Considering the scale of the war that Russia is waging against Ukraine, the drone that fell on Romanian territory is a simple detail. On the other hand, the reaction of the Romanian state, expressed at the highest level, is important and full of lessons. The initial reaction, and especially the delay with which the shooting was corrected, although it became clear that those who denied the official version were more persuasive, was not the result of a simple lack of communication. The imperative of political communication demanded a speedy correction, but communication is subordinated to a broader strategy of action, or we understand that it required first denying a security incident, then delaying its recognition.

Vasile Dancu, the former Minister of Defense of the PSD, he was a minister a year ago, so he knows the important elements of the strategy we are talking about, although he also talks about a communication error, he made a remark to the RFI that should be taken into account: ​​”it is likely that the first response was more reflexive.” Since it was about denying the incident, which involved entering into a rhetorical confrontation with the spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, we assume that the institutional reflexes are not as pro-Ukrainian as we could imagine in the current situation. context. Therefore, the reflex is not to condemn what can and can be interpreted as a provocation by Russia, but to categorically contradict the position of the foreign ministry of the neighboring country. This is not only a lack of sympathy for the drama of Ukraine, but also a desire to give a loud signal that we may be liars, but above all we are smart, we know that Ukraine needs much more direct involvement of NATO, and such incidents can help it in this regard. Therefore, we are willing to do the dirty work of disproving the evidence, because the goal set by the allies is to avoid any escalation of our conflict with Russia. The fact that Romania reacts in this way would not be solely the result of national strategy, but would also be in line with the spirit of NATO’s recommendations, which was indirectly confirmed by the statement of the Secretary General of the alliance made after Romania’s recognition of the incident.

However, it is difficult to be satisfied with such explanations, no less shameful are the lies legitimized strategically and through allies.

Minimizing such incidents is quite understandable. But their denial backfires. Not only the remains of the drone must be delivered to the laboratory, but also the remains of trust in Romania. Regardless of the intentions, the performance of the Romanian officials filled them and filled us with ridiculousness. It is hard to believe that it is in the interests of NATO that the representatives of Romania are no longer taken seriously. We have made ourselves an international laughing stock. But even at the internal level, the consequences should not be neglected. Perhaps here the effect is more serious and will be long-term, since it occurs in conditions when the political class has reached, objectively speaking, the maximum of unprofessionalism, and at the level of perception – the minimum of persuasiveness.

Evidence that the “reflex” that caused the initial response and delay in admitting the error was (at least) a misapplication of some scientific strategies comes from the fact that Klaus Johannis’ recklessly categorical statement could only have negative consequences.

First, it fed water to the mill of pro-Russian and Ukrainian skeptics, who saw in this an official confirmation of part of their theses: Ukrainians lie, are anti-Romanian, do everything to involve Romania, etc. If clear evidence did not appear, even if from a rational point of view the arguments and insults in support of Ukraine’s position were convincing, there was at least an ambiguity that benefited the pro-Russian conspirators. Even now, we do not know whether the intention of the Ministry of Defense was to admit the incident, or whether they wanted to clear the area of ​​evidence that caught them in repeated lies. In any case, Romania’s official speech initially consisted of implicitly accusing Ukraine of lying, which was not only undiplomatic, but also an irresponsible helping hand to those who criticize Ukraine. How often, irresponsibility is done in the name of responsibility…

Secondly, the version of the Romanian officials turns out to be false, which again strengthens the pro-Russian conspiracy discourse. Any official discourse on war is not only suspect, it is disqualified from the outset. After that moment, the ability of the Romanian military-political elite, no matter how much they lacked empathy for Ukraine, to argue Romania’s actions in NATO in favor of Ukraine decreased even more. The price of strategic ambiguity, so dear to this elite, is moral ambiguity (in fact, the two condition each other). And this leads to an obvious inability to convince anyone else.

Here we come to the key of the behavior of the head of state, the behavior of the main institutions that reported the lie or at least did not correct the official version immediately after learning about the real situation: ignoring the fact that they have to report to the citizens of Romania. The dominant feeling among those running the Romanian state is that they can manipulate the masses through an economically dependent media. Thus, the current political elite has a superiority complex over any ideological, moral, common sense. It is not lies that are striking in the attitude of officials, it is not lies that so categorically characterized the first speech of Klaus Iohannis, but indifference to the truth. Lying implies awareness of the truth and denial of it. In this case, this truth was not yet clear to the one who rushed to give categorical assurances. Pretending to be informed, the head of state probably did not lie, he was only in a situation of impersonation. His objections were advocates of a truth that surpasses the small truth of facts, he did not know whether he was lying or not, whether he was telling the truth or not, it did not matter as long as he was convinced that his Speech could be imposed as a truth to which all others will apply.

Those who still wonder why President Iohannis put himself in such a situation with his categorical statements, putting Romania as well, should probably focus not on strategies or incompetence, but on an excess of self-confidence, on the well-known pathology of people who have held power for too long, with pride (or pride). It is this overconfidence that can lead to wrong strategies, can lead to incompetence, promoting some governors elected only on the basis of loyalty to the boss, can lead to clear communication breakdowns, but it signals to us a serious lack of clarity. – Read the entire article and comment on Contributors.ro