What Happened in Romania?
The Romanian presidential election of 2024 faced significant controversy, culminating in its annulment due to confirmed foreign interference. The first round, held on November 24, 2024, saw independent candidate Călin Georgescu leading with 23 percent of the vote, followed closely by Elena Lasconi of the Save Romania Union (USR) with 19 percent. However, shortly after the election, irregularities surfaced, prompting President Klaus Iohannis to convene the Supreme Council of National Defense (CSAT) on November 27 to address potential election cyber interference. Intelligence reports—declassified after the Supreme Council of National Defense (CSAT) was held—indicated unusual activity on social media platforms, particularly TikTok, raising concerns about external manipulation.
At the same time, considering that Georgescu was virtually unknown before the elections on November 24 with no opinion poll suggesting that he would take a top position and claims that the vote may have been fraud, the Constitutional Court ordered a recount of ballots. However, the recount confirmed the initial results, validating Georgescu and Lasconi’s advancement to the runoff scheduled for December 8. However, by December 4, the situation took a dramatic turn when President Iohannis declassified intelligence reports that suggested aggressive hybrid attacks conducted by a “foreign state” targeting the elections. These attacks included coordinated misinformation campaigns on social media and cyberattacks aimed at influencing public opinion in Georgescu’s favor. Soon after the reports were released, the foreign actor was confirmed to be Russia.
In light of these findings, the Constitutional Court annulled the first-round results on December 6, citing Article 50, paragraph 3, of Romania’s electoral law, which allows for annulment if significant fraud or interference likely impacts the election’s outcome. The court ruled that the documented Russian interference met this threshold, rendering the results invalid and mandating a rerun of the electoral process. The annulment decision was met with criticism from both Georgescu and Lasconi who viewed it as undermining democratic processes. Despite these objections, the court’s ruling is final, and preparations are underway to reschedule the presidential election. In the interim, President Iohannis remains in office until a new election is conducted.
The Questions Brought Forward
The recent events in the Romanian electoral process highlight two unprecedented actions taken by institutions in a democratic country. First, it is the first time that an intelligence agency report on a foreign actor’s interference in the election process was issued before the electoral process was finished and declassified for the public during the electoral process. This led to the second unprecedented action: the annulment of the elections and the restart of the electoral process for the presidential elections.
All of this leads to a series of immediate questions. The first question to address, from a geopolitical standpoint, refers to whether Russia could indeed have reasons to interfere in the Romanian electoral process at this moment. What does Russia have to gain?
Russia’s strategic goal of undermining the West is intricately tied to its objective of fragmenting the European Union (EU) and NATO, two pillars of Western cohesion and security. To achieve this, Russia employs hybrid warfare tailored to exploit the specific vulnerabilities of individual member states. In countries heavily dependent on Russian energy, Moscow leverages economic blackmail, using gas and oil supplies as tools of coercion to influence political decisions and foster divisions within the EU. Conversely, in nations with less reliance on Russian energy, the Kremlin focuses on disinformation and propaganda campaigns.
These campaigns often employ messages that resonate deeply with the public, even when they are unrelated to Ukraine or Russia’s actions. Instead, the messages exacerbate dissatisfaction with domestic governments, weaken trust in institutions, and undermine support for common NATO and EU policies. By amplifying sensitive issues such as economic hardships, social inequalities, or controversial policy decisions, Russia seeks to erode public support for pro-Ukraine stances and disrupt the unity required for coordinated Western actions. This multifaceted approach highlights Russia’s adaptability and determination to exploit divisions and vulnerabilities to achieve its broader geopolitical objectives.
Romania holds a critical position on NATO’s Eastern Flank, serving as a strategic buffer against potential threats from Russia and acting as a key ally in securing the Black Sea region. As a frontline state, Romania hosts important NATO military infrastructure, including missile defense systems, and contributes significantly to regional security through its robust support for NATO initiatives and Ukraine’s defense efforts. This geostrategic importance makes Romania a natural target for Russia’s hybrid campaigns. By undermining Romanian public confidence in the government and eroding support for NATO and EU policies, Russia aims to weaken the cohesion of the Eastern Flank and disrupt the alliance’s ability to respond effectively to security challenges.
