Moldova's largest Orthodox church—which remains under Moscow's authority—has stripped 11 priests of their powers after they switched to Romanian church jurisdiction in 2020 and weaponize a religious battle that mirrors Ukraine's struggle for ecclesiastical independence from Russia.

Romanian church challenges Moscow's religious foothold

Romania's Bessarabian Metropolis fired back at the priest expulsions, declaring that the "Moldovan Orthodox Church" name itself misleads believers. The Romanian church says the organization is simply "a local church structure of the Moscow Patriarchate" masquerading as Moldova's national church.

Before that, he Synod of the Orthodox Church of Moldova has stripped 11 more priests of their holy orders, after they transferred from the Archdiocese of Moldova to the Archdiocese of Bessarabia.

"The announced 'excommunications' have neither canonical nor legal force, since the mentioned priests together with their communities have not been under Moscow Patriarchate jurisdiction for many years," the Bessarabian Metropolis stated, calling the move an expression of "frustration at the return of more and more communities and priests to the Romanian Orthodox Church."

The Romanian church also accused some Moldovan church hierarchs of "direct and aggressive" interference in Moldova's electoral processes.

"After the direct and aggressive involvement of some hierarchs and clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate in the country's electoral and political processes—actions publicly condemned by civil society, the press, competent authorities, and also by the Bessarabian Metropolis—today's statement 'firmly condemns' the Church's involvement in politics," stated Besarabian Metropoly in Chișinău.

Despite the Moldovan church denying all accusations, this October, Moldovan police registered six cases of church representatives interfering in electoral campaigns on behalf of pro-Russian political parties.

Moscow-linked church denies Russian control

The Moldovan Orthodox Church called allegations from the Romanian church's Bessarabian Metropolis "unfriendly and dangerous."

In a synod statement, church officials insisted they represent "all people living in the Republic of Moldova," regardless of nationality, and claimed to be "free and independent in its governance."

Drawing parallels to Ukraine, where the Russian-linked church faces a ban because of security concerns, the Moldovan church labeled Romania's accusations as an attempt at "division," pointing to "similar experience in a neighboring country"—an apparent reference to Ukraine—where attempts to restrict the Moscow-linked church led to "failures and deep social upheaval."

"The Republic of Moldova should not repeat others' mistakes, but the time has come to maintain balance and wisdom for the common good of our people," the church statement declared.

In fact, the church dispute in Moldova follows a pattern familiar from Ukraine, where the Moscow Patriarchate used religious institutions as tools of political influence for years. Ukraine's own Orthodox Church declared independence from Moscow in 2022, shortly after Russia's full-scale invasion, though the split remains contentious.

Despite all denials, Moldovan media reports that the Moldovan Orthodox Church remains structurally part of the Russian Orthodox Church, with its center in Moscow, and effectively subordinate to Patriarch Kirill.

Russia's Federal Security Service has launched a sophisticated disinformation campaign alleging that Ukrainian and British intelligence services plotted to hijack a MiG-31 fighter jet equipped with Kinzhal hypersonic missiles and redirect it to NATO's Mihail Kogălniceanu airbase in Romania. The evidence-free accusation represents a dangerous escalation in Moscow's hybrid warfare targeting both Bucharest and Kyiv, arriving at a strategically opportune moment as Romania grapples with announced US troop reductions.

FSB and its hybrid "design"

The FSB's Tuesday announcement follows the established pattern of Russian intelligence services operating as primary tools in the information domain. The agency provided no evidence to support its claims, instead constructing an elaborate narrative involving $3 million bribes to pilots, British intelligence coordination, and even alleged involvement by the investigative journalism group Bellingcat.

Romania's Foreign Ministry swiftly dismissed the allegations with pointed irony.

"Soviet spy novels weren't exactly brilliant, being propaganda exercises. Today's Russian news stories with spies are the same," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Țărnea, emphasizing that "what's real is Russian aggression and the Russian provocations these stories about planes and spies attempt to cover."

Multi-Domain targeting strategy

The operation demonstrates textbook hybrid threat methodology across multiple domains:

Information domain: The primary vector employs disinformation to shape international perceptions and create confusion about alliance cohesion.

Diplomatic domain: By falsely implicating Romania in an alleged Ukrainian intelligence operation, Moscow seeks to create friction between NATO allies, particularly by exploiting sensitivities around Romania hosting alliance infrastructure.

Political domain: The timing capitalizes on genuine political tensions following the US troop withdrawal announcement, amplifying existing vulnerabilities in the Romanian security debate.

Military/Defense Domain: The narrative specifically targets Mihail Kogălniceanu airbase, NATO's largest military installation in southeastern Europe, where nearly 3,000 hectares are under development with €2.5 billion in investments planned through 2040.

Tool application: coordinated propaganda amplification

The operation's sophistication emerges in its cross-platform propagation. Chinese state media quickly amplified the FSB narrative, with Xinhua publishing a version that emphasized anti-Ukrainian angles and cited Russian State Duma deputy Dmitry Belik claiming the alleged plot demonstrated "Ukraine's intention to drag NATO into an open military conflict with Russia."

This coordinated echo represents a calculated information tool designed to establish false legitimacy through repetition across multiple authoritarian media ecosystems. 

The narrative simultaneously serves Chinese strategic interests inportraying Western-aligned Ukraine as destabilizing.

Priming through provocation as the Hybrid playbook tool

The FSB operation aligns with the priming phase of hybrid threat activity, where actors establish narratives that can be leveraged during future destabilisation or escalation phases.

By creating a fictional "precedent" of Ukrainian-British operations against Russian assets via Romanian territory, Moscow establishes information terrain for potential future false-flag operations or diplomatic pressure campaigns.

Notably, the FSB claimed that in response to this "thwarted plot," Russian Aerospace Forces struck Ukrainian intelligence facilities in Brovary and Starokonstantinov airfield on November 9-10 using Kinzhal missiles. This represents a dangerous inversion of cause and effect, potentially providing retroactive justification for kinetic military operations.

Strategic Objectives: fracturing alliance cohesion

The underlying objectives align with Russia's documented strategic culture of exploiting openness in democratic societies while seeking to undermine collective security architectures:

1. Wedge strategy: creating perceived conflicts of interest between Romania, Ukraine, and other NATO allies
2. Deterrence manipulation: Suggesting that hosting Ukrainian military operations or aircraft could make Romania a direct target
3. Narrative preparation: establishing information groundwork for future accusations or provocations
4. Attention diversion: Shifting focus from Russian aggression in Ukraine to fabricated NATO "provocations"

Resilience Response: exposure and Attribution

Romania's response demonstrates effective hybrid threat countermeasures. By immediately exposing the disinformation, using accessible language that frames the narrative within historical Soviet propaganda patterns, and refusing to legitimize the accusations through detailed rebuttals, Romanian officials denied the operation its intended amplification effect.

The incident highlights the importance of rapid response capabilities, strong inter-agency coordination between foreign ministries and defence establishments, and effective public communication strategies that expose hybrid operations without inadvertently reinforcing their narratives.

Vulnerability exploitation in transitional security contexts

The operation's timing reveals sophisticated intelligence about alliance vulnerabilities.

By launching this disinformation campaign during a genuine period of Romanian concern about US force posture adjustments, the FSB maximized the narrative's potential to create doubt and friction.

Approximately 5,000 NATO troops currently stationed in Romania, predominantly from the United States, Poland, France, and Spain, represent a tangible alliance commitment that Russia seeks to undermine.

Implications for Hybrid Threat Preparedness

This incident validates several core principles of the hybrid threats analytical framework:

• Cross-domain effects: actions in one domain (information) create cascading vulnerabilities in others (diplomatic, political, military)
• Attribution challenges: by implicating multiple actors (Ukraine, UK, Bellingcat), the operation complicates attribution discussions
• Below-threshold operations: the activity remains beneath conventional military thresholds while achieving strategic communication objectives
• Exploitation of openness: democratic media ecosystems and diplomatic transparency requirements become vectors for disinformation spread

As hybrid warfare continues evolving, the Mihail Kogălniceanu fabrication serves as a case study in how authoritarian actors weaponize information during periods of genuine security transition, seeking to transform legitimate policy debates into tools of strategic destabilization.

