Romania Facing a New Geopolitical Equilibrium in Eastern Europe? Dual Strategies and Reconfigurations of Influence – Author Admiral (rtr), PhD. Aurel POPA
Introduction
Eastern Europe is facing possible geopolitical reconfigurations marked by complex interactions between the United States, Russia and regional actors. The meeting in Riyadh between the American and Russian delegations, the pressures on the electoral processes in Romania and Germany, and the debates on the withdrawal of American troops from the region fuel speculations on a possible realignment of spheres of influence in Europe.
On February 18, 2025, in Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia, a four-and-a-half-hour meeting between US and Russian delegations took place, with the main purpose of discussing bilateral relations and the conflict in Ukraine. On the American side, the delegation was led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz and Special Envoy for the Middle East Steve Witkoff. The Russian delegation included Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Presidential Adviser Yuri Usakov and the Director General of the Russian Direct Investment Fund Kirill Dmitriev.
During the talks, Russia presented several demands, including the unblocking of Russian state assets frozen in the United States and the easing of economic sanctions imposed by the West. According to a diplomatic source cited by The Moscow Times, Moscow wants access to about $6 billion, part of the Russian Central Bank’s reserves invested in dollar-denominated assets before the conflict began. Russia has also demanded the restoration of diplomatic missions and the return of Russian diplomatic properties in the US, including two residences in New York and Maryland seized in 2016 by the Obama administration on espionage charges. These demands are seen by President Vladimir Putin as essential to restore Russia’s status in relations with Washington.
In addition, Russia has reiterated its demand that NATO formally renounce the promise made at the 2008 Bucharest summit that Ukraine would become a member of the alliance at an unspecified date. Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zaharova said that failure to do so would continue to affect stability on the European continent.
The US delegation refused these requests, maintaining the firm US position on sanctions and NATO policy. Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasized that the talks in Riyadh are a first exploratory step and that once formal negotiations begin, Ukraine and the European Union will be involved in the process.
Ukraine’s exclusion from the talks has caused concern in Kiev and European capitals, with Ukrainian President Volodimir Zelenski stressing that no decision on Ukraine’s future can be taken without the direct participation of his country. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas also warned that Russia would try to divide European and American allies and emphasized the need for close cooperation between Europe and the US to ensure a just and lasting peace in Ukraine.
In conclusion, the meeting in Riyadh was a first step in the resumption of direct dialogue between the US and Russia, but major differences persist, particularly over economic sanctions and NATO enlargement. The further involvement of Ukraine and the European Union in the negotiations will be key to achieving a lasting and just solution in the region.
At the Riyadh meeting between the US and Russian delegations, although explicit calls for the creation of a zone of influence in Eastern Europe or the withdrawal of US troops from Europe were not officially confirmed in the sources consulted, there are clear indications of Russia’s desire to consolidate its influence in the region and to limit NATO’s presence near its borders.
Russia’s main objectives reflected in the talks included:
- NATO’s renunciation of eastward enlargement: Russia reiterated its demand that NATO formally renounce its 2008 pledge of potential membership for Ukraine and Georgia, a key point of Moscow’s dissatisfaction. This demand is in fact aimed at strengthening Russia’s sphere of influence in the former Soviet space and blocking any Euro-Atlantic expansion in the region.
- Easing sanctions and re-establishing diplomatic relations: Russia has called for the lifting of sanctions and the recovery of frozen assets, measures that would allow it to rebuild its economic and strategic position, including in Eastern Europe, where its influence has been diminished by Western sanctions.
- Reducing NATO’s military presence in the region: Although this demand was not made explicit at the meeting, Russia’s demands to halt NATO expansion and historical tensions over the deployment of US and NATO troops in Eastern European states suggest that Moscow is seeking a reduction in Western military presence in the region.
