What if Russia joined NATO? Scenarios and narratives

A talk with Simona Vrăbiescu-Kleckner, a member of the Republican Party in the USA

MARIUS GHILEZAN: As you might have learned from my previous podcasts and publications of late, my friend, Simona Vrăbiescu-Kleckner, is next year moving back to Romania for good, at the remarkable age of 98, after a long adventure in the USA, from 1965 to 2025.

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: 60 years.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: After 60 years spent in America, her ideas are mind-blowing. She has authored a number of exceptional volumes. One such example is “Samizdat – Traces of the Past. 1990-2008, 2014-2020”. And what was the response to this book? My dear followers, we’re living a period of full-blown democratic censorship. You know what they say – our friend and strategic partner is fighting global wars in the name of democracy. I’ve read the book in one go, and Simona Vrăbiescu-Kleckner claims that if in 1999, NATO would have allowed the Russian Federation to join, we wouldn’t have seen today’s wars. Good evening, Simona!

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: Good evening, my dear Marius! I am happy we met each other in Lausanne back then, and that we’re able to see each other again here, in Romania.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: Your book is astonishing. You have not found a publisher yet, you have no ISBN, so you’re basically a samizdat writer, just like in Ceaușescu’s time.

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: In full disclosure, I’ve done a lot of writing. Before I retired in America, I was used to working all the time. So, I kept myself busy, first and foremost writing my memoirs. Why my memoirs? Because I thought very little literature would document what happened to us in Romania, when the communists took over. I wrote the book “Tracing back my footsteps across two worlds”. Why two worlds? It’s a two-volume book. The first deals with the history of communism in Romania, while the second volume is an overview of my life in America, how I lived the American Dream, where I could further my studies and get employed with a number of prestigious institutions.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: University of Columbia (1969), New York University (1973). She worked in the USA as an associate curator at the Law Library of the University of New York (1969-1974) – rest assured, at the time I was merely a pupil, I never got to meet Simona in the USA. She was head of the UN’s Judicial Library (1975-1986). Head of reference and bibliography department of the UN’s Dag Hammarskjöld Library (1986-1987), Director of the US Chamber of Commerce (1987-1996). In the 1990-1996 period (I found out what she was doing, but I didn’t muster up the courage to approach her during my numerous visits to the USA – some fellow journalists advised me otherwise, based on a number of assumptions) she was head of the ACORD Committee, which was lobbying for Romania. I think she was about the only one who was lobbying among US congressmen. Compare the lobby done by Simona (who was all by herself) to the Polish or Hungarian lobby.

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: It wasn’t just me. There was also Brutus Coste. You couldn’t lobby for Romania in Congress unless you had access to information. In turn, that required a certain kind of office. Brutus Coste was a professor at an American university, where he got all the information he needed and could do political lobbying in the US Congress. I was introduced to Brutus Coste by the Golescu daughters, Ștefana Cantacuzino and Despina Hodoș, to whom I was very close. After a while, Brutus Coste passed away. All the committees founded by the Romanian community served a cultural purpose. Adding to that was the “Iuliu Maniu” Foundation, whose activity was also historical and cultural. However, there was no political committee. When I was 60, I was forced to retire from the United Nations, which stipulated everyone had to retire at 60. I was lucky to get hired by the International Court of Commercial Law. It was there that I was able to set up a political committee, something which I couldn’t do from my position at the United Nations…

MARIUS GHILEZAN: But it was only later, in 1984, that Brutus Coste died …

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: …and so I was able to set up the ACORD Committee, which replaced the one founded by Brutus Coste. As its director, every day I would receive all sorts of documents, including Congressional records, the equivalent of the Official Journal in Romania. I had to monitor these documents and publications as per my job description at the Court, but since I had access to this kind of information, I was able to find out what was happening…

MARIUS GHILEZAN: Let’s get back to the two books we’ve mentioned.

