Watching Romania - an ATS prediction coming true?

[TokenLiberal]

Are you suggesting that Georgescu is acting as or is a Russian agent?

I'm not suggesting anything. I just know that the Russians have a track record of interfering in other countries' elections, and Georgescu was very pro-Russian. So the notion that he was boosted by Russian efforts (or even put there by Russia in the first place) at least seems like it's worth entertaining. So I'm asking you if you did, and on what basis you discarded it (since you seem to have done so).

So what if Georgescu doesn't 100% agree and align with the rest of Europe.

It's about whether or not he's aligned with Romanians.

Correct me if I am misinformed, but doesn't democracy include the idea that anyone can be elected by popular vote? So in any country, a National Socialist or Communist government can theoretically be elected in regard to democratic theory?

Sure, democracy is simply the idea that government should reflect the will of the people. Countries have different ways of implementing it, but one fairly important aspect of it is making sure that elections are fair and making sure elected officials don't have interests that don't align with those of the people.

If a politician is elected because of serious efforts by a foreign power to boost their candidacy (and they welcomed the help), was the election fair? I would say no. And the elected official will then be corruptly defending that foreign power's interests domestically. Theoretically, don't you think it's important we stop foreign powers from interfering?

[NobodySpecial268]

I'm not suggesting anything. I just know that the Russians have a track record of interfering in other countries' elections, and Georgescu was very pro-Russian. So the notion that he was boosted by Russian efforts (or even put there by Russia in the first place) at least seems like it's worth entertaining.

Considering the interference track records of the USA, Britannia and the European countries, Russia seems almost innocent in that regard . . .

That aside, I would suggest Georgescu would be the president of Romania by now if he was anti-Russian.

NATO is spending tons of money on that military base in Romania, that means NATO has a vested interest, and a motive to keep Romania anti-Russian.  Does anyone seriously think NATO will walk away from that investment?

That is the same problem as Australia had in 1975, and still has. Once you let the Americans into your country, they will protect their interests above the hosting country's. Back in 1975 there was also talk of Australia leaning away from the USA after the war in Vietnam. The CIA apparently did not like that idea.

It's about whether or not he's aligned with Romanians.

Oh come now, we all know that the people's point of view is not important in politics. Politics revolves around getting the people aligned with political interests. For example; all the scare mongering over the Russian threat of imminent invasion of European and the Isles.  "Imminent" meaning just until Europe is ready to fend the Russians off in 2030. I like how the Russians are being considerate and waiting until the EU is militarily ready to defeat Russia before invading. 

Democracy is simply the idea that government should reflect the will of the people. Countries have different ways of implementing it, but one fairly important aspect of it is making sure that elections are fair and making sure elected officials don't have interests that don't align with those of the people.

All good in theory, could you point out a case where that has actually happened?

If a politician is elected because of serious efforts by a foreign power to boost their candidacy (and they welcomed the help), was the election fair? I would say no.

That is assuming the efforts are one-sided. So would it be a fair election if all the candidates are assisted by various foreign powers? I would say yes, because the playing field would be level.

And the elected official will then be corruptly defending that foreign power's interests domestically. I'm not sure what happened in Romania exactly, but just theoretically, don't you think it's important we stop foreign powers from interfering?

The contradiction here is the premise of stopping foreign powers from interfering in a domestic election, that foreign power itself interferes in the domestic election.

[TokenLiberal]

Considering the interference track records of the USA, Britannia and the European countries, Russia seems almost innocent in that regard . . .

Britannia? You mean England? The Russians have been anything but innocent recently. They've been involved in the rise of far right politicians all over Europe and the US. It doesn't seem far fetched to think they had something to do with this. And I'm not saying they did, just curious as to why you seem to have dismissed the possibility.

That aside, I would suggest Georgescu would be the president of Romania by now if he was anti-Russian.

So you don't think there's any truth to the allegations in the criminal case against him, or any basis to disqualify him from elections? Again I"ll ask: What is that belief based on?

NATO is spending tons of money on that military base in Romania, that means NATO has a vested interest, and a motive to keep Romania anti-Russian.  Does anyone seriously think NATO will walk away from that investment?

That is the same problem as Australia had in 1975, and still has. Once you let the Americans into your country, they will protect their interests above the hosting country's. Back in 1975 there was also talk of Australia leaning away from the USA after the war in Vietnam. The CIA apparently did not like that idea.