This analysis employs the Hybrid CoE conceptual framework for analyzing hybrid threats across actors, tools, domains, and phases to provide structured understanding of contemporary information warfare operations.

The European People's Party is blocking efforts to launch a parliamentary inquiry into allegations that Hungarian intelligence services ran a spy ring inside EU institutions in Brussels, arguing that an investigation would only serve Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's anti-Brussels narrative.

The EPP's opposition sets up a clash with progressive groups—the Greens, Socialists, and Renew Europe liberals—who are pushing for an inquiry committee to be established immediately following revelations that Hungarian agents posed as diplomats to recruit EU employees as informants between 2013 and 2018.

Why the EPP fears investigating spying allegations

The EPP's caution carries added irony given its own history with Orbán.

Orbán's Fidesz party was a longtime EPP member until March 2021, when Fidesz formally left the grouping after years of growing tensions over democratic backsliding in Hungary.

The EPP had suspended Fidesz's membership in 2019 but avoided outright expulsion, allowing Orbán to exit on his own terms before facing formal removal.

This creates an unusual situation where the largest political group in the European Parliament is effectively opposing accountability measures against a government accused of espionage—because holding that government accountable might strengthen its domestic political position.

The conservative bloc's stance reflects a political calculation, that a formal parliamentary probe would hand Orbán ammunition for his long-running campaign portraying Brussels as hostile to Hungary. The EPP apparently believes that keeping the investigation within the European Commission's administrative process limits Orbán's ability to turn the scandal into political theater.

The spy scandal that triggered the political standoff

The controversy erupted in October after investigative reports by Belgium's De Tijd, Hungary's Direkt36, Germany's Der Spiegel, and Austria's Der Standard revealed how Hungarian intelligence officers worked undercover at Hungary's EU mission in Brussels. The agents allegedly attempted to recruit Hungarian staff at the European Commission as informants.

The operation reportedly ran with the knowledge of the then-ambassador, Olivér Várhelyi, who now serves as the European Commissioner for Health and Animal Welfare. Várhelyi denies any knowledge of espionage activities.

Key details from the investigation:

• Intelligence officers posed as diplomats at Hungary's Permanent Representation to the EU
• The spy network operated between 2013 and 2018, targeting EU employees
• Olivér Várhelyi led the mission from 2015 to 2019 during part of this period
• Multiple sources confirmed the operation, including insiders from Hungarian intelligence

The European Commission launched its own administrative probe after the reports emerged, but Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has declined to suspend Várhelyi pending the investigation.

Parliamentary powers and political calculations

The European Parliament cannot remove individual commissioners—only pass a motion of censure requiring the entire Commission to resign with a two-thirds majority. This nuclear option makes progressive groups' push for a parliamentary inquiry more about political pressure and public accountability than immediate action.

The progressives see the inquiry as essential for documenting the full extent of Hungarian intelligence operations inside EU institutions and forcing transparency about security breaches. The EPP's blocking position suggests the conservative grouping is more concerned about managing political optics than investigating espionage.

Hungary has repeatedly aided authoritarian regimes or become entangled in scandals under Orbán's leadership, including extraditing Russian arms smugglers to Moscow instead of the US and helping smuggle North Macedonia's former premier across European borders to avoid corruption charges.

Without EPP support, progressive groups cannot muster the votes needed to establish the inquiry committee. The investigation remains in the European Commission's hands, where von der Leyen walks a political tightrope—she cannot appear to protect Várhelyi without risking another no-confidence motion, yet she also cannot afford to alienate the EPP support that saved her in two recent confidence votes.

The Trump administration is demanding that a foundational UN resolution on Ukraine be stripped of language affirming the country's territorial integrity and condemning Russian occupation, Kyiv Post reports, citing two people familiar with internal UN discussions.

The annual resolution has served since 2014 as the international community's most consistent diplomatic rebuke of Russia's occupation of Crimea and other Ukrainian territories. Last December, 78 countries – including the United States – voted to affirm Ukraine's sovereignty and document human rights abuses in Russian-held areas.

Now Washington wants those references gone. According to Kyiv Post's sources, US officials are pressing for the resolution to be recast under the vague label "war in Ukraine," with specific mentions of "territorial integrity," "aggression," and Crimea's annexation removed entirely.

The vote is scheduled for the coming weeks at the UN General Assembly's Third Committee.

What the White House wants erased

The resolution's formal title already telegraphs what's at stake: situation of human rights in the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine, including the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol.

The word "temporarily" matters.

It signals that the international community recognizes these territories as Ukrainian, just under hostile occupation.

Kyiv Post's sources say US officials want to strip:

• All references to Ukraine's "territorial integrity" and sovereignty
• Language condemning Russia's "aggression"
• Specific mentions of Crimea's 2014 annexation
• Documentation of systematic human rights violations in occupied areas

"This is another example of Washington walking away from Ukraine's core interests at a critical diplomatic juncture," a European envoy told Kyiv Post. "If the language goes, the message to Moscow is that the US is no longer leading the defense of the international order."

That's diplomatic speak for: Putin wins.

Timing reveals the pattern

The push comes as a new UN report details exactly the abuses Washington now wants to stop formally condemning. The report documents forced deportations, torture, suppression of Ukrainian identity, mandatory Russian citizenship requirements, and persecution of Ukrainian speakers in occupied territories.

Russia has spent over a decade trying to erase the international consensus that Crimea and other occupied areas belong to Ukraine. Every year since 2014, this resolution has stood as the UN's answer: No, we still recognize Ukraine's borders. Yes, Russia is an occupying power.

Remove "territorial integrity" from the text, and you've handed Moscow its biggest diplomatic victory since the invasion began. You've signaled that Western resolve is cracking, that Russia just needs to wait out the clock, that changing borders by force might actually work if you're patient enough.

European diplomats speaking to Kyiv Post made this explicit: once removing 'territorial integrity' from UN documents starts, there will be changing the entire framework of international law. 

Another crack in the Western front

The resolution has historically passed with strong support – 78 countries voted yes last year, with only 15 voting no (Russia, Belarus, North Korea, Syria, and the usual Moscow-aligned bloc) and 82 abstentions.

But that was before the Trump administration began systematically pressuring Ukraine to accept territorial concessions while questioning continued military aid. The weakened resolution would fit neatly into a pattern: Washington undercutting Ukraine's position, then presenting the resulting erosion of support as evidence that Kyiv should "be realistic" about what it can achieve.

Ukraine's diplomatic team is now working to preserve the resolution's core language without US backing. 

Either outcome would mark a turning point: the moment the international community stopped unanimously affirming that Ukraine's borders matter, that occupation is illegal, that changing borders by force violates the rules that prevent global chaos.

Moscow has been waiting for this moment since February 2022. According to Kyiv Post's reporting, the Trump administration is about to give it to them.

The air raid app buzzed in pockets across Bolgrad on November 8. Russian missiles were in Ukrainian airspace. Again. Thousands of festivalgoers checked their phones, noted the threat level, and returned to their wine glasses.

This is Ukraine in 2025: celebrating survival while calculating strike trajectories.

Bolgrad Wine Fest returned after six years — first COVID-19 shut it down, then Russia invaded. The festival's 2019 edition drew over 15,000 people to southern Odesa Oblast for tastings, music, and regional pride. This year's crowd was smaller but carried a different weight. Every glass raised meant something more than appreciation for local viticulture.

It meant refusing to stop living.

Bolgrad Wine Fest 2025 assembled 22 winemakers and a Crimean Platform booth highlighting what Russia's occupation destroyed: Ukraine's once-flourishing wine region, now strangled by sanctions. Visitors wrote postcards to Ukrainian prisoners held in Crimea and Russia while raising glasses for dual purpose — celebrating viticulture and funding military defense.