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: I first wrote my memoirs, the two volumes I’ve mentioned. Then I wrote “A forced testimony”, an analysis of president Emil Constantinescu’s term in office. Then, I wrote “From exile, to my country”…

MARIUS GHILEZAN: …She was head of public relations of Emil Constantinescu’s presidential staff…from 1999…

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: No. The department was called Human Resources, not public relations… The office you mentioned was originally the option of president Constantinescu… When I got there, however, maybe also due to the competition from other presidential advisers, I got the human resources position. From this position, I drafted the statute of public servants. That’s another story. But coming back to the books, I wrote all these volumes that were published by Curtea Veche Publishers. Once I finished writing them, I had my memoirs translated into English, which took some time. Then the COVID pandemic broke out, and that meant I was no longer able to go to the theatre, attend concerts, etc. I spent most of my days at home, which prompted me to start working on my books. The first was “The impact of the past on the present”, a volume I wrote during the pandemic, which I published in 2020. The topic of this book is the presidency of Harry Truman, who divided Europe at the end of World War II in half – Western Europe and Eastern Europe. He handed control over Eastern Europe to Stalin. For 45 years, Romania and the other countries in Eastern Europe suffered terribly…

MARIUS GHILEZAN: The Yalta agreement, yes. I haven’t read this book. Do you have any additional documents I can read…? I want to read it.

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: I’ll leave you this copy, I’ll sign it for you later. Let me summarize the main topic of this book. Churchill came along with General Patton, who said “Mr. President, we have defeated Germany, now in ’45, and the US army is still on the ground in Europe – let’s enter Russia and destroy Stalin, who’s just as bad as Hitler. Truman, whose knowledge of foreign policy was not his forte, was suddenly sworn in as president following Roosevelt’s unexpected death on April 14, 1945. So, all of a sudden, Truman found himself bearing this tremendous responsibility on his shoulders. His staff advised him against attacking Russia, because the USA had been Russia’s ally in the war up to that point, which meant it was impossible for the USA to turn arms against Russia at that moment. And that’s what made him decide to abandon us (Eastern Europe, t.n.). One point in my book is that Truman could have very well chosen to save us, without military violence. In 1945, owing to the Rosenberg brothers, we (the USA, t.n.) had developed the atomic bomb. By 1949, when the Russians had developed an atomic bomb of their own, the USA was the only country with an atomic arsenal. Therefore, at the 1947 Conference in Potsdam, Truman could have very well negotiated with Stalin, and tell him “Look, if you don’t withdraw, I’m going to attack you like I did Japan at Hiroshima and Nagasaki”. It was not by chance that I thought of that. I had read a book by Nixon, where he claims that Truman had threatened Stalin to withdraw from the Middle East before the USA ever developed the atomic bomb in ’45…

MARIUS GHILEZAN: … from North Korea…

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: No, it was before 1945. So, he told Stalin “If you don’t withdraw to the Middle East, I’ll send my army, air fleet and navy and wipe you out”. And Stalin withdrew his troops, Nixon writes. That’s how I got the idea that Truman could have done the same thing and threaten Stalin with the atomic bomb, because the USA had by that time developed it. But he didn’t, because the USA didn’t pursue the same interests in Eastern Europe as it did in the Middle East, where it had oil pumps. We, on the other hand in Eastern Europe, had nothing – we were nothing but an additional headache to the.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: There was democracy, human rights, individual freedoms…

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: Yes, but he didn’t take any of it into account.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: Or maybe there was some secret agreement…

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: That’s the topic of the book I wrote, where I condemn Truman for failing to do that. It was because of his decision that I have suffered so much.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: But, in 1948, King Michael I spent his mother’s fortune to lobby for Romania. He went to see Truman in 1949, and it was all a waste.

