A report published by The Wall Street Journal about an alleged discussion held in Athens by the United States Ambassador to Greece, Kimberly Guilfoyle, has brought back to the attention of the European public a problem that goes beyond the case of Romania: how great can the influence of major powers become on the political decisions of smaller states?

According to the report, the American ambassador would have suggested, in a discussion about the political situation in Bucharest, that the United States could contribute to the change of a government and that the same thing could be done in Greece. The information comes from a source quoted by the publication and must be treated with the necessary caution until the independent confirmation of all details.

But beyond the complete truth or falsity of this revelation, there is a real political issue: to what extent can small and medium-sized states still make decisions in complete freedom in a world dominated by the competition between major power centers?

For the Republic of Moldova, the question is not theoretical at all.

The Republic of Moldova already knows the price of geopolitics

The Republic of Moldova has lived for more than three decades between competing geopolitical projects. The Transnistrian conflict, Russian military presence, energy dependencies, economic and informational pressures, as well as the competition for the country’s external orientation, have made the issue of sovereignty much more complicated than the mere existence of an independent state.

In the case of the Republic of Moldova, geopolitics is not somewhere far away, in the capitals of the great powers. It manifests directly in the lives of the citizens.

The price of gas, energy security, access to European markets, border security, the war in Ukraine, the situation in the Transnistrian region, and the direction of foreign policy are all tied to the geopolitical position of the country.

Therefore, the lesson of the episode from Athens is important for Chisinau: formal sovereignty is not always sufficient to guarantee real freedom of decision. A state can be legally sovereign and, at the same time, economically, militarily, energetically, or institutionally vulnerable. And the Republic of Moldova is a relevant example.

Between Moscow, Washington and Brussels

In recent decades, the Republic of Moldova has been forced to navigate between strong geopolitical interests. The Russian Federation has used military, economic, energy, and political tools to maintain its influence in the region. The European Union has become the main economic and institutional partner of the Republic of Moldova. The United States has contributed to the strengthening of security and resilience of the Moldovan state.

These relationships are important, but they do not eliminate the fundamental problem: Moldova must have enough institutional and economic strength to defend its own interests. And here arises one of the great contradictions of the Moldovan state. Moldova wants to be sovereign, but its economic, demographic, and military size limits its ability to resist geopolitical pressures.

It’s a structural issue, not a conjunctural one.

Union with Romania – from political symbol to security issue?

In this context, a discussion that for decades has been primarily treated as an identity issue must be reopened, including in the academic and public sphere: what would the Union of the Republic of Moldova with Romania mean for the security and decision-making capacity of the population on both banks of the Prut?

For a part of the society in the Republic of Moldova, Unification primarily represents the recovery of a historical and national unity. For others, it is a political option that they view differently or reject.

However, there is also a third perspective, which deserves a more rigorous analysis: the strategic one. In this perspective, the issue is not just “who are we?”, but also “how vulnerable is our state and what political architecture can offer us more security?”.

Romania is a member state of the European Union and NATO. The Republic of Moldova is in the process of joining the European Union and is not a member of NATO. Therefore, the possibility of a Union would bring about a fundamental change in the institutional, economic, and security framework in which the citizens of the Republic of Moldova would find themselves.

But it is precisely here that a serious approach is needed, devoid of slogans.

Union should not be presented as a magic formula through which all the problems of the Republic of Moldova automatically disappear. It would entail complex legal, economic, administrative, social, and political issues. It would require agreements, institutions, harmonization of legislation, and a democratic process to clarify the will of the population.

However, from a strategic perspective, it can be analyzed as one of the variants through which the issue of the geopolitical vulnerability of the Republic of Moldova could be approached within an already existing European and Euro-Atlantic framework.

The question that the Republic of Moldova can no longer avoid

For over three decades, the debate about the future of the Republic of Moldova has been framed around seemingly simple alternatives: closer ties with Russia or closer ties with the European Union, neutrality or European integration, independence or Unification.

However, the reality is more complicated.

A state can be independent and vulnerable. It can be neutral and exposed. It can have good relations with several power centers and yet remain dependent on them. Under these conditions, the fundamental issue becomes the ability to build a security and development architecture that reduces structural vulnerabilities.

