Why Sandu raised the issue of unification with Romania and what Russia has to do with it

A statement that became a political earthquake. That interview with Moldovan President Maia Sandu on the popular British YouTube podcast The Rest Is Politics triggered exactly that reaction.

More precisely, one sentence from the interview sparked the reaction: the Moldovan leader said that if a referendum were held on her country’s accession to Romania, she would vote "in favour" of unification.

Read more about Maia Sandu’s likely motives and why the issue of unirea (unification) was raised precisely now in the article by Serhii Herasymchuk of the Foreign Policy Council "Ukrainian Prism": Raising the stakes: what lies behind Sandu’s statement on the unification of Moldova with Romania.

A bit of history. Until its annexation by the USSR in 1940, most of the territory of today’s Moldova was part of the Kingdom of Romania, whose successor is present-day Romania.

That is why no sane Romanian politician will ever publicly renounce the idea of unirea. However, while such unification looks appealing on paper, in practice it entails a whole range of difficulties. It is expensive and politically risky.

At present, Romanian public opinion on rapid unification with the Republic of Moldova is far from unanimous and is roughly split down the middle.

But even if the status of these entities could be settled with the help of European partners, it remains unclear what to do with the pro-Russian population of these regions, which would effectively become a Russian fifth column within Romania itself.

In addition to all the arguments against unification, Romania also has one rather pragmatic consideration – Moldova provides an additional vote in the European Union.

So why did Maia Sandu raise the issue of unirea at all?

The country has two problematic pro-Russian regions whose situation could escalate as early as this year – Transnistria and Gagauzia.

The president’s statement about unirea looks like an all-in gamble.

Yes, it may mobilise the pro-Russian electorate, but on the other hand, it could also be a signal to Moscow. If it does not stop applying pressure, the president of Moldova is ready for radical steps.

If we move away from geopolitical speculation to purely political considerations, we should also look at several potential personal motives. And here the issue is not so much about the political legacy Sandu wants to leave behind in Moldova, but rather about her political life after the presidency.

Any new position in Moldova after two presidential terms would, of course, be a step down for Sandu. But neighbouring Romania could be considered a new political arena.

There are precedents of Moldovan citizens continuing their political careers in Romania.

Moreover, Maia Sandu is technically a Romanian citizen, so she may well be thinking about continuing her political career not only in Moldova, but also in Romania.

For now, however, we cannot clearly identify Maia Sandu’s motives for raising the issue of unirea.

But as a high-stakes politician with a sharp mind, Sandu could hardly have casually mentioned how she would vote in a referendum.

And although it is difficult to believe in the likelihood of unirea in the near future without long-term preparation, and it appears to be a masterful bluff, it cannot be ruled out that Sandu does, in fact, hold certain cards.

And they may be played very soon.