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: Yes, it was all for nothing! Those who were really smart about it were Churchill and General Patton. I recently read about General Patton, and the reason why Truman didn’t listen to him – it was because he had Eisenhower as his adviser. However, during the war, Eisenhower was involved in military operations on the frontlines. And between Eisenhower, Montgomery and Patton…I read Bill O’Reilly’s book, who has this whole “Killing” series: “Killing Jesus”, “Killing JFK”, etc., there are 15 books in total about assassinations and the related investigations. So, I read “Killing Patton”, where O’Reilly wrote that Eisenhower was jealous of Patton, who throughout the war had been his ranking superior. O’Reilly suggests, and I’m not sure if it’s true or not, that Patton was killed in a road accident, his car colliding head-on with another vehicle. The writer implies Patton was assassinated due to his insistence to declare war on Russia. Whether that assumption is true or false, I don’t know, but that’s what Bill O’Reilly wrote. So, that’s what my book is about. I wrote this 70-page book during the pandemic, when I stayed indoors all day.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: And why did Curtea Veche Publishers refuse to publish your next book?

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: They refused because it contained a number of ideas that didn’t sit well with many people. It’s an argument that I uphold to this day. Let me explain: I have examined US politics and, after writing my first book, I realized that, regardless of how powerful the army is and how robust the economy remains, to a very large extent US politics actually depends on the education, skills and ideological convictions of US presidents. Some are more educated, others less so…

MARIUS GHILEZAN: But why did Curtea Veche refuse? You haven’t answered my question…

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: I’ll get to that, let me explain… They refused to publish it because, just like with the book about Truman, I analyzed the developments after the Cold War, where Reagen, one of the best presidents the USA ever had – Nixon, Reagan and Truman, while Carter, Obama, Biden and the two Bush were at the opposite end – regardless of being Democrats or Republicans.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: Reagan’s term in office saw the fall of the Iron Curtain… the deal with Margaret Thatcher, who helped us a great deal.

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: Precisely! I saw that Reagan’s presidency produced a tremendous transformation… A number of experts, university professors, wrote about the true merits of a president: a president must be a determined man who knows how to talk to Congress, someone who is very audacious and has good communication skills, someone who can follow his ideas through and change the course of history. And Reagan fitted every word of this description: he was bold and he changed the course of history! It was Reagan that managed to make the USA strong, without triggering a war, just by introducing sanctions, and leave the USSR in an extremely vulnerable position.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: You still haven’t answered my question: why did Mrs. Arsene refuse to publish your book?

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: Please, I’ll explain in due time, just let me get to that point. Then, I read Noonan’s book – she served as special assistant to president Reagan. In her books she describes how Herbert Bush got into the White House as vice-president. Regan had always disliked Bush’s political thinking. Yet, all his advisers counseled him to take him as his vice-president, because Bush had been the director of the CIA, the US ambassador to the UN, as well as the US ambassador to China. His track record was stellar, and he was worth being part of Reagan’s administration, even if he wasn’t a hardcore Democrat and Conservative, because it would help bring in votes from the less Conservative electorate…

MARIUS GHILEZAN: Coming back to your original point…

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: And so he appointed Bush as his vice-president. Bush was the exact opposite of Reagan. He was insecure and lacked initiative. He had graduated Yale, the Skull and Bones Institute, which was grooming the future presidential elites. Bush thought of himself as an aristocrat and had zero knowledge of communism. He was completely ignorant.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: But still, what reason did she have for not publishing your book?

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: Bush did not cooperate with Yeltsin, who sought to trigger a change, pushing for Russia’s democratic shift. Yeltsin, in my view, was the man of the 20^th century. His son (G.W. Bush, t.n.), instead of supporting the Russian Federation created by Yeltsin and taken over by Putin, chose Ukraine over the Russian Federation, at a time when the latter was trying to get into NATO after 75 years of efforts.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: You’re referring to president Bush. Was it because of your criticism of Bush…?

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: President Clinton was the one who succeeded Herbert Bush, and saw the extraordinary opportunity of bringing the great Russia into the heart of Western Europe after 75 years, just as it had been under Peter the Great and Catherine the Great. Clinton came up with the idea of a New Europe, whereby Russia would be linked to Western trade, bringing Russia back into the fold of collective system of security. He was supported in his endeavor by Madeline Albright, his Secretary of State.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: And what was so politically incorrect about what you wrote? I have read your book, don’t tell me something I’ve already read!