US position:
The United States has firmly rejected demands for NATO enlargement and has refused any talks that would jeopardize the security of European allies. The Americans emphasized that NATO’s “open-door” policy remains valid and that support for Ukraine and other vulnerable states in the region will continue.
Although Russia has not formally called for the withdrawal of US troops from Europe, its long-term strategic goal is to reduce Western military and political influence in Eastern Europe and regain a dominant position in its former spheres of influence. The refusal of the Americans to make concessions in this regard maintains tensions in the region and leaves open the possibility of future negotiations and new geopolitical crises.
1. Riyadh meeting: official refusal, implicit concessions?
The Riyadh meeting marked a significant moment in US-Russia relations. Russia demanded the lifting of sanctions, access to frozen assets and a guarantee that NATO would not expand eastward[1]. Although the US delegation formally rejected these demands, questions remain about Washington’s firm long-term commitments.
2. Support for pro-Russian candidates: Romania and Germany to the fore
In Romania, the pro-Russian candidate Călin Georgescu came first in the first round of the presidential elections, which were subsequently canceled due to suspicions of Russian interference and irregularities in the flawed electoral process². Statements by US Vice President JD Vance and interventions by Elon Musk criticized the annulment of the elections, creating the perception of indirect support for Georgescu³. In Germany, pro-Russian disinformation campaigns aimed at undermining conservative candidates, favoring populist parties with friendlier attitudes towards Moscow⁴.
At the Munich Security Conference in February 2025, US Vice President JD Vance gave a controversial speech at the Munich Security Conference, criticizing democratic practices in Europe and emphasizing that internal threats outweigh external dangers such as Russia or China. He highlighted the annulment of the Romanian presidential elections and the censorship of free speech in various European countries as examples of the erosion of democracy on the continent.
Criticism of Romania’s annulled elections
Vance condemned the Romanian authorities’ decision to cancel the 2024 presidential elections as an overreaction to alleged external influence. He argued that democracies should be robust enough to resist such interference and compared the measure to Soviet-era practices. His statements sparked strong reactions from European officials, who rejected accusations of undermining democratic processes.
Accusations of censorship and restriction of free speech
In his speech, Vance accused European leaders of suppressing free speech, citing cases such as convicting a British veteran for praying near an abortion clinic and banning populist speech. He argued that such actions pose a greater threat to democracy than foreign influences. The claims were met with tension and disapproval from Europe’s political elite, who saw them as unwarranted interference in their countries’ internal affairs.
Reactions from European officials
Vance’s speech provoked outrage among European leaders. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz harshly criticized the US vice-president’s remarks as unacceptable interference in Germany’s domestic politics and implicit support for far-right parties. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius also rejected Vance’s comparisons of European measures to authoritarian regimes as unacceptable.
theguardian.com
Elon Musk: Attack on constitutional court president
Elon Musk has intervened in the political debate in Romania with a post on X (formerly Twitter) in which he called the president of Romania’s Constitutional Court, Marian Enache, a “tyrant”. This reaction came after the court annulled the presidential election due to suspicions of Russian interference in favor of Georgescu. With this statement, Musk seems to challenge the decision of the Romanian authorities and, implicitly, to support Georgescu’s candidacy.
Correlation of statements and impact on Georgescu’s candidacy
Both Vance and Musk have questioned the legitimacy of the annulment of the Romanian elections, downplaying the seriousness of Russian interference. These positions can be interpreted as indirect support for Călin Georgescu, strengthening his position among the electorate and giving him an international platform of support. Thus, their statements could influence public opinion in favor of a candidate favorable to Moscow.
In conclusion, the public interventions of JD Vance and Elon Musk in the Romanian political context seem to favor, even indirectly, a pro-Russian candidate, raising questions about external influence on domestic democratic processes.
3. US troop withdrawal and the balance of power in Eastern Europe
Although the Trump administration has officially denied the intention to withdraw US troops from Eastern Europe⁵, independent reports indicate pressure and negotiations in this direction. Russian calls for a “new Yalta” – a division of spheres of influence – have been publicly rejected, but fears persist about possible tacit concessions⁶.
