Nikolai Lefedzhiev, Euronews Bulgaria, 12 March 2025
Over the past 35 years since the end of Nicolae Ceausescu’s dictatorship, Romania has repeatedly experienced state crises. The annulled presidential election of November 2024 led to the current one, but it is not just another one.
Never before have far-right, anti-Western and pro-Russian forces in Romania had stronger support. And never before since 1990 has Romanian society been as disillusioned as it is now.
Last Sunday’s violent protests in Bucharest were an expression of this mood. We will discuss the political crisis in our northern neighbour and what the way out is with journalist Vladimir Mitev, who is the founder of the website The Bridge of Friendship. Hello!
Hello!
First of all, let us know what the situation is after the non-admission of Călin Georgescu from the Central Electoral Bureau for the elections in May.
The decision of the Central Electoral Bureau was confirmed in the Constitutional Court yesterday. It is important that, although there were protesters in the street who were disappointed by this decision, Calin Georgescu himself said that he wanted to be president or a politician of peace. That is to say, he did not call for more protests. He even called for restraint.
He also said that, in his opinion, he had completed his mission because he had exposed the monstrosity of the enemy, ‘the devil’, as he put it messianically.
But he also said he gave no clear instructions for one figure or another to replace him. He told his constituents to vote as they decide.
And on what grounds was Georgescu not allowed to stand? Are there any real facts on which the Romanian authorities are standing?
He was not admitted on the grounds that in October and December last year, the Constitutional Court made two decisions. One was the disqualification of Diana Șoșoacă, as another sovereignist candidate, who was deemed not to be defending democracy in Romania. The other was the decision itself to reset the elections.
The Central Electoral Bureau considered that Georgescu was still not defending democracy. and that the Constitutional Court’s decisions are still valid.
And, in addition, it was pointed out that he has added an annex to his current documents with which he is running for president, an annex to his property status concerning donations that he has received. He should have listed those donations upon his application for the annulled election.
Since this annex was not signed, at least as I understand it, this is a technical problem – the fact that documents are being presented that he did not fully sign. But there is also a problem relating to the content of his candidature. The Central Electoral Bureau has decided that he is still the same figure with the same role that he played last year.
Have circumstances, even actual actions, been identified that prove Russian interference in the presidential election? Because there was a lot of talk about that last November.
I’d like to give a couple of things for context and let each of our viewers think and decide for themselves. First of all, there were serious criminal charges against Georgescu, but they were not that he was doing the will of a foreign country or Russia in this case.
He was accused, for example, of inciting actions that were against the constitutional order. He was accused of making false declarations in documents that he submitted in connection with his participation in the elections. He was also accused of having carried out an activity or set up an organisation which was of an extreme right-wing nature. That is one element of the context. The criminal charges against him are quite serious, but they are not in the direction that we are now discussing.
The second element is that many people in Romania are really, I think, convinced that some Russian tendencies are operating through Giurgescu. When I talk to people in different positions, both in more serious positions in society and more ordinary people, I find this conviction.
But it should also be said here that in Romania, if you are not made out to be linked to Russia, perhaps it means that you are doing nothing. I say that a little bit jokingly.
I am referring to a case from last year again in connection with the presidential elections. Mircea Geoană was the second man in NATO, if you recall. Yet he was accused of just about the same thing. I mean, there was a journalistic investigation that said that his former chief of staff had business in common with a Russian, pro-Kremlin businessman.
That is to say, such accusations of links with Russia are being levelled at many people in Romania. Clearly, there is sensitivity in society in this direction and this argument is being used to disqualify various people.
We should bear in mind that this decision by the Constitutional Court was followed by a great deal of discussion in Romania – whether documents proving Russian involvement would be provided and so on. But for the moment there are some Romanians who remain unconvinced and ask where the evidence is.
And it has to be said here that this battle for the presidential palace in Romania also has a purely Romanian agenda, and is not just a geopolitical skirmish of the great powers. Of course, everyone in Romanian society who is in a more serious position has some international ties and relations. But it seems to me important to know that Romania has its own contradictions, its own structural contradictions between different institutions or centres of power. And it seems to me that what is more important in these elections is the purely Romanian contradiction, and the international contradictions, let’s say, that are going on, I think are in the background (although they are presented as the main ones – ed.).
