That assumption is starting to look dangerously outdated.

A symbolic moment came during Eurovision 2026, when the Moldovan jury awarded its maximum 12 points to Poland while Romania received only 3 points. Eurovision alone does not define geopolitics, but cultural signals matter. In Eastern Europe, especially, they often reveal deeper shifts already taking place beneath the surface.

What once looked unthinkable is now becoming visible: Poland is steadily building influence in Moldova while Romania risks losing the strategic and emotional position it long considered automatic.

Poland understood that influence must be built continuously

Warsaw has spent the last few years investing in Moldova with far more discipline than many Romanian institutions seem willing to admit publicly.

The strategy is not based on nostalgia or emotional rhetoric. It is based on visibility, media presence, institutional partnerships, support for European integration, and long-term positioning.

One of the clearest examples came in 2025 and 2026, when Polish Public Television expanded the “Vot Tak. Moldova” media project specifically for the Moldovan market. Initially launched for Russian-speaking audiences in Moldova, the project later expanded into Romanian-language content designed to counter Russian narratives, promote European integration and position Poland as a democratic advocate for Moldova’s future.

This is not traditional diplomacy. It is influence architecture. And at that moment, we warned our readers that Poland outplayed Romania in Moldova via media channels.

Poland increasingly presents itself in Moldova as:

• a serious European advocate
• a regional security partner
• a pro-European voice against Russian influence
• a modern Central European success story
• a state capable of offering practical support, not just historical sentiment

This matters.

In modern geopolitics, soft power is not inherited forever. It is maintained through constant presence in the public sphere, media, culture, education, business and political symbolism.

Poland appears to understand this far better than Romania currently does.

Romania relied too much on emotional proximity

Romania’s biggest strategic mistake may have been believing that cultural closeness alone was enough to preserve influence indefinitely.

For years, Bucharest operated under the assumption that Moldova naturally gravitates toward Romania because of language and identity. But generations are changing. Media habits are changing. Political expectations are changing.

Younger Moldovans increasingly evaluate countries based on:

• economic performance
• institutional competence
• political stability
• international relevance
• opportunities and visibility

Poland projects all of these aggressively across Eastern Europe.

Romania, meanwhile, often appears hesitant, internally divided and strategically inconsistent in the Moldovan space. Now, with a president, Nicusor Dan, who looks more like a joke, as Euractiv outlined, Romania’s image is increasingly that of a weak country.

Even when Romania invests financially or politically, it frequently fails to communicate that influence effectively. Visibility matters in soft power. Narrative matters. Perception matters.

Poland has become significantly better at shaping perception.

The media battlefield is changing

The “Vot Tak. Moldova” project is particularly revealing because it demonstrates something Romania still struggles to build consistently: a dedicated narrative engine for Moldova.

The Polish-backed platform does not merely report news. It explains European integration, discusses propaganda mechanisms, promotes democratic narratives and continuously reinforces Poland’s image as a strategic ally of Moldova. The Romanian-language expansion specifically targeted Moldovan audiences in their native language while aligning Poland with Moldova’s European future.

Romania still dominates culturally in many areas, especially through language and television consumption, but dominance is no longer uncontested.

And in geopolitics, losing exclusivity is often the beginning of losing influence.

Moldova is becoming a strategically competitive territory

The Republic of Moldova is no longer just an emotionally symbolic territory for neighbouring states. It is now part of a larger geopolitical competition involving:

• the European Union
• Russia
• Poland
• Romania
• Ukraine
• NATO-aligned regional actors

Within this environment, countries that move faster, communicate better and appear more competent gain influence.

When Romania’s President missed the celebrations of Moldova’s Independence last year, it was clear that Romania was ordered to step back from its sister country, or that Romania’s President had taken bad grades in Geography, let alone History.

Poland’s regional rise after the war in Ukraine strengthened its credibility dramatically across Eastern Europe. Warsaw increasingly looks like a serious strategic centre in the region, while Romania still struggles to project a coherent geopolitical identity externally.

This affects perception inside Moldova as well.

Eurovision was only a symptom

The Moldovan jury’s decision at Eurovision 2026 should not be overinterpreted. Music contests are not diplomatic summits.

But symbols matter because they reflect atmospheres, emotions and public perceptions.

The reaction in Romania was intense precisely because many Romanians instinctively sensed something larger behind the result: a growing emotional and strategic distance between Bucharest and Chisinau, combined with the rise of new external influences.

Poland did not suddenly replace Romania overnight.

