Latest: Ghincea, M. & Pleșca, L. (2025). From transformation to demarcation: explaining the EU’s shifting motivations of the enlargement policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 1-35. DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2025.2498033.
Peer-Reviewed Publications
Ghincea, M. & Pleșca, L. (2025). From transformation to demarcation: explaining the EU’s shifting motivations of the enlargement policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 1-35. DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2025.2498033.
This article examines the evolving motivations underlying the European Union’s (EU) enlargement policy, particularly following the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and the accelerated candidacies of Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia. While existing scholarship is built on competing assumptions regarding the EU’s motivation—stressing stability, transformative aims, or the containment of rival great-power influence—these accounts assume unchanging EU motivations. Contrary to such assumptions, we argue that the EU’s enlargement policy has been driven by distinct and shifting ‘policy logics’: transformation, stabilization, demarcation, and cohabitation. Drawing on content analysis of European Council conclusions from 1990 to 2024 and comparative case studies, we show that the hierarchy among these logics has changed over time in response to varying internal challenges within candidate states and external risks. We trace three major phases: the transformative logic dominated the 1990s to early 2010s, stabilization gained prominence from the early 2010s to early 2020s, and a demarcation logic surged from the early 2020s onward, particularly after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. These findings demonstrate that EU enlargement policy motivations are not static but dynamically reconfigured, offering new insights into how the EU navigates its neighborhood amidst shifting geopolitical conditions.
Ghincea, M. (2025). Shrouded in Secrecy: Explaining Why Some Countries Refuse to Disclose Their Military Aid to Ukraine. Foreign Policy Analysis 21(2): oraf002. DOI: 10.1093/fpa/oraf002.
This research note examines the communication strategies employed by Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries in disclosing or withholding information about their military aid to Ukraine following the Russian invasion. Using a comparative case study design, this research note analyzes the contrasting approaches of Romania and Poland. It explores three competing explanations for the secrecy or transparency surrounding military aid: domestic backlash avoidance, external security considerations, and bureaucratic culture. The findings reveal that electoral incentives drove both Romania’s secrecy and Poland’s transparency. This research note makes an empirical contribution to the understanding of foreign policy secrecy and the politics of military assistance in international relations, highlighting how political leaders may rely on secrecy to prevent the politicization of military aid.
Ghincea, M. & Zulean, M. (2024). Protracted Transition: The Civilian Control Over the Military and Intelligence. In Stan, L., Vancea, D. (eds) Post-Communist Progress and Stagnation at 35. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-55750-7_6.
This chapter provides a comprehensive analysis of the structural changes that have affected civil-military relations in Romania over the past thirty-five years, with a particular focus on intelligence agencies. It explores the transition from a ‘subjective’ form of civilian control of the military and intelligence under the communist regime to a more Western-style ‘objective’ control after the regime change of 1989. The chapter identifies three distinct periods in the transition process, highlighting the obstacles encountered during each period and their impact on the evolution of civil-military relations. Despite notable achievements in effecting democratization and establishing a legal framework for civilian oversight over the military and intelligence, effective civilian control remains elusive. Recent scandals raise concerns about future civil-military relations in Romania.
Ghincea, M., The Russo-Ukrainian War and Great Power Competition. In Năumescu, V. Great Powers’ Foreign Policy. Brill, Leiden. DOI: 10.1163/9789004523449_014.
In this chapter, I examine the implications of the Russo-Ukrainian war for the evolution of great power politics and the reconfiguration of regional orders across the globe. The chapter begins by unpacking the contending theoretical and political interpretations of the war’s origins and of Russia’s revisionist turn in foreign policy—ranging from systemic explanations emphasizing power transition and security dilemmas, to domestic and ideational accounts highlighting regime type, identity narratives, and elite legitimation strategies. I then situate the conflict within broader transformations of the post–Cold War order, arguing that the war represents not only a regional contest over Ukraine’s sovereignty and alignment, but also a critical juncture in the erosion of the liberal international order and the emergence of more fragmented, competitive, and hierarchically structured regional systems.
Building on this discussion, the chapter explores how the war reshapes power relations across key regions—the Euro-Atlantic, Indo-Pacific, and Eurasian spaces—by accelerating patterns of bloc formation, decoupling, and strategic alignment. It shows how the war’s global reverberations extend beyond military balances, influencing energy markets, technological standards, and the institutional architecture of international governance. Finally, I reflect on the implications for the study of great power politics: the need to integrate relational and regional perspectives into analyses of systemic change, and to understand how coercion, resilience, and legitimacy interact in sustaining or contesting orders under stress.
Working Papers
Ghincea, M., Morar, Ș. & Nikolovski, I. Language Denial in International Politics: Explaining Successes and Failures. Under Review.
