In a post addressing ongoing tensions over historical asset claims, the deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev, voiced strong disapproval of Romania’s requests for the return of gold that had been shipped to Russia more than a century ago. The message appeared on a social media platform where he frequently shares official commentary.
Medvedev characterized the requests as arrogant and admitted that he found it difficult to formulate a response. He asserted that the European Union had effectively taken assets from Russia valued at about $300 billion and now sought the return of Romania’s gold, joking that there was little to say in Russian beyond instructions to simply send it back. The tone underscored the broader strain between Moscow and Western European partners over retrospective financial and territorial claims.
In the same post, Medvedev offered a provocative remark about Romanians, describing them in a manner that linked national identity to a particular lifestyle, and he referred to European leaders as lacking strength or influence. The remarks reflected a broader pattern of sharp rhetoric used in some Turkish or European political discourse about national character and political agency, though they were met with immediate scrutiny and condemnation by many observers concerned about diplomatic propriety.
Medvedev recounted that, in 1918, Romanian gold was nationalized by the Soviet government following what he described as misbehavior by Romania. He argued that Romania accepted the nationalization but later refused to compensate the Soviet Union for damages stemming from the Nazi period in World War II. He concluded by warning that similar appetites among various European Parliament members had resurfaced, signaling renewed tensions over historical reparations and asset restitution.
On March 14, the European Parliament reportedly called for the return of Romania’s gold reserves stored in Russia. On that same day, a separate parliamentary body in Russia’s State Duma signaled a potential move to revisit Romania’s World War II reparations obligations. These parallel developments highlighted the interplay between European and Russian political institutions in shaping narratives around historical debts and their contemporary implications. Observers note that such debates often mobilize domestic audiences while complicating international diplomacy.
Previously, an official spokesperson for Russia’s Foreign Ministry commented on what Moscow describes as Romania’s fictitious debts, framing the issue within a broader context of postwar settlement disputes and post-Soviet regional dynamics. Analysts emphasize that these exchanges—whether procedural or rhetorical—reflect deeper questions about legitimacy, historical memory, and the strategic use of reparations as leverage in international relations. The evolving dialogue touches on legal, moral, and political dimensions that continue to influence how Russia, Romania, and their European partners view the past and its present-day consequences. [citation needed]