The US certainly has a bit of a history with interference in foreign politics, but for the most part they have tried to nudge countries towards democracy, not away from it. As such I can sort of forgive it. Anyway, that doesn't mean they were involved in conjuring up a bunch of accusations against this guy. Why do you think they were? Do you think it's possible he actually did break the law?

Oh come now, we all know that the people's point of view is not important in politics. Politics revolves around getting the people aligned with political interests.

I'm sorry that you've forgotten what a functioning democracy looks like.

All good in theory, could you point out a case where that has actually happened?

What, uncorrupted politicians? All we can do is try to get as close to it as possible. Is your position that, since politicians are going to be corrupt anyway, we should just give up on trying to keep the degree of corruption under control?

[NobodySpecial268]

Britannia? You mean England?

Great Britain - "great" is a difficult word to use in that context these days. I could use Dmitry Medvedev's "foggy Albion" but few would recognise the name, I like it though. The etymology of "Britannia" has it's origin in the Celtic name for the Isles. There is also some disagreement as to the House of Windsor being the true heirs to the throne.

The Russians have been anything but innocent recently. They've been involved in the rise of far right politicians all over Europe and the US. It doesn't seem far fetched to think they had something to do with this. And I'm not saying they did, just curious as to why you seem to have dismissed the possibility.

I dismiss the Russian as, far as I can tell, the Russian Federation does not seem to be the villain here.

So you don't think there's any truth to the allegations in the criminal case against him, or any basis to disqualify him from elections? Again I"ll ask: What is that belief based on?

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." and what belief exactly?

The US certainly has a bit of a history with interference in foreign politics, but for the most part they have tried to nudge countries towards democracy, not away from it. As such I can sort of forgive it. Anyway, that doesn't mean they were involved in conjuring up a bunch of accusations against this guy. Why do you think they were? Do you think it's possible he actually did break the law?

It isn't me that says he is innocent - "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

I'm sorry that you've forgotten what a functioning democracy looks like.

I haven't forgotten because I can't say I have lived within one. Australia traditionally has a two party system that takes turns in government. There was a political party that was called One Nation that threatened the two party system because they became very popular very quickly. The leader was dragged through the courts for a technicality over election funding and jailed. Gee, that sounds familiar - has there ever been a truly functioning democracy anywhere and anywhen?

What, uncorrupted politicians? All we can do is try to get as close to it as possible. Is your position that, since politicians are going to be corrupt anyway, we should just give up on trying to keep the degree of corruption under control?

Not quite, I think a country should clean up its own yard first. -- In other words, everyone should mind their own business - we would probably have fewer wars that way.

[TokenLiberal]

I dismiss the Russian as, far as I can tell, the Russian Federation does not seem to be the villain here.

I know. I'm asking why. Wouldn't Russia have gained from Georgescu winning?

and what belief exactly?

Your apparent belief that there is nothing to the allegations in the criminal case against him.

It isn't me that says he is innocent

You seem to be against the decision to ban him from elections. I assume that means you think he's innocent. Either that, or you don't think his criminal actions should bar him from office. Which is it? Or is this entirely off the mark? Would you mind clarifying your position?

I haven't forgotten because I can't say I have lived within one. Australia traditionally has a two party system that takes turns in government. There was a political party that was called One Nation that threatened the two party system because they became very popular very quickly. The leader was dragged through the courts for a technicality over election funding and jailed. Gee, that sounds familiar - has there ever been a truly functioning democracy anywhere and anywhen?

Yes, before social media, and many Western European democracies are still relatively okay today. Idk about Australia and whether or not it was ever functioning.

Not quite, I think a country should clean up its own yard first. -- In other words, everyone should mind their own business - we would probably have fewer wars that way.

Sure. Weren't the charges against Georgescu brought by Romania itself?

[NobodySpecial268]

I know. I'm asking why. Wouldn't Russia have gained from Georgescu winning?

I don't know if the Russian Federation would gain anything. What they wouldn't gain is NATO's encroachment on the Federation contrary to prior agreement. Keep in mind that Former German Chancellor Merkel admits the Minsk agreement was merely to buy time for Ukraine’s arms build-up. -- I like that last bit: ". . . to buy time for Ukraine’s arms build-up" - look at Ukraine now. NATO should have kept their word because NATO has been defeated in their proxy war against Russia. Remember that NATO includes the USA.

