Newsletter #12: Multipolar Bear

Updates on Romania, Syria, and South Korea

Good morning.

This week, I was planning on writing a long section on Reform’s successes and failures since the General Election. This Thursday, I will finally be delivering this for readers. But for now, sadly (or maybe not), I have been blown off course by many major events in international affairs: in Romania, South Korea, and Syria. As such, today I present to our readers a new commentator on international affairs: The Multipolar Bear…

This newsletter’s agenda: Romanian Presidential Elections cancelled — will ‘pro-Russian’ finalist Calin Georgescu be sent to prison? (free); South Korea: Yoon’s only #YoonLoon was his high-school buddy (paid); PilkWatch: Damascus has fallen to ‘15-20k rebels’ (paid).

The first section of this newsletter is free. Upgrade to a paid subscription — £8/month, or £80/year — to read the rest.

Romanian Presidential Elections cancelled — will ‘pro-Russian’ finalist Calin Georgescu be sent to prison?

Originally, Romania was supposed to hold the second round of its presidential elections on 8 December, but these have been ‘cancelled’. I say ‘cancelled’ — as opposed to ‘postponed’ — because the Romanian Constitutional Court (CCR), which controls BEC and AEP (the two departments that are in charge of elections), has ordered that the entire presidential race, including the outcome of round one (held 24 November), is to be annulled, and the election process — both first and second round — is to be recommenced afresh at some (as yet unconfirmed) time in January 2025. Calin Georgescu, the independent far-right candidate who won the first round — a sort of ‘Nazbol’ and ‘pro-Russian’ candidate, with some quasi-‘Nietzschean’ aesthetics — will likely (though this is also not yet confirmed) be barred from running this time. (Fun fact: ‘Calin’ is the Romanian version of the English name ‘Colin’.)

People on all sides of the Romanian political spectrum, from PSD to USR to AUR, have (understandably) voiced concerns about the undemocratic nature of this CCR ruling. Elena Lasconi — the centre-right, pro-European ‘Save Romania Union’ (USR) candidate who Georgescu was set to face in the second round, and who would have lost according to some polls (though it probably would have been very close) — was particularly vocal in her opposition to the ruling. Senior GOP figures who have explicitly expressed their opposition to the ruling include Donald Trump Jr, the son of the soon-to-be President of the United States, and Elon Musk, one of the richest men of the world and close confidante of Donald Trump. This has prompted Lasconi herself to send an open letter to Trump, in which she restated her commitment to ‘democracy’, and assured him of the fact that she was not, in fact, the ‘Soros candidate’ (as Donald Trump Jr alleged). All this is to say that suddenly, people across the world have their eyes on Romania.

Presently, it is not easy to tell who is actually upset about this CCR ruling. All of the established political parties strongly dislike Georgescu, and it is still hard to tell how popular Georgescu really is among the Romanian people. Even AUR’s (the mainstream right-wing populist party) genuine, private views, as opposed to their public views, are unclear. Now, just as when — back in October — the very same CCR highly controversially barred another far-right, pro-Russian candidate, Diana Iovanovici-Șosoaca, from running, the Court has been the fall guy for various political interests in Romania. They have seemingly carried out the dirty work that many — secretly or not-so-secretly — desired, while taking all the blame. The one exception to this rule is the Social Democratic Party (PSD), which is often, rightly or wrongly, associated with the CCR, because it was PSD who appointed many of these judges. For most Romanians, the fact that PSD leader and presidential candidate Marcel Ciolacu has denounced these decisions publicly is of little significance.

The precise reasoning behind the decision to completely cancel and restart the elections remains vague. However, if you dig deep into the decision, you can see that the CCR triggered Article 146, Letter F, of the Romanian Constitution. This empowers them to monitor the process surrounding any presidential election and to confirm the results. Therefore, the CCR by law — rightly or wrongly, agree or disagree — were almost certainly entitled to cancel the elections.

According to the transcript, the vitiating irregularity in the electoral process was the fact that Georgescu did not declare the true source of his funding — in fact, he declared no funding at all (despite verifiably spending well over one million euros, and possibly much more, on the campaign) — either before or after the first round (did he really think he would get away with this?). It goes without saying that in almost any country this would be a very serious, not a minor, electoral offence. This is not a matter of overspending by a few thousand euros, or of low-level obfuscation through shell companies of the true source of funding, but of completely lying about the nature of a campaign’s financial backing. So far as I am aware, there is no precedent in Western country or North America of anything like this happening, but think it is quite likely that an election would have to be re-run in its entirety if this happened elsewhere. Either way: it seems undeniable, on this basis, that Georgescu committed extremely serious electoral offences. Whether cancelling the elections in their entirety was the correct response to this is obviously another question entirely.