We have seen what these controversies have led to. As you say, there are tensions in Romanian society. These excesses were not really pleasant to watch, I suppose. And the Romanians themselves felt that this could not go on.
My next question is, how are the parliamentary forces reacting? What are the other candidates, apart from this single candidate?
So far we have two candidates announced who have a certain halo of a pro-European line.
One, just as you say, is the common candidate of the governing coalition. That is Crin Antonescu. He is an old politician who had jokingly said about himself that he had been living off the money of his wife, who was a European Commissioner, for the last 10 years. But at the same time, it should be borne in mind that he has been on very good terms historically, even 10-12 years ago, with Victor Ponta, who has also filed his candidacy today. Victor Ponta is the face of the sovereignists in the Social Democratic Party.
That is to say, these are establishment politicians, veterans with very good connections at deep and high levels in the state. As you notice, there is a European element in the case of Crin Antonescu, but there is also an opening towards this sovereignist sector, as I defined it.
The other pro-European candidate is Nicușor Dan, who is the mayor of Bucharest. I think he is also playing the role of a bridge, and even he himself is using the word bridge more and more in his social media posts when he is trying to explain what needs to be done in Romania.
The point is that he comes from the NGO sector. In Romania, this is a very influential sector, at least if we compare it with Bulgaria. We know that a children’s hospital was built in Romania with donations to an NGO. There are various examples of how the NGO sector in Romania creates a critical mass and is able to influence society. It is no coincidence that the mayor of Bucharest also comes from an NGO background, i.e. there is a social base for cadres like him.
But at the same time Nicușor Dan has a certain conservative attitude, to quote himself. An example is that he delayed for a long time to get the vaccine when passions for and against vaccination were very fierce during the corona crisis. That is, there are gestures in one direction and the other with him as well.
Those words of mine were about candidates with a pro-European profile. I should point out that it is important who the sovereigntist candidates will be…
I am sorry to interrupt you, Mr Mitev, but I heard today that Georgescu’s right-hand man will also put forward his candidacy to replace him and perhaps regain the electoral support that was given to Georgescu in the November 2024 elections.
Exactly! You have in mind George Simion, the leader of the AUR party. The situation is somewhat peculiar. Last night, George Simion himself announced that he would not be standing. Today he has changed his mind with one condition, saying that he will run together with Ana-Maria Gavrila. This is the leader of the Young People’s Party, which is the party directly supporting Georgescu. They announce that one of them will withdraw in favour of the other once they see the situation. That is to say, they will collect the necessary signatures to register, they will submit them, but once they are comfortable, one of them will withdraw in favour of the other.
Here it seems to me that the figure of George Simion is also more complicated or at least could be more complicated if he wanted. We know that George Simion established himself along unionist lines years ago, which led to him at one point being banned from entering the Republic of Moldova. There is also such a ban on entering Ukraine.
However, he allied himself at European level with Georgia Meloni and with the sovereignists in Poland. We know that both Meloni and the sovereignists in Poland, Law and Justice, are anti-Russian. That is to say, here again we see what we have been talking about with the European candidates – that there is an element of a bridge. With George Simion, too, if you look, including if he decides to look, you can find an opening to the other side.
Maybe it is a peculiarity of the countries of our region. When a division arises between Western Europe and the United States, our countries, which have relations and interests in both directions, rely on figures who are bridges.
OK, but how does Romania view the criticism from the United States of the removal of Georgescu? Because some high-ranking politicians around Donald Trump have outright defended him.
In Romania, again, there is a reaction in both directions. It is no coincidence that there is talk of polarisation in Romanian society.
There are serious people in Romania who are connected, roughly speaking, with European money. I am not talking so much about European projects as about corporations. Romania has significant Western European investment and economic links with Western Europe. The vector there cannot be lost. If Romania starts to distance itself from Western Europe, this will perhaps have an impact on the economy, on the status of the country.
