A Shifting World Map: What Lies Ahead and What Maia Sandu Is Bracing For?

Amid ever-new violations of international law, the process of the “crumbling” of the old world order could accelerate, especially in regions where it is particularly “delicate and fragile”

2026 has barely begun, yet it has already packed in nearly a full season’s worth of events. What was until recently perceived as marginal scenarios or political fantasies is now materializing before our eyes and becoming part of international life. The world’s political map is once again in motion, increasingly unfolding beyond the boundaries of established rules. The US operation in Venezuela, subsequent actions by Washington in international waters, and the rhetoric of the American president have arguably become the clearest illustration that the old world order is undergoing accelerated disintegration. International law, which until recently served, albeit imperfectly, as an arbiter, is being displaced by the law of force and geopolitical expediency. Crucially, all of these processes are unfolding not somewhere on the periphery, but right within the Western-centric world that for decades proclaimed its commitment to a rules-based system grounded in institutions and norms. Now, Donald Trump speaks of claims to new territories and strict control over the Western Hemisphere, while others begin recognizing strange unrecognized entities, bypassing UN procedures and established diplomatic norms. Meanwhile, the European Union condemns these actions only half-heartedly. The global order has already been losing stability over the past decade, but in the context of an effective legal vacuum, the process of “crumbling” could accelerate, especially in areas that are delicate and fragile. There are many such “fragile spots” in the world today. Ukraine, which will likely have to make painful territorial concessions to Russia. Taiwan, balancing between the status quo and open conflict with China. Bosnia and Herzegovina, with its chronic institutional crisis. The list goes on, and in each case, we are not only dealing with local problems, but also with symptoms of a broader process – the return of geopolitics in its classical form, with empires, spheres of influence, buffer states, and so on. One of the most immediate and potentially most resonant episodes could be Greenland. In the first half of last year, US statements about its ambitions for the island, as well as attempts to “push” Canada to join the United States, were perceived more as part of Trump’s eccentric foreign policy. But with the start of 2026, it became clear that this was just a “trial balloon”. And, judging by the growing tension, a peaceful compromise between the US and Denmark is unlikely. Given U.S. actions in Venezuela, including the seizure of tankers in neutral waters and the blatant disregard for international procedures, the scenario of a forceful takeover of Greenland cannot be entirely ruled out. Moreover, the consequences could be far more severe than they appear at first glance. Annexing territory under Denmark’s sovereignty would constitute a direct unfriendly act, likely triggering an irreversible process of NATO erosion and ultimately leading to the alliance’s disintegration into more stable bloc structures. At the same time, the United States’ closest allies are demonstrating a similar willingness to act outside established norms and rules. Israel, as a key Washington partner in the Middle East, became the first country to officially recognize Somaliland as an independent state. In the near future, they plan to establish full diplomatic relations, including the exchange of ambassadors and the opening of embassies. It is clear that this move is part of a broader strategic plan related to Middle East settlement, but it is equally evident that it is being carried out outside the framework of international law. Many more such examples could be cited, but, as the saying goes, self comes first. And it is impossible not to mention the statements by Maia Sandu that drew expert attention yesterday in remarks to the international press. In particular, the head of state announced that she would vote “Yes” if a referendum on unification with Romania were held. There is a sense that this message was directed less at audiences in Chisinau and Bucharest than outward, toward a rapidly changing international environment. While Sandu’s statement is by no means unprecedented, it cannot be viewed outside the broader geopolitical context. Moreover, it fits quite naturally into the logic of the accelerating fragmentation of the global space. Notable is not only Sandu’s response within the framework of a hypothetical referendum, but also her reasoning: “Look at what is happening around Moldova today, look at what is happening in the world. It is strategically difficult for a country like the Republic of Moldova to survive, to exist as a democratic state, as a sovereign state”. Thus, unification with Romania is presented as a “lifeline”, ensuring security and physical survival within a single state framework alongside Romania. In earlier times, such a statement would hardly have been expressed with such firmness. For many years, the topic of unirea remained delicate and easily used as a tool of propaganda. Today, however, a “Yes” coming from the president carries particular weight, reinforced in part by sociological data showing stable support for unification at the level of 37-39%, with an additional 12-15% reserve among the undecided. This is by no means a marginal figure; rather, it represents a potential majority that could be mobilized effectively with skilled political strategy. It is important to understand that during Maia Sandu’s second presidential term, she and the internal and external forces behind her are working hard on her political legacy and the fate of her seat. Formally, the strategic goal remains the same: to sign an agreement on Moldova’s accession to the European Union by the end of 2028, i.e., by the end of Sandu’s term. If successful, this would not only set the country’s course, but also ensure continuity of power. However, there are increasing signs that the prospects for even the full opening of negotiations with the EU remain unclear, and the likelihood of their rapid and successful conclusion is even more doubtful. In this context the statement on unification with Romania appears to be a calculated political move. As a result, we are observing a certain adjustment in the tone of domestic political discourse at the start of the new political season. It can be said that the authorities are beginning to prepare public opinion for an alternative scenarioб, the so-called “shortest path”. It is no coincidence that the ruling party immediately picked up on Sandu’s statements and expressed readiness to begin campaigning in the event of a likely referendum. A response from Bucharest, as well as other signals, may follow in the near future. Even without that, the current chain of statements allows us to conclude that the authorities are seriously considering a large-scale information campaign aimed at increasing support for unirea. Most likely, such a plebiscite would not be an end in itself for the authorities, but rather an additional tool for expanding political maneuvering. In the event of a potential escalation around Moldova, whether due to regional instability, pressure from major players, or further degradation of international institutions, having a “Plan B” could prove critically important. Thus, it appears that the Moldovan elites, relying on their political instinct, are preparing in advance, understanding that survival in the new reality will be far more difficult without strategic decisions.