The Union of Moldova with Romania as a Geopolitical Arbitration

The unionist statements made by Maia Sandu this month should not be read merely as conjunctural political interventions, but rather as signals of a deeper reality: the Republic of Moldova's structural difficulty in functioning economically in an increasingly fragmented world, where security and institutional belonging translate directly into financial costs.

On January 13, 2026, in an interview with the British podcast The Rest Is Politics, Maia Sandu stated that she would vote in favor of unification with Romania in the event of a referendum, noting that for a small state it is becoming increasingly difficult to defend democracy and sovereignty under geopolitical pressure, according to Reuters.

A few days later, on January 22, the president clarified at a press conference in Chişinău that there is currently no majority in favor of unification, according to Agerpres.

Taken together, these statements describe an option of last resort rather than an immediate objective.

Beyond their political message, however, they raise a precise economic question: what is the concrete cost of the Republic of Moldova's current status?

• 1. The cost of geopolitical risk: comparison with Romania, in figures

In economics, risk is not an abstract notion.

It is reflected in interest rates, exchange rates, and access to financing.

Sovereign yields: nearly a two-percentage-point gap

According to data published by the Ministry of Finance in Chişinău, in April 2025 the Republic of Moldova financed itself on the domestic market at:

- 8.15% for two-year bonds;

- 8.30% for three-year bonds.

By comparison, Romania-a member state of the EU and NATO-recorded at the beginning of 2026 yields of approximately:

- 6.3% for two-year maturities;

- 6.4% for maturities close to three years,

according to market series cited by Trading Economics.

The difference is clear: the Republic of Moldova pays about 1.8-2 percentage points more than Romania to borrow at similar maturities.

This gap is not explained by inflation or monetary policy-the NBR's policy rate is higher than that of the NBM-but almost exclusively by the geopolitical and institutional risk premium.

• 2. The currency tells the same story: higher volatility, higher risk

The difference in perception is also visible in exchange-rate developments against the euro.

Over the past 12 months:

The Moldovan leu (MDL) fluctuated within a range of approximately 18.88-20.34 MDL/euro, implying a variation of about 7.5% relative to the average exchange rate, according to data from the National Bank of Moldova.

The Romanian leu (RON) moved between 4.92-5.13 RON/euro, a variation of about 4.2%, according to the National Bank of Romania.

In other words, the relative volatility of the Moldovan leu has been almost 80% higher than that of the Romanian leu.

This difference persists despite active interventions by the central bank in Chişinău and reflects the same reality: the absence of a deep security and integration anchor.

• 3. What these figures mean for the economy

For citizens and companies, these differences translate simply into:

- more expensive credit,

- postponed or relocated investments,

- greater vulnerability to external shocks.

For the state, they mean a budget more heavily burdened by interest payments and a narrower fiscal space.

This is the "tax” the Republic of Moldova pays for its uncertain geopolitical position.

• 4. Level of development and convergence costs

A comprehensive analysis cannot ignore the gap in initial levels of economic development.

According to Eurostat and World Bank data:

- the Republic of Moldova stands at around 35-40% of the EU average in GDP per capita (PPS);

- Romania is at 75-80% of the EU average.

This gap implies real convergence costs in any scenario of accelerated integration:

- massive public investment,

- medium-term budgetary pressures,

- potential social and redistributive tensions.

The precedent of German reunification shows that integration reduces systemic risks but does not eliminate costs: transfers to eastern Germany continued for decades.

• 5. Unification as structural shock therapy (benefits and limits)

In this context, the idea of unification does not appear as an identity project, but as a mechanism of structural correction. Integration with Romania would mean:

- automatic entry into NATO's security architecture;

- full integration into the legal and economic framework of the European Union;

- the rapid elimination of the risk premium that currently separates Chişinău from Bucharest.

The precedent of German reunification illustrates the economic effect of such a move: rapid convergence in the cost of capital and institutional stabilization.

• 6. Counterarguments that cannot be ignored

Russia's reaction

Unification could amplify tensions with the Kremlin, generating economic pressure, sanctions, or temporary instability. This risk is real, but it must be weighed against the risk already internalized by markets in interest rates and exchange rates.

• The Transnistrian problem

The Transnistrian region remains the most difficult obstacle: a Russian military presence, an unclear legal status, and a separate economy. No realistic scenario-unification or status quo-avoids this cost; the difference lies in whether it remains diffuse and permanent or becomes concentrated and negotiated.

In the current geopolitical context, Transnistria represents the "poison pill.” Unification would mean NATO and the EU accepting a territory with Russian troops, which for now constitutes an almost insurmountable legal and military barrier without a conflict or a major global negotiation.

• The price of fragmentation

The Republic of Moldova is not penalized for its economic policies, but for its strategic position.

The interest-rate and currency-volatility differentials relative to Romania are measurable and persistent.

Under these conditions, the inclusion of unification in the public discourse, as reflected in Maia Sandu's statements in January 2026, is not a rhetorical exercise.

It is the recognition that, in today's fragmented world, security is the most effective economic policy. Without it, costs continue to accumulate-in interest rates, in exchange rates, and ultimately in living standards.