4. The Trump administration’s dual strategy-can it be characterized as a dual game by President Trump?
Firm statements on the official level contrast with actions and statements by actors close to the administration that seem to indirectly favor Russian interests. This ambivalent approach can be interpreted as a ‘dual game’, whereby the US tests the limits of diplomacy without making clear commitments⁷.
The analysis of the current situation suggests the possibility of a dual game orchestrated by the Trump administration, characterized by an ambivalent strategy between maintaining a firm official stance against Russia and creating geopolitical loopholes that could indirectly favor Moscow’s interests.
Arguments in favor of the “dual game” theory:
1. Official stance vs. indirect actions
- At the Riyadh conference, the Trump administration formally rejected Russia’s demands for a new division of spheres of influence and the withdrawal of US troops from Eastern Europe.
- In parallel, however, there are actions and statements from actors close to the administration that seem to indirectly favor Russian interests:
- Vice President JD Vance ‘s statements on the erosion of democracy in Europe and criticism of the annulment of elections in Romania implicitly favor the pro-Russian candidate Călin Georgescu.
- Elon Musk‘s interventions , although seemingly independent, supported the narrative that the annulment of the elections in Romania was undemocratic, indirectly bolstering support for the pro-Moscow candidate.
2. Pressure to support pro-Russian candidates
- In Romania, the Trump administration indirectly exerted pressure to allow Georgescu’s candidacy, despite clear signals of Russian influence.
- In Germany, growing support for far-right parties such as AfD has been accompanied by a pro-Russian disinformation campaign, while Trump has maintained an ambiguous discourse on support for NATO and European partners.
3. “America First” tactics and scaling back foreign commitments
- Trump has advocated in the past for Europe to take on more of its own security, and the possible withdrawal of US troops from Eastern Europe could be justified as part of this philosophy.
- This move could be perceived as a tacit ceding of influence in Eastern Europe in exchange for economic or strategic advantages in other regions, in line with a policy of geopolitical realism.
4. Ambiguity diplomacy strategy
- Trump has used strategies of diplomatic ambiguity in the past , leaving open the possibility of multiple interpretations of American positions.
- By avoiding direct statements of support for Russia but tolerating actions that serve its interests, Trump can navigate between maintaining the appearance of support for European allies and creating circumstances favorable to Moscow.
The Trump administration can be seen to be playing a dual game, balancing between official anti-Russian posturing and tactical actions that may create indirect advantages for Moscow. This strategy seems to follow the principle of maximizing American national interest, but with the risk of destabilizing the current European security architecture.
Although there is no formal agreement on a new division of spheres of influence in Europe, the correlation of several factors – pressures for the withdrawal of US troops, support for pro-Russian candidates and ambiguous rhetoric of the US administration – points to a possible re-shifting of the geopolitical balance in Eastern Europe. This scenario raises crucial questions about the stability of the region and the cohesion of the transatlantic alliance.
5.Realistic Strategies for Romania in the Context of US Policy Ambiguity
Given the current geopolitical context and the ambiguity of the US administration’s positions, Romania needs to adopt a strategic approach based on diplomatic flexibility, strengthening regional alliances and strategic autonomy. Here is how the proposed measures can be implemented despite the uncertainties created by US policy:
1. Recalibrating Relations with the US through Strong Bilateral Initiatives
- Sector Partnerships Independent of the Administration:
- Even if the current US administration has an ambiguous position, Romania can develop bilateral agreements in critical sectors (energy, cyber, defense) with the US Congress and federal institutions less dependent on presidential politics.
- Institutional Lobbying at the Congressional and Pentagon Level:
- Romania can intensify relations with pro-NATO U.S. lawmakers and Pentagon officials, who often have more consistent positions than the executive administration. Strengthening relations with key US allies can ensure a degree of stability in bilateral relations.
