“Sandu’s Munich Spotlight: Just 28 Seconds”

Sergiu CEBAN

Maia Sandu’s brief exchange with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, widely met with ironic commentary, along with the relatively low-level meetings held by our delegation on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference, point to a noticeable decline in access to figures who are genuinely connected to key political decision-making centers

By the end of last week, European leaders and high-level delegations had gathered in Munich for the annual Security Conference. Yet even compared to 2025, the familiar sense of a “united Western camp” was absent. Three days of negotiations and discussions laid bare competing visions of what the West actually is and what its future might hold. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke of civilizational decline, arguing that the transatlantic community has been diluted by migration, climate radicalism, and a loss of self-confidence. In some respects, his rhetoric was milder than that of many representatives of the current U.S. administration, but the core message remained the same: the existing Western-centric system requires urgent reform, and Europe would do well to undertake a profound reassessment of its internal condition. The Munich Security Report 2026, released ahead of the forum, recorded a notable shift in assessments of international politics. Whereas only recently the emphasis was placed on multipolarity, increasing attention is now being paid to the gradual erosion of the former rules-based international order. At the same time, one of the key sources of global uncertainty lies in the increasingly complex dynamics within the transatlantic space itself. Long-standing disagreements within NATO have been compounded by profound divergences between the United States and the European Union across a wide range of issues. It is therefore unsurprising that a sense of unease permeated the speeches of many European leaders. For the first time in decades, Europe is being compelled to seriously contemplate the prospect of so-called “strategic solitude”. Emmanuel Macron and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen once again voiced the familiar calls for transforming the European Union into an autonomous geopolitical actor. Yet these statements appear less a reflection of a coherent and fully elaborated strategic blueprint than an implicit acknowledgment of Europe’s existing structural weaknesses. This situation is further complicated by the gradual weakening of the liberal order that was previously perceived as a natural and stable environment. In parallel, the long-standing confidence that decisive support from the United States would be forthcoming at critical moments is steadily eroding. Most importantly, it is becoming increasingly evident that Europe’s tangible capabilities fall considerably short of its political ambitions. Donald Trump’s team arrived in Munich with a clear message: the United States is no longer prepared to operate within the familiar Euro-Atlantic framework. The maintenance of the global architecture is no longer viewed in Washington as an unconditional value. Instead, priority is shifting away from Euro-Atlantic solidarity toward those once somewhat neglected national interests. At the Munich forum, American diplomats articulated their position with striking clarity: either you pay and adhere to our terms, or we scale back our commitments. In this way, the United States is redirecting its foreign policy priorities toward consolidating control over its own hemisphere and strengthening the protection of national borders. Europe, in turn, is ceasing to occupy a central place in American strategic thinking, not to mention individual countries such as Ukraine. It was likely no coincidence that, in Munich, Volodymyr Zelensky sought to lend the discussions surrounding his country’s future a distinctly practical dimension. In his view, what matters is not an abstract perspective, but a concrete timeline when exactly Ukraine could be technically ready for the EU accession. The previously mentioned benchmark of 2027 was effectively nullified by EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Kaja Kallas, who stated that member states are not yet prepared to announce specific dates. Moreover, discussions regarding prospects for ending the war proved difficult and notably devoid of optimism. While allies publicly reaffirmed their readiness to continue supporting Kyiv, closed-door conversations reportedly revolved around potential compromises. The Ukrainian leader, with visible irritation, remarked that Ukraine is being “compelled” to take steps toward Moscow, even as future security guarantees remain uncertain. For countries like Moldova, the accelerating global transformation could have tangible consequences in the very near future. As I have noted, while major players reconsider the rules, the periphery feels the geopolitical shocks first. Maia Sandu arrived in Munich with the primary objective of reaffirming, above all to herself, that her country remains on the radar of key partners. Aiming first and foremost to manage potential issues and demonstrate that relations with Washington remain stable, Moldova’s delegation, led by the president, relied on personal diplomacy. On the sidelines of the conference, a brief meeting was arranged with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Yet, rather than substantive discussions, the encounter amounted to a formal greeting and handshake, which eyewitnesses estimated lasted no more than 28 seconds. The plan for this, essentially an information-driven operation, apparently did not extend beyond simply obtaining a fresh set of “status” photos for a domestic audience. It is therefore unsurprising that the episode sparked numerous ironic comments online. Clearly, contemporary international relations are often measured not in minutes but in seconds. Yet if a country lacks both a large market and a strategic base, and its geographic location lies far from the Western Hemisphere, counting on sustained attention from the White House is virtually impossible. Overall, the schedule of Sandu’s bilateral meetings on the sidelines of the conference leaves a mixed impression. On one hand, Moldova’s leadership demonstrates activity and a clear effort to maintain a strong presence on the European agenda. On the other, the increasingly limited level of contacts signals a noticeable decline in access to figures who are genuinely connected to the centers of political decision-making. While the world’s leading powers were engaged in discussions on strategic questions about the future, the head of state held a series of meetings with Baltic partners who, with all due respect, are unlikely to offer anything substantial for Moldova’s prosperity. Particular attention should be paid to the conversation with the German government official responsible for development cooperation. In practical terms, such meetings can certainly yield tangible benefits, as they involve funding specific projects, modernizing infrastructure, and supporting regional development. However, the focus on municipal services, which, according to the presidential press release, Maia Sandu personally highlighted, stands, to say the least, in stark contrast to the scale of the global risks being discussed in Munich, thereby vividly illustrating Moldova’s “ceiling” at one of the leading international forums. The main conclusions from the forum are that the split within the transatlantic community is deepening, despite shifts in tone and conciliatory signals from Washington. Moreover, the United States is becoming increasingly selective and unwilling to bear the burden of global responsibility. Europe, under these new conditions, is still incapable of filling the emerging vacuum and struggles to adapt to the evolving international reality. Against this backdrop, the Ukrainian conflict, despite its acute nature, is gradually receding to the background. In this new set of coordinates, countries like Moldova are likely to gradually come to the realization that the era in which political loyalty could be exchanged for security guarantees is slipping away. For our authorities, this implies a painful coming-of-age, as the geopolitical illusion that simply being “on the right side of history” automatically ensures Western protection and support largely no longer holds.