But it is increasingly competing for a space Romania once believed belonged exclusively to it.

That may be the real warning signal.

Poland’s Eurovision result makes Moldova’s vote even more revealing

The symbolism becomes even stronger when looking at the final ranking. Poland did not win Eurovision 2026, nor did it finish on the podium. Its entry placed only 12th in the Grand Final, with 150 points.

That makes Moldova’s 12-point jury vote for Poland even more politically and culturally significant. It was not simply a vote for the obvious winner or for the dominant song of the night. It was a maximum score awarded to a country that finished mid-table overall, while Romania, which ended the contest in third place, received only 3 points from the Moldovan jury.

Even more revealing, Moldova appears to have been the only country whose jury awarded Poland the maximum 12 points. No other national jury placed Poland first. In other words, this was not part of a broad European consensus around the Polish song, but a highly specific Moldovan choice.

That detail makes the vote harder to dismiss as a simple musical preference. Poland finished only 12th overall in the Grand Final, yet Moldova outperformed every other entry, including Romania, which finished third.

In symbolic terms, this is precisely where soft power becomes visible: not in official speeches, but in cultural reflexes, institutional preferences and the quiet ranking of who feels closer, more relevant or more strategically aligned.

Romania’s own vote made the signal even harder to ignore

The sequence of the voting made the moment even more uncomfortable. Romania announced its jury points after Moldova, and by then it was already clear that Bucharest had most likely prepared its 12 points for Chisinau. But after Moldova gave its maximum score to Poland and only 3 points to Romania, the Romanian jury did not return the symbolic gesture either. Romania awarded its 12 points to Australia, a country that is not even in Europe, while Moldova received 10 points.

That detail does not cancel the wider argument; it strengthens it. The Eurovision exchange exposed a deeper diplomatic awkwardness: Romania still expects Moldova to behave like the closest cultural partner, but when the symbolic relationship breaks down publicly, Bucharest appears reactive rather than strategically composed. Moldova looked towards Poland. Romania also looked away from Moldova.

The post Eurovision 2026 Exposed Romania’s Declining Influence in Moldova as Poland Takes Its Place appeared first on Valahia.News.

The most revealing move is not a summit photo. It is a media product.

Polish Public Television built “Vot Tak. Moldova” as a Moldova-focused news service in 2025, initially produced for a Russian-speaking audience inside Moldova. On 2 February 2026, TVP escalated the project by launching a Romanian-language version for Moldovans. The stated purpose is explicit: expose Russian disinformation, counter Russian narratives in politics and history, and show what Moldova gains from EU accession. This is not charity broadcasting. This is state-grade influence architecture, targeted at a single country, designed to operate continuously.

Now add the political validation. On 26 January 2026, Maia Sandu publicly described Poland as a consistent and credible advocate for Moldova in the European Union. Poland’s President Karol Nawrocki reinforced the script by promising continued support for Moldova’s EU path and reforms. That is how lobbying power works: a target state endorses you as its advocate, you repeat the message with discipline, and then you build instruments underneath until the role becomes “obvious” to everyone in Brussels.

Here is the uncomfortable part for Bucharest.

Romania has structural leverage in Moldova that Poland cannot replicate. Geography, interconnections, language, family ties, economic gravity, and energy connectivity. Romania has delivered real, practical outcomes that matter for Moldova’s resilience. None of that is in dispute.

But Romania still behaves as if proximity automatically equals influence. It does not.

Poland is doing something Romania does not do at scale or with comparable visibility: it is building a dedicated narrative engine for Moldova within its own public media ecosystem and aligning it with a broader political advocacy role. Once you control narrative space, you shape what the public thinks is normal, what reforms look like, what threats look like, and what “Europe” means. Then the rest of the policy stack becomes easier to sell.

Romania continues to operate in its comfort zone. It helps because it feels natural. It assumes the role is reserved for it. It rarely packages its Moldova agenda as a disciplined lobbying file that other capitals can immediately recognise: a clear leadership claim, repeatable instruments, a visible policy brand, and, yes, a strategic media presence that can compete in an information war.

Poland is not “stealing” Moldova from Romania. Poland is taking on the role that Romania refuses to claim.

And this is how you get surpassed without losing a single project on paper. First, you lose the narrative credit. Then you lose agenda control. Then you discover that someone else is now the default advocate in rooms where decisions are shaped.

If Romania wants to stop being treated like a helpful neighbour and start being treated like a strategic sponsor, it has to stop acting like the role is automatic. Poland just proved, with a Moldova-dedicated news service, that modern influence is built, not inherited.