2. Expanding European and Regional Partnerships
- Three Seas Initiative (3SM) as a Regional Pillar:
- Romania can play a central role in strengthening the I3M by attracting investment in infrastructure, energy, and defense. Even if the US were to reduce its military presence, cooperation with Poland and the Baltics can create a strong regional defense network.
- Deepening relations with France and Germany:
- In the context of U.S. uncertainties, Romania can count on closer relations with European countries with significant military and economic strength. France, in particular, has expressed interest in strengthening Europe’s eastern flank.
3. Strengthening Military Security Without Exclusive Dependence on the US
- Expanded NATO Cooperation:
- Romania can advocate for a redistribution of NATO forces so that the military presence in the East is more Europeanized (Germany, France, and the United Kingdom) rather than relying exclusively on American troops.
- Investment in Cyber Defense and Drones:
- In a context where Russia is using hybrid warfare and cyber attacks, Romania should invest in its own cyber capabilities and autonomous technologies (drones and satellites) to protect its critical infrastructure.
4. Energy Autonomy and Resource Diversification
- Exploitation of Black Sea Resources:
- Rapid development of natural gas projects in the Black Sea can reduce Romania’s energy vulnerability and transform the country into a regional energy hub.
- Alternative Energy Partnerships:
- Romania should explore energy partnerships with countries such as Azerbaijan, Norway or Middle Eastern states, avoiding dependence on Russian gas.
5. Neutralizing Disinformation and Protecting the Electoral Process
- Cooperation with the EU for Electoral Defense:
- The European Union can provide expertise and technical support to monitor elections and combat disinformation. Romania can request assistance to implement strict standards on electoral transparency.
- Anti-Disinformation Legislation:
- Adopting laws regulating foreign propaganda and political party funding can limit foreign influence. Social platforms should be obliged to report disinformation campaigns in cooperation with the authorities.
6. Cultivating National Cohesion and Civic Resilience
- Promote Civic Education and Media Literacy:
- Civic education initiatives can strengthen the democratic spirit and increase public resilience to foreign propaganda.
- Programs to Support Vulnerable Communities:
- Investments in the economic development of marginalized areas can reduce their vulnerability to external influences and decrease the potential for radicalization.
Romania needs to act on two fronts: to strengthen traditional relations with Western partners, especially within NATO and the EU, and to develop strategic autonomy strategies that reduce dependence on a single ally. In the face of the uncertainties created by the US administration, diplomatic flexibility, the diversification of partnerships and the strengthening of internal security are becoming essential pillars for keeping Romania outside the Russian sphere of influence.
The Romania-US Strategic Partnership: Pillar of Security and Vector of Geopolitical Development
The Strategic Partnership between Romania and the United States of America, officially signed in 1997, represents one of the most important strategic alliances for Bucharest in the post-Cold War period. This partnership has provided Romania with multiple advantages in the fields of security, the economy, foreign policy and consolidation of the rule of law, reinforcing its status as a key ally of the US in Eastern Europe. In a geopolitical context marked by uncertainties and external pressures, cooperation with Washington continues to be a central pillar of Romania’s foreign policy strategy.
1. Security Pillar: Defense and Military Strategies
The signing of the Strategic Partnership in 1997 marked a key moment in the history of bilateral relations and played a crucial role in Romania’s integration into NATO in 2004. American support was decisive for this major step in Romania’s security policy (NATO, 2004).
One of the most visible results of the partnership was the deployment of the Aegis Ashore missile defense system at the Deveselu Military Base in 2016. This system, part of NATO’s missile defense architecture, is a key element in deterring external threats. Although criticized by Russia as a strategic challenge, NATO and US officials have stressed its defensive nature
The US military presence in Romania has been reinforced by facilities in Mihail Kogălniceanu and Campia Turzii, which have become strategic points for NATO operations in Eastern Europe. Joint military exercises such as Defender Europe and Saber Guardian have increased the interoperability of the armed forces and Romania’s ability to respond rapidly in crisis situations
The partnership has also facilitated collaboration in the field of cybersecurity, with Romania becoming a key player in defending critical infrastructure against cyber-attacks from hostile states (Cybersecurity Ventures, 2020).
