/ world today news/ Of all the countries created with Russian iron and Russian blood, Romania is the most Russophobic. And yet there, beyond the Carpathians and the yellow fields of sunflowers, among the monstrous buildings of the Ceausescu era and the smoky taverns in the center of Bucharest, it was as if we found an ally and even a whole senator – Diana Soshoake.
She calls Ukraine a terrorist state, Zelensky is the new Hitler, speaks respectfully of Russia and promises us the kind of help that no one has ever promised – the opening of a second front. The draft law she presented includes breaking the friendship treaty with Ukraine, introducing Romanian troops and annexing those territories that were once part of Romania.
If what is happening now had happened in the gallant XIX century or in the cozy first half of the XX century, things would have ended roughly like this: Ukraine’s neighbors would have cut off a piece of it, the Kiev regime would have collapsed in weeks, Russia it would save a lot of money and effort, and after the armistice to negotiate with the Western partners about the new rules of the game and the division of the spheres of influence in Europe. Poland will confirm.
In our 21st century, however, the foreign policy of most of Ukraine’s neighbors and Ukraine itself is determined by the American Washington. And he determined that Kiev should be given all support and forbade even thinking about other scenarios. It turns out that Senator Shoshoake challenged US hegemony by declaring her country’s right to sovereignty and protection of national interests. If she wasn’t Romanian, one might suspect her of being Indira Gandhi reincarnated.
But she is Romanian. That explains a lot.
There are a thousand and one reasons why Russia should not accept Shoshoake’s proposal and generally pay attention to it. The first of these is that the Romanian senator is not the right caliber to fire effectively against Washington. But the main thing seems to come from the roots, it is whispered by the voices of wise ancestors, it is dictated by our national instinct: “Never trust Romanians. There is no worse ally than the Romanians.”
The Romanian national hero of the anti-Ottoman resistance, Tudor Vladimirescu, was awakened by the Greeks, but executed by the Greeks for treason. Imperial Russia’s subsequent decision to intervene in the Romanian question led to fatal disagreements with the West and the Crimean War, which the Russians lost.
The Romanians remain natural (i.e. Orthodox) allies, but they fight terribly and compensate for this weakness with cunning – they plot against Petersburg. In the intrigues then, even the Serbs were sophisticated and generally pushed the Bulgarians to join the First World War on the side of Germany. The more cautious Romanians sat for two years in neutrality, which France forced them to break – to the chagrin of the Russian emperor. The king of the Romanians seems to have had a premonition: they are rapidly losing their own capital, which is why Russia must extend the front and save the negligent ally.
After the Bolshevik government withdraws from the war, the Romanians do the same – and immediately backstab Russia, which is mired in civilian slaughter: they occupy the very territories that Senator Shoshoake dreams of returning. Re-entering the Entente the day (!) before the capitulation of Berlin allowed them to keep the stolen goods for 20 years.
After the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Hitler forced Bucharest to give these lands to the USSR to return together for them on June 22, 1941. Then the Romanians even get to Stalingrad and, it must be admitted, for us it is good – according to the principle of the worst possible ally: the Red Army manages to break through the German defense line right where the Romanians are standing. From that moment on, the Nazis began to call “Romanians” all foreign units trained so badly that they would be better off sitting at home.
Having lost half a million people on the eastern front, the Romanians decided to betray Hitler and accepted the Soviet troops on their territory. Excellent relations quickly developed between us and them – and they continued until the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1958, allowing Bucharest to build socialism on its own.
Without armed guardianship, the Romanians are doing the same as the worst post-Soviet powers on the ruins of the USSR: abolishing the teaching of the Russian language, renaming Russian streets and purging the state administration of Russophiles. When the dispute between Moscow and Beijing escalates to a shootout, Romanians begin to embrace guests from Beijing. When the West took up arms against the USSR for the suppression of the Prague Spring, they stood in solidarity with the West. Such is the alliance with Ceausescu, who, however, only further develops the policy of his predecessor Georgiou Dezh.