Additionally — and this (because it is somewhat more tenuous) has received more international attention — there was apparently a breach of electoral laws regarding the ‘non-transparent’ usage of ‘digital technology’ and ‘AI’ to ‘manipulate the vote’ and spread ‘false information’, resulting in a negative impact on the ‘character of the free expression of the citizens’ votes’. There is a reason that pro-Georgescu activists at home and abroad have focused on this aspect of the decision, and not the above — a far more blatant case of serious election offences.

The Special Telecommunications Service (STS) claimed that there has been no foreign interference in the Romanian elections so far as we can tell; for now, it remains the responsibility of the intelligence services (SRI) to investigate further. In the meantime, the head of the permanent electoral authority (AEP), Toni Grebla, has resigned after a public relations scandal broke out when it was found he was ‘cutting the pig’ (i.e., partaking in a popular Romanian Christmas tradition) with AUR’s George Simion and other backers and associates of Georgescu.

If Romania were not an Eastern European country, most of the world (and certainly most of the Western world) would be very excited by the institutional opposition to ‘fake news’, but Romania is (of course) not ‘Western Europe’. In my view, there is indeed something rather ‘Woke’ about cancelling election because the general public were so stupid as to be duped by a man as sinister, yet ridiculous, as Calin Georgescu, with his ice-lake baths and vague promises of ‘peace’. But as a person who leans hard to the Right on economic matters I cannot deny that I am frankly delighted that this ludicrous quack who — little known to almost all Romanians, far-left to far-right — claims to want to nationalise whole swathes of farmland, industry, and business will not become President, no matter what happens.

In an ideal world, he would have been crushed by the far more right-wing (on economics) Elena Lasconi on 8 December, confirming to me that the Romanian electorate is not quite as bad as we have been led to believe, despite the vote for Georgescu en masse in the first round (not that any Romanian, left-wing or right-wing, except myself and my parents, seems to have ever read Georgescu’s insane economic plans). But there is no way for me to know whether Lasconi would have actually won, given the tight polling in the run-up to the second round. Perhaps it was for the best that Georgescu (most likely) will not be allowed to run again: maybe not in the name of ‘democracy’, but certainly in the name of the development of the Romanian nation.

And no: I do not really care that, technically, as President, his power to implement his quack, far-left, self-declared ‘distributist’ (yes, really!) economics would be minimal. While the Romanian President is not even a quarter as powerful as the French one, or even half as powerful as the American one, he still plays a major role in selecting the Prime Minister (who obviously does have a major impact on economic policy). There is also the question of what foreign investors, love them or hate them, will think of a man and a nation who are, fundamentally, as unreliable as Calin Georgescu and his supporters. This is, after all, a man who thinks that the entire financial system will imminently collapse in its entirety because of ‘foreign debt’, and that Romania should combat this by building water pipes instead of oil pipelines. Any analysis that fails to note that Georgescu (by Romanian standards) is in fact a far-left, not a far-right, candidate on the economy is totally useless.

So what’s next for Calin Georgescu? Georgescu would have to submit another application to BEC — the central bureau for elections in Romania — if he wants to run for president again. Most likely, he would be rejected, not least because there is a good chance that he will end up arrested and eventually imprisoned on charges of treason, especially if — and this, it should be noted, remains unclear — the true source of his funding was either Russian, or pro-Russian factions in the Republic of Moldova (i.e., the criminal Ilan Shor and friends). Even if treason charges are avoided, he could also be charged with election offences and money laundering.

(It should go without saying, but being ‘pro-Russian’ in Romania has a very, very different meaning to being ‘pro-Russian’ in Britain or America. In Britain or America, this is a mere foreign policy opinion, right or wrong. In Romania, this means openly siding with a country completely propping up a ludicrous puppet state, namely the Republic of Moldova, which humiliates your nation and impoverishes your ethnic group abroad. It is telling that Georgescu, a supposed (fake) ‘Romanian nationalist’, says virtually nothing about our country’s most important territorial dispute.)

The police have busied themselves searching the houses of those who attended the recent, completely absurd, ‘neo-legionary’ (i.e., Romanian fascist) rally, at which many gave Roman salutes, arresting nine. According to Romanian law, publicly expressing many of these sentiments can land you in jail for three years.