Moreover, Romania’s commitment to diversifying energy and reducing dependence on Russian supplies further threatens Russia’s leverage in the region. A pivotal component of this strategy is the Neptun Deep project, the largest natural gas initiative in Romania’s Black Sea sector. Jointly developed by OMV Petrom and Romgaz, Neptun Deep is expected to commence production in 2027, with an estimated annual output of approximately eight billion cubic meters of natural gas, positioning Romania as a significant energy producer and potential exporter within the EU. This development enhances Romania’s energy security and diminishes Russia’s influence over regional energy markets, challenging its traditional role as the primary supplier. Consequently, Russia perceives Romania’s energy ambitions as a direct threat to its strategic interests, intensifying its efforts to destabilize the country through hybrid warfare tactics.
These factors explain why Russia has consistently maintained its influence operations targeting the Romanian public over the past two decades, employing themes that resonate deeply with the local population. One of the most prominent narratives has been centered around keeping Romanian natural resources in the hands of Romanians, a message strategically used to undermine American investments in the country’s oil and gas sector, including projects like Neptun Deep. By supporting the framing of foreign investments as a threat to national sovereignty, Russia has sought to foster public resistance to Western economic involvement. Additionally, Moscow has supported campaigns that appeal to Romania’s Christian nationalist sentiment—a characteristic that many Romanians feel distinguishes them within the EU. This narrative often ties Romania to its Orthodox Christian heritage; although, the Romanian Orthodox Church is officially aligned with Constantinople and frequently at odds with the Russian Church. By tapping into these cultural and religious undercurrents, Russia aims to amplify divisions between Romania and its Western allies, erode trust in foreign partnerships, and solidify its influence in the region.
Russia began visibly supporting disinformation campaigns in the early 2000s and significantly escalated its propaganda efforts in Romania after 2016. Since then, articles and social media posts promoting official Russian positions started appearing in Romanian. Most of these messages, though published in Romanian, originated from Moldova (where both Romanian and Russian are spoken), rather than from Romania itself. This reflects Moscow’s caution in directly promoting its narratives within Romania, given the country’s deeply entrenched anti-Russian sentiment. Instead, the disinformation focused on socioeconomic and cultural identity issues that resonate with Romanians, employing subtle tactics to shape public opinion without triggering outright rejection.
A clear example of the subtlety in Russian disinformation campaigns has been the effort to undermine support for Ukraine in recent years. One of the key messages promoted by Russian-backed platforms focuses on the false claim that Ukrainian refugee children receive higher financial allocations from the state than Romanian children. This narrative is crafted to fuel resentment and sow division, portraying the government as prioritizing foreign nationals over its own citizens. However, these campaigns deliberately omit the fact that the financial support for Ukrainian refugee children is funded by the EU, not the Romanian government. Romania, as a net beneficiary of EU funds, receives significantly more financial support from the EU than it contributes. (This narrative was further amplified during the presidential campaign of populist candidate Călin Georgescu who used it to tap into economic frustrations and nationalist sentiments. Georgescu also incorporated Christian nationalist symbols into his rhetoric, appealing to voters disillusioned with mainstream politics and those seeking to assert Romania’s cultural and religious identity against perceived external threats.)
Given this context, the current events raise an important question: If Russia has been actively supporting disinformation campaigns in Romania for years, why has it chosen to escalate its efforts now? What specific gains does Russia hope to achieve by interfering in Romania’s presidential electoral process at this moment?
To address this question, it is essential to consider Russia’s posture in Ukraine, focusing on both its strategic and tactical objectives in the ongoing war. Strategically, Russia aims to bring southern Ukraine, including the vital port city of Odesa, under its occupation, ideally before any negotiation discussions commence. This would ensure that Ukraine is deprived of its most efficient means of trading with the world—access to the Black Sea via Odesa. However, achieving this through military means has proven challenging—it is rather difficult, if not impossible, to do that in a few weeks. Tactically, Russia appears to be pursuing an alternative approach: ensuring that, even if Ukraine retains control of Odesa, it becomes increasingly difficult or impossible for the country to export goods through the Black Sea. This broader strategy highlights Russia’s current focus on Romania, a key Black Sea state and NATO ally.
