Călin Georgescu, the Romanian presidential candidate who previously won the first round of elections before the National Security Council of Romania annulled the results, is currently leading in pre-election polls.
His recent remarks regarding the division of Ukraine among neighbouring countries have further intensified political controversy.
During a televised appearance on Sunday evening on Realitatea TV, Georgescu responded to criticism of his previous statements, in which he suggested that “borders will 100 per cent change” and that Romania could lay claim to certain Ukrainian territories. He asserted that his remarks were purely hypothetical and based on historical precedent.
“In the first place, we are talking about a political class that is, if I may say, very hypocritical and operates with double standards when it comes to their own interests. I am shocked by how superficial and functionally illiterate they are, as I was referring to a very simple matter,” he stated.
Georgescu argued that Romania had made strategic mistakes during the Second World War that resulted in a significant territorial loss. He implied that history provided valuable lessons on how to approach geopolitical changes. “At that time, we did not know exactly how to position ourselves, and Greater Romania became Smaller Romania. That is the reality,” he added.
The controversy began last Wednesday when Georgescu appeared on Ion Cristoiu’s talk show, where he claimed that Ukraine was an “artificial state” that “should disappear from the political map of the world,” with its lands divided among neighbouring countries. He even went so far as to suggest new borders for Romania, Poland, and Hungary. His rhetoric mirrors longstanding Kremlin narratives regarding Ukraine’s legitimacy and sovereignty.
His remarks have drawn a sharp rebuke from Ukrainian officials. On Thursday, Ukrainian Foreign Ministry spokesman Heorhii Tykhyi condemned Georgescu’s statements as “provocative” and accused him of echoing Russian propaganda.
“The statements of Romanian politician Călin Georgescu, which call into question our country’s territorial integrity, demonstrate a profound lack of respect for Ukraine and its people. We categorically reject and condemn revisionist rhetoric that undermines Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, as it contravenes international norms, the UN Charter, and fundamental democratic values,” Tykhyi declared in a statement posted on the Facebook page of Ukraine’s embassy in Romania.
Georgescu’s shift in tone is notable, given that during his previous electoral campaign, he refrained from making such explicit statements. Now, he appears to believe that he has nothing to lose and can openly express his views on global politics.
Some speculate that his rhetoric may also be influenced by recent political shifts in the United States, particularly the return of Donald Trump to power and the possibility of new negotiations between the US and Russia over Ukraine’s future.
Analysts argue that any suggestion of Ukraine’s dissolution and division is entirely detached from reality. Firstly, Ukraine continues to resist Russian aggression and remains firmly supported by its Western allies. Secondly, NATO and the European Union have consistently opposed any territorial redistribution in Europe, making such an outcome highly improbable.
Georgescu’s political programme explicitly rejects the notion of stable borders, suggesting instead that international law should no longer be a priority. However, such rhetoric does not mean that pro-Kremlin politicians will succeed in their aims to redraw European borders. If history serves as any lesson, territorial claims in Europe could trigger widespread conflicts, contradicting the fundamental principles on which NATO and the EU were built.
Furthermore, critics argue that Georgescu and his supporters fail to grasp a crucial point: if Russia were to succeed in fully subjugating Ukraine, it is unlikely to share any territorial spoils with Romania. Historical precedents suggest that expansionist powers consolidate their gains rather than divide them.
Georgescu’s remarks have not only alarmed Ukraine but have also raised concerns among Romania’s NATO allies. His statements advocating for border changes and territorial claims could undermine Romania’s standing within the alliance and provoke diplomatic tensions.
Ultimately, his rhetoric appears to cater to nationalist sentiments, but it risks significant geopolitical consequences. If Romania were to embrace such an approach, it could face territorial instability itself, rather than gain new lands. Critics warn that supporting Georgescu’s vision is not about dismantling Ukraine, but rather about opening Romania to future territorial disputes and internal conflicts.
As Europe navigates a precarious geopolitical landscape, inflammatory rhetoric on border changes threatens to revive tensions that international institutions were created to prevent. Georgescu’s statements may appeal to a certain faction of nationalist voters, but they remain fundamentally detached from political and diplomatic reality.
Read also:
TikTok’s Political Power: AI’s Take on a Social Media Wildcard
