When Mr. Iohannis says he has reasonable chances to win the NATO leadership and issues, on the alliance’s anniversary, a message as if he already considers himself installed, when he reveals more than hope, downright a belief in success, does he do it because of an incurable optimism or because no one around him has the courage to tell him the truth?
When Mr. Iohannis publicly announced his candidacy without any support behind him, now it is quite clear, no encouragement, let alone any guarantee, from major military powers, primarily the US, he clearly knew he was making an unprecedented gesture, from all points of view, since the establishment of NATO, or has no one had the courage/competence to tell him the truth?
These are very difficult and important questions because the answers to them measure the destruction caused by the 10 years of Iohannis to the body of professionals in the Presidential Administration and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The signs are that all key positions have been filled with humble "yes-men" who only say what the monarch's ear wants to hear or have come to think what the sovereign's ear wants to hear. This is very serious and will require a difficult and long-lasting reconstruction.
What is the ignored truth?
Alongside Mark Rutte, explicitly 90% of the Alliance countries, led by the US, have reaffirmed the option in a not so happy tone for Mr. Iohannis.
The major press, from Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung to Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, and Le Figaro, has been extremely critical of Mr. Iohannis and not only does not give him any chance, but presents in severe terms the way he poses problems within NATO with the war on the border.
In fact, Mr. Iohannis is supported only by Putin's pawns in Europe: Robert Fico from Slovakia and Viktor Orban from Hungary.
There are still a few countries that do not explicitly support Mark Rutte, mainly Poland and Turkey, but without siding with the opposing candidate.
In fact, each of Rutte's opponents or undecided ones are trying to get the best price for their support. And the higher the price, especially in Orban's case, the greater the damage caused to the Alliance by Mr. Iohannis.
But the biggest damage would be if in Romania the failure is presented, and this is already looming, as an injustice done to Romania. No thought of such a thing.
Looking at nationalities, even though this is not the criterion, a Romanian has been in recent years the number two in the civilian hierarchy of NATO, deputy secretary-general. This is much more than other countries in the eastern flank of the Alliance had, whose presidents did not venture.
In fact, Mr. Iohannis should have proven skills, personal data, a diplomatic track record that would qualify him for the position that would be his, not Romania's. However, Mr. Iohannis has no personal arguments.
What is Mr. Iohannis missing?
If we look at the job description of the NATO Secretary-General, we see that he has no military responsibilities, does not move troops, does not give orders.
The NATO Secretary-General is a diplomat with essential mediation and communication facilitation duties between allies and the Alliance with the world.
The Secretary-General is the voice and face of NATO to the world, the link between sometimes divergent interests of partners, the one who smoothes out rough edges. A strong, credible, present voice, attentive to nuances.
This is what Jens Stoltenberg has done excellently, which is why he is very difficult to replace.
Does Mr. Iohannis have the necessary communication skills? Obviously not, as he has shown in almost 10 years of office. Not only is he not good at communication, but he downright hates it, deeply despises it. And the proof is the number of press conferences and interviews he has given during this time.
And behind this disdain for communication is a disdain for what NATO partners call "accountability," the obligation to be accountable, and a monarchical arrogance. A NATO Secretary-General does not throw his coat on the car hood.
Is Mr. Iohannis a skilled diplomat? The results of his 9-year term do not prove that. The foreign policy led by him has been characterized by mediocrity. Without initiatives, without flashes, without masterstrokes. He stayed quiet in the platoon, only coming out when his own interest pushed him.
Is Mr. Iohannis a highly credible figure? When you boast that Romania has allocated 2.5% of GDP for defense, but in reality the budget execution is below the NATO average, at 1.6%, it is not really a sign of seriousness.
Le Figaro quotes "a good connoisseur of NATO," who said about Mr. Iohannis: "the way he made the announcement, the chosen moment, and the lack of communication with partners show that Klaus Iohannis understood nothing and does not have the qualities necessary for this position."
What did Mr. Iohannis not understand?
NATO is based on two fundamental principles, whose reflection is even Article 5: unity and solidarity.
The idea of official competition, introduced for the first time by Mr. Iohannis, means division. And we see it clearly. And when is that? When NATO is as close to war with Russia as during the Cold War, if not even closer.
The simple fact that you are willing to expose the Alliance to such a situation shows that, indeed, you have not understood anything.
And this misunderstanding, in which Mr. Iohannis perseveres, should raise major questions as to whether he is suitable for any high international position he so ardently desires.