The Germans would be doing better then but in a relative sense, taking fewer casualties and inflicting more, but still losing ground.
This still means more reserves available to sent West. And slower push-back still means more resources available to Germany.
The Soviets were never in Greece yet Tito was intervening in that conflict, so I think he'd try.
Yes, but in this scenario they would be unable to help him at all if the Western Allies decided to retaliate against him. So he would be cautious.
And of course there is no Bulgarian equivalent of ELAS to lead a civil war in Bulgaria if the army turns against the Communists.
Probably, again, I think Bulgaria and Romania are probably going into Britain's pocket in the event of a Soviet Civil War. That does raise an interesting question of who the British would back for control of Bulgaria. Simeon? Or maybe to skirt people associated with the Axis go all the way back to "foxy" Ferdinand?
The problems with Ferdinand is that first he's 84 in 1945 and second, universally hated in Bulgaria. More likely that they turn to their allies among the Agrarians (most notably
G. M. Dimitrov, who was in exile in Egypt during the war) and the Socialists. Without Soviet support, these two would likely prevail over the Communists in a free election. This wouldn't save the monarchy, though - it was very unpopular at this point and both of these parties supported its abolition.