Russia has been a persistent misfortune for Romania and its people ever since it extended its domination to the borders of Romanian-inhabited territories. Over the centuries, the relationship between the two nations has steadily deteriorated, marked by increasing tensions and betrayals. This dynamic reached its darkest chapter with the imposition of the communist dictatorship—a regime that inflicted profound suffering on the Romanian people. The fall of Ceaușescu and the collapse of the communist regime in 1989 offered hope that this toxic relationship might finally come to an end. Yet, reality proved otherwise. Russia has never relinquished its ambition to maintain influence over Romania, continuing to seek avenues of control even in the post-revolution era. A striking example of this interference was the meddling in the 2024 elections, during which Russia came alarmingly close to securing the presidency for its preferred candidate. This article examines the enduring harm Russia has inflicted on Romania throughout history. Divided into three distinct parts, each section can be read independently to explore different facets of this fraught relationship.
CONTEMPORARY PART I – FROM AUGUST 23, 1944, TO THE PRESENT
Soviet Union Equals Russia
Let us be unequivocal: the Soviet Union was merely a rebranded continuation of the Russian Empire. Officially established on December 30, 1922, it was presented as a "union" of Russia and various other states and nations. In truth, this so-called union was nothing more than a facade concealing Russia's brutal and relentless domination over its supposed partners. This pattern of coercion extended to other international structures of the era, such as the Comintern, Kominform, and the Warsaw Pact. Ostensibly tools for international cooperation, these entities functioned primarily as mechanisms through which Russia maintained its hegemonic grip. For the sake of historical accuracy, we will refer to this dominance as "Russian" rather than "Soviet," reflecting the true nature of the power behind the facade.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
Signed on August 23, 1939, in Moscow and under Stalin's supervision, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was publicly presented as a non-aggression agreement between Germany and Russia. In reality, it was a quintessential colonial-imperialist arrangement, allowing the two powers to carve up Europe into spheres of influence. This reality remains indisputable, regardless of later justifications by the signatories or differing interpretations by some historians. Russia emerged as the primary beneficiary of the pact. Alongside a significant portion of Poland, it annexed Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina—territories it had sought since losing them in 1918. This expansion likely influenced Hitler’s decision to invade the Soviet Union in 1941, interpreting Stalin’s actions as duplicitous—a betrayal emblematic of what he perceived as typical Russian cunning. In preparation for the campaign against the Soviet Union, Hitler sought Romania’s support by promising the return of its lost territories. This assurance led Romania’s leader, Ion Antonescu, to align with Germany and issue the historic command: “Soldiers, I order you: cross the Prut!”—a call to liberate Bessarabia with the backing of the only significant Western power of the time.
August 23, 1944 – The Return of Arms
The coup d'état of August 23, 1944, led by King Michael I and supported by various political parties, marked a pivotal moment in the Second World War. This decisive action shortened the conflict by several months, saving countless lives and accelerating Romania’s liberation from German occupation. However, it also paved the way for the Red Army’s advance into Romanian territory, replacing German domination with Soviet control. Until the armistice with the Allies was formally signed, the Soviets treated Romanian soldiers as enemies, capturing those who did not actively fight against the Germans. Approximately 160,000 Romanian troops were taken prisoner and forced into grueling marches to Soviet camps, where nearly a third perished. The events of August 23 were intended as an act of national sacrifice to prevent Romania’s complete destruction. Tragically, the immediate consequences included significant losses among Romanian soldiers during battles against Nazi Germany and the onset of a harrowing period of Soviet occupation.
Armistice and Peace Treaty
The armistice between Romania and the Allies was signed on September 12, 1944, in Moscow. While it stipulated that the country would be administered by an allied commission composed of representatives from Russia, the United States, and Great Britain, in practice, control rested solely with the Russians. This created a stark paradox: on the frontlines, Romanian troops were recognized as "allies," fighting against Germany; at home, however, the Russians treated Romania as conquered territory. They imposed their own conditions and, on March 6, 1945, installed an obedient government led by Petru Groza. The 1947 Peace Treaty, signed in Paris, was deeply unfavorable to Romania. Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina were annexed by Russia, which also secured the right to maintain troops on Romanian soil, cementing its political and military dominance in the region.
Formalisation of the Occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina
In 1947, the Paris Peace Treaty was signed between the Allied powers—victors of the Second World War—and those nations that had, at some point, aligned with Germany. While some Allies were prepared to recognize Romania as an "ally" for its contributions after August 23, 1944, Russia vehemently opposed this designation. With brute force, it imposed Romania's inclusion among the "losers" of the war. The Romanian delegation acquiesced—a decision that, though logical in its political context, was far removed from serving the interests of the nation.