Why do some states succeed while others fail in foreign policy strategies that deny the existence of neighboring countries’ official languages? By analyzing two contrasting cases, Bulgaria’s unsuccessful attempt to force a change in the name of the Macedonian language and Romania’s largely successful effort to undermine the recognized status of the Moldovan language, this article identified domestic elite cohesion as the key explanatory factor. Drawing on a comparative analysis of these two dyads, we find that cohesive elites in North Macedonia resisted Bulgarian pressures, preserving the status of the Macedonian language. In contrast, Moldova’s fragmented elite structures facilitated Romania’s co-optation, ultimately leading to the abandonment of Moldovan as the name of the official language. These findings highlight the importance of domestic political cohesiveness in determining the effectiveness of language denial strategies as foreign policy tools. By illuminating the interplay between domestic politics, language policies, and foreign policy, this study contributes to broader scholarly debates on national identity, interstate relations, and the politics of official language recognition.
Ghincea, M. Triangulated Capture: EU Conditionality, Geopolitical Competition, and the Logic of State Capture. R&R in EJPR.
The Western Balkans have recently experienced a striking divergence: despite a “fundamentals-first” enlargement doctrine that elevates judicial independence and anti‐corruption safeguards, rule‐of‐law indicators have deteriorated amid a surge of unconditional finance from China, Russia, Turkey, and Gulf states. Traditional explanations, notably the stabilitocracy thesis, attribute this paradox to EU‐driven “money–power–glory” mechanisms but rest on the assumptions that the EU is the sole external principal and that its enforcement stance is immutable. This article introduces a triangulated capture model, which embeds the stabilitocracy mechanisms within a multiple‐principals bargaining framework. Incumbent elites hedge between EU rewards and rival‐patron rents, thereby lowering the costs of non‐compliance and prompting EU institutions to practice strategic forbearance. This recursive feedback loop deepens state capture. Employing Bayesian process tracing in a crucial case study, the article assesses competing hypotheses and demonstrates how geopolitical competition reshapes both domestic incentives and EU leverage, offering novel insights for enlargement policy and backsliding scholarship.
Ghincea, M. & Minatti, W. Domestic Politics and Military Aid to Ukraine: Explaining Disclosure Policies in France and Germany. Under Review.
Why have France and Germany adopted divergent — and shifting — policies on disclosing their military aid to Ukraine? We argue that domestic politics, not international signaling or political culture, best explains this puzzle. We theorize that leaders use transparency as a legitimation tool to manage audience costs when their policy preferences diverge from a hawkish public. Conversely, when leader and public preferences align, policymakers revert to strategic ambiguity. Using a most-similar comparison of France and Germany, employing qualitative Bayesian reasoning, we find strong support for our argument. Germany shifted to transparency under Chancellor Scholz following domestic pressure, a policy reversed by Chancellor Merz once preferences realigned. France maintained secrecy while elite and public opinion converged, only partially disclosing aid after domestic criticism. Our findings highlight domestic legitimation strategies in shaping foreign policy secrecy, and contribute to the literature on secrecy in foreign policy and on military assistance to Ukraine.
Ghincea, M., Invernizzi, A., Nasr, M., & Schimmelfennig, F. Crisis and Integration: How the Russo-Ukrainian War Redefined the EU’s Boundaries. Cambridge Element.
Traditionally, the crises affecting the EU have been characterized either as “failures,” where vulnerabilities in capacity and institutional design come to light, or, more recently, as “attacks,” indicating a direct assault on the Union’s foundational values and interests. However, we claim that the Russo-Ukrainian War transcends this conventional dichotomy by combining both characteristics simultaneously. On one hand, Russia’s aggression intensifies demands for moral solidarity and existential defense, reflecting collective values. On the other hand, the war highlights important capacity gaps within the EU’s energy infrastructure, defense capabilities, and enforcement of sanctions—a set of capacity shortfalls that underscore failure-type crisis characteristics. By adopting an inductive, theory-building approach, we develop a dual-path framework to explain how moral mobilization and capacity-building efforts interact in shaping the EU’s functional boundaries. While moral urgency accelerates consensus around far-reaching measures—including costly sanctions and military aid—capacity-building reforms are necessary to sustain this alignment by remedying underlying vulnerabilities. Through a detailed case study of the EU’s policy and institutional realignments in response to the war, our process tracing challenges the assumption that crises can exclusively be either failure- or attack-driven. We argue instead that some crises can simultaneously stimulate community-building while requiring tangible capacity-building. Ultimately, this article refines crisis-driven integration theories and offers insights into how external attacks can decisively affect European integration through complementary causal pathways, taking seriously the possibility of equifinality.
Policy Papers (Selection)
Ghincea, M. & Chiscop, C. (2025). Mai multă vizibilitate. Politica externă românească în context european și global. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Bucharest.