The post Poland Outplays Romania in Moldova with TV Project appeared first on Valahia.News.

Eastern Europe is feeling the effects of the Ukrainian conflict as inflation and high-interest rates take a heavy toll, and economies stagnate. Although Poland and Romania seem to cope with it, a recession has been announced by experts to come.

After an incredible growth at the start of the year, the economies of Eastern Europe are already showing signs of instability due to the war. Bloomberg reports that among the few nations that have maintained their growth are Romania and Poland.

Bloomberg analysts predict a steep decrease for Hungary, while the economies of Poland and Romania are anticipated to slow down in the upcoming quarter.

Forecasts show that the area is gradually approaching a recession, which may occur in the second part of 2022. The major issues facing Eastern Europe are inflation, the energy crisis exacerbated by Russia’s erratic supply, and drought, which could impact the region’s agriculture.

Hungary is facing the worst-case scenario, where it is impossible to avoid a quarterly decline. Viktor Orban put into place several populist policies to win the elections in April, which would eventually impact the nation’s economy. The Czech Republic unexpectedly avoided a quarterly contraction when it announced GDP figures at the end of July. The Czech Republic’s GDP increased by 0.2% from the previous quarter and 3.6% in the prior year.

However, challenges for Eastern Europeans started to multiply. Interest rates reached their highest point since the 2008 financial crisis, and electricity prices set a new record. The optimism drops dramatically when the recession seems to be postponed rather than prevented.

The post Bloomberg: Romania, Hungary, Poland Close to Recession appeared first on Valahia.News.

Ukraine won the Eurovision Song Contest, but the grand finale couldn’t end without a scandal. Because the invasion of Ukraine and the entire military escalation in the region attracted the whole planet’s attention and generated millions of political or philanthropic reactions, Ukraine was expected to be favoured.

It is not a surprise that Eurovision is more about politics than music. Everybody knows it, but no one is saying anything about the irregularities of Eurovision.

On the evening when Romania was going to broadcast the score, a few minutes before the live broadcast of the presenter of the Romanian station that broadcast Eurovision, Eda Marcus, it was reported that Romania had technical problems.

Here’s what happens when Mika announced that Romania has ”technical difficulties”:

The video above is a recording of Eda Marcus, the presenter who had to broadcast Romania’s points live. Her reaction says it all. She couldn’t believe what was happening and that with a couple of moments before the broadcast.

The Romanian presenter also explained what happened behind the scenes

TVR (Romanian television) points out that the presenter Eda Marcus was not allowed to communicate live the results of the Romanian judging by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU). The EBU annulled the vote of the Romanian jury.

It should be noted that the Eurovision show is recorded one night before the broadcast to avoid unforeseen situations that could jeopardise the broadcast. However, the judging is broadcast live. The jury, which was appointed by Romanian television to judge the artistic moments, met on Friday evening and voted. The procedure is standard. The score is uploaded to a platform before the organizers have the score. In Romania’s situation, the jury offered Moldova maximum points meaning that the 12 points were allocated to Moldova, not to Ukraine, as later announced by European Broadcasting Union.

The scores are uploaded to an online platform, they are processed on the evening of the show and a few minutes before I go live, the EBU practically takes out of that platform where these notes were introduced by my colleagues, a sheet that I have to show in the presence of a notary. This sheet is printed and brought to me in 5 minutes. (…) Imagine the shock of my colleague, Diana Damian, who took care of this procedure when she handed me with that sheet, knowing what was the ranking she had given the night before when she looked at the sheet and saw 12 points for Ukraine.

Eda Marcu, presenter on Romanian television

EBU has been notified in advance of this mistake. According to the Romanian television presenter, EBU communicated something evasive.

We were told to do as written, that they are EBU and that they will clarify the situation. That’s how I ended up with the 12-point sheet for Ukraine and couldn’t broadcast live anymore.

Eda Marcu, presenter on Romanian television

What were the real scores offered by Romania at EUROVISION

The total scores offered by Romania were the following: Moldova – 12 points, Grece – 10 points, Poland – 8 points, Netherlands – 7 points, Azerbaijan – 6 points, Australia – 5 points, Italy – 4 points, Spain – 3 points, Finland – 2 points, Lithuania – 1 point.