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: The part that was politically wrong was my claim about Bush refusing to help Yeltsin, and later, his son, G.W., refusing to support Putin, who carried over Yeltsin’s policy. That’s what prompted me to claim that the reason Clinton failed to achieve and put his plan into action was the Kosovo bombings, as well as the scandal involving Monica Lewinski. I claimed that Clinton’s plan was to get Russia into NATO….

MARIUS GHILEZAN: So that’s what the publisher didn’t like?

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: The publisher strongly opposed publishing anything like that. I insisted that my hypothesis was sound, because I provided every argument and explanation, including the way the scenario could have been applied. So, I published the book separately, and I also organized a launch event. I am very proud of my thesis, and I’ll tell you why: when Truman founded NATO in 1948 and later conceded Eastern Europe to Stalin, and saw Stalin’s appetite towards expanding to Western Europe as well, he heeded the counsel of his adviser, George Kennan, who said “We need to put a stop Russia’s advance”, realizing Russia posed a threat both to us and them. It was then that Kennan came up with the ‘containment’ scenario, which led up to the creation of NATO in 1949, whose mission was to contain the Soviet expansion. However, in 1991, Yeltsin, the ‘hero of the century’, with the help of the population who supported him, succeeded in triggering the collapse of the USSR, based on two ideas: first, he wanted Russia to become a democratic country again, and second, Gorbachev, who boasted about releasing in East-European countries from the Soviet yoke in 1989, which is what he did, in fact wanted to use Western capital to restore the Soviet Union.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: And then came the coup…

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: …then came the coup, Yeltsin took over, dissolved the Communist Party, dissolved the former Parliament, set up the State Duma and the Commonwealth of Independent States.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: The CIS, which later became the Russian Federation.

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: The Russian Federation was created by the Supreme Soviet. Yeltsin thus accomplished what no other before him had ever attempted. Only people like us, who had suffered greatly at the hands of the communists, can realize what he accomplished, something that was never recognized by the Bush family, neither the father, nor the son. And Bush junior was a close friend of Putin’s – they had no less than 40 meetings, either in Moscow or in America, in Texas. When he had trouble with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush asked Putin for help twice. And Putin gave him exactly what he wanted, so the American army and navy could reach Iraq and Afghanistan. And at the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, when Putin asked the US administration for Russia to be invited to join, Bush heeded the counsel of Dick Cheney, his vice-president, because, like his father before him, Bush was not a very politically skilled president, to avoid saying ‘smart’. So, heeding Dick Cheney’s advice, he invited Ukraine and Georgia to join.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: What did Dick Cheney have to gain from that?

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: Dick Cheney disliked Russia, arguing Russia should not exist in the first place. On the other hand, Dick Cheney came up with another idea that underpinned G.W. Bush’s term in office, namely America’s supremacy, which meant America was supposed to evolve into a superpower leading the world. That’s why they thought it would be a bad idea to help Russia become an adversary instead of an ally. They had their hands full with China as it were, they didn’t need more opposition from Russia.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: So, in retaliation, after the Bucharest summit of 2008, when Putin turned up uninvited (there’s this famous photo depicting Angela Merkel, Putin and Băsescu behind them, like a waiter), Putin decided to invade South Ossetia.

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: Let me pitch in – he felt so humiliated, not just at a personal level, but he thought that the Russian Federation, which for the last decade had been striving to renounce 75 years of communism, Yeltsin’s effort had been disregarded, and Putin carried over the very same policy. For this reason, Putin recanted and became a staunch anti-American, something that became very categorical in every speech he later delivered. This was the tipping point that prompted me to write my speculation: I argued that Russia was supposed to be admitted into NATO, and that meant repurposing the entire Alliance, because the expansion of the Soviet Union, the very reason why NATO was founded by Truman in 1949, was no longer happening. Therefore, NATO no longer had a purpose. For this reason, G.W. Bush, who was fighting terrorists, and Putin, who was fighting Chechen terrorists, shared a common goal – the war on terror. And so, I wrote in my book that NATO should have reinvented itself as an alliance against terrorism, instead of an alliance fighting Soviet expansion, and thus Russia would have been allowed to join. For Russia to join, the NATO Secretary General was supposed to talk to Putin and discuss whether Putin would agree to the democratic principles of good vicinity of the OSCE and NATO and to abide by Article 5, and if so, Russia would have acceded to NATO.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: It should be mentioned that cooperation between NATO and the Russian Federation was proposed as early as 1999 in Bucharest.