The Explanation
Russia had a crucial strategic interest in securing this treaty with Romania: it provided the legal justification for the occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bucovina. Had Romania been recognized as an "ally," Russia would have been compelled to return these territories, which it had annexed following the 1939 pact with Nazi Germany.
Russian Occupation
Russian troops remained on Romanian soil until 1958, a period marked by profound political and military influence. Following the signing of the 1944 armistice, Soviet forces occupied the entire country, establishing an overwhelming presence that shaped Romania's post-war trajectory. This military occupation was crucial for the establishment of communism in Romania, as the Soviet-controlled Red Army provided the direct support and authority necessary for the regime's rise. The political and social structure of Romania in the post-war era was shaped in accordance with Soviet interests, reflecting the Kremlin's vision for the country’s future. Without this Russian intervention, the communist regime would not have been possible.
Restructuring and Russification of the Romanian Army
The Russian occupation of Romania reduced the Romanian Army to a mere shadow of its former self. The process of transformation began with the creation of the 'Tudor Vladimirescu' and 'Horia, Cloșca, and Crișan' divisions, which closely mirrored the structure of the Red Army. These divisions became the core of a subservient military, serving as breeding grounds for cadres loyal to Moscow. Simultaneously, Russian officers were inserted into Romanian military structures, overseeing reorganizations and imposing Soviet military doctrine. The remnants of the old Romanian Army—those soldiers deemed capable of combat or suspected of patriotism—were purged. Some were expelled from the army, others imprisoned. Meanwhile, a new generation of Romanian officers and non-commissioned officers was trained in Russian military academies. Through this process, the Romanian Army lost its national identity and became increasingly deprofessionalised. It was rendered incapable of defending Romania and its people, should the Russians decide to invade again. This restructuring explains much about the behavior of the Army, its officers, and soldiers, both before and after December 22, 1989, during the Revolution. The legacy of this manipulation and control runs deep within the military culture of the time.
Establishment of State Security
The Russian communist model could only endure through terror. The population had to be subjugated to the point of paralyzing fear, ensuring that any attempt at association, protest, or opposition to the regime would be stifled. After seizing power, Lenin established the CEKA, which evolved into the NKVD, then the KGB, and eventually the FSB. This same mechanism of terror was replicated in Romania following the Russian occupation. The first step in this process was the brutal infiltration of Russian agents into the Ministry of the Interior and the intelligence services. On August 30, 1948, the General Directorate for People's Security—famously known as the State Security (or Securitatea)—was officially founded. Derived from the NKVD, its initial mission was to dismantle and destroy Romania’s existing intelligence services, replacing them with structures loyal to Moscow. Once this task was completed, its focus shifted to safeguarding the “conquests of popular democracy” and the “security” of the Romanian People’s Republic, particularly from both “internal and external enemies.” However, the true priority was the elimination of “internal” opponents. The first leadership team of Securitatea was composed of NKVD Colonel Alexandru Nicolschi and NKVD General Panteleimon Bondarenko.
The Spoliation of Romania
Romania was forced to pay a war indemnity of 300 million dollars to Russia, with the payment made under the stringent conditions dictated by the Soviets. Yet this was not the end of the exploitation. Russia proceeded to loot Romania, seizing goods worth an additional 2 billion dollars without offering any compensation. Entire factories were dismantled and transported to Russia, including the renowned Brașov Aircraft Factory, which had produced the IAR fighter-bomber—superior to any Russian models at the time. By 1952, 85% of Romania's exports were directed to Russia, and the prices paid for these goods were shockingly low, another form of cruel exploitation of Romania's national economy.
The SovRoms
The SovRoms were joint companies established in 1945 under the pretense of transferring Russian technology and expertise to help Romania, which was then considered underdeveloped. In reality, however, this transfer was one-sided: the Romanians provided the resources, while the Russians reaped the benefits. These entities became treacherous instruments of massive exploitation, through which Russia acquired Romanian goods and natural resources at absurdly low prices, almost for free, while the local economy suffered from shortages and rampant inflation. In September 1956, the Soviet share of the SovRom companies was officially transferred to Romania, marking the end of a period of intense and unscrupulous economic exploitation. To better understand the scale of this, imagine the predatory businesses that emerged after the Revolution, then multiply the theft they facilitated by 15-20 times, and you’ll approach the magnitude of the SovRom effect. This system of exploitation plundered Romania’s national resources on a colossal scale, leaving the country entrenched in poverty and underdevelopment.