Even though it was reported that Romania had technical problems, after the end of the contest, it was announced that the jury from Romania and other countries was disqualified. According to EBU, the juries of six nations participating in the second EUROVISION 2022 semi-final have been disqualified due to irregularities. Instead, a replacement aggregate result was introduced for each country concerned, both for the second semi-final and for the grand final (calculated based on the results of other countries with a similar voting history). The six disqualified national juries were Azerbaijan, Georgia, Montenegro, Poland, Romania and San Marino.

Now, some believe that this whole issue with Ukraine has grown and that it has gone too far. Others say that if the Eurovision game was already set to be won by the Ukrainians, why did they hide it. One thing is clear. Eurovision has always been a political game, with a lot of money and interest in the middle behind a curtain of empathy, reminiscent of this year. In order not to be the victim of such a game, Romania should permanently withdraw from this competition, and many other countries should do the same.

Photo Source: Eurovision World

The post Eurovision: How Were Romania’s Votes Stolen? appeared first on Valahia.News.

What are the implications of Nordstream gas pipeline for the European states?

First off, let’s look at the symbolism of this data. September 10 is just one day before 9/11, the day when in 2001 the terrorist attacks from New York shocked an entire nation. It is the very day of the biggest failure of the United States establishment and one day before the observance of that tragedy, Russia chose to announce the completion of the Nordstream 2 gas pipeline project. Coincidence? Rather not.

In fact, the United States strongly opposed the project and even imposed sanctions against Gasprom, but they were, later on, dropped, under the Biden administration. Anyway, the completion of the project brings along a series of implications for the European states.

Russia

Russia consolidates its geostrategic presence in Europe and it prepares to dominate it once again. This time economically, as the Western states will be dependent on Russian gas. Meanwhile, the American LNG – Liquefied Natural Gas will not be delivered in higher quantities as the Americans and Europeans hoped for. This was confirmed by an American senior adviser.

Amos Hochstein – Senior Advisor for Energy Security is responsible for implementing the Nordstream 2 agreement from the American part. He recently warned the European states that the US is not able to increase the LNG to Europe this winter.

Also, Russia will be able to avoid paying gas transit taxes to Ukraine. An this translates to billions.

Ukraine

Ukraine loses not only the gas transit taxes. According to sources, Ukraine’s transit revenue amounted to at least $2.06bn last year and is set at $1.27bn/yr in 2021-24, based on long-term bookings and the current cost of network fees. Ukraine loses something more: the attention of the European Union.

With Germany dependent on Russian gas, with the other European countries paying attention more to the need for gas of their population rather than to the need of the Ukrainian economy for the transit taxes, Ukraine will be clearly left out of the equation.

The United States is trying to impose a certain minimum transit tax for Ukraine, such as in the situation when Russia could be determined not to drop on the Ukrainian pipeline delivery completely, but it’s hard to predict Russia’s actions in the future.

Western countries

Western leaders are certainly satisfied with Nordstream 1 and 2 delivering Russian gases during the cold winters to come. Let’s not forget that the president of the Shareholders’ Committee at Gazprom is the former German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. Coincidence? Rather not.

Eastern Countries

The Eastern countries, among which Poland, Romania, and the Baltic countries, opposed the Nordstream project altogether. Romania even tried to impose a set of rules while it ensured the presidency of the European Union, but it couldn’t do it. The rules were about the legislation of the project, as it was exempted from the European legislation.

Today, on the very day of the completion of the project, as announced by Gazprom, a diplomatic move sent a message of protest from Poland to Germany: the meeting between the Polish president Andrzej Duda and Angela Merkel was canceled, at the Polish initiative.

What now, Europe?

Europe enters a new era of geostrategic and economic relations. It is clear for everybody, from the highest officials in Bruxelles and Washington to the average citizen in Berlin’s apartments that Russia reached its long-time goal: to make the most powerful countries in the European Union addicted to its gas.

Maybe not in the very near future, but we will definitely witness Russia consolidating its power in Europe, influencing decisions, and behaving as it did decades ago.

This section is powered by Lobby Romania.

The post Nordstream 2 Is Fully Completed. What Now, Europe? appeared first on Valahia.News.

One thing is for certain: we would certainly not hear any longer the phrase “The most powerful man in the world” when describing the president of the United States. Why? But it’s elementary, our dear reader.

Why the president of the United States won’t ever be considered as the most powerful man in the world?

It has nothing to do with Trump, though some might consider it’s a strong connection. And a connection it is, indeed, but not the one you expected.

For a fact, the most powerful man in the world has to have the power to influence, to inspire and to motivate people. Also, he has to have the will and the means to change the world into better or to take certain actions to make people accomplish certain actions.