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: No, it was in 1997.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: During Yeltsin’s term in office.

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: …when Clinton took credit for passing the NATO-Russia Foundation Act. It was owing to this act that in 1997 Yeltsin signed the foundation of the NATO-Russia Permanent Council, headquartered in Moscow. Later on, after Yeltsin stepped down, in 2002, under Putin’s regime, the NATO-Russia Council was created in Rome. The former was created at the Paris summit, the latter in Rome. Reading about all this stuff, I realized that the best solution to ensure peace across the world was to allow Russia to join NATO, if Putin agreed to certain terms. Otherwise, Russia would have been turned down. But in that event, Putin would no longer be entitled to claim that he wanted Russia to join, but America said no. And that’s the truth. And that’s what he told the interview he had with Tucker Carlson, a few months ago.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: In 2021, during the invasion of Ukraine, we published a report on globalnews, Gold FM and Realitatea, and later found out that Prof. George Mearsheimer had come up with a similar idea, that Putin’s anger, so to speak, had started in Bucharest in 2008, when, despite his best intentions and the insistence of his friend, Angela Merkel, who had promised a Minsk 3 type of agreement.

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: 2014 and 2015…

MARIUS GHILEZAN: We had Minsk 1 and 2, and Minsk 3 was supposed to be signed in 2022, whereby Ukraine would concede 20% of its Russian-speaking territory to Russia. If NATO had observed Angela Merkel’s proposal, hundreds of thousands of people would still be alive today, and we would have ended up in the same conundrum. I believe (and I was fined by the Audiovisual Council, who shut down our YouTube channel) that this war shouldn’t have existed just because Bush junior was keen on moving forward with Georgia and Ukraine.

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: It was Cheney’s doing. It was Cheney all along! Bush was incapable of such plans!

MARIUS GHILEZAN: Cheney was in cahoots with America’s top tycoons. That’s what made me ask. Cheney was fostering the defense industry.

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: Yes, Cheney was responsible. And his daughter, Liz Cheney, is involved in the anti-Trump trial right now, being part of the January 6 committee.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: I didn’t know that. Let’s get back to the present. When did you become a supporter of Trump?

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: It wasn’t straight away. When he came to power in 2016, when he started making all these grand speeches, I wasn’t convinced. When the Florida primaries were held, I had to choose between Trump and Ted Cruz. I liked Ted Cruz, so I voted for him. But later, when the presidential race entered the final stages in November, with Hillary Clinton facing off against Donald Trump, of course I voted for Trump. That’s because in the meantime I had discovered all the shenanigans Hillary Clinton was doing to take Trump out of the race, with an imaginary kompromat that was paid with Democratic campaign funds – she paid 100,000 USD to a British guy to create a fictitious kompromat linking Trump to Putin.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: When did you become a member of the Republican Party?

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: It was shortly after my arrival, back in ’65.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: What made you choose the Republican Party?