Twenty-four winemakers displayed their product while Russian drones hunted infrastructure across Ukraine's south. Sommeliers judged amateur and professional wines while attendees kept one eye on their phones, ready to move to shelter. Between tastings, conversations drifted from tannins to power outages, from harvest yields to which military units needed donations most urgently.

The organizers made the math explicit: every vendor pays an entry fee, every purchase supports the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The Bolgrad City Council's Entrepreneurship Support Fund structured the festival around a simple principle — local producers pay taxes that fund everything, so keeping them alive keeps the region alive. When the war ends, something must remain standing.

Generators as backup plans

An announcement from the stage captured Ukraine's wartime normal: "Don't be surprised if the music stops — that just means we're switching to the generator because the electricity shut down."

Ukraine faces massive electricity shortages after years of Russian strikes systematically targeting power infrastructure. Rolling blackouts have become routine. But localities across the country have adapted with decentralized generator networks, ensuring that life continues even when the grid fails.

At Bolgrad Wine Fest, backup generators stood ready. When the power cut out — and it would — the festival switched over. Music might pause for a moment, but it would resume. The wine kept flowing. The crowd kept celebrating. Donations kept raising.

This is Ukrainian resilience in practice: not pretending the war doesn't exist, but refusing to let it win.

Crimea's wine legacy under sanctions

Izmail State University of Humanities brought the Crimean Platform to the wine festival, partnering with the Presidential Office's representation in occupied Crimea to operate a booth alongside wine vendors. The placement was deliberate.

Crimea once flourished as Ukraine's premier wine region, with renowned vineyards producing internationally recognized varieties. Under Russian occupation since 2014, that legacy has withered under international sanctions that cut Crimean wine off from global markets.

What Russia took by force, it cannot sustain through economics.

Visitors wrote postcards to Ukrainian political prisoners held illegally in Crimea and Russia, learning about the peninsula's decade under occupation while sampling traditional Crimean "coffee on sand" — a reminder of the cultural heritage that survives despite military control.

The message: Russia controls Crimean territory but cannot erase Ukrainian identity there or anywhere else. The letters matter, organizers explained, because they tell prisoners someone still fights for them, still remembers, still resists. Meanwhile, Crimean vineyards languish under an occupation that destroyed their international viability.

Donations for Ukraine's military accumulated in jars beside information pamphlets about war crimes and the collapsed wine economy Russia left behind.

The sound of normal life

Wine festivals should not require threat assessments. Harvest celebrations should not double as military fundraisers. Visitors should not need to map the nearest bomb shelter before ordering their next tasting. And the music certainly shouldn't depend on backup generators.

But Bolgrad Wine Fest 2025 happened anyway — perhaps because of those contradictions, not despite them. The festival became a statement about what Russia cannot destroy: Ukraine's capacity to produce, celebrate, and insist on living normally even when sirens interrupt the music and power grids collapse.

Southern Odesa Oblast has absorbed its share of Russian strikes. Infrastructure burns, power fails, civilians die. Yet on November 8, thousands gathered to drink local wine, support local business, fund military defense, and demonstrate that Ukrainian life continues.

This is resilience not as endurance but as defiance. Not survival but insistence. Not waiting for normalcy to return but creating it now, under threat, with missile alerts on phones, backup generators humming, and donation jars on tables.

Russia wages war. Ukraine raises glasses. Both continue.

In January 2025, approximately 300 mercenaries commanded by Romanian-French fighter Horațiu Potra were captured in the Democratic Republic of Congo, formally taken into UN custody, and "repatriated."

Nine months later, European police raided 70 homes across Moldova and Ukraine, hunting 654 Wagner Group suspects. Among the evidence: proof that fighters had deployed to both Ukraine and Congo as part of the Russian mercenary network.

The 300 captured fighters hadn't vanished—they'd rotated through a system connecting African battlefields to Balkan training camps to European election operations, with some appearing at a horse farm outside Bucharest where a presidential candidate allegedly planned a violent power grab.

The October raids exposed Russia's modular mercenary infrastructure: Wagner instructors training operatives in Bosnia, those operatives deploying to sabotage Moldova's vote, and the same personnel rotating between Congo wars and Ukraine combat—using foreign nationals to maintain deniability while targeting democratic elections.

The recruiter's evolution

Anatolii Prizenko understood how to spot talent. In the summer of 2024, he observed Moldovans navigating mock combat at paintball tournaments, assessing their reflexes and decision-making skills the way scouts evaluate athletes.

Those who caught his eye received an offer: $300-500 for ten days of work. No one explained what the job entailed.

Prizenko wasn't experimenting—he was testing. A year earlier, in October 2023, he'd recruited several Moldovans for a different operation—painting Stars of David on buildings in Paris during the Gaza conflict.

The European Union later determined this was a GRU operation designed to inflame French society during the Israel-Hamas war. Prizenko publicly claimed responsibility. By December 2024, the EU sanctioned him for the Paris operation's "significant destabilizing effect."

Anatolii Prizenco was arrested in February 2025 for recruiting participants for the camp.

The progression revealed a methodology: test recruitment pools with low-risk provocations abroad, then scale to paramilitary operations at home.

For example, when Moldovan police arrested Prizenko in February 2025 for organizing training camps in the Balkans, they found he'd successfully moved operatives from street graffiti in Western Europe to preparing explosives instructions for destabilization in Eastern Europe within twelve months.

The camps and their instructors

The forests outside Radenka, Serbia, and Glamočani near Banja Luka in Republika Srpska, Bosnia's pro-Russian entity, became classrooms that summer and fall of 2024. 

Maxim Rosca, 41, who became a whistleblower during the journalistic investigation conducted by the Moldovan outlet CU SENS, described the regimen: trainees surrendered their phones and passports upon arrival, then spent days on combat drills, drone operations, and what he carefully termed "things like sports and psychology."

The instructor cadre told a story across continents. Alexander Volkhonsky, previously known as Sotov, had been documented by anti-corruption investigators working with the Wagner Group in the Central African Republic. Now he was training Moldovans in Bosnia—direct evidence of personnel rotating from African mercenary operations to European destabilization. 

Beside him worked Konstantin Goloskokov, who'd admitted to the Financial Times in 2009 that he participated in the massive 2007 cyberattacks that paralyzed Estonia's government, banks, and media. 17 years after attacking a NATO member digitally, Goloskokov was coordinating paramilitary training camps near NATO borders.

Mikhail Potepkin, already under EU, US, and UK sanctions for Wagner ties, served as coordinator. Mircho Angelov, a Bulgarian neo-Nazi who'd participated in Prizenko's Paris operation, brought food to trainees. And on 23 August 2024, Andrei Becker entered Bosnia and registered a company called AE 777, listing "IT services" as its business purpose, on the same day he arrived. The company remains active.

When BIRN visited Radenka in February 2025, the camps had been sanitized. Only burnt paper, melted plastic tarpaulin, and scorched earth remained at the coordinates matching the videos released by the Moldovan police. Bosnian prosecutors opened their own investigation that October.

The border stop

On 11 October 2024, Moldovan police stopped a car at the Romanian border. Inside sat Maxim Rosca alongside Vladimir Harcevnicov, a 37-year-old convicted murderer, Aliona Gotco, who held both Transnistrian and Russian citizenship, Ludmila Costenco, and Iulia Ivanova. When officers searched the vehicle, they found disassembled drones, VR headsets, radio equipment, and instructions for making explosives.

The timing wasn't coincidental. Moldova's presidential election and EU referendum were weeks away. The camps had operated from August through early October specifically to produce operatives for deployment during the voting period.

Lilian Carp, chairman of Moldova's parliamentary security committee, later told reporters the training focused on practical destabilization: "In Bosnia, they trained with drones and learned how to organize mass riots and how to provoke the police into a violent reaction."

Explore further

Moldova stays European—here’s how they beat $180 million in Russian bribes

Romanian commandos became mercenaries—then returned for alleged coup

While camp-trained operatives prepared for Moldova's October vote, a separate operation targeted Romania's November election.

