Analysis: Bucharest is trying to bring a more consistent defense to the Black Sea by dividing the Americans and Europeans, but at the same time it allows Russian drones to roam over the country.
This temptation to let everything pass without much intervention, hoping that it will resolve itself, is part of an old lesson not well understood. In the security equation, apathy gives the enemy the feeling that they can take advantage, and the Romanians that they are not defended. Successive defense ministers invoked all kinds of pretexts, but as the head of diplomacy from Bucharest says, “the expectation of Romanians is (…) that no one enters our airspace illegally, especially when there is a real risk to the citizens”. Oana Țoiu also talks about the fact that when Romania could not neutralize even one of those drones, Ukraine shot down dozens of Russian drones close to Romania’s border. The comparison even targets her colleague from the party and the government, Radu Miruță, who since coming to the head of MApN has not changed much in his philosophy towards Russia and its little attacks by mistake.
Romania does not enter the zone of states that show their reluctance to support Ukraine, even if they do not directly oppose it, such as the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary in the new configuration without Viktor Orban. After the Ukrainians reopened the Drujba oil pipeline, Budapest agreed to vote down 90 billion euros in financial aid given to Ukraine by the European Union in the form of a loan – which Kiev will only pay back if Moscow gives it war reparations. If not, the money will be paid by the Europeans with the exception of Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, which have refused to enter into this commitment. Maybe because they are not counting on the victory of Ukraine.
Bucharest remains attached to both Washington and Brussels
There is another typology: Bulgaria, with its new prime minister Rumen Radev, who during his time as president opposed support for Ukraine, giving up Russian gas, buying US F-16 military jets (perhaps because he only flew MIGs) and switching to the euro; but also Belgium, whose conservative prime minister, Bart De Wever, asked rhetorically at the end of last year: “Who really believes that Russia will lose the war in Ukraine? It’s a story, an illusion”, adding that a possible “undesirable defeat” risks causing instability in a country that has nuclear weapons. Later, De Wever opposed the support plan for Ukraine proposed by the European Commission, insisting that it would be “fundamentally wrong” to use the billions of euros of the Central Bank of Russia blocked in Europe. A month ago, the Belgian prime minister was resuming the solutions of “normalizing relations with Russia”, stopping the conflict in Ukraine and “regaining access to cheap energy”, positions which he said would be shared by other European leaders, who hesitate to assume them.
Romania does not oppose or criticize, the country’s leaders are enthusiastic Euro-Atlanticists, but at the same time the former PSD Minister of Energy hastened to announce that the Petrotel Ploiesti Refinery, owned by Lukoil, could be restarted, after Romania received a waiver from the American Government. Bucharest is trying to take advantage and remains attached to both Washington and Brussels, after most of the major European powers turned their backs on America on the Iranian issue.
Only 46% of Romanians count on an EU army
The President of France, Emmanuel Macron said these days that the EU is “stronger than Article 5 of NATO” (all for one, one for all). Being in Athens to strengthen the strategic partnership with Greece, Macron explained that Europe is in an “unprecedented” moment where “an American president, a Russian president and a Chinese president are all against the Europeans”. Europe would be better off building its own security than relying on an “increasingly unpredictable” America, which will “last” with the same reluctance towards the EU. German Chancellor Friederich Merz has stated several times that Europe must “become more independent” and prepare for worst-case scenarios, and the European Commissioner for Defense, Andrius Kubilius said not long ago that Europe functions as “a collection of 27 bonsai armies”, well-defined at the national level, but insufficient to face major strategic threats. Kubilius, former prime minister of Lithuania also asked if: “Would the United States be stronger if it had 50 different armies, 50 defense policies and 50 separate military budgets? If the answer is no, then why are we waiting?”. In short, the EU needs an army of 100 thousand soldiers to replace the American troops, according to the European Commissioner for Defense. Especially since the majority of Europeans want such an army: 70% of citizens in Spain, Belgium and Germany would prefer the defense to be provided by a European army, compared to only 10% who would opt for national armies and 12% for NATO. Only 46% of Romanians count on an EU army, 17% rely on the national army, 29 prefer NATO defense, and 10% don’t know (Cluster 17 and Le Grand Continent survey, March 2025).
Romania does not have a formed opinion about how Europe should be defended and after the episode of stray drones in domestic space, perhaps, it does not yet know exactly what to do when Russia becomes naughty or even aggressive. Maybe Bucharest’s strategy is to keep betting on the Americans, no matter what. The debate is growing among European leaders without Romania, which seems to have no analysis in this regard, although all statements suggest that it prefers a stronger European arm within NATO. The European Defense Commissioner, on the contrary, believes that an integrated European army would handle a crisis better and faster than NATO, which has to stand behind America and Turkey, both with increasingly different agendas from the European one.
The authors who sign the materials in the Invitations – Ziare.Com section assume full responsibility for the content.
