The Ultimate Guarantee? Analyzing President Maia Sandu’s 2026 Endorsement of Moldovan-Romanian Unification
Author: Dr. Elena Ionescu, Department of Political Science, University of Bucharest Publication: Journal of Eastern European Geopolitics, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2026
Abstract: This paper analyzes the political and geopolitical implications of Moldovan President Maia Sandu’s January 2026 statement that she would personally vote for unification with Romania in a hypothetical referendum. Situated within the context of her party’s decisive victory in the September 2025 parliamentary elections and persistent Russian interference, this declaration represents a significant rhetorical and strategic escalation. This paper argues that Sandu’s statement, while reflecting a long-standing current of Moldonian unionism, functions primarily as a strategic political maneuver. It is designed to underscore the existential threat Moldova faces from an aggressive Russia, to accelerate the country’s Western integration by framing the EU pathway as a moderate and achievable alternative, and to signal resolve to both domestic and international audiences. However, the paper also demonstrates that actual unification remains fraught with immense domestic, economic, and geopolitical obstacles, including low popular support, the Transnistrian conflict, and the potential for a severe Russian reaction. The analysis concludes that Sandu’s statement is less a concrete policy proposal and more a profound articulation of Moldova’s precarious position on the frontier of Europe’s new ideological divide.
- Introduction
On January 12, 2026, in an interview on the British podcast ‘The Rest is Politics,’ Moldovan President Maia Sandu made a declaration that reverberated across European capitals. “If we have a referendum,” she stated, “I would vote for the unification with Romania” (ST, 2026). This public endorsement of a cause historically championed by a passionate but minority movement came from a pro-Western leader fresh off a renewed parliamentary mandate and who has consistently accused Russia of orchestrating a campaign of hybrid warfare against her nation.
Sandu’s justification for her position was stark and unambiguous: “Look at what is happening in the world. It is getting more and more difficult for a small country like Moldova to survive as a democracy, as a sovereign country, and of course to resist Russia” (ST, 2026). This statement, made while her government pursues the “more realistic objective” of European Union membership by 2030, forces a re-examination of Moldova’s strategic calculus. It raises critical questions: Is this a genuine pivot towards unionist policy, or a sophisticated political tactic? What does it reveal about the perceived efficacy of the EU integration path? And what are the practical implications of such a statement for Moldova’s internal stability and its volatile geopolitical environment?
This paper posits that President Sandu’s declaration is a multi-layered strategic act. It serves to leverage the ultimate security guarantee—full accession into the EU and NATO via Romania—to highlight the severity of the Russian threat and to create political space for her government’s challenging pro-EU reforms. By exploring the historical underpinnings of unionism, the contemporary geopolitical drivers, the domestic political landscape, and the profound feasibility challenges, this analysis will deconstruct the complexity of Sandu’s statement and its significance for the future of the Republic of Moldova.
- Historical and Ideological Foundations of Unionism
The idea of Moldovan-Romanian unification is not a novel political concept but is deeply rooted in the shared history, language, and culture of the peoples on both sides of the River Prut. The foundation of modern unionist sentiment is the 1918 union of Bessarabia—historically the eastern part of the Principality of Moldavia—with the Kingdom of Romania, an act sanctioned by the Western powers at the Paris Peace Conference. This period of (Soviet) interwar integration cemented a pan-Romanian identity among the region’s political and intellectual elite.
However, the Soviet annexation of Bessarabia in 1940 and the subsequent creation of the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic (MSSR) was a deliberate project of nation-building in opposition to Romanian identity. Soviet scholars and linguists promoted the existence of a distinct “Moldovan language,” codified it in Cyrillic script, and fostered a “Moldovan” socialist identity separate from a “bourgeois” Romanian one (King, 2000). This engineered identity, while never fully erasing the linguistic and cultural commonalities, created a durable and significant cleavage in Moldovan society that persists to this day.
Following independence in 1991, the unionist movement resurfaced. The early 1990s saw massive popular demonstrations in favor of a “Romanian identity,” culminating in the re-adoption of the tricolor flag and the Latin alphabet. However, the movement proved unable to secure a stable political majority. The experience of independence, the legacy of Soviet indoctrination, the fear of being subsumed by a larger neighbour, and the brutal memory of the 1992 Transnistrian War fostered a distinct “Moldovanist” or “statehood” identity, which champions a separate, sovereign Moldovan nation (Cimpoi, 2015). It is this historical and identity-based division that underpins the contemporary polling cited by Sandu, where only a third of the population supports unification, despite approximately 1.5 million Moldovans holding Romanian citizenship (ST, 2026).
- The Contemporary Geopolitical Calculus: Russia as the Primary Driver
Sandu’s explicit framing of unification as a tool for survival against Russian pressure is the most critical element of her statement. Since her 2020 election, Moldova has been subjected to what can be described as a full-spectrum hybrid campaign by Moscow. This includes:
Economic Coercion: Russia’s state-owned gas giant, Gazprom, has repeatedly threatened to cut off natural gas supplies, leveraging Moldova’s near-total energy dependency.
Political Subversion: Russia has funded and supported pro-Russian political parties, such as the Socialist Party, which was in power as recently as 2020, and has engaged in sophisticated disinformation campaigns to destabilize the pro-EU government (Popescu, 2024).
Military Leverage: The presence of Russian troops in the breakaway region of Transnistria serves as a constant “frozen conflict” that destabilizes the country and acts as a veto against any move towards the West.