The architect was Horațiu Potra, whose biography reads like a mercenary's greatest hits: French Foreign Legion veteran, bodyguard to Qatar's emir, commander of private military companies deploying to the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of Congo. 

By August 2024, Romanian sources estimated he controlled approximately 1,000 fighters—Romanians and Moldovans, including personnel from Romania's Ministry of Defense (MApN), Intelligence Service, and Gendarmerie. While Potra publicly denied Wagner ties, his operation mirrored Wagner's structure: fighting in the same African conflict zones where Wagner operated, employing instructors who'd worked for Wagner in the Central African Republic, and ultimately seeing his fighters arrested as Wagner Group suspects.

Romanian investigations later revealed "the Romanian state trained Potra's private army fighters in three elite MApN units," echoing how Wagner trained at Russian bases while Moscow maintained deniability.

That August, presidential candidate Călin Georgescu texted Potra: "Please, I need support until then"—until the 24 November election.

Court records show Georgescu had met Russia's ambassador to Romania, Valery Kuzmin, at the Russian embassy. Potra's phone contained hotel bookings and flight records documenting multiple trips to Moscow.

Court rejects arrest for Potra despite coup plot evidence

Georgescu won the first round. In an unprecedented move, Romania's constitutional court annulled the result in early December, citing evidence of Russian interference. 

On December 7-8, authorities intercepted Potra and approximately two dozen associates en route to Bucharest, with weapons, explosives, and detailed lists of politicians and journalists. Searches of his residences uncovered illegal weapons and large cash sums.

Prosecutors obtained photographs of a meeting at a horse farm "shortly after [Georgescu's] election victory was overturned." Potra and Georgescu appeared alongside members of Potra's group, including Georgescu's bodyguard—who'd fought under Potra's command in Congo and whose partner posted photos with Chechen fighters expressing support for Putin.

Prosecutors alleged they were planning "a violent power grab."

Georgescu initially denied meeting Potra entirely. When photos surfaced in Romanian press, he reversed his position but insisted "no plans for an uprising were ever discussed."

Despite prosecutors' charges of attempting to overthrow constitutional order, illegal weapons possession, tax evasion on African mercenary income, and illegal campaign financing through cash payments and a luxury limousine rental for Georgescu, a court released Potra.

By February 2025, when prosecutors sought his arrest again, he had fled Romania.

Explore further

Romania was too boring for Western allies to watch. Russia wasn’t bored.

The Congo-Ukraine connection

Ukrainian police had been tracking Moldovan Wagner fighters for years. In March 2024, an operation code-named "Avengers" detained three Wagner veterans who'd fought from 2014-2023 at Donetsk airport, Bakhmut, and the Debaltseve cauldron.

Ukrainian investigators identified 85 Moldovan citizens total who'd fought for Russia. That left 82 unaccounted for.

Ten months later, in January 2025, M23 rebels captured approximately 300 of Potra's fighters in Congo while they fought alongside government forces. Official reports said they were "released and repatriated back home." The reports didn't specify where home was for each fighter. Nine months of silence followed. Then the connection materialized.

On 29 October 2025, police across Moldova and Ukraine executed 70 simultaneous raids. Europol announced they were hunting 654 suspects connected to Wagner Group and Redut, a Russian military intelligence recruitment network.

The suspects came from nine countries: Ukraine, Moldova, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Among seized materials: Wagner insignia, drones, VR headsets, and crucially, evidence showing suspects had fought "in the territory of Ukraine and the Democratic Republic of Congo." Not "or" — "and." Europol identified them as Wagner Group members. The same individuals, the same organization, rotating across continents.

The October raids answered where the 300 went: they hadn't disappeared. They'd rotated between African and European operations, with some of the "repatriated" Congo fighters appearing in the network linking Balkan training camps to Ukraine combat deployments.

Potra stranded in Dubai

On 24 September 2025, Dubai police arrested Potra, his son, and his nephew as they prepared to board a flight to Moscow. Within days, two Russians mobilized to prevent his extradition to Romania.

The first one, Igor Spivak, heads the Russian Middle East Society, an organization presenting itself as an NGO but which Spivak openly admits works with Russia's foreign ministry. 

"The ministry, of course, supports us. It would be difficult to deny that," he told The Guardian, adding that his organization includes "many former foreign ministry employees and former ambassadors." His recent projects included organizing an art exhibition in Moscow featuring works by Aisha Gaddafi, daughter of the late Libyan dictator.

The second one, Alexander Kalinin, fled Moldova to Russia after being stripped of his citizenship. Now under EU and US sanctions for destabilizing Moldova as a Kremlin collaborator, he recruits Moldovans to fight in Ukraine and has publicly vowed to lead fighters in a march on Moldova's capital, Chișinău, to overthrow President Maia Sandu's government.

"We are currently trying to stop Potra's extradition," Spivak confirmed. "We have a lot of experience, and a lot of people are working on getting him freed." He said Kalinin had requested his assistance and that he'd hired "very reputable lawyers" in the UAE.

The pairing revealed the network's architecture: a foreign ministry-connected cultural fixer and a Ukraine recruitment operative, both dropping everything to rescue a Romanian mercenary arrested in Dubai.

The reason became obvious through inversion—what would Potra's testimony expose? He knows the complete money trail for Georgescu's campaign, everyone present at the December horse farm meeting, what was discussed, what happened to the 300 Congo fighters after "repatriation," whether any trained at the Balkan camps, and how Volkhonsky's African Wagner operations connected to his European training role.

By early November, Spivak's confidence had evaporated. "The situation is difficult," he admitted, adding that Potra could be extradited to Romania "as soon as Thursday."

The system exposed

Trace the connections through time:

1. 2007: Goloskokov cyberattacked Estonia, paralyzing government and banks.
2. Pre-2024: Volkhonsky operated with Wagner in the Central African Republic.
3. October 2023: Prizenko tested recruitment methodology with Paris graffiti operation, painting Stars of David to inflame tensions during Gaza conflict.
4. January 2025: 300 mercenaries under Potra's command captured in Congo, formally "repatriated."
5. Summer 2024: Prizenko scaled up recruitment, scouting Moldovans at paintball tournaments.
6. August 2024: Camps launched. Georgescu texted Potra: "Please, I need support until then"—until the 24 November election. Volkhonsky and Goloskokov began instructing Moldovans at Balkan training sites.
7. August-October 2024: Training camps operated in Serbia and Bosnia, precisely timed to deploy operatives for Moldova's election.
8. 11 October 2024: Rosca and companions intercepted at Moldovan border with drones, explosives instructions, and VR equipment—two weeks before voting.
9. November 2024: Moldova's election (Sandu won). Romania's election (Georgescu won first round).
10. December 2024: Romania's Constitutional Court annulled results. Georgescu met Potra at horse farm, allegedly planning violent response.
11. October 2025: European raids across Moldova and Ukraine seized evidence showing fighters deployed to both Congo and Ukraine—connecting the January "repatriated" fighters to the Balkan-trained operatives.

This wasn't improvisation. Each phase built on previous operations, testing what worked, refining methods, scaling up.

When electoral manipulation failed in Moldova and Romania, the network shifted toward violence. When violence was intercepted, physical sites were destroyed. When the key commander faced extradition, a high-level rescue operation was launched.

Potra's denials notwithstanding, the evidence speaks: Wagner instructors trained his operatives, Russian state actors intervened to prevent his extradition, and Europol arrested his fighters as Wagner Group members. Whether formally affiliated or operationally parallel, the distinction collapsed in practice.

Georgescu's bodyguard moved from Congo battlefields to Romanian political meetings. The 654 suspects came from nine countries, most without Russian citizenship, providing plausible deniability while maintaining operational capability.

The network is exposed. But exposed isn't destroyed. The infrastructure exists, the methods are proven, and Russia has learned what works and what doesn't. The operation failed in Moldova and Romania. But failure generates data. And data enables refinement.