2. Economic and Energy Vector: Autonomy and Strategic Investments
In addition to the military dimension, the Strategic Partnership has strengthened Romania’s energy security. Joint projects on the extraction of natural gas from the Black Sea and the modernization of the nuclear reactors at Cernavodă reflect US support for reducing Romania’s energy dependence on Russia (Bloomberg, 2019).
Romania has become a key player in the Three Seas Initiative (3SM) , actively supported by the US, which promotes energy and infrastructure connectivity in Central and Eastern Europe. Participation in I3M has strengthened Romania’s position as a regional energy and transportation hub
The US has also become a major investor in the IT, energy and infrastructure sectors, facilitating job creation and the introduction of advanced technologies. Cooperation in the civilian nuclear sector and in renewable energy projects have strengthened Romania’s ability to ensure its energy independence (Energy Policy Journal, 2021).
3. Geopolitical Benefits and Strengthening Regional Role
The strategic partnership with the US has provided Romania with a significant geopolitical advantage, reinforcing its status as a key player in the security of NATO’s Eastern flank and the stability of the Black Sea region. The US naval presence in the Black Sea and joint exercises with the Romanian Naval Forces have contributed to deterring external threats and maintaining the strategic balance in the region
At the same time, US support in strengthening the rule of law and the fight against corruption has contributed to strengthening democratic institutions in Romania. The partnership has included programs for government transparency and strengthening the judiciary (Transparency International, 2020).
4. Challenges and Vulnerabilities in the Geopolitical Context
Despite the obvious advantages, the strategic partnership has been exposed to geopolitical risks and uncertainties. Some US administrations have shown ambiguous positions towards US engagements in Eastern Europe, raising fears about possible negotiations between Washington and Moscow over the sphere of influence in the region (Foreign Policy, 2023).
- Trump administration ambiguities:
- While the partnership has remained strong militarily, some Trump administration statements on NATO and Eastern European allies have generated uncertainty.
- Recent geopolitical tensions:
- In the context of the US-Russia negotiations (e.g. Riyadh meeting), there are fears that the US administration could negotiate its sphere of influence in Eastern Europe, affecting Romania’s position.
- Pressures to diversify foreign policies:
- Romania needs to strengthen its relations with the EU and other strategic partners in order not to depend solely on US guarantees.
Romania also faces pressures to balance transatlantic and European relations, especially in the context of the debate on the strategic autonomy of the European Union. In this respect, Bucharest needs to diversify its partnerships and strengthen its regional alliances to ensure its long-term stability and security.
The Romania-US Strategic Partnership has brought major benefits in the fields of defense, energy, economy and diplomacy. It has strengthened Romania’s position as a pillar of NATO security in Eastern Europe and transformed it into an influential regional actor. However, the current geopolitical dynamics require Romania to adopt a flexible strategy, diversifying its partnerships and strengthening its internal capabilities to face new global challenges.
In the long term, maintaining a balance between transatlantic commitments and strengthening European relations will be essential to guarantee Romania’s security and development within the global geopolitical architecture.
6. How can Romania oppose the extension of the Russian sphere of influence in the event of a tacit US agreement?
In the context of a possible tacit acceptance of the expansion of Russian influence in Eastern Europe by the US administration, Romania must adopt a proactive strategy based on strategic autonomy, diversified diplomacy and strengthening internal resilience.
1.Strengthening Regional Alliances and Common Interests Forming an East European Resistance Bloc
- Strengthen cooperation with Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, countries in the same vulnerable position vis-à-vis Russia.