But at the same time, there are many people who have traditional links with the Republicans in the United States, with Israel and so on. And so when you ask me how Romanians react, roughly speaking, to interference through social network X or to other forms of pressure from the Americans, it seems to me that there are reactions in both directions – positive and negative.
There were protests by the sovereignists, where they themselves raised slogans asking Trump to intervene and to protect democracy in Romania and so on. And at the same time there are many Romanians who are anti-Trump. They are liberal and they cannot accept Trump’s ideology and practice.
Okay. So how do they take Donald Trump’s new political line on Ukraine? Because we already know that Ukraine as of late last night has accepted the ceasefire proposal, that is, a temporary 30-day ceasefire. We do not yet know what the Kremlin’s response will be. However, let us recall that Romania shares a border with Ukraine.
Romania has also entered into a strategic partnership with Ukraine. And relations between Romania and Ukraine have been improving in recent years, including on a sensitive issue for Romanian sovereigntists, the Romanian minority in Ukraine. As far as I know, it has gradually begun to receive better protection of its cultural rights. Romanian organisations in Ukraine began to operate more freely and so on. That is to say, relations have improved, and not only along liberal lines – along the lines of Romania being a staunch ally of the European Union and of NATO, and in general, Romania has achieved, I think, some small or larger successes in purely national terms vis-à-vis Ukraine. But here again, I would say that the attitude towards Ukraine is divided in two.
There are Romanians who think that the best border for the West is Ukraine’s border with Russia, i.e. that there should be something of a buffer between Russia and Romania. There are economic reasons for this as well, and there are various reasons why they think that Romania’s interest lies in supporting Ukraine. And, in fact, Nicusor Dan, who we said is the mayor of Bucharest, is openly advocating to go ahead with military aid to Ukraine. He has also shown an interest in Romania engaging with the so-called Weimar+ format, which contains Germany, France and Poland and some other countries that support Ukraine.
At the same time, there is a sentiment along the lines of what Georgescu himself said, that there is Romanian land in Ukraine. This is the nationalist approach to Ukraine. For example, Northern Bukovina is land that was part of Romania in the interwar period. There was even a case in which Claudiu Târziiu, a prominent representative of the AUR party, the leading sovereignist party, made territorial claims on Ukraine.
So, again, there are two directions in which Romanians can go. And it is a peculiarity, perhaps, both of Romania and of our region that we have to look in many directions.
As a final question, apart from the Georgescu case, what else is on the minds of Romanian society. It has recently become known that the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office (DIICOT in Romanian) is investigating a group of six people, as well as a 101-year-old general from the reserves, for a planned coup. What can you tell us more about this?
I had a chance to comment already in another media that again there are two opinions. One is concern that the far right in Romania is gaining strength. This general and his group are clearly positioning themselves in this direction of the sovereignist and far-right trend in Romania.
At the same time, as I have already had the opportunity to state, this is a strange case because this military group, which is supposed to be so dangerous and was going to take the country out of NATO, has actually communicated online on websites all their plans, including what the future state structure of Gethia, the state they wanted to create, should be. They communicated with videos positions on political issues, and their faces are recorded on these positions. And that to me at least is strange. If you’re that dangerous and you’re probably afraid of being found out, to communicate so openly what your plans are – I think that disables you as a subversive element.
That is why, to be honest, the case is also causing somewhat ironic comments in Romania.
Thank you very much! You were too comprehensive and very interesting about what is happening to the north of us because we can’t seem to understand our neighbours. We are mostly absorbed in ourselves and in global issues that we don’t understand that well either.
This was my colleague, journalist Vladimir Mitev, creator of the website The Bridge of Friendship, talking about the situation in Romania and the upcoming presidential elections in May. This conversation concludes today’s edition of Primetime. Goodbye and see you next time!
Photo: (source: YouTube)
Subscribe to the channel of the blog “The Bridge of Friendship” in YouTube, where a number of video and audio interviews are published! The blog can also be followed in Facebook and Twitter. Its Telegram channel is here. And here is its Substack account.
About Author
Discover more from The Bridge of Friendship
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