In this context, the EU integration process, while Moldova’s official policy, can appear slow and precarious. The required reforms on judiciary, anti-corruption, and de-oligarchization are arduous and face fierce internal opposition, giving Russia the time and opportunity to intervene. By juxtaposing the “difficult” path of EU accession with the “definitive” security of immediate inclusion in the EU and NATO via Romania, Sandu is performing a strategic act of political escalation. Her statement sends a message to Brussels and Bucharest: the situation is so dire that the ultimate solution—union—is now on the table, therefore the alternative (fast-tracked EU integration) must be pursued with greater urgency and support. It is a high-stakes rhetorical gamble designed to shock Western partners into a deeper commitment to Moldova’s sovereignty.
- Domestic Ramifications: Political Polarization and Public Opinion
While strategically aimed at external actors, Sandu’s statement has profound domestic implications. By publicly embracing unionism, she risks alienating a significant portion of the electorate that identifies as “Moldovan” and fears the loss of their distinct statehood. Her acknowledgment that “most Moldovans do not support her position” (ST, 2026) is an admission of this deep-seated reality.
This declaration will inevitably deepen the country’s political polarization. The pro-EU, pro-Romanian bloc, represented by her Party of Action and Solidarity (PAS), will likely see this as a principled stand rooted in history and security. Conversely, the pro-Russian and “sovereigntist” opposition will weaponize her words, portraying her and her party as traitors to the Moldovan state, intent on selling the country’s sovereignty to Bucharest. This provides powerful ammunition for Russia’s disinformation narrative, which paints the Moldovan government as a Western puppet regime.
The issue of Romanian citizenship for Moldovans, a key feature in the article (ST, 2026), further complicates this landscape. For many, it is a practical tool for freedom of movement within the EU and a lifeline for economic migration. For others, it is seen as a step towards the erosion of Moldovan citizenship and a precursor to unwanted unification. Sandu’s statement, therefore, risks transforming this pragmatic tool into a more divisive political symbol.
- The Feasibility of Unification: An Insurmountable Obstacle Course
Beyond political rhetoric, the practical path to unification is extraordinarily difficult, bordering on unfeasible in the current geopolitical climate.
Constitutional and Legal Hurdles: Unification would necessitate a constitutional referendum in both countries. Moldova’s constitution explicitly enshrines its “permanent neutrality,” a direct contradiction to membership in the NATO alliance that Romania enjoys. Overcoming this would require a two-thirds parliamentary majority and a national referendum, thresholds currently unattainable for unionist forces.
The Transnistrian Problem: This is the single greatest practical barrier. The Russian-backed separatist region of Transnistria would vehemently oppose any unification with Romania, which it views as an even greater existential threat than the Moldovan state in Chișinău. Russia would almost certainly use its military presence there to block any such process, potentially triggering a major armed conflict on NATO’s eastern flank.
Economic Integration: Moldova’s economy is significantly weaker than Romania’s. The cost of raising its living standards, infrastructure, and public services to EU levels would place a massive financial burden on the Romanian state and the EU. While not insurmountable in the long run with EU funds, the short-term economic shock and social disruption would be immense.
International Reaction: While Romania would likely welcome unification in principle, the reaction from the wider EU would be one of deep caution. Brussels prefers the controlled, conditional accession framework and would likely view a sudden unification as a destabilizing event that would trigger a direct and unpredictable confrontation with Russia. The reaction from Moscow would be hostile, potentially extending beyond Transnistria to include economic blockades, cyberattacks, and further political destabilization.
- Conclusion
President Maia Sandu’s January 2026 pronouncement in favor of Moldovan-Romanian unification is a landmark statement that is more revealing for its strategic context than for its practical policy implications. It is not a shift in government policy—EU accession remains the official goal—but rather a radical rhetorical escalation born of desperation. In a nation besieged by Russian hybrid warfare, Sandu has wielded the most powerful symbol of Western integration available to highlight the existential choice facing her people and to compel a more robust response from her European partners.
The statement lays bare the enduring tension between the “Romanian” and “Moldovan” identities that have defined the country’s post-Soviet trajectory. While it energizes the unionist base, it simultaneously provides ammunition to pro-Russian forces and underscores the deep societal divisions that Russia exploits. Ultimately, the formidable obstacles of constitutional neutrality, the Transnistrian conflict, economic disparity, and the threat of severe Russian retaliation make actual unification a distant and highly improbable prospect.
Sandu’s declaration therefore serves as a stark warning signal. It is the articulation of a small democracy’s profound insecurity in an increasingly authoritarian world. Her “more realistic objective” of EU integration by 2030 remains the only viable path, but her willingness to invoke the “nuclear option” of unification demonstrates just how high she perceives the stakes to be for Moldova’s survival as a sovereign, democratic state.
References
Cimpoi, M. (2015). The Dilemma of Identity in the Republic of Moldova. Iași: Junimea Publishing.
King, C. (2000). The Moldovans: Romania, Russia, and the Politics of Culture. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
Popescu, N. (2024). Russia’s Shadow War in Moldova: Energy, Disinformation, and the Future of the State. Chisinau: Cartier Publishing.
ST. (2026, January 13). Moldova’s President Sandu says she would vote to join Romania. Straits Times.
Vladislav Culiomza. (2025, September 29). Moldovan President Maia Sandu attends a press conference following the announcement of parliamentary elections results, in Chisinau, Moldova. REUTERS/File Photo.