Romania has played a crucial role in supporting Ukraine amid the ongoing conflict by serving as a steadfast ally and a vital logistics hub. Since the war began, Romania has facilitated the transit of military aid and serves as a training hub, including initiatives like F-16 pilot training for Ukrainian forces. Additionally, Romania has donated a Patriot missile system to support Ukraine in the ongoing conflict. In maritime security, Romania has been instrumental in ensuring the safe passage of commercial ships through the Black Sea since the war in Ukraine began. After the Grain Deal was ended, Romania facilitated Ukrainian trade by extending both the Danube and the Black Sea ports facilities and helping secure a new corridor going through its coastal waters and those of Bulgaria. This involves operating a comprehensive network of coastal radars and sensors to monitor maritime activities, deploying advanced unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for patrol and reconnaissance, and securing major ports such as Constanța—a critical hub for NATO logistics and global trade. These efforts underscore Romania’s strategic significance not only in aiding Ukraine but also in bolstering regional stability and supporting NATO’s Eastern Flank during a time of heightened geopolitical tension.
All of this supports the theory that Russia has a vested interest in fostering political instability in Romania at this moment, in particular. Such a scenario would disrupt the country’s ability to serve as a reliable logistics hub and ally for Ukraine. Political instability in Romania would weaken its capacity to maintain critical supply chains, aid shipments, and alternative trade routes for Ukraine’s exports, undermining Ukraine’s resilience in the ongoing war. Furthermore, supporting a political candidate in Romania who campaigns on a platform advocating reduced or no involvement in aiding Ukraine, questioning Romania’s commitment to NATO and the EU, and promoting isolationist policies aligns directly with Russian strategic goals. Such a candidate would erode Romania’s role as a cornerstone of NATO’s Eastern Flank, fracture EU and NATO cohesion, and advance Russia’s broader objective of undermining Western alliances and diminishing coordinated resistance to its aggression in Ukraine.
The third, and perhaps most important, question is whether Russia’s strategy can succeed within the context of Romania’s national dynamics. This includes Romania’s response to what seems to be an electoral process influenced by Russian interference. After all, it is Romania’s political landscape and the vulnerabilities within its society that have created fertile ground for extremism and Russian propaganda.
The answer to this question is complex and requires a multifaceted analysis that considers both immediate and long-term factors. In the short term, the outcomes of recent events, such as the annulment of the election and the steps taken to address Russian interference, will be critical in determining Romania’s ability to maintain political stability and safeguard its democratic processes. These immediate responses will influence public confidence in institutions and the effectiveness of measures to counter disinformation and hybrid threats. However, the long-term implications for Romania’s posture within NATO and the EU must also be considered. Ensuring that Romania remains a resilient and reliable partner in the face of persistent Russian efforts will require sustained investments in institutional capacity and societal resilience. The broader question involves not only how Romania navigates the current crisis but also how it fortifies itself against similar challenges in the future to uphold its strategic role on NATO’s Eastern Flank and as a key ally for Ukraine.
But first, there are short-term implications of recent events. The vote for Georgescu and Lasconi reflects a strong antiestablishment sentiment, signaling widespread public distrust in mainstream politics and the institutions perceived to be under their control. While Romanians harbor deep anti-Russian feelings and view Russian aggression as their greatest threat, they also demand clear and credible evidence that the electoral process was influenced or manipulated by Russian interference. Declassified reports from intelligence services, while significant, are insufficient to convince the public, particularly in a country like Romania where trust in the intelligence community remains limited and perceived as part of the establishment. This skepticism stems from historical experiences; during Romania’s communist regime—a system unparalleled in its severity in Eastern Europe and often compared to North Korea—the infamous Securitate, the communist-era intelligence service, was instrumental in maintaining autocratic control. These historical scars make it imperative for Romanian authorities to provide transparent and independently verified proof of electoral interference to restore public confidence in the integrity of the democratic process.
Meanwhile, there is significant uncertainty and many unanswered questions about the future of Romanian politics. According to recent statements by President Iohannis, the next government will determine the date for the rescheduled presidential elections. However, the formation of the next government is still in progress, with political negotiations underway. It remains unclear when the presidential vote will be held and whether the recent parliamentary elections were similarly compromised by Russian interference—an issue worth considering, given that an extremist party leveraged Georgescu’s campaign platform to secure parliamentary seats. While the major parties focus on forming a government and selecting candidates for the upcoming presidential elections, extremist groups and Georgescu—who is under investigation yet continues to hold public political rallies—persist in their campaign, openly challenging the authorities’ conclusions about electoral interference.
