1
Romania is in process of Balkanization since the 1918 creation of Greater Romania - some regions, like Bukovina and Maramures, are not historically Balkan (politically and culturally) but are Balkanized in the meantime because Romanianization comes together with Balkanization, because it is directed from Bucharest, which is one of the Balkan hotspots, together with Belgrade, Sofia, Skopje and Sarajevo. I think that the only communities in Romania that really cannot be considered Balkan are the Ukrainian ethnics by the northern border (both geographically and culturally they fit with the rest of Ukrainians, at least Western ones) and the Lipovan communities in Bukovina, Moldova and Dobrudja regions. but those who leave the community to live in Romanian cities can be called Balkanic. another region that for the most does not fit is most of Moldova countryside, except of its southern side, like Galatz and Fokshany counties, which always had heavy Wallachian influence, in speech and looks and culturally. so Romania does fit the Balkan image now, it did less so in the recent past. Moldova the country is not Balkan at all, it's (post)Soviet.
average Romanian, especially from the South, feels deep connection with the Balkans and with "Latin" countries, they like to say. much less so in the rest of the country. Balkan identity is also very promoted by the TV and the media. also musically Romanians label themselves Balkan, mostly because of the klezmer and Gypsy influences in music.
foreign visitors from ex-Soviet Union see better than locals the differences in vibe between the Romanian regions and I've heard them say Moldova region, including Suceava, Iasi or Galati feel Eastern Euro (post-Soviet-like) while Bucharest feels very Balkan to them.
also culturally the Balkans do share some things with Eastern Europe, so it's more of a gradient and it's hard to exactly see where the Balkans end and where Eastern Europe starts, there's no clear line.
Bookmarks