Iulian Fota, an expert in national security issues and former presidential advisor, in a discussion with Spotmedia.ro, praises Nicușor Dan’s initiative to publicly debate Romania’s new national security strategy. It is the first time in recent history that a president makes such a gesture, soliciting public opinion, reactions, and viewpoints regarding a vital document for the Romanian state.
Suggestive Quotes:
- I really liked this idea of southeastern European power, to be the second power after Poland. Americans have a saying: ambition determines the mission. A high level of ambition can help us know what we want.
- Romanians are resistant to the transfer of Western culture. These things progress slowly. (…) We can see clearly that the theory of form without substance has also emerged here. Strategies suffer due to cultural and institutional resistance.
- Parliament refuses to take on its main task of discussing national security. The best argument is the burying of intelligence agency reports for years. Through this document, the president obliges them to seriously consider what they are doing with the country, even if there will be convulsions in the assembly.
- The strategy avoids what happened in the past year (the political crisis after the cancellation of the presidential elections). We have no explanation, no treatment of the causes. (…) To prevent a recurrence, it is necessary to describe what happened, and the strategy could include more concrete measures in this regard.
Main Topics of Discussion:
The Concept of "Solidarity Independence" and Its Ambiguities
The concept is fresh, and we — myself, from what I read, and others — are struggling with it. Let's see a bit about the underlying thinking and what the Presidential Administration wants to achieve with this concept. (...) The mere fact that we are still grappling with it, I believe, is an aspect that needs to be emphasized.
In the strategy, there are a number of explanations, but the explanations are not sufficient and still do not help us answer big questions. For example: independence from whom? It can be suspected that solidarity refers to NATO, and it is correct for it to be so. But when it comes to independence, from whom? Here it is not clear at all.
Some quickly draw a parallel with the idea of strategic autonomy, so they see this idea of independence in parallel with French strategic thinking. Others fear the traditionalist, even nationalist, aura that the idea of independence can carry with it.
In general, I believe that Romania suffers from a lack of ambition. (...) And then you come with this concept of independence, which, unfortunately for me, has a slight Ceaușescu-esque touch and gives ammunition to those who see in it an unfortunate interpretation."
The Need for a Clear, Coherent, and Realistic Strategy
It is advisable for the national security strategy to be very clear, simple, and straightforward to be easily understood by everyone. (...) In a country with many institutions — sometimes in competition, other times dominated by egos — the strategy should provide coherence to the national security effort.
It seems a bit piecemeal, if you ask me, and that's why some things are found in one part and then they get lost in the other part. (...) I expected at least the pagination to be changed to clearly distinguish it from the previous strategy, that of Klaus Iohannis.
I don't understand why the paragraph about creating a nation-building project was hidden somewhere in point 12. It should have been brought to the forefront. It is a consistent, important idea, and it is not normal for it to be treated peripherally.
Security Risks: Russia, Hybrid Warfare, and Military Aggression
I cannot separate, as long as I know how the Russians think, the hybrid warfare part from the conventional military aggression against Romania. War is the extreme situation in international relations, and no other threat has a greater destructive potential.
My fear is that without a substantial reference to Russian military aggression, the Ministry of Defense will tend to lower the bar, to reduce its level of ambition. (...) The life of the entire Ministry of Defense will be easier, but the question is: are we not deceiving ourselves?
The most serious threat to Romania in the coming years is becoming a victim of Russian military aggression (...) I cannot rule out this possibility, even if the probability is low and even if we are NATO members.
The strategy talks about hybrid warfare, but not about real war. (...) It seems a bit out of touch with reality because we cannot talk about hybrid attacks without also discussing conventional military aggression, especially after seeing what is happening in Ukraine.
Romania's Relationship with the West and the Danger of Diluting the Pro-European Orientation
The Constitution obliges us to good neighborliness. (...) We are obliged to have good relations with everyone, until proven otherwise. The idea of good neighborliness is a wise one for a country like ours, of medium size, which must first and foremost be pragmatic.
The stake of the battle in November 2024 (the canceled presidential elections) was the dilution of the link with the West. Well, if some tried to do this, you must make it an objective in the security strategy to be clear to everyone: whoever acts to break Romania away from the West becomes an enemy of the country.
We cannot look at authoritarian-led countries and give them lessons when we ourselves have our own problems. (...) A bit of humility would be much better received than an added dose of pride, especially when we want to remain in the Western world.
Our belonging to the West is not listed as an important objective anywhere. Yet, the stake of last year's political battle was precisely that: the breaking or dilution of the link with the West. The strategy should have explicitly included this concern.
Institutional Responsibility and Administrative Culture
Unfortunately, the level of institutional culture is low. People are arrogant, proud. (...) I am convinced that there were enough who said, "Forget about the document, why should I care about what the president wrote, I'll do it my way."
The value of the strategy is time-limited. It depends on how the president, the presidential security advisor, and the prime minister enforce it in institutions. (...) At six months after approval, I would send a letter: What have you done with it? What impact has it had on you?
In Romania, the strategy is adopted, approved, and then put away. This is what I found in 2010 when I was a presidential advisor, as well as in the following years. (...) There is an administrative culture resistant to the import of Western standards.
CSAT (Supreme Council for National Defense) is the only real lever for institutional implementation. If the strategy is validated by CSAT, the president can subsequently go to each institution and ask: Have you implemented what you voted for?
Everything depends on people's conscience and the seriousness of political leadership.