For all these, one thing is absolutely mandatory: the means of getting your messages across to the people. Without it, the most powerful man in the world wouldn’t be able to inspire, to persuade, to lead, to make things happen. Communication is the key and, without communication, a leader is deprived of his power.

Fortunately, the social media platforms help a lot in this matter: they act like platforms for everyone in the world to get their messages across to other people. Social media platforms made this process much easier and available for everybody. From the comfort of your home, you can tell the world your thoughts, you can motivate your followers or even sell your products and services. Anything is possible due to the social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter or Instagram.

This is the context where the so-called the most powerful man in the world, or the so-called leader of the free world, had his social media accounts deleted (as it happened with Twitter) or suspended (as it happened with Facebook). The so-called the most powerful leader of the world cannot convey his messages to the Americans, let alone to the world. The so-called leader of the free world cannot freely express his thoughts any longer, at least, not on social media.

Twitter, the main social media platform in the US, deleted the account of the current president, @realDonaldTrump. After 57,000 tweets, the account ceased to exist. Also, @POTUS account, the official account of the American president in office, banned his posts. Facebook, on the other hand, suspended Donald Trump’s access for two weeks, until the installation of the new president at the White House.

Not a loss, as some might consider. A blunt violation of the freedom of speech, some others might think. Disregard of what side you are, in favor or against Donald Trump’s recent actions, we get back to the question: if the most powerful man in the world is banned from getting his messages across, how can he be considered the most powerful man in the world anymore?

Yes, he might not have been the perfect president or the perfect leader of the free world, but one thing is for sure: at this very moment, each one of you, our dear readers, have more power than the US president. You can write your thoughts to the world, you can influence, you can persuade or you can express your thoughts in a free manner on the social media platforms. He can’t.

Nowadays, he who controls the communication has the most power

The most powerful persons in the world, at the moment, are the ones who control the communication channels, such as the social media platforms or the TV channels or, why not, the online newspapers of news platforms. Don’t mix the most powerful with the richest. Donald Trump remains a rich person, but he is a rich man without the means to exercise his freedom of speech.

Elon Musk is the richest man in the world, as he has just outranked Jeff Bezos, but if tomorrow Elon Musk sees his social media accounts banned, his ability to influence, to persuade and to make things happen would drastically drop, along with his fortune, as Tesla’s share value would certainly plunge along with the ability of its CEO to express his thoughts freely on social media accounts.

Social media owners, along with TV station and newspapers moguls are the ones who offer the people the freedom of speech. Which, as we recently saw, is not a guaranteed right, not even for the “most powerful man of the world“. If they can ban the social media accounts of the American president, or ban his presence on TV and in the newspapers, than they certainly have more power than him. And therefore, they are, at least in our opinion, the most powerful persons in the world.

Jack Dorsey, the co-founder and the CEO of Twitter, or Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook, to name just two, are among the most powerful persons in the world in the current context.

How can freedom of speech be guaranteed on social media accounts?

In fact, no one can do that, apart from the social media platforms owners. Indeed, small steps are being made by courageous countries, such as Poland. Here, the minister of Justice prepares a bill which is suppose to guarantee the freedom of speech for the Poles across the social networks.

Account bans, account deletion, the deletion of some posts or other actions alike are to be fined with up to 2 million USD in Poland. It’s a small fine for a giant like Facebook, but it’s a step forward, as this bill is going to also instate a court of justice for the freedom of speech.

Are we going to be able to express our thoughts freely in the future? Let’s hope so and let’s see how the Polish initiative will influence the way social media platforms relate to their users from now on. Anyway, as long as we can do that, all of us can be the most powerful persons in the world.

The post Who Is the Most Powerful Man in the World? appeared first on Valahia.News.

As surprising as it might seem, in 2020 Romania is on the 17th position in the last Henley Passport Index, as Romanian passport holders are able to travel visa free towards 172 countries. Meanwhile, neighbouring Bulgarians travel without visa towards 171 countries, while Hungarians travel to 181 countries without visa.

This year’s winner is Japanese passport, whose holder is allowed to travel towards 191 destinations visa-free, with Singapore on second, with 190.

Despite this performance, Romania climbing up a spot from last year, there are voices who say the Romanian passport has a “major issue”: Romanian passport holder is not able to travel to America without visa. On the contrary, the Poles has just been allowed to enter Visa Waiver program by Donald Trump, who promised Romania will follow at a certain moment in the future.

The post Romanian passport – the 17th in the world in Henley Passport Index appeared first on Valahia.News.