This morning, just after 7 o’clock, I was listening to Ion Cristoiu’s segment on Gold FM. He opened with a French song that—quite aptly—ridiculed the notion of Russian interference. The song’s premise was that, no matter what unpleasant thing happens in your life, the Russians are to blame. It’s much the same here; yet, unlike in France—and despite our own sense of humor—no one in Romania has managed to produce a song like that. In our country, “Securistan” is more entrenched than it is in France.

This whole narrative about Russian interference—used as a catch-all excuse—is nothing new. In our current century, the 21st, it emerged shortly after the year 2000, once the West realized that dealing with Putin would be difficult—he was certainly no Boris Yeltsin. Putin made it clear that he had no intention of handing over Russia’s resources to be plundered. Naturally, his regime was demonized from the very start.

The origins of the defamatory label “pro-Russian” go back even further—to the mid-20th century—stemming from American propaganda directed against the USSR. It was a time of intense ideological struggle between the two blocs that had emerged victorious from the Second World War. In America, one might recall, there was McCarthyism—a genuine witch hunt that destroyed countless lives and careers (hundreds of thousands, in fact) through false accusations leveled against Americans who refused to conform to the official ideology or who dared to pursue independent initiatives. Back then, they were accused of being pro-Russian, pro-communist, and of Soviet or Russian interference—much like today.

As for me, I have been labeled pro-Russian—or even a “Putinist”—since 2002, despite the fact that I was a graduate of an American university. This label originated from an episode involving Adrian Năstase, who, in my presence, betrayed Romania’s interests in Moscow by rejecting an advantageous gas deal offered directly by Putin. Because the gas was so inexpensive, it could have played a major role in reviving our domestic industry. To undermine my credibility when I spoke out about Năstase’s betrayal, his political apparatus at the time branded me a “Putinist.” Later, starting in 2006 under the Băsescu regime—through a smear machine operated by Coldea and Băsescu’s SRI (Romanian Intelligence Service)—virtually everything I said or did in the public sphere was framed as proof of my “Putinism.” It is impossible to fight back when the entire state apparatus keeps pushing the same narrative about you. It took me two or three years to realize this, as I had initially kept trying to challenge the manipulations directed at me. Once I understood that it was futile, I decided to stop denying it and simply let it be—letting the reputation of being a “Putinist” stick—firmly resolved that the only people who mattered were those who could see the absurdity of the claim.

Meanwhile, Russia’s actual covert agents—those documented as such—suddenly transformed in Romania into pro-European partisans, champions of the EU—the European Union, which, as you know from my previous demonstrations, truly earns the moniker “the new USSR.” Even during the “plandemic,” if you refused to get vaccinated—and if you were a public figure, as I was, and spoke out about it (though this happened to many others)—you were suddenly branded a “Putinista.” Ironically, this label really took hold only after the war in Ukraine began; from that point on, if you publicly advocated for peace, you were immediately labeled pro-Russian or a “Putinista”—along with a host of other epithets: uneducated, dim-witted, stupid, or irresponsible. Over the last five years, a long list of people—both in Romania and across EU countries—have been branded as “Putinistas.” Some of us, for your information, even ended up on the Ukrainian “Myrotvorets” (Peacemaker) “death list.” From Romania, Professor Marga and I were on it, and I believe others were as well. It was a “track down, capture, kill” type of list—that is what the Myrotvorets death list was. Many of those on the Myrotvorets list have since been killed.

For today’s analysis, I have two recent events that justify my claim—stated in the title—that terms like “Putin-ist” and “Russian interference” have become worn-out tools of manipulation.

The first is the alleged Russian attack—a supposed act of Russian sabotage—at a factory in Brașov. Despite the Romanian Intelligence Service’s (SRI) strenuous efforts to force this narrative on everyone, it fails to convince anyone with a reasonably clear mind. And—take note—I have looked very closely, yet I haven’t seen a single influential voice in the Romanian press supporting the official version. Only mouthpieces. In Romania, this is a clear sign that the “Russian interference” trope no longer works.

The second example is even more striking. It concerns a man who has been in the spotlight recently: Karol Nawrocki. He turned his plane around—while en route to Africa—to block a hostile takeover of Poland’s Constitutional Court by Brussels’ allies, acting through Prime Minister Donald Tusk. You may already know about Nawrocki; if not, let me reiterate: he is, and has proven throughout his life to be, a genuine Polish patriot. And, like any true Polish patriot, he is—given the current circumstances—deeply anti-Russian and staunchly anti-Putin. Throughout his career as a distinguished historian, Nawrocki has dedicated himself to researching and exposing the harm inflicted upon Poland and the Polish people by the Tsarist Empire, the USSR, and Russia.

Well, as of yesterday, his opponent, Donald Tusk—that is, the man and the voice of the “new USSR,” or rather the EU—has labeled Nawrocki, too, as someone playing into the hands of Russia and Putin. And, of course, a sense of embarrassment is not something Tusk and his ilk possess, but I believe my example is quite telling.

To revisit today’s headline: “Putin-supporter, Russian interference, manipulation—a worn-out trope that not only has lost its edge but is now producing the exact opposite of what the accusers intended.”

Why do I speak of an “opposite effect”? First, based on my own recent personal experience—which I find highly revealing—the vast majority of people I encounter on the street or interact with praise me for something I don’t deserve, and for something I am not: namely, being a “Putin-supporter” or “pro-Russian.” That is a clear signal. Now, it is true that I have publicly declared myself in favor of a strategic partnership with Russia. Why? Because of Romania’s precarious state, the tense regional situation, and the “New World Order” emerging in the Black Sea region (as you will all gradually come to realize)—all of which necessitate such an arrangement for Romania: a strategic partnership, of the kind that could—theoretically—be signed with Russia. Just look at audience figures or web traffic; you will easily see that those who speak the truth and take a stand against Brussels’ propaganda—the so-called “Putin-supporters”—attract far more attention than the conformists who populate the public sphere. This goes to show that the act of labeling has the opposite effect.

Ultimately, the accusation of being “pro-Russian” or a “Putin supporter”—absurd in the case of individuals like Nawrocki—is not merely a sign of utter desperation on the part of Brussels; it will also definitively sink this cheap, tawdry propaganda, which has already dragged on far too long. The fact that it has persisted this long is a clear indication that the European press, too, is in a sorry state. Trump’s own actions have clearly contributed to discrediting this type of propaganda. The Russians’ decisive victory in the war in Ukraine has also played a role, but what will matter most are the agreements reached between Putin, Trump, and Xi—who, in a short time—about two weeks—will appear as victors and the sole architects of the New World Order in Shenzhen, China. And, as you know, the victors are always deemed to be in the right. From my own experience, I know full well that the very first people to validate Putin—and, indeed, Trump and Xi—will be the very same individuals who, today, act as their detractors (and ours).

By Cozmin Gusa

www.solidnews.ro