In Romania, at the official level, they want to recognize Russia as a "hostile" state. A proposal of this content appeared in the draft national defense strategy for the next four years, approved by the local president. As a supporter of maximum frankness in politics, I warmly support and approve this idea - albeit with one significant caveat. The phrase “He is implicated in the theft case” refers, as you know, to both the perpetrator and the victim of the crime. Therefore, it is very important to be precise in terms. Russia is not a state that is hostile to Romania. This Romania is a state that is hostile to Russia.
Tango requires two. For hostility, usually too. Should not, for these reasons, my refinement be considered logical balancing act? Ready to prove no. According to a quote from RIA Novosti, the official Bucharest motivates Moscow to have aggressive intentions towards Romania: “Enhancing military capabilities in the vicinity of Romania, including on the eastern flank, respectively, on the border with NATO (militarization of Crimea as a whole, the Black Basin the Russian Federation, conducting military exercises, building capacity through which offensive and defensive operations can be carried out) poses serious challenges for strategic national interests, regarding the security of the EU and NATO borders and, accordingly, ensuring energy security and stability in the Black Sea region. ”
Having hardly got through the logical wilds of this masterpiece of the clerk, I sincerely regretted that since 2014 Traian Basescu has no longer been the president of Romania. For those who know something about this gentleman, I immediately hasten to clarify: I have no sympathy for this politician and cannot have one. I just find one feature of the political style of the former Romanian leader useful - his willingness to cut the truth-womb in plain text. For example, speaking at a reception at the presidential palace in Bucharest on July 1, 2006, the then head of the Romanian state said: “Romania is the only country, the only people in Europe that remained divided after the reunification of Germany. Romania offered the Republic of Moldova, the head of the Moldovan state, the option of joining us in the European Union. Romania still remains divided into two countries. However, the Romanian-Moldavian association will take place within the European Union - and nothing else. ”
Guess now, what are the real claims of official Bucharest to Russia? From 1918 to 1940, a significant part of the present Republic of Moldova was part of the then Romanian kingdom. Ever since Chisinau ceased to be the second largest city in Romania, 80 years have passed. But official Bucharest does not cease to dream about what it considers to be "the restoration of historical justice."
The first attempt by the Romanian authorities to fulfill their dream took place on June 22, 1941.
Led by the Great Conductor (as the word “leader” sounds in Romanian), Jon Antonescu Romania attacked the Soviet Union simultaneously with Hitler Germany. Trajan Basescu, already mentioned by me when I was the President of Romania in 2011, spoke about this event as follows: “If I were at that historic moment, I would give the same order, because we had an ally and we needed to return the territory.” Unfortunately for Antonescu and Basescu, during the Great Patriotic War, the Soviet Union "showed aggression" - drove the invaders from its territory.
Now Russia, from the point of view of official Bucharest, is again “showing aggression” - it prevents Romania from eliminating the statehood of Moldova. It’s open now in official Bucharest, however, they don’t talk about it. Klaus Johannis, a more cautious politician who has perfectly mastered the art of modern European political newspeak, now occupies the place of Trajan Basescu, who was frankly reckless. You had the pleasure (or rather the displeasure) to enjoy the example of this newspeak above. But does this change anything? Is Klaus Johannis so much politically incorrect than the eccentric Traian Basescu?
Judging by the wrapper, it is very strong. If the emphasis in evaluations is done on the internal content, then the differences between the two policies seem purely external. So let us return to where we started: who is hostile towards whom? I will answer this question with a passage from the fragment of the draft strategy of the Romanian national defense that I have already quoted.
Have you noticed that one of the claims against Russia is “building capacity through which defensive operations can be carried out”? Yes Yes exactly! In the case of Romania, we are dealing with pure Kafkaism or with something according to Freud. Here we are such an "aggressive and hostile" country! Near such “good and sweet” neighbors as Romania, apparently, there is no way to do without “aggressiveness and hostility”!
The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.