Alexandru Munteanu, the newly appointed prime minister of the Republic of Moldova, has a résumé that makes diplomats swoon: founder of the American Chamber of Commerce, French cultural ambassador, and Wall Street-style investor with an impeccable suit and better connections.

At 61, Munteanu just landed the top job in Moldova, but there is just one problem: he knows where all of Ukraine's bodies are buried. Literally and figuratively.

The man with two faces

For twenty years, Alexandru Munteanu didn't just do business in Ukraine — he lived inside its economic bloodstream. He saw the money flows, the corrupt deals, the weak points in the system. He was there during the oligarch wars, the revolutions, and the backroom arrangements that kept the lights on and ensured the right people were paid off.

Now he's the prime minister of the country next door, and nobody seems worried about what he learned.

Within hours of his nomination, investigative journalists dropped a bombshell: possible ties to Russian oligarch Alisher Usmanov through murky economic dealings. Munteanu brushed it off with the smoothness of someone who's deflected more complex questions at boardroom tables from Kyiv to Chișinău. "Grey economic zones," he called it—nothing to see here. Move along.

But start pulling on that thread, and the sweater unravels fast.

The security firm nobody wants to talk about

In a recent TV interview, Munteanu casually mentioned he owns two Ukrainian businesses. The first — a higiene paper company — is boring enough to make you yawn.

The second one he didn't call, just mentioned, that it is related to security. In accordance with the Ukrainian open data monitoring service, the company related to Munteanu is Venbest, one of Ukraine's largest private security firms, with 2,500 armed employees, 566 patrol vehicles, and operations in 20 regions. It's the kind of company that knows which buildings matter, where the cameras point, and who's paying for protection.

Munteanu claims he's no longer officially listed as owner. However, in the interview, he admits that he still has control over it.

Let that sink in: Moldova's new Prime Minister is a beneficiary of a Ukrainian security empire while sitting in the Prime Minister's chair.

Friends in low places

Venbest's partners read like the greatest hits of Ukraine's corrupt past.

For 15 years, Venbest has operated as a strategic partner with Yavir-2000, Ukraine's other major private security firm. Together they created 566 joint rapid-response groups, coordinate operations across 22 regions, and make business decisions jointly — this according to their own description in a 2024 Forbes Ukraine interview.

So when Yavir-2000 spent years installing and maintaining thousands of Russian TRASSIR surveillance cameras—systems that transmitted footage directly to Moscow servers with FSB connections — it wasn't happening in isolation. These were partners sharing strategy, resources, and clients across Ukraine's security sector.

The Yavir-2000 surveillance operation was massive: Radio Svoboda's December 2023 investigation documented Russian cameras at Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant, throughout Poltava's "Safe City" system, and at countless private businesses.

The footage was routed through Moscow servers owned by companies serving Russia's FSB. Ukrainian authorities only moved to block access after the February 2022 invasion—meaning for years, a company deeply partnered with Munteanu's Venbest was potentially feeding Ukrainian intelligence to Moscow.

Munteanu's business partners? Former officials from Viktor Yanukovych's government, the kleptocracy that sparked Ukraine's 2014 revolution.

Heorgii Tupchii, Venbest's Ukrainian co-owner, has been identified as a business partner of Valerii Pysarenko—a former MP from Yanukovych's Party of Regions who voted for the "dictator laws" in January 2014 that sparked mass protests.

The business connection runs through a Cypriot offshore company that formally controls Venbest, with the same nominee directors appearing in both men's corporate structures.

Tupchii also has reported connections to Viktor Ratushniak, who served as deputy minister in Yanukovych's Interior Ministry from 2010-2014, overseeing the very security sector where Tupchii built his empire.

These aren't the kind of people you accidentally end up in business with. These are the networks you navigate when you spend 20 years building a Ukrainian business empire.

These allegations surfaced during a 2023 business dispute after Venbest lost a government contract to competitor Sheriff. Take that context into account—but also note what's independently verifiable: the Cypriot corporate structures linking Tupchii and Pysarenko, and Pysarenko's documented voting record.

When Ukraine's reformers attempted to clean up government contracts, the backlash was swift and coordinated—media attacks, criminal investigations opened within 24 hours, pressure through former law enforcement connections.

This is the business world Munteanu chose to navigate. And now he's prime minister.

The ultimate insider threat

Here's what makes Munteanu dangerous: He's not some Russian spy or principal bad actor. He's the ultimate insider — someone who spent two decades learning exactly how Ukraine works, where it's vulnerable, and how to exploit those weaknesses.

He facilitated major business deals. He moved money across borders. He identified which officials could be bribed and which institutions could be influenced. He built a network that stretches from Kyiv boardrooms to Moldovan ministries, and who knows where else.

Now imagine handing that knowledge to the prime minister of a country that shares a 1,200-km border with Ukraine, has its own Russian separatist problem, and sits at the crossroads of East-West power games.

The beautiful lie

Western capitals are celebrating Munteanu as a technocrat, a reformer, someone who understands both Ukraine and Moldova and can build bridges between them.

But what if the bridge goes both ways? What if the man who knows all of Ukraine's secrets, who built businesses on connections to corrupt officials, who still controls a massive security operation, isn't the ally everyone thinks he is?

Moldova just handed its government to someone who knows precisely where Ukraine is weakest. He speaks the language of Western reform while keeping one hand on a security empire and the other on investment networks that span the former Soviet space.

Call him a prime minister if you want. But Alexandru Munteanu is something far more interesting—and far more dangerous: He's the man who knows too much, wearing a diplomatic smile. The question isn't whether he'll use what he knows. The question is: for whom?

Western policymakers hoping Hungary's April 2026 election solves the Ukraine obstruction problem need to look closer at the man they're counting on. Péter Magyar, the opposition leader polling ahead of Viktor Orbán, opposes Ukraine's fast-track EU membership, won't support weapons deliveries, and has explicitly admitted he avoids the Ukraine topic because it's "too divisive" for voters he needs to persuade.

On Thursday, hundreds of thousands filled Budapest's streets in rival demonstrations—the latest barometer of the political contest ahead of April's election. Magyar's supporters shouted "Russians go home!" at Heroes' Square, while Orbán's pro-government marchers carried banners reading "We don't want to die for Ukraine!"

Regime change won't change Hungary's stance. The problem runs deeper than one leader, Hungarian journalist Szilárd Teczár tells Euromaidan Press.

Magyar's actual position: softer words, same obstruction

Magyar calls Russia the aggressor—a rhetorical improvement over Orbán's careful silence. But when pressed on substance, he said Ukraine "is at war and currently does not meet the accession criteria, so no one can seriously consider this a relevant issue."

What practically means: no fast-track EU membership, no urgent action. Just vague future promises.

His Tisza Party MEPs voted for a September 2024 European Parliament resolution calling for more weapons to Ukraine. They wore Ukrainian flag T-shirts for Zelenskyy's 1,000-day war speech.

But when it mattered—when the European People's Party drafted a hawkish defense declaration in March 2025—Magyar's signature mysteriously appeared and then mysteriously disappeared.

The document called for unconditional military support, lifting restrictions on Western weapons striking Russian territory, and requiring member states to allocate 0.25% of GDP to Ukraine. Magyar claimed for days his signature was added "by mistake"—until European Parliament President Roberto Metsola confirmed the error would be "remedied."

Even if genuine, the incident reveals Magyar's dilemma: the EPP expects full Ukraine support as the price of membership, but Hungarian voters punish politicians who provide it.

Why he can't change course

"Magyar openly admitted in an interview that he shouldn't emphasize this topic too much because it's very divisive in society, and he needs to concentrate on things where he can persuade the most voters," explains Szilárd Teczár, a Hungarian researcher specializing in disinformation and foreign information manipulation, in an interview with Euromaidan Press.

The numbers back his caution. When Magyar's own Tisza Party conducted an informal referendum on Ukraine's EU membership, only 58% of his supporters favored it—hardly a mandate for championing Kyiv's cause. Meanwhile, Orbán's government-backed consultation claimed 95% opposition, though Magyar dismissed it as propaganda with just 3-7% actual participation.