The longer it takes for Romanian institutions involved in the current electoral process to provide clear explanations and actively work to regain public trust, the greater the likelihood that antiestablishment sentiments and the populist, Christian nationalist rhetoric will expand Georgescu’s electoral base and bolster support for a like-minded candidate in the next elections. Delays in addressing these issues create a vacuum where mistrust and frustration can flourish, fueling the appeal of platforms that challenge the establishment. Simultaneously, prolonged political instability and uncertainty take a toll on the economy. Large logistic and infrastructure projects—critical for Romania’s role as a regional hub—are at risk of stalling, especially as populist narratives calling for nationalization gain traction.
In the medium to long term, building social resilience while reinforcing democracy will be key. As a young democracy, Romania has had to grapple with the legacies of its communist past, particularly widespread corruption, which has entrenched a clientelistic approach to politics and economics. Despite significant economic growth in recent years, progress has been uneven, deepening polarization and social disparities between urban and nonurban areas. This divide is common throughout Europe and has been exacerbated by multiple global crises since 2008. In Romania, the divide has led to growing criticism of the market-based economy and a resurgence of nostalgia for communism. Many Romanians recall its perceived benefits, such as job security and stability, while attributing the system’s flaws to the shortcomings of the current democratic framework and distrusting the state’s institutions.
The real danger of Russia’s strategy lies in its ability to exploit these vulnerabilities by promoting narratives that resonate with the population’s daily struggles and divisions. These narratives focus on tangible challenges, such as poor economic conditions, inadequate public services, and a still-weak institutional framework, making them more likely to gain traction among a disillusioned public. This is further compounded by mistrust in mainstream political parties, their politicians that are perceived as mostly opportunistic with limited training for tackling governance, and the relative weakness of media and civil society, which are frequently criticized for their ties to state institutions.
In such an environment, where politicians fail to demonstrate leadership and governance is perceived as vulnerable, a charismatic candidate who appeals to values and beliefs tied to unique national characteristics can easily win hearts and minds, particularly when aggressive disinformation campaigns erode critical thinking among the masses. Strengthening democratic institutions, addressing socioeconomic inequalities, and countering these divisive narratives are critical to building a resilient society capable of resisting external influence. That is only doable long-term.
Lessons for the Future
The way Romania handles the case of Russian interference in its electoral process has the potential to set a precedent and serve as a model for addressing similar situations in other countries. This case is unique in that it marks the first time credible evidence of Russian meddling has led to the annulment of an election—a significant step in safeguarding democratic integrity. How Romania navigates this challenge, particularly in terms of transparency and public accountability, will be closely observed by other nations facing similar threats. Perhaps Romania can effectively demonstrate that interference was identified, addressed, and neutralized in a manner that reinforces institutional credibility. Then, it will provide a blueprint for responding to hybrid warfare tactics aimed at undermining democratic systems.
However, for Romania to truly establish this model, it must ensure that the evidence of interference is presented in a way that gains the trust of its population. Public skepticism, particularly in countries with histories of authoritarianism or weak institutional frameworks, is a significant barrier to such trust. In Romania’s case, the declassified intelligence reports must be supplemented with clear, independent investigations that leave no room for doubt. Additionally, addressing concerns about whether these findings are being used for political maneuvering is crucial. Any perception that the government or establishment parties are leveraging this interference narrative for their own benefit could erode public confidence and detract from the broader significance of addressing external influence.
Romania could seize this opportunity to strengthen its institutions and reinforce the importance of transparency and democratic resilience. This includes, in the long term, creating robust safeguards to prevent future interference, fostering independent media, and ensuring civil society has the tools to hold power accountable. By taking these steps, Romania can transform a moment of vulnerability into a powerful example of how democracies can confront and neutralize hybrid threats. If successful, it will protect its own democratic processes and contribute valuable lessons to the international community in countering external interference.
Finally, this case also raises fundamental questions about how the values of liberal democracy and the principles of open, transparent systems should be defended in the face of external threats. The way Romania addresses Russian interference in its electoral process is likely to ignite debates about balancing security measures with democratic freedoms, particularly in a system that values free speech and pluralism. As the situation unfolds, it will test the capacity of democratic institutions to act decisively without undermining the liberties that define them. If Romania succeeds in defending its democratic process while respecting the rule of law and individual rights, it could provide a model for how liberal democracies can protect themselves against hybrid threats without compromising their core values. This will be especially relevant for other nations grappling with the same challenge of external influence in a polarized and digitally interconnected world.
Image: Facebook | Alianța pentru Unirea Românilor – AUR