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: How was I supposed to join the Democratic Party, which was shifting left? Especially since, right off the bat, I resonated with the Conservative Republicans, their ideology matched my education, and I couldn’t have chosen otherwise. Not to mention that, as I got to see the presidents, it was Obama who started changing America, from capitalism to socialism and progressivism. He had two mandates whereby he tried to change American society to great extent, reviving the ideologies of slavery, racism, sexism, the worst of the worst… When I arrived in America in ’65, African-Americans had already been integrated following the civil rights laws passed by Johnson, whereby all African-Americans were given priority for employment opportunities. Take, for instance, the Affirmative Action act, whereby African-Americans took precedence over the white population. Under Obama, the white population became the white supremacy. When I came to America after so many years, during Obama’s mandate, I started being discriminated against, not because of my wealth or my political opinions, but because I was white, and thus the enemy of the Black population. I understand that Obama is in fact a Muslim, half black, half white, the exponent of an ideology that is at odds with the founding fathers of America.

„Climate change was introduced at Davos, by the World Economic Forum, led by Klaus Schwab, jointly with Soros”

MARIUS GHILEZAN: And who does this progressive ideology serve, after all?

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: It doesn’t serve anyone. It is merely destroying America and benefits the advancement of communism and China. China is paying huge amounts of money via the Confucius Institutes, set up in each university center. Each university has access to such funds. Besides, the Chinese are known for their sharp ideas and hard work. The Chinese economy grew tremendously thanks to Deng Xiaoping, who studied in France and saw that market economies can elevate a nation. So, he introduced a new policy of communist capitalism, with a communist ideology at its core. And that elevated China a lot.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: What about climate change? Who came up with this ideology?                      

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: Climate change was introduced at Davos, by the World Economic Forum, led by Klaus Schwab, jointly with Soros. And these guys want to rule the world by themselves. This group also includes the Chinese. From 1949 to 2049, Xi Jinping wants China to rule the world, something it has been trying to do since Mao Zedong. Dick Cheney and the entire Bush administration wanted to obtain the ultimate power, which is why they refused to help Yeltsin and Putin’s Russia. And now the World Economic Forum opposes sovereign countries and seeks to acquire control of the whole world. Their number one enemy is Trump, who, upon taking office, gave two speeches, one in Davos, the other one at the United Nations…

MARIUS GHILEZAN: It was then that the USA withdrew from the Paris agreement.

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: …and he argued in favor of sovereignty, faith, the market economy and democracy and couldn’t care less about Davos or anything else.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: I know that. But what’s the real power struggle in the USA right now, behind the camps led by Donald Trump and Kamala Harris?

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: Right now, it’s Obama, of course. He served two mandates as president, from 2009 to 2016, he stayed in power for 8 years. He triggered a societal shift towards multiculturalism, benefiting African-Americans, Latin-Americans and the White Supremacy. His policies generated huge waves of emigration, which was one of his strategies for changing America, along with handing out risky loans to people who were unable to pay them back. This was also one of the reasons behind the financial crisis of 2008. And, of course, right now, left-wing media led by Obama control the narrative. In 2016, Trump succeeded Obama. In 2020, when he saw Trump was in the lead in opinion polls, Obama and Eric Holder, his Secretary of Justice who specialized in rigging elections, introduced the political correct left-wing ideology, took advantage of the COVID pandemic, to introduce postal voting, which didn’t require IDs to be able to vote, and that enabled the rigging of votes. And indeed, on election night, we woke up with five states where the voting results changed, and that brought Biden into office, replacing Trump.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: Who is going to win this year’s election?

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: Obama has always pulled Biden’s strings. And now he will pull Kamala’s strings as well.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: And who’s going to win?

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: If we look at the surveys, Trump will likely win the election. But if we’re going to see a repeat of the 2020 scenario, when Trump grabbed the largest number of votes but was eventually robbed of them, then probably Obama and his staff will probably come up with a new solution. One option, we’ve already seen it, was to shoot Trump – it failed, despite being a coordinated action – I find it hard to believe this kid was allowed to climb that building without being seen, at least he could have been seen close to where Trump was standing…

MARIUS GHILEZAN: That’s why I was asking – who’s fighting who in America at present?

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: At present, it’s the left wing pitted against right-wing people who support Trump. Should Trump win the election, and in the event the leftist camp isn’t going to do anything to change that, then America will get back on track and rise from the economic, financial and energy mess it’s been struggling with. And with all these wars, it will rebecome America as we know it.