"Society is very polarized," Teczár says. On one side, people who see Putin as a war criminal. On the other, Orbán supporters who've absorbed years of anti-Ukraine messaging. Magyar's right-wing voter base won't tolerate a pro-Ukraine shift, and Fidesz stands ready to brand any Ukraine support as betrayal.

They've already started. The government ran billboards portraying Zelenskyy alongside Magyar, painting both as threats to Hungary. When one of Magyar's military advisors, former Chief of General Staff Romulusz Ruszin-Szendi, suggested that EU membership could enable troop deployment to Ukraine, Fidesz weaponized it instantly: "Magyar wants to send Hungarian soldiers to die in Ukraine."

"All the smear campaign tactics don't really work against them the way they did before," Teczár notes, since Magyar came "from inside Fidesz—he's a right-winger as well." But this means Magyar must be even more careful not to provide ammunition. Pro-Ukraine positions are ammunition.

The electoral math that prevents change

Magyar's Tisza Party has surged since emerging in early 2024, achieving nearly 30% in the European Parliament elections and polling competitively with Fidesz heading into April 2026. Opposition-aligned polls show Tisza leading 43-44% to Fidesz's 35-41%, though pro-government pollsters dispute these numbers.

But those voters Magyar needs to win? They're not pro-Ukraine. Fidesz's base—older, rural, less educated Hungarians who've dominated elections since 2010—opposes Ukraine support even more strongly than the national average. Meanwhile, younger urban voters who might support Ukraine are already with Magyar. He has little to gain and much to lose by championing Kyiv's cause.

"I would still be very cautious about predicting election results," Teczár warns. "Fidesz has advantages in terms of financial resources, representation in the state apparatus, and so on."

Even if Magyar wins, his hands remain tied. He's promised to prioritize "Hungary's national interests" over personal political motives when using EU vetoes—a distinction without much difference when Hungarian public opinion opposes Ukraine membership and weapons deliveries.

The Publicus Institute poll conducted 11-18 October 2024 showed Tisza at 24% among the entire population versus Fidesz at 23%, but among decided voters, the breakdown was 39% for Tisza versus 37% for Fidesz. 

According to Medián poll from November 2024, among those with party preference, Tisza's lead was 43% against 39% for Fidesz, and among voters promising to participate, Tisza garnered 46% while Fidesz gained only 39%.

Vox Populi, which compiles polling institute data, showed Tisza in the lead in September 2025 by anywhere from 4% to 14%.

What would actually change

The optimistic scenario: Magyar might be quieter about opposition. He won't actively tour Europe undermining Ukraine the way Orbán does. He might not veto every single Ukraine-related measure, just most of them.

Teczár sees a marginal shift possible: "Maybe after the elections, if they win, there could be changes." But the timeline matters—any softening would come after April 2026, meaning another year of Hungarian obstruction at minimum.

The rhetoric would improve. Magyar acknowledges Russia as the aggressor. He criticizes Orbán for using veto power for "personal political motives" rather than national interests. But when Magyar says he'll use the veto for Hungary's interests instead, what does that mean? The same obstruction, just with better PR.

The structural problem Western allies miss

This isn't about Viktor Orbán's personal relationship with Putin. It's not about one leader's corruption or authoritarian tendencies. Those factors matter, but they're not the whole story.

Hungary's media ecosystem has been captured. Orbán's government controls most major outlets, and they've spent years framing Ukraine support as dangerous for Hungary.

The narratives have penetrated: Ukraine membership threatens Hungarian jobs, Ukrainian language laws oppress Hungarian minorities in Transcarpathia, supporting Ukraine means war escalation that Hungary can't afford.

"Because of the very close alignment between Fidesz narratives and Kremlin narratives, my feeling is that Russia simply doesn't need to invest too many resources in Hungary," Teczár explains. "Very powerful players are already doing their job anyway."

Even if Magyar wanted to help Ukraine—and there's little evidence he does—he couldn't survive it politically. Fidesz would paint him as Brussels' puppet, as a warmonger sending Hungarian boys to die for foreign interests, as an enemy of ethnic Hungarians in Ukraine. And enough voters would believe it to cost him the election.

The lesson for Western policymakers

Betting on April 2026 to solve the Hungary problem means another year minimum of obstruction, followed by—at best—marginally softer obstruction from a leader who still opposes Ukraine's fast-track EU membership and weapons deliveries.

Western allies need Plan B. That might mean finding ways to work around Hungarian vetoes, strengthening bilateral support for Ukraine that doesn't require unanimity, or making Hungary's obstruction so costly that even Magyar's "national interest" calculation shifts.

But the magical thinking that regime change automatically means policy change? That needs to end. Magyar's own words and actions show he's offering Orbán-lite on Ukraine, not a reversal.

The sooner Western capitals accept this, the sooner they can develop strategies that don't depend on Hungarian cooperation that isn't coming—regardless of who wins in April.

Explore further

Romania could’ve been Ukraine’s biggest ally. Hungary made sure it isn’t.

Two young Ukrainians walked into a Nova Post office in central Bucharest on 21 October 2025, carrying packages disguised as headphones and car parts. Inside: thermite devices designed to torch the building and sever the connection between millions of displaced Ukrainians and their families back home.

Romanian intelligence neutralized the attack and arrested the suspects—two Ukrainians allegedly recruited by Russian intelligence to sabotage their own community's lifeline. The operation was hailed as a victory against Russian sabotage networks on NATO soil.

But Romanian expert Sorin Ionița, head of ExpertForum (EFOR), warns that this success shouldn't obscure deeper problems. "The intelligence services, instead of fighting the threats, were occupied with other things," Ionița tells Euromaidan Press in an exclusive conversation. "Now they don't want to talk about that anymore."

The question remains: If Romanian intelligence can stop individual attacks, why did they overlook Wagner-connected networks, far-right extremists, and Kremlin-backed politicians building infrastructure for Russia's massive intervention in Romania's 2024 presidential election?

What the world missed about Romania's near-catastrophe

"The perception of Romania abroad was quite schematic," Ionița explains. "Not only in Ukraine, but also in the West, the nuances and games of internal politics aren't correctly perceived. Romania doesn't have a very clear profile and doesn't take strong positions on the European scene, so I wouldn't blame the world for not understanding what's happening inside Romania."

For years, Romania appeared as one of Eastern Europe's most reliably anti-Russian states—ethnically homogeneous, without a significant Russian-speaking minority, and consistently pro-NATO. Ukraine and Western partners saw it as largely immune to Kremlin subversion.

Then came the 2024 presidential election. The scale of Russian interference and the extensive networks Moscow had built inside the country shattered that assumption, forcing Romania's neighbors to reassess what they thought they knew.

While Washington saw Romania as a reliable NATO ally supporting Ukraine, Romanian government ministers were publicly exploiting anti-Ukrainian narratives for popularity points. While Brussels praised Romania's European alignment, Romanian intelligence services tolerated Wagner veterans recruiting for African operations. While the West counted Romania as solidly pro-democracy, major political parties flirted with extremists until those extremists nearly won.

Take Romanian mercenary Horatiu Potra, who worked with Wagner Group in Africa and later funded far-right presidential candidate Călin Georgescu's 2024 campaign.

Potra is now an international fugitive with proven Kremlin connections.

"It's impossible that the services—for example, the Romanian military information services—didn't know that people who were in the army, veterans, but even active military or from the gendarmerie, from the Ministry of the Interior, took unpaid leave and went to Africa with Potra to do Wagner's work there," Ionița says.

They knew. Romanian intelligence tracked these movements. The question is why they did nothing while Wagner veterans returned home and channeled money into a presidential campaign that nearly succeeded.

The overlooked corruption-extremism alliance

While Western analysts focused on Russian disinformation and TikTok algorithms, Romania's real vulnerability lay closer to home: a political establishment so consumed by corruption that it actively enabled the far-right's rise. The country's major parties didn't just ignore the extremist threat—they collaborated with it, viewing far-right parties as useful tools for managing voter anger while they continued looting state resources.