Danube - Black Sea Canal
Russia had secured Bessarabia, but it craved more: the Danube Delta, a region of untamed beauty and abundant natural resources, particularly sturgeon, which produced the prized black eggs (caviar). To seize this treasure, Stalin summoned Gheorghe Dej, Romania’s leader at the time, and ordered him to construct a canal connecting the Danube to the Black Sea, cutting through Dobrogea. This canal was intended to become the new border between Romania and Russia. For the realisation of this project, Stalin demanded the use of “enemies of the people”— essentially, anyone displaying even the smallest trace of patriotism or love for their country. In a stark act of submission to Russian demands, Dej complied. The work began, and tens of thousands of Romanians were forced to toil under brutal conditions, paying with their lives for a project that served only Moscow’s interests. The irony of fate: Stalin died before the canal’s completion. His successor, preoccupied with consolidating power and distancing himself from the Stalinist legacy, lost interest in the project. Construction halted.
Collectivisation of Agriculture
On March 5, 1949, Russia imposed the "socialist transformation of agriculture" across the countries it occupied after the war. This policy mandated the confiscation of all private peasant properties and farmers’ associations, which were then reorganized into collective farms, becoming state-owned, following the Russian kolkhoz model. The collectivization process was executed with brutal speed, forcing peasants to join collective farms under the strict supervision of the Security forces. Under Russian regulations, authorities confiscated all assets—land, livestock, machinery, and seeds—without offering any compensation. Those who had previously sold their properties were required to pay for their value. The reaction of the peasants was one of widespread revolt, particularly in the rural counties. The repression that followed was brutally harsh, surpassing even the severity of past reprisals, including those following the 1907 uprising. Peasants were reduced to mere state employees, while farms were managed by Communist Party activists. The result of this forced collectivisation was a drastic decline in agricultural yields, which led to a persistent food crisis. The variety of food we are familiar with today never existed during this period, even in the best crop years. The shortages only worsened over time, reaching their peak during the final years of Ceaușescu’s regime.
The Hungarian Revolution
In 1956, the Hungarians rose up against the communist regime imposed by the Soviets. A national government, consisting of 'repentant' communists, came to power, promising radical reforms. Initially, the Russians assured the Hungarian people that they would not intervene. However, true to their characteristic betrayal, the Soviets quickly broke their promise. Within weeks, they launched a brutal military assault, crushing the Hungarian Revolution. Romania was indirectly involved in the events, as several members of the national government, including Prime Minister Imre Nagy, were captured and imprisoned in Romania, at Snagov. At the request of Moscow, these individuals were subjected to humiliating treatment, a gesture that further fueled Hungarian resentment towards the Romanians.
Ceausescu’s False Independence
When Nicolae Ceaușescu came to power in 1965, he continued, and even emphasized, the 'national' policies that his predecessor, Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, had initiated in the latter years of his rule. The most striking example of this so-called 'independence' from Russia occurred in 1968, when Ceaușescu publicly condemned the Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia. His strong stance won him a standing ovation from the crowd in Bucharest. However, this apparent distancing from Moscow was little more than a façade. In reality, Ceaușescu’s relationship with the Soviet Union remained largely unchanged. He used this false 'independence' to secure various advantages for Romania, including valuable goods, services, and diplomatic relations that would have otherwise been difficult or costly to obtain. Ironically, Ceaușescu’s so-called independence became more pronounced precisely at the moment when he should have aligned more closely with Soviet reforms, particularly as Mikhail Gorbachev was launching his programs of glasnost and perestroika. While the Soviet Union began to ease its repression and embrace reform, conditions in Romania grew more oppressive. The resulting stifling environment reached its peak in the 1989 Revolution.
The Romanian Revolution of December 1989
What began in Timișoara, Romania’s second-largest city, on December 16, 1989, marked a historic turning point—an act of popular courage reminiscent of the French Revolution of 1789. On December 17 and 18, Ceaușescu’s regime forces opened fire on the demonstrators, killing many, but the people remained resolute. Each day brought more individuals into the streets, more determined than ever to stand against oppression. The revolt quickly spread to other cities, and on December 21, young people in Bucharest, the capital, rose up. Despite being attacked and massacred by regime forces, they returned the next day, now joined by workers. By December 22, dictator Nicolae Ceaușescu was forced to flee. Let me be clear: by that evening, when Ceaușescu was captured, the Revolution was, in essence, over. What followed was a series of political maneuvers that allowed Ion Iliescu and his supporters—closely tied to Russian interests—to seize power. The tragic conclusion is that the Revolution was hijacked to serve the interests of Russia. In an upcoming article, we will explore how this was possible. Fortunately, by the end of 1991, Russia came under the leadership of Boris Yeltsin, whose ineptitude prevented him from fully capitalising on the work of his puppets.