This is important because, even aside from Georgescu’s probable (in my view) funding by undeclared pro-Russian interests, he has been pictured arm-in-arm with some of Codreanu’s biggest fans. Moreover, it has been alleged by some centrist sources (such as news station Antena 3) that some of Georgescu’s bodyguards, referred to as the ‘praetorian guard’, are in fact people affiliated with the ‘neo-legionary’ movement. As such, there is — in addition to treason, election offences, and money laundering — a good chance that they might find a way to accuse Georgescu of terrorist incitation. While this might not necessarily land him in jail, it may be enough to ban him from running again on national security grounds.

Another development from the media’s increased interest in the Romanian far-right that may damage Georgescu and his backers has been the aforementioned Șosoaca. Șosoaca took centre-stage at the neo-legionary rally, throwing repeated Roman salutes up to the sky. While it is true that Șosoaca has a two-fold immunity to criminal prosecution, by virtue of being both a Romanian senator and a member of the EU Parliament, no-one knows what could happen to her once she is no longer protected by this.

As for Georgescu himself? Since the man holds no such elected offices, he possesses no immunity. We should also note here that the criminal law states that those found guilty of election offences can be sentenced to a maximum of three years in prison, and — importantly — that judges possess the discretion to suspend this sentence, to the effect that the person is free for the next three years subject to them not committing a repeat offense. This means that both Șosoaca and Georgescu could potentially be free even if they are convicted. However, it is possible that the criminal record alone will still be enough to bar both from the presidential race, and perhaps from any other forms of office.

The Romanian police have located one of Georgescu’s (potential) secret funders in a small house near the city of Brasov, a pleasant and prosperous Transylvanian city a few hours from Bucharest. His name is Bogdan Peschir. Peschir has previously been found guilty of various white collar crimes, including relating to money laundering. He had the equivalent of around six million euros in his electronic wallet, and one million of this has been shown to have been transferred towards Georgescu’s campaign. In considering the shabbiness of Peschir’s house, cars, and clothes, people are right to wonder whether Peschir is in fact the true funder of Georgescu, rather than merely a front — especially given that he has never declared cryptocurrency earnings. This does not seem like an authentically wealthy man, merely attempting to hide his involvement in politics for purely personal reasons. Could the money originally have come from the Ilan Shor network in the Republic of Moldova? I cannot say for sure. But I am sure that the Supreme Council of National Defence (CSAT) will be continuing to dredge up as much evidence as they can to keep this man away from the presidency. This is perhaps yet another reason for why a firm date for the re-run of the elections has not been set, though we know it is likely to be some time in January.

So how are things looking for Georgescu’s supporters in Romania? The AUR-Georgescu alliance have monopolised a news channel (rather comically) named Realitatea TV (i.e., ‘Reality TV)’, in which most shows are led by a woman named Anca Alexandrescu, who seems to have a crush on Georgescu (at least judging by the way she looks at him). She never interrupts or interrogates him, unlike other guests, which makes Realitatea TV (in effect) Georgescu’s personal channel. The discourse promoted on Realitatea TV is a combination of a defence of ‘democracy’ and remarks on the existence of a ‘parallel state’.

Georgescu’s Telegram has been closed and — naturally — he blames the ‘oligarchy’. On Sunday, he and others went to the places which were supposed to act as polling stations, protesting by holding candles in a vigil (Simion’s idea) and ‘force voting’ because, according to Georgescu, he does not respect the CCR’s authority. Georgescu blames Biden for what has happened to him, claiming this was a ploy to both keep Romania backing Ukraine and (far more inexplicably, given the recent election) keep Biden in power. Georgescu is also claiming that both Robert F Kennedy Jr (Georgescu wrote the foreword to the Romanian edition of his book) and Donald Trump Jr (and presumably, by extension, Donald Trump) are behind him, and that he will keep in close contact with them, with Realitatea TV claiming that Elon Musk also closely supports them.

At the very beginning of December, Georgescu claimed that both RFK Jr and Tucker Carlson — if this actually happened, this would be a new low even for the joke that is Tucker Carlson — were going to come to Bucharest, where they would hold some kind of televised conference (presumably, in open or covert support of his campaign). This did not come to pass: presumably, what happened is that this trip was vetoed either by people affiliated with Trump himself, or by the State Department, or both. Georgescu is now claiming that the visit will now happen at a later date, this time with Donald Trump Jr and RFK Jr, but there is nothing corroborating Georgescu’s claims from the American side. Personally, I would not count on it. This is not the first time that Georgescu has invented or at least embellished his backers, presumably hoping that his rather unintelligent supporters would not check to see whether what he was saying was true. The same happened with the Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church — a man who is now one of Georgescu’s bitter rivals.

