The participation of Nicușor Dan, as an observer, at the Peace Council organized by Donald Trump has sparked extensive debates among internet users. The representatives of the sovereignist camp were limited in their reactions, the most colorful theories coming from Diana Sosoacǎ.
The sovereign zone was taken by surprise by the participation of President Nicușor Dan at Trump’s Peace Council.
Călin Georgescu did not post any message on his Facebook page about the visit to Washington. In the last post, from February 13, the former candidate urged Romanians to file criminal complaints in order to obtain “round II back”.
George Simion also did not react after President Dan’s participation in the fundraising event for the Gaza Strip.
The last post dates from February 17, an AUR press conference, organized with the aim of “dismantle the bases and focus on solutions”, on which occasion Gheorghe Piperea announced that he requested from the Permanent Electoral Authority the list of over 250 donors for Nicușor Dan’s campaign. Simion also spoke about filing criminal complaints “for the December coup”, an initiative of an association – “Valul Democratiei” – which he supports. “Make a criminal complaint too”he urges his supporters.
What Dungaciu and Peiu say
Unlike Simion, the vice-president of AUR, Dan Dungaciu, had a reaction to Nicușor Dan’s participation in Trump’s Council. “There was no bilateral meeting with President Donald J. Trump on the sidelines of the meeting. There was not even a joint official photo, no moment when the two heads of state shook hands, both looked at the camera and sent a clear signal to the two peoples and to the international community regarding the solidity of the Romanian-American strategic partnership (…) The lack of an official photo is a clear and obvious political message”.
However, Dungaciu did not mention anything about the campaign of criminal complaints initiated by “Association Valul Democratiei”. He was not among the politicians who accompanied Simion to the General Prosecutor’s Office to file “second round” criminal complaints.
Nor did Petrișor Periu, the other AUR leader visible in the media, comment on Dan’s presence in Washington. He didn’t post anything about the “round II back” criminal complaint campaign either.
Sosoacă has a scenario for everyone: “Arrogance or a blunder”
The President of SOS, Diana Soșoacă, commented extensively in an interview for BZI on President Dan’s visit to Washington. “Get the Fuck”the MEP said directly. “No Dan knew what to say“, said Soșoacă, criticizing the president’s English and the gesture of taking the red MAGA cap he received: “Why wasn’t she white? Red signifies the blood of war. Instead of leaving it on the table, he took it.”
Sosoacă has a scenario related to the fact that Trump spoke about “Dan, prime minister of Romania”. “Show arrogance”she said. “It hurts him right in the pen of the participants. He doesn’t give a damn about them. He just collects the billions from them and makes fun of the UN which, unfortunately, lacks any interventions and any action as I have told them countless times.”
The SOS leader also has a variant for conspiracy theory followers: “It may not be a blunder”. She says that “No Dan is the president of Romania. Only I wrote them many letters and told them that he is not the president of Romania”. The Sovereign confuses her supporters when she suggests that the Americans supported Dan: “Do you still have a country? they asked me.” “No, thank you very much, because of you we no longer have a country”, I answered them.
Sosoacă takes the scenario further: “It is possible that Dan will become the Prime Minister of Romania”, speculating on the president’s response to the question about Trump’s confusion: “No time wasted”. Then she claims that “it’s the battle for Romania. Romania has a lot of rare metals, especially in Roșia Montană (…) In other countries, a square meter of this land costs 1 million euros”.
“A serious report will never come out”
President Nicușor Dan’s visit to the United States and the idea that his administration would have been “validated” by Donald Trump have reignited an intense debate in the Romanian online environment. Discussions on Reddit reflect a polarized society, where the issue of political legitimacy, external influence and domestic propaganda continue to stir strong emotions.
The statement that “the problem of the legitimacy of the Romanian administration no longer exists in the USA” it was met with skepticism by some users.
One user summarizes this position: “Okay, okay. But what about the report? Let us Romanians also know that the US opinion was not the problem”.
Others see the problem deeper, in public perception and information manipulation: “Romanians are stupid and easily brainwashed. Valid in both camps”.
The theme of the long-awaited report returns frequently. One commentator invokes an older interpretation: “A serious report will never come out. Traian Băsescu has said since then. It was a work carried out from inside the country.” Others no longer have real expectations, but see the eventual conclusions as a political spectacle: “At least let’s have fun like this, let’s see if they have the courage to say what a great propaganda the last year was.”
“We’ve heard enough: the second round is back, Trump is in the hands of Soros”
In parallel, the discussion moves to the president’s performance. “We are waiting for Nicu to move something, because we didn’t vote for him for nothing”, says one participant, while another nuances: “I’m not disappointed with him, but yes, he needs to do moreThere is also the perception that the real negotiations take place away from the public eye: “I have the impression that he does, but behind the scenes. I suspect that the necessary reforms are being negotiated with the PSD.”
The visit to the USA is interpreted differently. Some consider it a diplomatic success: “He didn’t even have to pay to talk to Trump”. Others relativize the impact: “Trump is known to turn 180 degrees from one day to the next“. In the same register, irony appears: “He also received a cap and the legitimacy issue was resolved.”
The discussions also reveal the increasingly visible social fracture. One user talks about the stresses of everyday life: “With the fanatics and the brainwashed, you don’t get it, no matter how you try.” Another sums up the flood of conspiracy theories: “We’ve heard enough: Runoff back, Trump in Soros’ hands.”
“Since when does the US have to give us the ok that we elected the president?”
A consistent thread of the debate concerns the relevance of American opinion. “Since when does the US have to give us the OK that we elected the president?”, asks a participant, denouncing her “permanent slave mentality”.
On the other hand, some users point out that internal legitimacy is not negotiable: “He is voted and invested as president, that’s the only thing Sugeranists think there is any hope for.”.” The discussion expands to political radicalization: “The problem is the alienation of a formation… which identifies itself by its messianic figure.”
Criticism then moves to the entire political system. Parliament is described as “infested with hard-to-digest specimens“, and the political class accused of miming conflicts for the cameras. Structural problems – slow justice, prescriptions, poor infrastructure and high taxes – are perceived to be ignored in favor of ideological battles.
Finally, the debate reflects anxiety about the political future: “Not long until 2028… tick tock”writes one user, anticipating a major electoral change. In opposition, another warns of the risk of populism and institutional decay.
This online debate shows that the presidential visit and international recognition are only the surface of a deeper conflict: mistrust of institutions, informational polarization and the lack of a common project for the future.
