The episode with the cancellation of the speech of the President of Ukraine in the Parliament of Romania passed too quickly. Many people said it was more than a sad episode, it was shameful. And this is precisely because he was on a declared “historical” visit. But we live in a country where no less, if not more, “shameful” things often happen, without clearly establishing responsibility. Declaring an episode “shameful” is not enough, it may even be a way to avoid further analysis.

Not only did the moment pass too quickly, but the quasi-official version accepted by most news channels was too easy to swallow: the speech was canceled due to threats of a “scandal monster” by Senator Diana Soshoake, possibly also by AUR parliamentarians. We are talking about the quasi-official version, because in fact there was no official version. At a joint press conference with President Zelenskyi, President Iohannis did not answer questions about the absence of a speech in parliament, while the head of the Ukrainian state diplomatically tried to say that he did not come with a speech, but it was too obviously a polite lie.

Yohannis’ non-answer actually led to the unfolding of a story that is also not very credible: if Soshoaka or Simion really wanted to expose themselves to the whole world, that is, from their point of view, they wanted to grow in the eyes of their own electorate, then they were waiting for the moment to speak. Therefore, obstructing the speech of the President of Ukraine by provoking incidents in front of him was counterproductive. The scandal in the halls of the Parliament Palace, arranged by Senator Shoshoake with a map of Greater Romania in his hand and territorial claims to Ukraine on his lips, completely contradicted her intended purpose of using the herd-imageological moment of Zelenskyi’s speech. Major news channels (by audience) did not hesitate to give considerable space to Senator Sosoake’s statements:

” Zelensky has nothing to do with the desecration of the Romanian parliament, with the violation of the sovereignty of the Romanian people. He is a Nazi. Zelensky is a Nazi, he has no business in Romania. In other states, it was abandoned, it changed the paradigm. I am not interested in Vladimir Putin, I am interested in Romania and the Romanian people and the fact that we are ruled by some traitors. I am interested in Ukraine within the Romanian territories. We want to return our territories from Ukraine! »

The publicity of such offensive-extremist speech is explained by the editorial line of these television channels, which, although they have guests who criticize this type of speech, basically give it a permanent platform. The tribune, which in this case had to justify not the simple absence of a speech in the parliament, but the cancellation of the most important moment of this visit: the one in which Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, as well as the main international symbol of the residence in the conditions of Russian-Putin expansionism, addressed through elected officials to Romanian people.

USR and several commentators have emphasized how the real responsibility lies not with Shoshoake and Simion, but with Romanian political leaders, starting with Iohannis, perhaps continuing with PSD and PNL presidents Călăcu and Căuțe, who would show great weakness. But isn’t this criticism enough? As some UDR leaders also said, it is absurd to think that Zelensky was “afraid” of him or Simion’s gang. Here we can recall the precedent of Corneliu Vadim Tudor’s attempt to silence President Basescu’s 2006 speech condemning communism, which is doubly important. First of all, because the approach of the PRM leader was counterproductive. Then, because the continuation of such incidents is possible only with the complicity of the leadership of the parliament. In 2006, the meeting was chaired by PSD Senate President Nikolae Vaquera (CV Tudor’s second). Today, the situation is quite different: the PNL-PSD majority controls the leadership of both chambers, thus having all the necessary tools to remove those who do not follow the rules from the chamber. The idea that a parliamentarian can do anything because he is elected by the people is legally wrong, for example, he can be evicted. And all the more false was the idea that the security of the President of Ukraine could be at risk not only because there is a security service that would quickly neutralize any risk in this connection, but also because parliamentarians can also be detained, if they are caught red-handed.

Summarizing the thesis that the speech at the plenary session of the parliament was canceled due to threats from some parliamentarians, it is difficult to confirm both from the point of view of the interest of Shoshoake, who declared her intentions by doing her number without waiting for the speech, not even from the point of view of the political leaders, who canceled the visit because they had nothing to fear. It is even more unlikely that President Zelensky himself requested this cancellation.

In fact, Volodymyr Zelensky was not given a speech in the parliament, and this gesture, at least from the point of view of our domestic politics, is more important than the visit itself. Why did the President of Ukraine come to Bucharest? Did he come just to chat and appear with Yohannis? The invitation and acceptance of the invitation is, perhaps, the moment of maximum in Romania’s relations with Ukraine since its declaration of independence in 1991. But then why did the Romanian leaders agree to let it be overshadowed by their apparent weakness in the face of some extremist political figures of the show?

The only logical explanation is that President Ioannis, very likely in good agreement with Prime Minister Çolaku and Senate President Çuke, preferred that the main public moment of the visit be a joint press conference in Kotrochen.

It was not for nothing that former Prime Minister Kitsu stated that Cholaku “used Simion and Soshoake satellites” to cancel Zelensky’s speech. While still in the PNL, it was difficult for Florin Kitz to directly target Iohannis and Chuke, but based on this it is clear that the decision was made on Kotrochen and at the level of the President of the Senate, who was supposed to preside over the parliamentary session.

On the stage of the political theater, the Romanians chose to lead three people who are competing in the absence of leadership qualities. The sad truth is that the three anti-charismatics, Iohannis, Čolaku and Čuke, did what they knew best to prevent such a charismatic Zelenskyi from speaking to Romanians. No, not to parliamentarians, but to Romanians. Would the president of Ukraine be seductive and convincing? Would it strengthen the conviction of those who believe that Ukraine should be supported until it defeats Russia? Would Ukrainian skeptics like him? We dont know. We were not allowed to find out. But we know that it had the potential to be a historic speech, we know that it had every chance to make fun of the wooden language that we are offered every day as a political speech.

Yes, it is logical that President Zelenskyi’s speech from the rostrum of the Parliament of Romania mocks not only our uncharismatic leaders, but also all those who, on the media and political level, try to minimize Zelenskyi because they want to relativize Ukrainian heroism. – Continue reading the article on Contributors.ro