"Romania's public agenda wasn't very clear," Ionița explains. "Yes, in general, pro-Europe. We help our neighbors, Moldova, Ukraine. But the first priority of the big parties, like PSD and PNL, was different. It was about stealing more—controlling state contracts, appointments, resources. Fighting Russian influence was secondary to protecting their own corruption schemes."

Romania's major parties—the Social Democratic Party (PSD) and National Liberal Party (PNL)—maintained a pro-European facade while key figures exploited anti-Ukrainian, anti-NATO narratives for domestic popularity. When grain shipments from Ukraine created minor disruptions, ministers who officially supported Kyiv suddenly started reproducing far-right talking points.

"Every time there was a controversial issue [about Ukraine, vaccines, LGBT rights, migration, energy prices etc. - ed.] you would find a minister, usually from the Social Democrats, who was exploiting it populistically," Ionița says.

"Romania's official position was supportive: we discuss and support Ukraine. But individual ministers would reproduce speeches from the far-right AUR (Alliance for the Union of Romanians) because they wanted to be popular with their voters. And those speeches were profoundly anti-European, anti-NATO, anti-Ukrainian, and very conspiratorial."

This wasn't accidental spillover—it was deliberate strategy. AUR party served as a useful tool for siphoning votes from angry constituents. Government ministers adopted their talking points. Intelligence services looked the other way while their networks built connections to Wagner Group and Russian operatives. Nobody thought the extremists would actually threaten the establishment's power.

Then came November 2024.

When the useful extremists stopped being useful

Călin Georgescu—a far-right candidate with minimal political infrastructure and openly pro-Russian positions—won the first round of Romania's presidential election. Not through conventional campaigning, but through a sophisticated TikTok operation that bypassed traditional media entirely.

Suddenly, the extremists Romania's establishment had tolerated as manageable protest votes weren't manageable anymore. They were winning.

"The big parties thought they could control the far-right," Ionița says. "They thought AUR and candidates like Georgescu served their interests by channeling voter frustration away from the establishment parties. They were wrong."

The TikTok campaign that propelled Georgescu revealed networks Romanian intelligence had ignored for years. Accounts were coordinated. Messaging was sophisticated. Funding sources traced back to figures like Potra, who had operated openly despite his Wagner connections.

Romania's Constitutional Court ultimately annulled the election—an unprecedented move that sparked debate about democratic legitimacy versus democratic defense. But the annulment only addressed the symptom. The networks that made Georgescu's rise possible remain intact.

The Moldova comparison nobody wants to hear

Moldova faced similar Russian interference in its 2024 elections. The difference? Moldova's institutions actually fought back before the crisis reached catastrophic levels.

"In Moldova, you had very strong efforts to counter Russian influence," Ionița notes. "The intelligence services were focused, the prosecutors were active, civil society was mobilized. They weren't perfect, but they were serious about the threat."

Romania's response? Years of looking the other way, followed by panic when extremists nearly won, followed by attempts to claim credit for stopping threats they had enabled.

"I don't think they put in as many resources as they did in Moldova," Ionița says of Romanian intelligence efforts against Russian interference. The institutional priorities were elsewhere—namely, protecting the corruption networks that the major parties depended on.

/medu

Explore further

Moldova stays European—here’s how they beat $180 million in Russian bribes

Washington joins Moscow in embracing sovereignism

And now there's a new factor Americans need to reckon with.

Romania's nightmare scenario evolved further: Just as Romanian institutions finally mobilized against Russian-backed sovereignism, American political figures started amplifying similar narratives.

US Vice President JD Vance began promoting "sovereignism" as an alternative to both Russian imperialism and liberal internationalism—the exact framing that Russian operations had spent years developing in Eastern Europe.

"We expected trolling from Moscow, yes, but we didn't expect that sovereignism would become the new thing in Washington," Ionița says.

The disruption wasn't just tactical—it was strategic. Romanian intelligence services had spent months developing counter-narratives to Russian sovereignist propaganda, framing it as anti-democratic, authoritarian, and contrary to Western values.

Then American officials started using identical language to describe their own positions, but in positive terms.

How do you tell Romanians that sovereignism threatens democracy when Washington promotes it as democratic renewal? How do you counter Russian narratives about Western hypocrisy when American officials validate those narratives by embracing the same frameworks Moscow developed?

You can't do both.

"All this story about the complexity of the political game in Romania is very difficult to explain in the West," Ionița notes.

Romanian institutions kept their corruption and double-dealing quieter than Hungary's Viktor Orbán—whose public controversies regularly draw Western attention and criticism—until the incompetence and complicity publicly broke in November 2024.

"For us in Romania, it's a very difficult position," Ionița says. "We depend on America for security. We need American support against Russia. But when American political figures amplify the same narratives that Russian operations developed, what do we do?"

Why this matters beyond Romania

Romania's near-catastrophe exposes a pattern playing out across NATO's eastern flank: Institutional corruption creates vulnerabilities. Russian operations exploit them. Local establishments tolerate the exploitation until it threatens their power. Then they mobilize—often too late, always incompletely.

"The lesson for other countries is simple," Ionița says. "If you really want to fight Russian interference, you can win. But you have to start fighting before the crisis, not after. And you have to be willing to confront the corruption and institutional capture that makes your country vulnerable in the first place."

Most NATO allies aren't willing to do that work until a crisis forces the issue.

Romania matters less to Washington than Ukraine does, Ionița acknowledges. "We're not a zone of interest."

But that's precisely why Romania matters as a case study. If institutional rot can nearly capture a NATO member that nobody's watching closely, what happens when similar dynamics play out in Poland, the Baltics, or elsewhere in Central Europe?

The corruption-to-Russian-influence pipeline doesn't require geographic proximity to Moscow—just leaders more interested in protecting their own power than their country's security.

Explore further

Romania could’ve been Ukraine’s biggest ally. Hungary made sure it isn’t.

The uncomfortable questions

The Nova Post sabotage operation failed. Two suspects sit in Romanian custody. The thermite devices were neutralized before they could sever connections between displaced Ukrainians and their families at war.

Success—in the narrow tactical sense. But zoom out to the strategic picture:

• How many NATO allies are still in the "toleration" phase? Still letting Wagner connections operate while pretending not to notice? Still allowing government figures to exploit anti-Ukrainian narratives while officially supporting Kyiv?
• What happens when institutions finally decide to fight—but Washington backs the other side? When American political figures actively support sovereignist forces connected to Russian operations?
• How do you defend democracy when both Moscow and parts of Washington push in the same direction?

Romanian intelligence stopped this attack—one of several tactical victories against Russian sabotage—but only after years of overlooking the networks behind them. The institutions now seeking credit for these disruptions had long ignored warning signs about Wagner connections and far-right infiltration.

The deeper problem remains unresolved. The political establishment that enabled extremists faces no accountability. The institutional weaknesses and political compromises that made Romania vulnerable to Russian exploitation continue. And the networks that enable such operations are still active.

For American policymakers watching NATO's eastern flank, Romania offers an uncomfortable lesson: tactical successes in stopping individual attacks matter less than addressing the systemic vulnerabilities that invite them. Whether through corruption, political opportunism, or willful blindness, these weaknesses create openings for foreign intelligence services to exploit.

Washington celebrates when allies disrupt Russian sabotage. But Sorin Ionița's assessment raises a harder question: Why do some NATO members tolerate the conditions that make such operations possible until crisis forces action?

Romania and Ukraine share over 600 kilometers of border and parallel paths of post-communist transformation. Romania joined NATO in 2004 and the EU in 2007, making it Ukraine's obvious champion for European integration.

But when Ukraine needs Romanian support, there's silence and Romanian journalist Romeo Couți explains why it is so. In an interview with Euromaidan Press Couți noted: "Romania at this moment is almost entirely dominated by Hungary."

The mechanism? A Hungarian minority party that holds permanent veto power over Romanian policy—and takes orders from Budapest.