PART II - STORIES FROM THE RUSSIAN OCCUPATION 1944 - 1958
'Love' for Russia
Vintage photographs depict crowds of people on dusty city boulevards, seemingly elated to welcome the Russian 'liberators.' Yet behind these carefully staged images, my grandfather would recount with resigned sadness how people clapped their hands and cried from the depths of their souls. The tears that streamed down their faces were not tears of joy, but of fear for what was to come. They knew that the arrival of the Russians marked the beginning of a dark chapter, a cloud that would cast a long shadow over the country’s future. The Soviet occupation of Romania began in 1944 during the Eastern Front offensive of World War II and continued until 1958. The northeastern region of Moldova was occupied between May and August 1944, while Romania was still allied with Nazi Germany. Following the palace coup of August 23, 1944, and the signing of the armistice with the Allies, the rest of the country fell under Soviet control, an occupation that profoundly altered the moral and social fabric of the nation.
"Davai Ceas, Davai Palton, Davai Casă și Moșie, Harașo, Tovărășie!"
"Davai ceas, davai palton, davai casă și moșie, Harașo, tovărășie!" is a famous line by the actor Constantin Tănase, who, a year after the arrival of Soviet troops in Romania, ridiculed the Soviet soldiers' habit of confiscating personal belongings from Romanians. Translated into Romanian, it simply meant "Give the watch, give the coat, give the house and your fortune, Great Partnership!" Tănase, known for his satirical humor, used this expression in Russian to emphasize the humiliation citizens endured under Soviet occupation. After a performance in August 1945, Tănase was found dead, two days after his final play. The circumstances of his death remain mysterious, and some historians suggest he may have been the victim of a conspiracy by either the Russian or Romanian authorities, who were disturbed by his outspoken criticism of the regime. His tragedy remains a poignant symbol of the dangers of free speech during that time.
German Butter and Bolshevik Lard
Official history is rarely found in textbooks. In my grandmother's house, the story was written differently. Curiously, in a moment of youthful naivety, I once asked her what the difference was between the Nazi occupation and the Bolshevik occupation. She laughed bitterly and gave me a simple yet witty answer: "German butter was wonderful and available. Bolshevik butter was lard, and you only saw it on holidays." Hidden in that sentence was the story of an entire nation. German butter, refined and abundant, symbolized the cold and calculated order of an enemy who exercised dominance efficiently but left behind a spoil of relative abundance. In contrast, Soviet lard—banal and rare—reflected the grinding poverty, disorder, and deprivation of a regime that took everything in its grasp, leaving the people with mere crumbs. This seemingly simple comparison carries the weight of a historical metaphor: German butter represented domination in disguise, while Bolshevik butter embodied a cruel reality that permeated every aspect of daily life. Caught between these two extremes, Romanians found themselves trapped as if between the blades of a historical scissor, and their morale grew fragile and frail. Ultimately, the Soviet occupation was not only a series of political and military events but a stage of humiliation and deprivation that can never be forgiven or forgotten.
The "Benefits" of the Occupation: Violence, Looting, and Rape by Soviet Soldiers
Among those who witnessed the events of 1944 was the renowned writer Mihail Sebastian, who captured the grim atmosphere of Bucharest under Soviet occupation in his diary. He vividly describes the chaos and fear that overtook the capital, highlighting scenes of violence and looting by Soviet soldiers. He wrote: "Savagery, fear, distrust. Russian soldiers rape women... The soldiers stop cars, drag out the driver and passengers, take the wheel, and drive off. Shops are looted. This afternoon, at Zaharia’s, three of them break into the store and steal watches. (Watches are their favorite toys.)"
How the Soviet Regime Imposed Itself in Romania
Mihail Sebastian’s diary also records scenes of brutality, including rapes committed by Soviet soldiers, which were relayed to him by Dina Cocea. His account conveys an atmosphere of savagery and fear, with Romanians living under the constant threat of the occupiers. Sebastian not only recounts the events around him but also reflects on the moral state of Romanian society during this period. He observes that Romania was in a state of profound 'distrust,' where human relations were governed by fear, and the hope for lasting 'freedom' seemed increasingly distant. While some of these accounts are harsh and direct, they provide valuable testimony to the way the Soviet regime asserted its dominance in Romania and to the extreme hardships the people endured. Sebastian’s diary remains one of the most crucial documents of the era, offering both a detailed description of events and a poignant reflection on the social and personal turmoil of the time. Tragically, Mihail Sebastian died under suspicious circumstances in a tram accident just weeks after the Soviet occupation began.
