Romania at a Dangerous Crossroads: A Sovereign State or a Laboratory for Political Experiments Coordinated from the OSF Ecosystem, with Brussels as the Epicenter?

Romania is no longer going through a simple political crisis. That much is clear. What is happening now runs deeper and is far more dangerous: a slow but constant erosion of the state’s ability to decide for itself. Not through force, not through occupation, but through pressure, influence, and obedience cultivated over time.
For years, Romania has seemed to accept a role that is never stated openly, yet is assigned in practice: that of a testing ground. A place where certain political, administrative, and judicial formulas are tried out before being exported or replicated in other states. Not because Romanians are less capable, but because the Romanian state has become weak enough to no longer resist.
Everything is done elegantly. With polished language. With “recommendations,” “reports,” and “best practices.” But beyond the vocabulary, the reality is simple: decisions that should be born here are anticipated, validated, or corrected from outside the country. And anyone who resists immediately becomes a problem.
This is not about the European Union as a project. It is about concrete networks of ideological and political influence that gravitate around highly funded, highly connected transnational structures, with centers of gravity in Brussels. The OSF ecosystem does not function like an official institution, but like a web: NGOs, experts, media outlets, politicians trained, validated, and bound by loyalty over time.
The Dominic Fritz case is not relevant because of direct accusations, but because of the silence surrounding it. Because of the refusal of state institutions to ask even the most basic questions. The elephant is in the room, yet everyone pretends not to see it.
And this is not an isolated case. Around these figures orbit parliamentarians, ministers, and MEPs who seem to answer more to external agendas than to the voters who sent them there. This is not classic espionage. It is something else, harder to detect and more dangerous: shifted loyalties, conditioned reflexes, ideological obedience.
From here arises the question the Romanian state stubbornly avoids: does Romania still have intelligence services that defend the state, or only structures that manage appearances?
A simple exercise in institutional logic clarifies much. A Romanian citizen would never become mayor of a major city in France if there were serious suspicions that he was a vector of influence for external networks. He would not even become a local councilor. Not because France is less democratic, but because France protects its state.
In Romania, the standard has dropped dangerously low. We comfort ourselves with the idea that “he’s not Russian.” As if that were enough. As if any other form of interference suddenly became acceptable.
And now we reach the final stake. The last battle: the independence of the judiciary.
What is happening these days is not reform. It is not debate. It is pressure. Media pressure, political pressure, and external pressure, all pulled in the same direction. Magistrates publicly attacked. Court decisions put on trial. Institutions delegitimized not through law, but through campaigns.
When justice is no longer allowed to function within its own rules, but is forced to conform to an agenda, the state ceases to be a state. It becomes an administrative executor.
And then the question arises that should be burning on the desk of every institution: what is the National Intelligence Community doing?
Because if all this is happening under its watch, there are only two possibilities. Either it does not see it, which would be a grave incapacity. Or it sees it and remains silent, which would amount to complicity through inaction. The role of intelligence services is not to ensure political comfort, but to defend the state, the Constitution, and the constitutional order. When political decision-making is influenced from outside, when justice is pressured, when the loyalties of decision-makers shift beyond the borders, silence is no longer neutrality—it is abandonment of mission.
Justice is the last real obstacle between Romania and a decorative democracy. If this pillar falls as well, there will be nothing left to defend except symbols.
The question is not whether we see what is happening.
The question is who benefits from our silence.
And who, from within the Romanian state, still has the courage to say: stop.