Valery Kuzmin, the Russian ambassador to Romania, addressed the Romanian authorities’ move to markedly reduce the number of staff at the Russian Embassy in Bucharest. Reports attributed to TASS indicate that Kuzmin viewed the decision as a deliberate and new action by Bucharest that could jeopardize the tone of bilateral relations between the two states.
In response to Romania’s decision, the Russian Foreign Ministry signaled it would dispatch a formal reply. The ministry stated that Moscow would evaluate the reduction as part of its ongoing diplomacy and would determine an appropriate course of action in relation to the staffing changes in Bucharest.
On June 8, Romania’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that more than 50 Russian embassy personnel would be required to depart within a 30-day period. The Romanian explanation centered on a initiative to align the embassy’s footprint with a new interpretation of the bilateral arrangement and to reflect Romania’s assessment of Russian diplomatic staffing needs in the country.
Romania specified that the total number of posts in Russia would be adjusted to 51. The breakdown includes 21 diplomatic roles and 30 technical and administrative positions. Foreign Ministry officials noted that the actual selection of which posts and which individuals would leave would be conducted by the Russian authorities themselves, underlining that the decision lies with Moscow to implement the reductions on its side.
Observers suggest that the move follows a broader pattern of reciprocal steps between the two capitals and may be influenced by evolving security and political considerations in the region. Analysts emphasize that such personnel adjustments can affect not only the mechanics of consular and diplomatic work but also the broader communication channels and timely exchange of information between Bucharest and Moscow. In this light, the developments are likely to be watched closely by regional partners and international observers who monitor diplomatic conduct and alliance commitments in Central and Eastern Europe.
The Russian stance appears to frame the Romanian measure as an attempt to weaken and destabilize state relations, a characterization that underscores the mutual sensitivity of the current phase in bilateral interactions. Diplomats in both capitals may pursue channels to clarify intentions, explore room for dialogue, and prevent a further erosion of trust even as each side asserts its sovereign rights to adjust its diplomatic staff. The situation illustrates how routine administrative actions abroad can become focal points for higher-stakes negotiations and signals about the future trajectory of bilateral ties.
As the timeline unfolds, observers will be watching for any subsequent statements from Kyiv, Brussels, or Washington that could influence NATO-related dynamics and regional security considerations. The episode also raises questions about the practical implications for staff exchanges, visa procedures, and consular services available to citizens and businesses operating across the Romanian-Russian diplomatic corridor. In the immediate term, both sides appear to be preparing for a period of diplomatic recalibration while emphasizing the importance of maintaining open lines of communication to avoid misinterpretations and unintended consequences.