HISTORICAL PART III - FROM THE BEGINNINGS TO AUGUST 23, 1944
Wallachia and Moldova
At the beginning of the 14th century, two Romanian states, Wallachia and Moldavia, emerged north of the Danube. Both were ruled by a Voievod or Lord, leaders elected by the boyars, who played a significant role in political and military life. The political and administrative organization of these states reflected local traditions, with autonomy being central to their existence. By the end of the century, the expanding Ottoman Empire reached the Danube and began seeking to conquer Wallachia and Moldavia. Over the centuries, numerous bloody battles were fought to preserve the independence of these states. Voivods like Mircea the Elder, Stephen the Great, and Michael the Brave became renowned for their resistance against the Turks, often with the support of other European powers such as Hungary or Poland.
Battle of Stănilești
At the beginning of the 18th century, the Russian Empire began expanding its influence over regions neighboring Moldavia. In this context, the scholarly and ambitious ruler Dimitrie Cantemir saw an alliance with Russia as an opportunity to liberate Moldavia from Ottoman control. The potential of such an alliance was heightened by the shared religion of both peoples: Orthodox Christianity. In 1711, the Moldovan-Russian alliance, led by Cantemir and Tsar Peter the Great, suffered a defeat at the Battle of Stănilești on the Prut River. Following this loss, Dimitrie Cantemir was forced to flee to Russia with his family and a small group of supporters. The defeat led to a shift in Turkish policy: no longer allowing the boyars to elect the rulers of Moldavia, the Ottomans decided to appoint rulers directly from among the Greeks of Phanar, a district of Constantinople. This marked the beginning of the Phanariot regime, which was later imposed on both Moldavia and Wallachia.
Russo-Austrian-Turkish War of 1788-1792
The Russo-Austrian-Turkish War of 1788-1792 was a conflict that pitted the Russian Empire and Austria against the Ottoman Empire. Influenced by her favorite, Grigory Potemkin, Empress Catherine II of Russia conceived an ambitious plan for territorial expansion. Her goal was to remove the Ottoman Empire from Eastern Europe and restore the Byzantine Empire as a Russian province, with her nephew, Constantine, as its ruler. The plan also involved merging Wallachia and Moldavia into a "Kingdom of Dacia" to be ruled by Potemkin. In the early stages of the war, the Russo-Austrian alliance achieved several victories, capturing important territories and allowing Russia to occupy the two Romanian principalities. However, the outbreak of the French Revolution in 1789 shifted the balance of power in Europe. Austria, distracted by the revolution and facing internal unrest, was forced to withdraw from the conflict with the Ottomans, leaving Russia to continue the war alone. The conflict escalated when Britain and Prussia intervened on the side of the Ottoman Empire, forcing the Russians to end the war. The Treaty of Iași, signed on January 9, 1792, saw Russia annex Crimea but required it to withdraw from Wallachia and Moldavia. As a result, Empress Catherine's dream of establishing a Russian Kingdom of Dacia was not realized. However, the Russians had now firmly set their sights on occupying Romanian territories, a desire that would persist in the years to come.
The Theft of Bessarabia (1806-1812)
In 1806, the Russian Empire once again went to war against the Ottoman Empire, this time under the pretext of supporting the Orthodox Serb revolt against Ottoman occupation. During the conflict, Russian forces occupied Wallachia and Moldavia, using these territories as bases to assist Serb forces and extend Russian influence in the Balkans. In 1807, a treaty was signed between Napoleon Bonaparte and Tsar Alexander I of Russia at Tilsit, which included an agreement to end the occupation of the Romanian states. However, the Russians, true to their habitual disregard for treaty obligations, failed to honor the terms of the agreement. The occupation of Wallachia and Moldavia persisted until 1812, when Napoleon's invasion of Russia forced the Russians to withdraw. Before their departure, the Russians rushed to secure a peace treaty with the Ottoman Empire. By bribing Turkish negotiators, they managed to wrest Bessarabia from the Ottomans in the resulting agreement. This marked the beginning of a dark chapter in Romanian history, as Bessarabia—a region historically inhabited by Romanians and their ancestors—came under Russian occupation for more than a century.
