Globalist Pyrrhic Victory in Romania

“Another such victory, and I am lost.” Recognize the words? Legend has it they were spoken by the general Pyrrhus after leading his army to victory against the Romans at the Battle of Asculum in 279 BC. The victory came at a steep cost, ultimately leading to his definitive defeat. The Romans could easily replace their heavy losses; Pyrrhus could not. These words gave rise to the term “Pyrrhic victory”—winning the battle but losing the war.

This event is vital to understand, offering strategic guidance not only in warfare but also in politics.

After many twists, Bucharest’s liberal, globalist mayor, Nicușor Dan, was elected president. Until recently, he wasn’t even a candidate. How did this happen, and is it truly a victory for Romania’s, Europe’s, and the Western establishment to celebrate?

Let’s start from the beginning.

The first round of the presidential election was held on November 24, 2024. Leading up to it, it seemed like a walkover for the incumbent power. The race was between Elena Lasconi of the bourgeois party and Marcel Ciolacu of the Social Democrats—two candidates with, in practice, the same political agenda, as is common in the West’s so-called democracies. The political theater was unmistakable.

When the results came in, neither Lasconi nor Ciolacu led. Instead, it was the independent nationalist Călin Georgescu (often labeled in media as an ultranationalist, fascist, antisemite, Russia-friendly, conspiracy theorist, anti-vaxxer, and far-right extremist). Polls had estimated his support at a few percent; on election day, he secured 23%, while Lasconi and Ciolacu each got 19%. Lasconi edged out Ciolacu, so the final round was set between her and Georgescu.

The election was annulled—not immediately. The political and media establishment first tried to smear Georgescu, alleging his success stemmed from Russian interference. It didn’t work. His support surged to over 40% in polls, heading toward a likely second-round victory.

Popular Uprising. Nationalist and anti-globalist protesters in Romania carried handmade signs, in stark contrast to the pre-printed, glossy materials of so-called color revolutions funded by USAID, Soros, and the EU. Photo: George Simion on X

On December 6, nearly two weeks after the first round and two days before the Georgescu-Lasconi showdown, the Constitutional Court annulled the first round and canceled the second, claiming evidence of election interference—evidence no one saw. The election was rescheduled for May. Georgescu was not yet barred from running. The establishment assumed their smear campaign would erode his support. It didn’t. He rallied hundreds of thousands in Romania’s largest protests in years and announced he’d run again.

Elena Lasconi, the establishment’s top choice, was deemed unelectable due to corruption allegations and ties to George Soros’s organizations. She was replaced. Photo: Pixabay

Days later, while registering his candidacy, Georgescu was arrested and charged with numerous alleged crimes, including incitement against ethnic groups. The electoral authority then banned him from running, citing the charges.

George Simion from Georgescu’s former party, AUR, ran instead. The establishment realized Lasconi had no chance, tainted by allegations of election fraud, ties to Soros’s Open Society, USAID, and a corrupt party. So, Nicușor Dan became their candidate. He hadn’t even run in the annulled election, having stated he had work to do as Bucharest’s mayor. Conveniently, he changed his mind for the spring election—likely at the behest of Romania’s and the EU’s establishment. Unlike Lasconi, Dan, an independent mayor, could market himself as an outsider despite his globalist views.

In the first round of the rerun, nationalist Simion led with 41% to Dan’s 21%. As always, the other parties united to block the nationalist. In the second round, Dan narrowly won, 53.6% to 46.2%.

Was there election fraud? It’s impossible for anyone to confirm rigging in the vote count. But fair elections are more than just accurate counting. Simion initially conceded but later retracted, citing establishment interference.

“Neither France, Moldova, nor anyone else has the right to meddle in another country’s election,” Simion wrote on X.

France is singled out as the EU nation most active in steering the outcome. The Romanian and Moldovan governments reportedly bused hundreds of thousands of dual-citizen Moldovans—mostly pro-EU—to polling stations. Targeted campaigns also mobilized millions of expatriate Romanians in Europe, reportedly boosting turnout by 10 points compared to November. Simion believes turnout was manipulated.

Simion’s campaign faced social media censorship, a key platform today. This followed restrictions imposed on Georgescu before his ban, barring him from social media campaigning. Telegram’s founder, Pavel Durov, wrote that France’s intelligence chief, Nicolas Lerner, asked him to “block conservative voices in Romania” before the election. Durov refused. Other platforms likely faced similar pressure and may not have resisted.

Nicușor Dan stepped in as the establishment’s candidate, despite earlier declining. Lacking Lasconi’s baggage, he became Bucharest’s mayor on an anti-corruption platform. Photo: Wikipedia/Romania’s Government

This heavy censorship and state-orchestrated mobilization of pro-EU expatriates don’t belong in a democratic election. But allegations of fraud need not hinge on speculation about vote counts or social media.

The real fraud happened openly. The globalist establishment replaced a strong opposition candidate (Georgescu) with a weaker one (Simion) and swapped their weak candidate (Lasconi) for a stronger one (Dan).

This is where the true rigging occurs—long before votes are counted. Whether the count itself was tampered with is secondary. Let’s challenge power with facts, not speculation.

Romania’s case isn’t unique. In Germany, the largest opposition party, Alternative for Germany, is branded extremist as it grows to challenge the ruling powers. In France, opposition leader Marine Le Pen is barred from the next presidential election. In Greece, the largest opposition party, Golden Dawn, was banned.

These occur in EU nations without backlash. Democracy is dismantled when it threatens the old power’s hegemony.

What if Hungary or Slovakia—often bullied by the EU—did what Romania did: annul elections, ban opposition candidates, and censor their social media? It would be labeled a dictatorship, triggering EU sanctions. Yet Romania’s “winner” received congratulations from nearly all EU countries, including Ulf Kristersson, for supposedly choosing a pro-Western path.

What must be called a coup in Romania shows the globalist system’s strength. Rumors of its collapse are exaggerated. They secured the presidency in an EU and NATO member state, a significant prize.

But the victory came at a high cost. The election became global news, reaching hundreds of millions, amplified by the U.S. administration’s sharp criticism of the establishment’s undemocratic tactics. Georgescu and Simion called it a “farce”.

This long-term perspective is crucial to avoid demoralization. The globalists’ victory brought greater losses than they imagined. More battles loom. Can power be stolen repeatedly with the same conspiracies and legal maneuvers against the opposition? How long can this hold?

Post-election, Simion wrote on social media: “We won’t give up or betray you! This is just the start of a great victory!”

I believe he’s right. The winning side likely isn’t sleeping soundly. Recall Pyrrhus’s words: “Another such victory, and I am lost.”