We laugh, we joke, but we do not leave the premises.
Written last year. Just as fresh today.

There is nothing. Absolutely nothing. Yet we remain hopeful. We voted. We hope. Still, I suggest we make a list. Like at Obor Market. We cannot afford to spend recklessly. Have you seen inflation? There I go digressing again. We shall get to that as well.

I am absolutely convinced that you are concentrating with the intensity of Kasparov, but a few fence palings are beginning to fall away, steadily narrowing the corridor of possibilities left to us, the common folk, while in the meantime:

• Politically speaking, the PSD continues to issue threats from the very same aircraft, with the very same fervour and the very same voices. Minus the younger ones who were tempted by a special offer in Monaco, and the elderly gentleman who rescues cats.
• The intelligence services shrug their shoulders when it comes to solving the Baciu Forest-style mystery surrounding the 2024 elections.
• The judiciary—ah, but the judiciary stands as it has never stood before. It stands perfectly still. Two bridgeheads: the Constitutional Court (CCR) and the High Court of Cassation and Justice (ICCJ). Both secured. The opponent simply wanted victory more. How? Why? Why indeed? We shall get there.
• The economy…? Well, that is where we started. Not quite with the economy—money, to be precise. Let us not injure semantics any further. We have work to do.

So let us recap. Through metaphor, because life is already difficult and desolate enough without the Ministry of Internal Affairs knocking at the door.

• You are sleeping with the enemy (metaphorically speaking, I must reiterate, with all due respect). Although one could argue that you are the newcomer to this institutional “bed”. Perhaps you simply have more energy. The enemy was already beneath the sheets, inherited from the previous occupant. The lines remain the same: “I’m leaving. I’m going to my mother’s. I told you so. You upset the cat.”
• Your mother-in-law is sabotaging you. She remains stubbornly silent, despite having drunkenly promised that one day she would tell you the truth. Like in an Italian family drama. Famiglia! She has awakened.
• The building manager is your predecessor’s godmother. Tough luck. You shall have no water supply all year.
• Your wealth? Let us hope you can compensate for that with intellect.

It would be amusing, but forgive me—I am a meticulous woman. Let us take things one at a time. I shall skip the Procrustean bed. I am betting you anticipated that one. Let us move directly to the “metaphorical mother-in-law”: the intelligence services.

How is it that the intelligence services have no new information regarding the 2024 elections?

I am almost afraid to say it because it seems so obvious. I wondered whether it might be some sort of contest, like the role of Renegade played by Lorenzo Lamas. I even clicked to see what the reward was for spotting what the sheriff had missed. Such crude thinking. We are not in the Wild West. Shameful. Let me rewrite that. I am still afraid.

The sequence of events:

On 5 March 2025, the SVR issued a statement which, on the face of it, defended Călin Georgescu’s candidacy, citing pressure from Brussels and Ursula von der Leyen. On 10 March 2025, the Central Electoral Bureau (BEC) rejected Georgescu’s candidacy.

Let us assume that the SVR genuinely wished to support Georgescu. Well… like this? The statement of 5 March looked remarkably convenient as a political ALIBI. Do not rush ahead—not for Georgescu, but for his orderly removal from the game.

The BEC rejected Georgescu’s candidacy on what appeared to be a clear legal basis: once the Constitutional Court had annulled the elections because of his conduct, he could no longer be considered eligible. But if that conclusion was so obvious, why was a public statement from Russia necessary before the BEC acted?

Perhaps because that very statement provided the political foundation needed to justify the legal decision. Without a tense geopolitical context, such a decision might have appeared abusive or excessive. There you have it—influence. Are you keeping it in reserve? I realise this may not be the answer you would prefer, but if you have a different chain of causality, by all means. Otherwise, let us continue with a commentary on the Russians’ text. I am merely suspicious—do not shoot.

The references to Ursula von der Leyen seem not to be about Ursula, but for Ursula—a coded message in the well-established style of Eastern European intelligence services. Because, heaven forbid, the Russians were hardly explaining to Brussels that European funds had been frozen because of an alleged conspiracy against Georgescu. We failed to deliver the reforms required under the National Recovery and Resilience Plan. The EU knew this long before the elections. So the saddle was struck in order that the pony might understand.

In reality, it appears that Russia provided a pretext that became useful within the internal logic of the 2024 power structure in Bucharest. A sort of public cue, much like those appearing in the Romanian press in November 1989. What cue? Ah… we are forgetful as well as fussy. Romanians were being advised on how to acquire a suntan. Yes indeed—in November. In a newspaper. Prevention is always wise. Fifteen minutes on the left side and fifteen minutes on the right. Why waste any more time… nobody notices the orangutan crossing the frame during a basketball match between two teams, and bad habits die hard.

Justice: the CCR and the ICCJ. The sickle and the hammer. One decides, the other validates. Or reverses. Depending on the instructions.

19 May 2025: the Superior Council of Magistracy (CSM) launches the appointment procedure for the President of the High Court. Three months ahead of schedule. The law allows a maximum of sixty days. Declic takes action. Sixty-nine thousand signatures. But Minerva says: “Let them eat cake.”

The case law says only candidates have standing. The public? Irrelevant. The collective interest in the rule of law? An inconvenience.

The High Court is the last redoubt, because it blocks abusive legislation (through referrals to the Constitutional Court), hears the cases of major corruption figures, and decides who enters and who leaves prison.

Under Savonea, judicial panels are selected by lot. Retrials can be engineered. Final judgments can be obstructed. Interpretations can be created that encourage impunity.

Example: Constitutional Court Decision 297/2018. Under the guise of legality, the implementation of hundreds of criminal sentences was blocked.

Moreover, the President of the High Court sets the agenda of the United Sections. That is where major disputes are resolved: pensions, salaries, fiscal litigation. With a handful of strategically placed compliant judges, the interpretation of the law can be controlled across the entire country.

Mr President, if silence is strategic, let it not be silence all the way to the end.

The decisions that redefine justice and weaken institutions are taken between Romanian walls, by Romanian hands.

I know—I began with domestic metaphors. With the “institutional mother-in-law”. With the building manager. It was easier that way, at least so as not to alarm the neighbours. Because what follows, if left unchallenged, is not amusing.

It is irreversible.