European integration is one of the paths already underway.

Strengthening the relationship with Romania is another obvious reality.

And for some of society, the Union represents a potential political form through which these two processes could be taken to their maximum institutional consequence.

This perspective deserves to be discussed without taboos, but also without political romanticism.

What could the Union change?

Viewed strictly through the prism of the strategic interests of the Republic of Moldova, a potential Union would fundamentally modify at least five dimensions.

Security comes first. The Republic of Moldova would cease to be a neutral military state located near a war and would enter the security framework of Romania, including the NATO architecture. This would radically change the issue of territorial defense.

The second is the Transnistrian issue. The conflict would not automatically disappear through a constitutional change, but it would be redefined in a completely different legal, political, and security context. The issue of Russian troop withdrawal and territorial reintegration would become part of a much larger European and Euro-Atlantic architecture.

The third is energy. Full integration into the Romanian and European energy infrastructure and market would significantly reduce the vulnerabilities that have allowed, in the past, the transformation of energy into a tool of political pressure.

The fourth is the economy. The Republic of Moldova would be integrated into a much larger European economy, with access to Romania’s and the European Union’s economic institutions and mechanisms. Obviously, integration would also imply costs, adaptations, and development differences that cannot be ignored.

The fifth is the institutional issue. The citizens of the Republic of Moldova would enter a consolidated European institutional system, with legal, administrative, and financial mechanisms developed within the framework of Romania and the European Union.

These are arguments that can be rationally analyzed, regardless of each citizen’s personal political choice.

Romania – not just a “neighboring state”, but a possible security architecture

For the Republic of Moldova, Romania has a uniqueness that no other external partner possesses: the relationship between the two states is simultaneously historical, cultural, linguistic, economic, and strategic.

Romania is already the main European corridor for the Republic of Moldova. Electricity, gas, road and rail infrastructure, trade, education, and the mobility of citizens increasingly connect the two banks of the Prut River.

From this perspective, the question is no longer whether Moldova needs Romania. The reality of recent years shows the extent of this interdependence. The question is how far this integration can go. Can it remain exclusively economic and European? Can it become institutional? Or can it eventually lead to a political reunification project?

The answer to these questions cannot be given by Moscow, Washington or Brussels. And not even by Bucharest. It can only belong to the citizens of the Republic of Moldova and Romania, through democratic means and in accordance with international and constitutional law.

The Revelation Lesson from Athena

Perhaps this is the most important lesson of the entire episode.

If the information reported about the discussion in Athens is confirmed in the presented form, it would raise serious issues regarding the limits of external influence on the politics of a European state.

If it is not confirmed, the broader issue remains anyway: in a world dominated by geopolitical competition, small states must find formulas to reduce their vulnerability.

The Republic of Moldova cannot afford to be perpetually the battleground of others.

Neither Russia should decide the future of the Republic of Moldova. Nor the United States. Nor the European Union.

The future must be decided by the citizens of the Republic of Moldova together with those from Romania.

But for such a decision to be truly free, it must be made by an informed society, in a resilient state and within a democratic framework.

From here begins the real discussion about Unification. Not from slogans and certainly not from nostalgia.

Starting from a simple and fundamental question: which political architecture can offer the citizens of the Republic of Moldova the greatest capacity to decide their own future, to protect their security and to defend their European identity and interests?

For some, the answer may be the consolidation of the Republic of Moldova as an independent state and its integration into the European Union.

For others, the answer is reunification with Romania.

It is important that this discussion no longer be conducted through the lens of fear, propaganda, or geopolitical pressures, but through the concrete analysis of the consequences. Because true sovereignty does not just mean the existence of a state on the map. It means that the citizens of that state can freely decide on their future. And for the Republic of Moldova, in a region where the great powers are vying for influence, this is probably the most important question of our generation.

Disclaimer: This material is produced by the IPN Press Agency. The project – Europe Close: Information, dialogue and cooperation – is funded by the Department for Relations with the Republic of Moldova and implemented by the IPN Press Agency. The content of this material does not represent the official position of the Department for Relations with the Republic of Moldova.