Sadly, George Simion, a man who I (as a stalwart supporter of Moldovan reunification) voted for in the first round of the presidential elections; a man of conventional populist right-wing ideology, akin to Trump or Meloni, not the centrist or even centre-left Putin in ideology, has decided to tether himself to this blatantly anti-national, if not outright treasonous, sinking ship. Presumably, Simion feels he will lose credibility on the Romanian Right if he attacked Georgescu. Simion has also done his bit staging protests around the polling stations, in addition to pledging that he will not run for President if Georgescu is not allowed to run. Is there some sort of plan for a nationalist ‘unity’ candidate if Georgescu is banned from running?

As for what is happening on the other wings of Romanian politics? Georgescu’s rivals — PSD (Social Democrats), PNL (National Liberals), USR (Save Romania Union), and UDMR (Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania, i.e., the Hungarian minority party) — all signed an accord on 4 December pledging to hold fast to their commitment to the country’s ‘Euro-Atlantic’ future. It is not binding, but it is a sign that these parties are willing to work together in the new parliament. While the second round of the presidential elections was still ongoing, all these parties endorsed Elena Lasconi, though it is unclear whether this would have been sufficient to ensure a Lasconi victory. The key issue is whether all PSD supporters would have backed their party’s last-minute call to oppose Georgescu.

There are talks of installing Nicușor Dan as the leader of the two main right-wing liberal parties (USR and PNL), or running him as an independent candidate. Nicușor Dan is the right-wing liberal, somewhat autistic, former International Mathematics Olympiad champion, Sorbonne Maths PhD, independent mayor of Bucharest. He was the founder of ‘Save Bucharest Union’, which later become ‘Save Romania Union’ (USR). He left over his opposition to gay marriage (which USR supports), but remains closely associated with the party. He is a well-respected, decent mayor of our prosperous capital. It is, however, unclear how this idea would work in practice: both Lasconi (USR) and Bolojan (the new PNL leader, replacing the unpopular Ciuca, who ran in the first round) seem eager to run, leading to a heavily divided ‘liberal’ vote unless some kind of agreement were made. I fear that the ‘liberals’, who almost entirely identify as ‘right-wing’ (and are ‘right-wing’ on economics, all without being particularly supportive of immigration) are not yet as well-organised as their ‘sovereigntist’ (i.e., Georgescu-AUR) opponents.

To conclude: the cancellation of an election on constitutional grounds is not unprecedented, and nor is the Romanian constitution (regardless of what many Romanians, ever self-hating, might claim) particularly idiosyncratic in this regard. What is unprecedented is the sheer extent of unity displayed by Romania’s institutions of state and Romanian political parties. However, it remains somewhat mysterious to many why nothing was done against Georgescu at a much earlier date. A particularly prominent conspiracy theory is that the Romanian ‘deep state’ (who, it is often argued, surely already knew of Georgescu’s serious electoral offences and, potentially, treason) wanted Georgescu to face PSD’s Ciolacu in the final round, resulting in a crushing victory for the latter, but that Ciolacu’s defeat to Lasconi led to everything being blown off course — hence the decision to cancel the elections entirely.

Most Romanians were not aware that the judiciary had quite so much power in their country. Most people (in contrast to the United States) think of the Parliament and President (and for the more conspiratorial, the security services) as the true decision-makers, not the judiciary. But in terms of government structure, the Romanian judiciary is not especially formidable: the French Constitutional Court has very similar capabilities. In the same circumstances, I (personally) believe that most Western countries would have used the mediating, centralising forces of their unelected institutions and the powers available to them to effect a similar outcome. This, like it or not, is a basic feature of most modern democracies. The only difference between Romania and other countries is that, thus far, there has been no candidate like Georgescu who could trigger this kind of institutional reaction (perhaps with the partial exception of AfD in Germany) — not even Donald Trump (who represented very much national tendencies).

One will never be able to make sense of this event for as long one insists to view it as some Venezuela-tier ‘banana republic’ affair. Once we depart from this interpretation, the lessons one can draw from this event, as an European, are multiple, and could be a portent of things to come in Germany in particular.

The reset of the Romanian presidential elections and possible exclusion of Georgescu — a candidate who could have plausibly won the second round — from the presidential race is something that should elicit mixed reactions from the readers of Pimlico Journal. The mechanisms used to put down Georgescu are, after all, basically ‘Woke’: Georgescu was a ‘far-right’ candidate, so theoretically he should be someone we can sympathise with; and yet, his policies and ideals are the worst possible brand of post-liberalism, complete with agrarian economics and ‘Turd-World’ victimhood geopolitics.

—Anonymous Contributor, Pimlico Journal

South Korea: Yoon’s only #YoonLoon was his high-school buddy