„Transgenderism, Woke, critical race theory, cancel culture and all this nonsense made up by Biden, provoke the world…”

MARIUS GHILEZAN: And this leftist ideology will be brought to a halt during Trump’s presidency?

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: Absolutely! As the economy becomes stronger, left-wing ideology will get weaker. The economic and financial sector was struggling under the Democrats, and people had no other choice. Many of them were ignorant and knew nothing about communism. As they were fed reports about equality and equity on a daily basis, they thought that if they stayed home the government would provide for them. They believed everything they were told because they were ignorant. The smartest people alive today are those who’ve lived through communism, and know that communism never breeds prosperity. Everyone else makes up a huge mass of people who still hope the government will sustain them for free.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: Yes, but the problem today is that communism comes in different forms and under different names. We have Sexual-Marxism, there’s this new strand of leftism that…

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: Yes, transgenderism, Woke, critical race theory, cancel culture and all this nonsense made up by Biden…

MARIUS GHILEZAN: …either by Biden, or by the deep state. The Antifa and Black Lives Matter movements emerged during Trump’s term in office.

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: They had been around for some time already. The BLM movement is based on the multicultural model of society.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: Black Lives Matter! And now we’re seeing England’s football team taking a knee!

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: Yes, indeed.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: So, would you agree that, today, communism has reinvented itself in the form of transgenderism. It has different facets, although the societal and political mix is still tied to Marxism, which in 1917 emerged as a leading global ideology due to its powerful appeal and owing to Lenin’s coup. No one ever wanted to embrace communism. And today, we risk seeing the young generation, the so-called Woke generation (that is a generation that has awoken), taking at face value all these Marxist ideologies that come wrapped in different colors and shapes, without thinking twice about it.

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: I think that, if you read the book, you will agree that, if Russia had joined NATO back then, today NATO would have been stronger, and China wouldn’t have so much power and communism wouldn’t have taken such deep roots in America. Russia and America would have joined forces against communism. However, seeing itself abandoned today, Russia has joined the BRICS community, which is a Southern and Asian counterpart of NATO.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: You’re actually referring to the Conference in Shanghai, which seeks to become an alternative to NATO. BRICS has been around ever since Ceaușescu’s rule. Ceaușescu himself wanted to fund the BRICS bank. BRICS stands for Brazil, Russia, India…

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: … India, Pakistan and South Africa.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: …and a number of Arab countries have also joined of late. Maduro’s Venezuela too wants to join BRICS. So then, an important question arises: will the New World Order, as envisaged by leftist Americans, to control America?

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: New World Order was introduced by Herbert Bush’s speech at the UN, for no other reason than his intention to support Gorbachev. Bush feared Yeltsin and the collapse of the USSR. Instead of endorsing Yeltsin, this awful president feared a political change, similar in scope to that faced by Reagan, and so he gave this speech that coined the concept of New World Order. And do you know who was supposed to keep the peace under this new world order?

MARIUS GHILEZAN: Who exactly?

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: The National Security Council of…

MARIUS GHILEZAN: You refer to the deep state everyone’s talking about right now.

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: Yes, but it is the UN Security Council, where China and Russia hold veto rights, apart from France and England.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: So, he was completely oblivious to that, he didn’t understand anything.

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: So then, Herbert Bush’s ideas further strengthened China and dragged Reagan’s America under its influence.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: Admittedly, Bush had his own frustrations regarding Reagan’s achievements. Will Putin succeed in putting a stop to the war in Ukraine right now?

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: Putin wants…

MARIUS GHILEZAN: Sorry, not Putin, Trump.

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: Putin wants an end to the war. He has asked for peace talks a number of times already. In 2024, when he attacked Ukraine…

MARIUS GHILEZAN: You mean 2014…

„If Trump wins, he will immediately strike a deal with Putin, who wants to negotiate”

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: In 2014, he entered Ukraine and no longer cared what the USA would say or do…

MARIUS GHILEZAN: But what does he want? An end to the war and to take these three states – Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk?