Why Romania matters for Ukraine

Romania's position makes it Ukraine's natural bridge to Europe. The countries share over 600 kilometers of border—longer than Poland's frontier with Ukraine. Romania's NATO membership since 2004 and EU membership since 2007 mean it knows the accession process. Its location links Ukraine to Central Europe.

Romania already traveled Ukraine's path. It reformed post-communist institutions, met Western standards, navigated EU accession, and joined NATO.

"Romania could be a link in the European path of both Moldova and Ukraine," Couți said.

Yet this partnership barely exists.

The silence when Ukraine needs support

"In any unpleasant or tense situation, there's silence from Kyiv and silence from Bucharest," Couți observed. "This type of silence shows there's no communication between the Romanian and Kyiv governments, which shouldn't be the case."

The silence appears everywhere cooperation should exist. Romanian minority issues in Ukraine get no joint diplomatic approach. Regional development shows no bilateral projects. EU integration lacks visible partnership. Security cooperation beyond NATO remains minimal.

"I think it's more about incompetence and lack of ability to develop common projects with Ukraine," Couți said. "Romania has some very good specialists in negotiation. I don't have information that anything natural and normal has developed between Romania and Ukraine outside the established framework from Brussels."

Romania only does what Brussels explicitly directs. Independent Romanian-Ukrainian cooperation? Blocked.

But the constraint runs deeper than incompetence. "Romania doesn't have an independent foreign policy—at this moment Romania is subordinated to Brussels," Couți said.

In reality, Romania answers to Brussels on paper and Budapest in practice.

How Hungary controls Romania

The control mechanism revealed itself at the UDMR congress in Cluj. The party—the Democratic Union of Hungarians in Romania—represents Romania's Hungarian minority of approximately 1 million people.

"Let's not forget what happened at that congress, where all high-ranking Romanian officials stood before Viktor Orbán," Couți recounted. Romania's Prime Minister and other top officials attended on their own territory—not as equals but as supplicants.

The symbolic moment: attendees sang the Székely anthem, associated with Hungarian territorial claims in Romania.

"As head of government, it's not acceptable to attend moments with so much symbolism—I'm referring to the singing of the Székely anthem," Couți said. "It's not that the Prime Minister is an uninspired leader. It's that a foundational institution of the Romanian state, the government and the office of the Prime Minister, was humiliated."

When Hungary finally approved Romanian Schengen membership after years of blocking, Couți asked: "I don't even know what Romania offered for the vote Hungary gave when we joined Schengen. What was the deal?"

"Through these tactics, Hungary managed to break any desire for cooperation," he said.

The mechanism of control

The control runs on coalition math. Romania's Hungarian minority, concentrated in Transylvania, constitutes approximately 6% of the population. UDMR wins 5-7% in elections—enough to make or break governments.

UDMR has joined Romanian coalition governments repeatedly since 1996, spanning both left and right administrations.

"UDMR has a very strong position in Romania because it's eternally in the coalition of power," Couți said. "Kelemen Hunor is presented as a strong leader, taken up by the whole press, adulated, portrayed as a very well-prepared man."

UDMR can collapse any government by withdrawing. Budapest directs UDMR positions. UDMR threatens to leave if not followed. The government complies.

"Viktor Orbán succeeded—he has control in Romania through UDMR," Couți said.

For Ukraine, this creates an invisible veto. Any Romanian policy contradicting Hungarian interests gets blocked behind closed doors. The government simply doesn't propose it.

Hungarian territorial ambitions in Romania

"Hungary will take advantage of this situation to advance some territorial claims, because the traumas related to what the Treaty of Trianon meant for Hungary still drive policy today," Couți explained.

The 1920 Treaty of Trianon transferred Transylvania to Romania after World War I. Hungary lost approximately 72% of its pre-war territory. This century-old "trauma" still drives policy.

Current moves show the pattern. "Hungary is conducting intense negotiations to acquire land in Romania in the Sulina area, where—on the pretext of opening a port—Hungarian private companies, actually under government control, want to acquire land to open a port in Sulina," Couți revealed.

Sulina sits where the Danube meets the Black Sea—strategic for commerce and military logistics.

"Together with China, Hungary has acquired land in the Trieste area at the sea, where a port has already been arranged," he added.

The pattern uses "economic" projects to establish territorial footholds—the same playbook Russia uses.

"Hungary doesn't want to establish itself as an element of peace negotiations," Couți warned. "Hungary wants to become a regional power only to impose some claims related to control of certain territories, even if it won't actually recover them physically."

"Let's not forget that Viktor Orbán has a fairly deep dispute with Ukraine, starting from formal issues like the language law and ending with territorial ones," Couți noted.

Explore further

Romania is quietly becoming Europe’s defense powerhouse

What Ukraine loses

Ukraine's natural EU champion has been neutralized.

"Romania doesn't have an independent foreign policy—at this moment Romania is subordinated to Brussels," Couți explained.

The reality is worse: Romania formally answers to Brussels but effectively takes orders from Budapest.

This matters for Ukraine. As neighbors sharing both a border and Hungarian pressure, Romania and Ukraine should be natural allies pushing back together against Orbán's obstruction. Instead, Hungary's control over Romania means Ukraine loses a critical partner precisely when needed most.

What they could accomplish together: Active lobbying for Ukraine's EU candidacy, bilateral security cooperation beyond NATO, cross-border infrastructure projects, and a united front against Hungarian vetoes. Romania's post-communist transformation offers practical lessons Ukraine needs.

What actually happens: Romania issues generic statements only when Brussels permits. Minimal bilateral engagement. Silence when Hungary objects.

For Ukraine, watching Romania under Budapest's control offers a disturbing preview of how Hungarian influence operates inside the EU institutions it seeks to join. Two countries facing the same opponent can't coordinate their defense because one has already been captured.

Hungary's control demonstrates that EU membership doesn't protect democratic institutions from capture. NATO partnership doesn't prevent it. Good intentions don't matter if mechanisms allow control.

If Hungary controls a full EU and NATO member this completely, what will it demand from Ukraine during accession? What permanent constraints will it embed?

The playbook Ukraine will face

Hungary refined this mechanism in Romania and will deploy it against Ukraine. Ukraine has an ethnic Hungarian population in Zakarpattia Oblast where Hungary already uses minority rights as leverage for political influence.

Once Ukraine enters EU structures, Hungary will have institutional tools to replicate the Romanian pattern. Budapest funds and directs an ethnic minority party, makes it essential to governing coalitions, then uses that coalition position to influence national policy. Any resistance gets framed as discrimination, invoking EU minority protection frameworks. The target country faces an impossible choice: accept foreign control or appear to violate minority rights.

This creates a trap where legitimate minority rights protections—which are essential and should be defended—get weaponized as tools of foreign influence. Ukraine's Hungarian community deserves genuine rights and representation. But those rights shouldn't come packaged with Budapest's political control, and protecting national sovereignty shouldn't require undermining minority protections.

Ukraine sees the playbook now. Romania learned too late. Ukraine can build defenses that protect both national independence and minority rights—if it distinguishes between the two before accession.

Explore further

Romania seeks Ukraine drone partnership after Russian airspace violations

Why this matters beyond Romania

Hungary's control shows Ukraine's EU path faces obstacles beyond obvious vetoes. Budapest neutralized a potential ally from within. Even after Ukraine joins, Hungarian influence through minorities and coalition politics could limit support.

The obstacles aren't just Russian aggression and Western hesitation. They include control mechanisms that already neutralized potential allies inside European structures.

Will Ukraine build institutional defenses, or end up like Romania—formally sovereign, practically constrained, unable to support its interests when they conflict with Budapest?

"There are many unknowns," Couți said. "I see that the Ukrainian president is moving in an area where there's no turning back."

Romania's silence shows the stakes. Hungary's control shows the mechanism. Couți's analysis reveals that even Ukraine's natural allies may not help when needed—not because they don't want to, but because someone else holds the strings.

For Western policymakers supporting Ukraine's EU integration: membership alone doesn't guarantee independence. Democratic institutions can be captured. Hungary already demonstrated how.