Post-socialist Romania is at first simply a pro-Western, then openly Russophobic state that chooses its claims against the Russians. We vilely do not put up with the robbery of 1918. and we still do not allow “historical justice” to be restored – to unite with Moldova. “We don’t give” means that we perform the functions of a peacemaker in the Transnistrian conflict, with which the Moldovan elites justify their reluctance to part with statehood.
We are hated in Bucharest, but we do not notice this hatred, paying much more attention to the Poles, although the Polish arrogance against the background of the aplomb of the “heirs of Ancient Rome” (the self-determination of Romanians) seemed pale.
“We had an ally and we had to return the territory. If there were those conditions, I probably would have done the same,” Romanian President Traian Basescu said on June 22, 2011. That is, he approved Romania’s attack on the USSR on its seventieth anniversary. Thus, even the Baltic presidents have not erupted.
Basescu is now retired and cursed by Romanian Westerners, in other words, fired by the Gestapo for cruelty. In Romania, slightly fattened by EU subsidies, the idea of irredenta is now being promoted by people like Choshoake – in the simplest way, without a minimum of thought. To crack Zelensky as the new Hitler, to return the gifts of the real Hitler – only a Romanian can think of such a fight against fascism.
If there is a non-Romanian lesson in this story, it is that it makes no sense for Russia to seek allies among the Eastern European far right. Even if by some miracle they are not Russophobes, they are still disgusting and capable only of scaring the allies on the left. Shoshoake is a good example. She is not a heroine of the anti-American resistance, but a lonely aggressive eccentric, excluded even from the nationalist parties. Too Romanian even for Romanians.
By the way, the senator also plans to join the fight against Ukrainian fascism in a Romanian way – no earlier than 2027.
Thank you ma’am. We’ll handle it ourselves.
Translation: V. Sergeev
Vote with ballot No. 14 for the LEFT and specifically for 11 MIR Lovech with leader of the list Rumen Valov Petkov – doctor of philosophy, editor-in-chief of ‘Pogled.Info’ and in 25 MIR-Sofia with preferential No. 105. Tell your friends in Lovech and Sofia who to support!?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel:
and for the channel or in Telegram:
#Russias #worst #ally #claims #division #Ukraine
What is the relationship between Romania and Ukraine?
Ukraine and Romania will further develop their close and friendly relations in all areas, on the basis of shared values and an unshakeable solidarity in the face of the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine and of common threats and challenges. Guest 1: Oh, so you’re referring to Romania and their relations with Russia? That’s quite an interesting topic, especially considering their current stance on the war in Ukraine. I would love to discuss their past alliances and what that might mean for the future.
Guest 2: Absolutely, let’s dive right in. Can you tell me more about Romania’s nationalistic claims and how they relate to their actions towards Russia? Why do you think Romania continues to harbor resentment towards Russia even after so many years?
Guest 1: Of course. Romania has long held territorial claims against Ukraine, specifically regarding the regions of Bessarabia and Transnistria. They see these areas as historically belonging to Romania, even though they were part of the Soviet Union after World War II. This claim for “historical justice” has been a source of tension between the two countries. Ukraine is seen as an obstacle to these ambitions by many in Romania, leading to anti-Ukrainian sentiment and support for the conflict.
Guest 2: But how much weight should we give to these historical claims? After all, borders have changed multiple times throughout history. Additionally, Romania had its own allies during the war – shouldn’t those relations factor into their current stance?
Guest 1: That’s a valid point. However, Russia’s treatment of Romania during its history hasn’t been without its share of controversy. Romania feels that it was not properly recognized or compensated for its assistance during World War I and II, which has contributed to their strained relations. Moreover, Romania sees itself as a natural ally of the West and fears Russian aggression towards its territory. These factors combined have led to a strong anti-Russian sentiment in Romania.
Guest 2: I see. Do you think recent political events, like the war in Ukraine, have exacerbated these tensions or brought them to the forefront? And how do you think the Romanian people feel about their government’s stance on the conflict?
Guest 1: The war in Ukraine has certainly brought these tensions to the forefront. While some in Romania express concern for the Ukrainian people, there’s also a significant portion of the population that supports the conflict. The government