Occupation 1828-1834
In 1828, the Russian Empire once again declared war on the Ottoman Empire, ostensibly to aid Greece in its struggle for independence. However, in reality, it was Britain and France that provided the decisive support to the Greeks. Taking advantage of the Ottoman Empire’s weakened position, forced to fight on two fronts, Russia seized the opportunity to occupy new territories. The 1829 Peace Treaty of Adrianople granted Russia control over Georgia, part of Armenia, and the Danube Delta. Meanwhile, Moldova and Wallachia remained under Russian occupation until 1834, under the pretext of ensuring the payment of a substantial war indemnity. In 1830, the French writer Marc Girardin vividly described the brutality of Russian occupation, detailing how Russian troops plundered and intimidated the local population, seizing peasants' animals and subjecting them to humiliation.
Organic Regulation (1830)
Before their withdrawal, the Russians imposed the Organic Regulation, a piece of legislation designed to transform Moldova and Wallachia into provinces of the Russian Empire. This regulation introduced a series of administrative and political reforms that significantly reduced the autonomy of the two states, bringing them directly under Russian control. The Organic Regulation was met with widespread rejection by Romanian society. During the Revolution of 1848, its text was symbolically burned in front of enthusiastic crowds as a clear act of defiance against Russian domination and laws. This event underscored the strong desire for autonomy and independence within the Romanian people.
Occupation 1848-1851
During this period, Russia continued to intervene in and occupy the two Romanian states, often using pretexts to justify their actions. One such pretext was the Revolution of 1848. In Moldavia, the revolution was quashed before it could even take off, as the revolutionary leaders were arrested before any concrete actions could take place. In Wallachia, however, the revolution initially succeeded: ruler Gheorghe Bibescu was overthrown, and a revolutionary government was established. At Russia's request, the Ottoman Empire intervened to suppress the revolution, restoring the old order. Despite this, Russia took the opportunity to occupy both Moldavia and Wallachia under the false pretext of "restoring order," a claim that was particularly unfounded in Moldavia, where the situation had never been disrupted, and in Wallachia, where the Ottomans had already reinstated the old order. The Russian occupation continued until 1851.
Occupation 1853-1854
In 1853, the Russian Empire resumed its war against the Ottoman Empire and once again occupied Moldavia and Wallachia. This renewed aggression, combined with the decision not to allow the war to continue against an already weakened Ottoman Empire, prompted France and Britain to intervene. In 1854, at France's request, Austria also joined in and helped drive the Russian forces out of the two Romanian states. Defeated in the Crimean War (1853–1856), Russia was forced to sign an agreement pledging to refrain from further involvement in Moldavia and Wallachia. However, despite this promise, Russia did not respect the agreement and continued to pursue its interests in the region, intervening whenever it saw fit. Each Russian occupation left a significant and lasting negative impact on Romania's political and social development, reinforcing the struggle for autonomy and independence.
The Attempted Occupation of 1859
Between 1857 and 1859, elections were held to choose the rulers of Wallachia and Moldavia. United in the National Party, Romanian patriots successfully thwarted the Russian and Turkish-backed arrangements that sought to divide the two states. In a historic victory, they managed to secure the election of Alexandru Ioan Cuza as ruler of both principalities, effectively achieving the de facto union of Moldavia and Wallachia. This development was met with fierce opposition from Russia, which began massing troops on the border, ready to invade and occupy the territories under the pretext of annulling the election results. Russia also sought to rally support from the Ottoman Empire and Austria, hoping to challenge the newly elected ruler. However, France intervened decisively, quickly aligning with the Romanians and preventing the Russian expansionist ambitions from materialising.
The Attempted Occupation of 1866
Despite the setbacks of previous years, Russia remained determined to maintain its influence over the Romanian states, and in 1866, it once again sought to intervene. The pretext for this intervention was the removal of Alexandru Ioan Cuza from power and his replacement with a foreign prince, Carol of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen (later known as Carol I of Romania). Russia viewed this change as an opportunity to challenge the new leadership and reassert its dominance in the region. However, Russia's ambitions were thwarted once again, this time by a combination of French and Prussian support for the new prince. Carol I, who belonged to the House of Hohenzollern, was not only related to the Royal House of Prussia but had also gained valuable military experience as a career officer in the Prussian army. His military expertise would later prove instrumental, particularly during the Battle of Plevna in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877, where his leadership and strategy played a key role.