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: You know what really motivated him?

MARIUS GHILEZAN: And the West refuses to concede these territories – why? Because the population is 80% Russian?

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: It was just as Zelenskyy passed a decree whereby the Russian language was no longer the official language of Ukraine.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: And Zelenskyy wanted to move his troops in Crimea and the southern regions. And secondly, these regions are home to the largest nickel and cadmium deposits on the face of Earth…This means Russia will never renounce the huge resources it got its hands on. On the other hand, 80% of Ukraine is led by Blackstone, Blackstage, Flynn’s companies and so on…

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: They own the entire Bit-Tech…

MARIUS GHILEZAN: They’re all there, exactly. And then Ukraine is nothing but a proxy.

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: They’ve bought thousands of hectares, China and the American Bit-Tech. It’s because of them that our grain in Constanța can no longer be exported to European markets, as Ukrainian grain has taken its place.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: What can we expect in the future?

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: If Trump wins, he will immediately strike a deal with Putin, who wants to negotiate. Kissinger said negotiations should leave Putin with Crimea and Sevastopol, so he can secure a maritime access for Russia. In turn, Ukraine should be supported and compensated, for all the damages sustained in the war. And Biden is to blame for everything. After Russia’s attack on Ukraine in 2022, the Prime Minister of Israel, Naftali Bennet, wanted to put a stop to it, and he went to Moscow.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: It was the Shabbat.

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: He talked to Putin. He went to talk to Zelenskyy. Putin agreed to his terms, Zelenskyy too. Bennet didn’t disclose the exact terms of the deal, I can’t give you any details about that.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: But the Americans wanted a war…

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: But Biden said no. One of his reasons, apart from the influence Davos exerts over him. Let’s not forget the World Economic Forum president, Klaus Schwab, is the direct nephew of Rothschild and is closely vested in helping Zelenskyy.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: We’ve got two minutes left…

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: Another reason is that Biden is upset with Ukraine after going there to ask for the replacement of the prosecutor general…

MARIUS GHILEZAN: …who was investigating Burisma, his son’s company.

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: It was Zelenskyy’s call, which is why he has been supporting Zelenskyy all this time. And Zelenskyy also has the World Economic Forum’s support.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: We’ve got just one minute left. Is there any future for boyar ideas in Romanian society? Will the aristocratic spirit endure?

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: I doubt it. Most of the old boyar families are now gone. Intellectuals get their education here, in Romania, and then leave to earn higher wages in the European Union. That leaves Romania at the mercy of a band of undereducated people with less knowledge of foreign policy. However, if we had a president who could bring more economic benefits for Romania, not just for corporations, to have larger profits, but for people in the rural areas as well, then, the younger generations could come back home, so that Romania won’t have an old and ignorant population. Our hope is for a good president with a good knowledge of how economy works. Those who’ve enrolled in the presidential race so far are unconvincing in terms of their economic skills. I haven’t yet decided who I’m going to vote for, because I still hope a well-established figure will eventually decide to join the race, someone who loves Romania and someone who will benefit Romania’s future. With God’s help, I want to see the day Romania regains its interwar reputation, which we spoke about in the beginning. I doubt I’ll live that long. But at least I hope to see those days reborn. To be honest, I don’t think I will.

MARIUS GHILEZAN: Good night to you all. Our guest today was Simona Vrăbiescu-Kleckner. We’ve shared a few memories and discussed certain points of view. You’ve seen that her ideas resonate with people following us on Hard Talk TV, on the “Marius Ghilezan” YouTube channel. There’s another podcast you can watch, featuring Simona Vrăbiescu-Kleckner, where she talks about her family. These are two different podcasts you can watch and you’ll see there are other alternatives to this Wokism, the woke generation. May God grant us strength and bring us to the light!

SIMONA VRĂBIESCU-KLECKNER: May God keep us in his light, indeed!

Un medic timişorean a inventat una dintre cele mai eficiente imunoterapii oncologice din lume