Why is NATO so invested in Romania
The electoral proxy battle affecting the future of the Russia-Ukraine war
Written by foreign policy graduate Percy Spender, find more of his content on 𝕏 @PercySpender
Romania has drawn global attention over recent presidential elections due to its evolving geopolitical position. Many assume the often-disregarded Balkan nation is not relevant to global politics, but Romania has emerged as a key node in NATO’s logistical apparatus that supplies Ukraine. As a result, Romania has found itself as a flashpoint in a geopolitical faultline between nationalist populists and neoliberal globalists. A once-postponed, tumultuous presidential election spanning over the past seven months has culminated with the neoliberals, Nicuşor Dan, gaining power. The former Mayor of Bucharest defeated nationalist George Simion, who replaced firebrand nationalist Calin Georgescu after a surprising first-round electoral victory that was annulled due to claims of Russian interference. One of the key differences between the two camps is their approach to Ukraine. Simion and Georgescu oppose Romania being a supply route for supporting Ukraine, while Dan is strongly in favour and supports further NATO integration as well as increased military spending.
Geography dictates that Romania and Poland stand as logistics hubs crucial to facilitating the flow of equipment and ammunition from West to East. These supplies come mostly from the United States and Western Europe, but other nations globally have made contributions, making Romania’s Black Sea ports a critical part of the supply route. Poland is much more aligned with anti-Russian, pro-Ukrainian politics compared to Romania. Poland’s historical relationship with the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union and modern Russia is deeply antagonistic and this is reflected in public discourse. Poland, a leading advocate of Ukrainian interests, was amongst the first to provide military aid and accept millions of refugees. While Romania too suffered under Soviet control, its population holds a far more mixed opinion of modern Russia and the war. NATO is broadly supported by Romanians, but scepticism remains rife surrounding questions of how Romania should involve itself in the support effort.
The popular support for Ukraine makes Poland a more suitable, more secure option for NATO logistical supply into Ukraine. Poland also possesses more developed infrastructure, which NATO happily utilises, and greater capacity for transporting supplies. Last year however, Polish farmers blockaded key highways surrounding capital cities and the Ukrainian border, crippling this supply network. The farmers were protesting the flooding of cheap Ukrainian grain into the EU market following Brussels’ decision to lift the tariff fee on Ukrainian produce. This resulted in the grain price tanking, causing economic pain to the farmers. While the chances of farmers initiating another blockade is unlikely, in response to the protest the Polish government introduced a sweeping ban of grains into Polish markets, placating the angered farmers. Still, NATO had to bolster its influence within Romania and improve the infrastructure to become as reliable as Poland if disruptions were to arise again. The central project in this initiative has been coined the Moldova Highway, which will link Bucharest with Siret, a town located on the border shared with Ukraine. The construction is a high priority, with over 3000 workers being employed and 24/7 construction reflecting the importance NATO placed on the Balkan nation.
Similar to Georgia, where I covered the issues facing the Caucasus nation in an article last year, the growing visibility of NATO and Russia reveal their geopolitical designs. France has a significant stake in Romania and seeks to further influence the country. Since the beginning of the war, France spent 80 million euros on a military base in central Romania. This base alone hosts 600 French military servicemen, along with 150 Dutch and Belgian troops. These troops are involved with the numerous NATO military exercises being staged in Romania, including Dacian Spring 2025, which concluded just last week. Almost 4,000 infantry and over 900 military vehicles from ten NATO members participated in the exercise. French President Emmanuel Macron may revive negotiations over the sale of several Navy vessels to Romania, after a 1.2 billion euro deal was cancelled in 2023 due to Romania failing to allocate sufficient funds to the purchase. Nicuşor Dan, the President-elect, has indeed committed to increasing military spending to 3.5% of GDP by 2030 from the current 2.5% rate. France also boosted its presence in the region by signing a defence pact with Moldova earlier in the year.
Considering France’s deepening involvement, it is unsurprising they favour a Romanian president that shares their perspective on the Ukraine war. Two days before the second round of the Romanian election, Macron and his Polish counterpart, President Donald Tusk, signalled their strong support for Dan. Simultaneously, Telegram founder Pavel Durov said that the French Foreign Intelligence Chief, Nicolas Lerner, had personally requested that conservative Romanian Telegram accounts be censored in the hopes of influencing voters to select the NATO-friendly candidate. Why is Macron putting so much effort, and in turn taking on so much risk into influencing the government of Romania and Moldova?
For almost ten years now he has been calling for Europe to throw off the yoke of American security leadership, in favour of what he calls ‘strategic autonomy’. The new German Chancellor, Fredrich Merz, has supported this process, vowing after his election win in late February to help achieve independence from the United States. For EU leaders, gaining influence over Eastern Europe and combatting American power in the region is of great important to regional security and the strengthening of European foreign policy sovereignty.