The Siege of Plevna (1877)
In 1877, Russia launched a new war against the Ottoman Empire, citing the brutal suppression of the Bulgarian uprising of 1876 as the primary reason. While Russia initially made some advances on the Caucasus front, their momentum was halted. As a result, the Russian command shifted its focus to the Balkans, opening a new front. King Carol I of Romania, recognizing the opportunity for his country, allowed the Russian army to cross into Bulgaria. However, the Russian offensive quickly encountered a formidable obstacle: Plevna, a strategic Ottoman stronghold standing in the path of the Russian advance. The Russians made two separate attempts to storm the fortress, but both were repelled, and they suffered devastating losses. The Ottomans, sensing an opportunity for a counterattack, began preparing to push the Russian forces back across the Danube. In desperation, the Russian commander, who was Tsar Alexander II's son, appealed to Carol I for support. Carol, recognizing the potential for Romania's independence to be recognized in exchange for aid, agreed. With a strategy devised by Carol himself, a former Prussian officer, the Romanian and Russian forces laid siege to Plevna for five long months. In the end, the Ottomans were forced to surrender, and peace negotiations began, with the Russians dictating terms. The fall of Plevna was a turning point in the Russo-Turkish War and contributed significantly to the eventual victory over the Ottoman Empire.
The Treason: Russia’s Betrayal of Romania
Following the success of the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878, in which Romania played a pivotal role, the Russians, despite benefiting from Romanian support, did not honor their agreement with the Romanian state. While Russia occupied key territories, it also took control of Southern Bessarabia, a region that Romania had long considered part of its heritage. This area, which had been a significant part of Romania, was now annexed by Russia, betraying the trust and contribution of Romania’s military. In exchange, Romania was given Dobrogea, a region that had been under Ottoman control for over 400 years. This was presented as compensation, but it was far from adequate. Dobrogea was not only much less fertile than the land lost in Southern Bessarabia, but it was also inhabited by a population with different cultural and religious backgrounds, making it difficult for the displaced Romanians from Bessarabia to integrate and adapt. The relocation of a significant portion of Romania's population to this new, challenging environment was a hardship for many. The Russians, who owed their victory at Plevna to the Romanian army and the strategic leadership of Carol I, rewarded their ally with a loss rather than recognition. Despite Romania’s essential role in the war, the Russian Empire’s imperial ambitions continued to supersede its promises to its supposed allies. This event deepened Romania’s mistrust of Russian motives and left a lasting scar on the nation's history.
Theft of the National Treasury
During World War I, Romania made the strategic decision to join the Allied forces, supporting the coalition of France, England, and Russia against the Central Powers, including Germany and Austria-Hungary. However, by late 1916, the tides of war shifted, and the enemy forces managed to occupy Bucharest and much of southern Romania. Faced with the imminent threat of total occupation, the Romanian government and royal family were forced to retreat to Moldova, specifically to Iasi, which became the temporary capital. During this period of instability, Romania's National Treasury, which had been safely stored in the vaults of the National Bank, had to be moved to avoid capture by the advancing German forces. Due to the dangers posed by German submarines in the Black Sea, the idea of sending the treasure to England was ruled out. As a result, Romanian authorities chose to deposit the national wealth in Russia, under the belief that it would be safe there, as the Russian Empire was still an ally in the war. However, the situation in Russia changed dramatically with the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. The communist government, led by the Bolsheviks, rose to power and soon repudiated any agreements made by the previous regime. When Romania requested the return of its national treasure in 1918, the Bolshevik leadership refused. Their justification was that the Treasury, having been deposited in Russia, had been "confiscated from the Romanian oligarchy" and would not be returned until a time when the Romanian people, particularly the working class, would benefit from it.
The Lie
In reality, despite the Bolshevik government's justification for withholding the Romanian Treasure under the pretense of "reparations" for the working class, the Treasury was never returned to Romania. Even though the communist regime in Russia lasted for about 45 years, the Romanian people—particularly the working class—never saw any benefit from this alleged reparation. This stands as a stark example of the deceit and betrayal that characterized Russian policies toward Romania and other neighboring nations. The refusal to return the treasure speaks to a broader pattern in Russian history: a consistent, predatory approach toward the goods and sovereignty of neighbouring countries. Regardless of which political system or leadership came to power in Russia, this behavior remained unchanged. The theft and retention of Romania’s national wealth was not merely a consequence of the political climate of the time, but rather part of a long-standing practice embedded deeply in the political culture and foreign policy of Russia. This theft serves as a reminder of the predatory behavior that has marked much of Russia's relations with its neighbours, particularly during times of political upheaval. Despite the passage of time and changes in political regimes, the lasting impact of such actions continues to shape the historical relationship between Russia and its neighbours.