- Initiate a regional pact on cyber defense and energy security cooperation.
- Partnerships with Non-Traditional Powers –Security cooperation with non-European states such as Japan, South Korea and Australia, which have experience in countering Russian and Chinese geopolitical influence.
- Strengthening strategic relations with the UK, a NATO partner that maintains a firm stance against Russian expansion.
- Domestic Resilience and Strengthening National Defense-Modernize the Armed Forces by increasing defense investments to develop national air, cyber, and naval defense capabilities and accelerating military modernization programs, including the acquisition of drones, anti-missile systems, and advanced communications equipment.
2. Countering Russian Propaganda
- Create a disinformation monitoring agency to work with EU and NATO institutions to combat Russian propaganda campaigns.
- Promote media education and digital literacy programs to increase the population’s resilience to disinformation.
3.Promoting Cultural and Educational Links
- Support cultural and educational initiatives that promote European values in Romania, especially in areas vulnerable to external influence.
- Strengthen academic links with European and American universities to build strong cultural bridges.
4.Reactions in the Face of a Tacit US-Russia Agreement
Foreign Policy Options in the Event of American Neglect
- If the US tacitly accepts the expansion of Russia’s sphere of influence, Romania can invoke the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty (Art. 42.7) [ 2]on collective defense within the EU.
- Call for an emergency meeting of the North Atlantic Council to clarify the US position and strengthen collective engagement.
- Romania may appeal to international bodies such as the UN and OSCE to denounce possible agreements that violate international law and the principles of state sovereignty, etc.
CONCLUSIONS
In a scenario in which the US tacitly accepts the expansion of Russian influence in Eastern Europe, Romania must position itself as an autonomous strategic regional actor, strengthening its relations with its European allies and developing solid regional alliances. By diversifying external partnerships, investing in national security and energy independence, Romania can limit the risk of becoming a buffer zone between the Western and Russian spheres. Strategic autonomy, regional support and smart diplomacy are the key to countering geopolitical pressures and maintaining Romania’s sovereignty and stability. The anti-missile shield installed by the United States in northern Poland became operational as of Friday, December 15, 2024. Will the US withdraw the missile shield from Deveselu or/and Poland? Certainly if it will be in the US interest, but it is unlikely to make such a concession to Russia. Is it a tragedy for Romania? Certainly not. For Europe, however, it will be a problem, given the purpose and role of these means. We will supplement this aspect with other means of defense effective against the likely threats.
In a context where there is currently no clear connection with the Trump administration what will Romanian politicians choose? Elimination from the presidential race of candidate Georgescu on constitutional fair grounds and there is enough glory of God – the damage in Romanian society has already been produced at the mass level by the intrusions of the first round – or will they choose the interference of statements made by American officials promoting the false false flag of a balcony democracy, opposed by European leaders. Can Romanian politicians risk Romania’s future on the basis of hype in a future strategic partnership configuration that will certainly exist perhaps with changes versus a return to the zone of Russian influence almost certain as a prediction at present?
The American administration will later admit that there is democracy in Romania and that it has done the right thing for the future of the Romanian nation. But the overriding responsibility lies solely in Romania’s vital interest.
Russia will resort to all possible means to influence the presidential elections in Romania and unfortunately I appreciate that Romania, even with the support of the Europeans, will not be able to counteract them fully and essentially. The legitimate question is which of the two evils will ROMANIA choose?
[1] 1.US-Russia meeting in Riyadh – Russian demands on NATO and sanctions.
[2]This article establishes a collective defense commitment between member states, similar to NATO principles:
“If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall afford it aid and assistance by all means at their disposal, in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter. This is without prejudice to the specific character of the security and defense policy of certain Member States.”
Importance for Romania: This clause functions as an additional security guarantee, especially in case NATO support becomes uncertain. It can be invoked in parallel with NATO’s Article 5 in situations of armed aggression.
________________________________________