This volume brings together contributions by a new generation of Romanian foreign policy analysts reflecting on the challenges, blind spots, and opportunities of Romania’s external action at a moment of profound geopolitical uncertainty. Against the backdrop of the war in Ukraine, renewed great power rivalry, and the erosion of the post–Cold War liberal order, the collection asks how Romania can remain a credible, visible, and proactive actor within the European Union and NATO while adapting to a more fragmented and competitive world.
Collectively, the volume argues for a recalibration of Romania’s foreign policy thinking—from a reactive and formalist diplomacy to one grounded in strategic vision, institutional capacity, and democratic legitimacy. It calls for better coordination between domestic and external communication, stronger regional coalitions, and an active investment in Romania’s intellectual and diplomatic infrastructure. The overarching message is that greater visibility abroad requires deeper reflection, coherence, and participation at home.
Ghincea, M. (2025). Making waves: Romania is determined to reshape the Black Sea’s security architecture. International Politics & Society. FES.
Russia’s full-scale war against Ukraine has thrust the Black Sea to the center of Europe’s security agenda, sharpening Romania’s long-standing concerns about Russian revisionism. Bucharest seeks to recast the region’s security architecture through deeper NATO engagement, stronger deterrence, and tighter minilateral cooperation (B9, Three Seas). Yet progress is constrained by divergent threat perceptions among littoral allies, notably Bulgaria’s ambivalence and Türkiye’s gatekeeper role under the Montreux Convention, which limits a sustained non-littoral NATO naval presence. Romania’s approach couples advocacy for greater allied deployments, ISR and coastal defense modernisation with efforts to diversify partnerships and defence production, including ties beyond NATO. The durability of this strategy hinges on continued US involvement and on Europe’s ability to expand defence capacity without diluting transatlantic cohesion. Domestic political volatility further complicates execution. Romania’s wager is that persistence can turn the Black Sea from a security gap into a pillar of a renewed Euro-Atlantic order.
Ghincea, M. & Inayeh, A. (2024). Security Cooperation in the Wider Black Sea Region. Policy Paper. Global Focus Center.
This report analyses the evolving patterns of security cooperation in the wider Black Sea region in the aftermath of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It argues that the region’s growing strategic importance for both NATO and the EU has not yet translated into coherent institutional or operational cooperation. Divergent national threat perceptions, uneven defence capacities, and differing relationships with Western institutions continue to fragment the regional security landscape. The study compares the strategic postures of the main littoral and partner states and identifies key obstacles to coordinated action, including the persistence of Russia’s veto power and the absence of a shared long-term vision. To address these challenges, the report proposes concrete measures: fostering joint defence production, enhancing regional mobility and connectivity, adapting multilateral frameworks, and integrating Türkiye more closely with EU defence efforts to transform the Black Sea from a vulnerable frontier into a consolidated security space.
Ghincea, M., Volintiru, C. & Nikolovski, I. (2021). China’s demand-driven influence in Central-Eastern Europe and the Western Balkans: A political and economic regional comparison. Global Focus Center.
This brief argues that China’s influence in Central-Eastern Europe and the Western Balkans is primarily demand-driven. Rather than Beijing successfully pulling the region away from the West, domestic politics and elite preferences in CEE/WB determine when and how governments court China to signal strategic autonomy from Western partners. Empirically, Chinese economic ties remain modest relative to EU–US linkages; political influence is generally low, with notable outliers such as Hungary and Serbia where leadership choices amplify engagement. Across the region there is no stable relationship between economic exposure to China and higher-level political alignment. The 5G/Huawei cases further illustrate divergence: most states joined the US-led “Clean Network,” while a few maintained openness to Huawei. The brief recommends shifting Western policy from alarmism about China’s “supply” to mitigating domestic vulnerabilities and incentives that generate the “demand” for Chinese partnerships, including targeted counter-incentives for smaller, less-integrated economies.
Ghincea, M., Zeitenwende. (2021). Time for a Reassessment of Romania’s Foreign Policy?. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.
This analysis contends that while Romania’s post-1989 foreign-policy consensus facilitated political stability, Euro-Atlantic integration and reliable alliance behaviour, it is increasingly misaligned with evolving global and regional dynamics. It argues that Romanian strategic thinking remains anchored in a symbolic schema characterised by hierarchical world-views, status-seeking and a securitised orientation—features rooted in the Cold War and the “unipolar moment” ushered in by the United States. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung Library The paper traces key premises of Romanian foreign policy: order, hierarchy, power limited reach; a role conception of Atlanticism; and major aims defined as security enhancement and profile elevation. It proceeds to show how these frames constrain policy scope (narrow geography, heavy emphasis on defence, reactive posture) even as Romania’s structural and normative context undergoes change. The author recommends three corrective trajectories: (1) broaden strategic outlook beyond defence and the immediate region; (2) pursue active and targeted “de-securitisation” to expand cooperative space; (3) deepen partnerships with major European actors such as Germany and France while sustaining the U.S. link. The goal is not to overturn Romania’s core geostrategic commitments but to optimise them for efficacy in the present era.