The European Threat
On February 14, 2024, the European Parliament passed a resolution calling on Russia to return the Romanian National Treasury in its entirety. This document could serve as a key tool for the European Union in negotiations with Russia following the conclusion of the war in Ukraine. The extent to which these conditions are enforced will largely depend on Romania's informal position within the EU. If Romania's standing is strong, Russia may be compelled to fully restitute the Treasury, potentially even with interest. As a result, Russia has a vested interest in weakening Romania’s influence within the EU. The theft of the Treasury is only one aspect of a much broader strategy. In order to fragment EU unity, Russia will likely pursue all available means to diminish Romania's role and promote division within the Union. A pro-Russian government in Romania, willing to comply with Moscow’s directives, would be a strategic advantage in achieving this goal.
The End of the First World War
In the first half of 1917, the Romanian army underwent significant reorganization with the assistance of a French military mission led by General Henri Berthelot. With this support, Romania successfully repelled the summer offensive by German and Austro-Hungarian forces, securing victories in the pivotal battles of Mărăști, Mărășești, and Oituz. Despite these successes, Romania's position was increasingly precarious, as its Russian ally was weakening, beset by the growing influence of communism. By autumn, the Russian army in Romania had virtually collapsed, disintegrating into deserting soldiers intent on looting and violence. Left to face the German and Austro-Hungarian forces alone, Romania also had to contend with the threat of Russian "reds"—communist soldiers wreaking havoc on Romanian soil. With no viable support and under constant pressure, Romania was forced to seek an exit from the war. An armistice was signed in December 1917, and the peace treaty was initialed in June 1918, marking Romania's withdrawal from the conflict.
Opportunity
Freed from its war obligations, the Romanian army seized the opportunity to intervene and successfully repel the offensive of the "red" Russian forces against Bessarabia. Following the February 1917 Revolution, which resulted in the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II and the collapse of the Russian Empire, Bessarabia declared its independence. After more than a century of Russian rule, Bessarabia was reunited with Romania, marking a significant moment in the country's history. This event not only reinforced Romania's position as a unitary and independent state but also represented a crucial step in expanding its national territory.
Defeat of 'Red' Hungary
In 1919, Lenin ordered an extended "red" offensive aimed at forging a link between the communist movements in Germany and France. The Red Army, the primary force of the Bolshevik revolution, began advancing westward, launching attacks across Poland. A second direction of the offensive targeted Hungary, where a communist government, the "Hungarian Republic of Councils," was established. Russo-Hungarian forces quickly advanced, occupying much of Slovakia and territories in Transcarpathia (now part of Ukraine). However, their offensive in Transylvania was halted in the Apuseni Mountains. The Romanian army, supported by French units, launched a counteroffensive that decisively defeated the Bolshevik forces. In August 1919, the Romanian army captured Budapest, ended the communist rule in Hungary, and crushed the Bolshevik movement in Central Europe.
The Communist Party of Romania
In May 1921, the communist faction took control of the Socialist Party of Romania, renaming it the Communist Party of Romania. This shift was met with resistance from the majority of party members, who left the organization and joined other socialist political groups. By the end of World War II, the Communist Party had fewer than 1,000 members and held little sway over the political life of interwar Romania. This was due to two main factors. First, the influx of refugees from communist Russia, who shared stories of the horrors of civil war, forced collectivization, mass deportations, and the devastation of the Holodomor in Ukraine — a man-made famine that killed millions of Ukrainians. Second, the anti-Romanian stance of the party's new leadership, which advocated for the dissolution of Greater Romania, a result of the Union of 1918. This position was in line with the directives from Soviet Russia, which sought to weaken its neighbors and maintain dominance over them. This policy of weakening neighboring countries was a major factor in the war Russia waged against Ukraine starting in 2022, and it had also been a core goal of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.
Conclusion
The history of three centuries of relations between Russia and Romania reveals a consistent pattern: Russia has always sought to occupy territories inhabited by Romanians. When it succeeded, it maintained control until forced to relinquish it. When direct occupation was not possible, Russia sought to exert influence through local leaders who would serve its interests. Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej was the most overt in his collaboration, while Nicolae Ceaușescu, though publicly opposed, covertly appeased Russia’s demands. In each instance, Romania's escape from Russian dominance was often facilitated by Western powers, with France playing a key role. Even Hitler, despite the grim circumstances, helped Romania regain Bessarabia and Northern Bucovina. Throughout history, Russia has acted like a relentless river, overflowing its banks in pursuit of expansion, its gaze fixed on its neighbors’ territories. It has bound these territories without hesitation, always prioritizing its own interests. When opposition arose, Russia responded with overwhelming force, silencing resistance with the brutality of a storm. This is how it has always been, how it remains, and how it will continue to be—an unyielding and implacable giant, imposing its will without regret, nuance, or mercy.
コメント