NATO Repeatedly Assured Russia It Would Not Expand

Document Number 119 of the Gorbachev Foundation archives contains a detailed transcript of the discussion between Soviet General Secretary, Mikhail Gorbachev and US Secretary of State James Baker on February 9, 1990. This document shows that James Baker repeatedly assured Gorbachev that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) would not expand.

Source: NATO Repeatedly Assured Russia It Would Not Expand

Your apparent belief that there is nothing to the allegations in the criminal case against him.

I have never said he was innocent. I have no view either way. More so, it is the dirty deeds of others that caught my eye.

You seem to be against the decision to ban him from elections. I assume that means you think he's innocent. Either that, or you don't think his criminal actions should bar him from office. Which is it? Or is this entirely off the mark? Would you mind clarifying your position?

You are off the mark. I don't actualy have a "position" on the matter. I think this is a part of a bigger picture.

I hold the opinion that the Russian Federation is not the villain here, the villains are the UK, European Union and the countries within that covert Crimea and are seemingly intent on going to war with Russia to get it. So far, Romania is the furthest foothold NATO has in the east. NATO wants to make sure they keep Romania is my opinion.

Ancient Conflicts

In ancient times, Crimea was inhabited by various groups, including the Scythians, Greeks, and Romans. Conflicts primarily involved these competing groups vying for control of territory and trade routes within the peninsula. The Roman Empire, for example, exerted significant influence over Crimea, and faced resistance from local tribes and external threats like the Goths.
The Crimean Khanate and Ottoman Influence

The Crimean Khanate, established in the 15th century, played a crucial role in the region’s history. It was a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire. While not directly “against” Crimea itself, the Russian Empire repeatedly clashed with the Ottoman Empire and its Crimean allies, seeking access to the Black Sea and warm-water ports. These Russo-Turkish wars were frequent and brutal, with Crimea often serving as a battleground.
The Crimean War (1853-1856)

The Crimean War remains one of the most significant conflicts related to Crimea. It pitted Russia against an alliance of the Ottoman Empire, Great Britain, France, and Sardinia. While the war was not solely about Crimea, the peninsula was a primary theater of operations. The allied forces aimed to weaken Russia’s naval power in the Black Sea and prevent its further expansion into Ottoman territories. The siege of Sevastopol became a symbol of the war’s intensity and cost.
The Russian Civil War (1917-1922)

Following the collapse of the Russian Empire, Crimea became a battleground in the Russian Civil War. Various factions, including the Bolsheviks, White Russians, and Ukrainian nationalists, fought for control of the peninsula. Foreign powers, such as France and Great Britain, also intervened, supporting the White Russians against the Bolsheviks. The chaotic period saw shifting alliances and brutal fighting, ultimately resulting in the Soviet Union gaining control of Crimea.
World War II

During World War II, Crimea was occupied by Nazi Germany. The Soviet Union fought fiercely to defend the peninsula, leading to some of the war’s bloodiest battles. The Siege of Sevastopol was particularly devastating, resulting in immense casualties on both sides. Ultimately, the Soviet Red Army liberated Crimea in 1944.

Source: The Gun Zone

In this light the war in Ukraine makes more sense when one asks why the heck would NATO invest billions of dollars in Ukraine, as does building the biggest NATO base in Romania. Keep in mind that currently the EU is opposing peace in Ukraine because they refuse to admit that Crimea is Russian. Crimea held a referendum over a decade ago and has been Russian ever since.

Methinks there is something very important about the Crimean Peninsula that isn't obvious.

Yes, before social media, and many Western European democracies are still relatively okay today. Idk about Australia and whether or not it was ever functioning.

LOL Australia has always been an innocent child brought up on the Rule Britannia, Queen and Country brand breakfast cereal. I remember as a school kid, 1967 I think it was. Children were forced to walk for miles and line up along the road and wave flags as an admittedly noble looking Queen Elizabeth II drove past in an open car. Vulcan nuclear bombers made fly overs about that time too.

Sure. Weren't the charges against Georgescu brought by Romania itself?

I don't know, probably. However, who was behind bringing up those charges? USAID and Soros are likely contenders. Soros by the way has resigned from the WEF and is facing fraud investigations by the very organisation he founded (ROFL).

-------------------------------------------------

ETA:
Oops, how embarrassing, it is NOT Soros - it was Klaus Schwab who resigned from the WEF under fraud investigations. I'm sorry to say that Soros is at least innocent of something. - So many villains . . . it is hard to keep track!