The announcement of Klaus Iohannis’ candidacy in the „competition” for the NATO leadership, as it was formulated, as a candidacy of Romania itself, represents a sort of moral fraud.
It is intended to create in the country, quite successfully so far, an atmosphere of a national team match, stirring up nationalistic pride and frustrations, with potential favorable consequences precisely for the extremists that the entire coalition campaign is focused on combating.
Mr. Iohannis' candidacy is by no means Romania's. It's like saying that the visit to Zanzibar or the safari escapade in Kenya of Klaus Iohannis, as President of Romania, means that Romania itself was in Zanzibar or on safari in Kenya.
It is true that to formalize the candidacy, a document from the government/president of Romania is needed, because not just anyone from the street can send a CV to the NATO secretariat. But that's it. Essential are the personal career data, the stature of the candidate, and their ability to garner support and negotiate.
And after the appointment, the secretary-general loses their citizenship and becomes solely NATO. So with Jens Stoltenberg as secretary-general, it doesn't mean Norway holds the NATO leadership. With Iohannis as secretary-general, it doesn't mean Romania would hold the NATO leadership.
Therefore, to advance, as Mr. Iohannis and then all the political and media propaganda of the coalition have done, that Romania would benefit from this appointment is a huge manipulation. It exploits the confusion of Romanians regarding these international positions.
That's why we ask, for example, what has the Romanian commissioner in the EC done for Romania? Normally, they shouldn't do anything special for Romania, they aren't allowed to do anything, the job is in relation to EU interests. At NATO, in relation to NATO interests.
They say some strings can still be pulled for us. So we start from the premise that we are sending to the EC or NATO some people who are actually incorrect, do we expect them to be incorrect? Never mind that Iohannis would make through additional and skillful efforts what he hasn't done, in his 9 years, on the job description.
No, the position is not for Romania, the position is for Mr. Iohannis. For Romania, it can at best be an image satisfaction that soothes our frustrations and complexes, but only if it's not a failure, which with Iohannis' laziness, communication aversion, and egocentrism, wouldn't be excluded at all.
On the other hand, Mr. Iohannis maximally uses Romania to climb to the new position at NATO or another top EU job to be given in exchange for unlocking the Alliance.
Romania, with its essential geographical position in context and with its good soldiers, even if under-equipped, represents the only argument of Mr. Iohannis, who is a liability rather than an asset for his own country.
And Romanian diplomacy is geared to the maximum in the interest of one man and his ambitions, as it has never been geared in authentic national interest. Or as it was geared against LCK's candidacy for EPPO, about which Mr. Iohannis considered it wasn't for Romania, so the Romanian state sabotaged it with all its might.
And if we go through Romania's arguments one by one, in a competition that, I repeat and emphasize, is not theirs and hasn't even existed in this form until now, what has Mr. Iohannis done for them?
1. In the context of the war, yes, Romania has been a correct supporter, we haven't had the violent tensions seen in Poland, where overturned Ukrainian trucks lie by the roadside.
But this is not Mr. Iohannis' merit, but that of a sentimental people, who would rather raise their voice in anger than their fist, and everything dissolves into ridicule. Moreover, Mr. Iohannis is one of the beneficiaries of the defused cornmeal syndrome.
2. Romania has allocated 2.5% of GDP for defense, but on paper. The budget execution is around 1.5%.
3. The real state of the Romanian army is dire, as recently stated by the chief of staff.
4. In the grand coalition, Klaus Iohannis entrusted the Ministry of Defense to completely unqualified individuals, a genuine mockery for this key portfolio.
5. NATO's state obligation is not only to put money on paper for the army but also to ensure a functional infrastructure for military movements. And Romania, both by rail and road, is a recent disaster tested by NATO troops.
So what are Mr. Iohannis' arguments to latch onto Romania's performance? That he didn't steer it towards Russia and had correct platoon positions?
Where is the toxicity of the endeavor?
First of all, as Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) points out, the President of Romania divides NATO: “The candidacy of Romania's President, Klaus Johannis, for the position of NATO Secretary-General has been met with frowns in broad circles of the Alliance. 'He divides the Alliance at a time when we cannot afford this.'” .
And he does not do it as a physical person but by proclaiming together with the entire propaganda apparatus of the coalition that Romania stands behind him, implicitly placing it alongside the problematic anti-Russian world, Hungary, and Turkey.
There's a somewhat feverish hope that Mr. Iohannis wouldn't have jumped in and wouldn't have thrown Romania into this adventure without at least the agreement of Romania's strategic partner. FAZ suggests the opposite. And the reaction of the US Ambassador to Bucharest was merely polite.
External media is already starting to catch on to what Romanians who are experts in Iohannis after 9 years have smelled from the start - he doesn't necessarily want NATO, but by blackmail he forces his way to another top EU job.
Secondly, this manipulation that stirs up nationalism, we deserve it, we have the right, it's our turn, can, in case of a likely failure, have a boomerang effect, as happened with the Schengen accession failure in December 2022.
And then there was a maximum expectation, the stadium atmosphere when the national team plays, and the failure generated a nationalistic Eurosceptic backlash. Who can benefit from a new disappointment?