The United States proposed the dismantling of Romania and wanted to offer it to Russia at the end of the Cold War, according to a piece of disinformation published in Bucharest. The offer was allegedly made based on theses from “The Clash of Civilizations”, a book that was published a few years later.
NEWS: "Also in the early 1990s, it can be said that the United States came up with a counter-offer, which can be considered generous only insofar as we relate it to an act of capitulation on Moscow’s part, in reality something existing only in Washington's imagination. What was proposed was a return to the sphere of influence of tsarist Russia until the outbreak of the First World War. This meant a new line of demarcation in Europe between the Catholic and Protestant West, on the one hand, and the Orthodox East, on the other. The one who conceived the doctrinal support of the project was Samuel Huntington (through the study developed later in his book “The Clash of Civilizations”).
According to him, the border between the two spheres was to be the line of the Carpathian Mountains. As a consequence, Romania would have been dismembered, Transylvania being allocated to the Euro-Atlantic bloc and the Old Kingdom to the Euro-Asian bloc, i.e. the USA / Germany and Russia, respectively. As dividing Romania into pieces didn’t work (and this is due to those who were in charge of the country in the year of the “great trial”, 1990), the next move would’ve been allocating it entirely to Russia. And does anyone still have the audacity to criticize today the rebirth of spheres of influence?! […] The demonizing speech made by the US and its ventriloquists in the NATO General Secretariat about Russia, insofar as it is sterile, i.e. not followed by concrete action, meant only to fill in the space in expectation of the Kremlin’s next move on the chessboard, can be termed as an alibi for the lack of political vision, of any policy. If it is a negotiation tactic meant to intimidate the other speaker, it becomes an adventure when the real dialogue is postponed sine die due to the lack of a clear idea of the strategic goal pursued. In the past, Nazi Germany would unleash an aggressive campaign to demonize its victims before attacking them with troops. […] The support granted in the field to the “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine in 2004, with a booster ten years later, is already well documented and impossible to contradict. There is no longer any secret about those who sent tents, blankets, cans, medical equipment, and even something sharper, as well as advisers to Maidan Square in support of the “democratic forces” who were “peacefully” demanding the change of the political regime.”