Andrei Cornea, Dilema: Drone, "capabilities" and words

Unlike many of my fellow countrymen, I, for one, do not understand drones. I admit it honestly. Nor do I understand the means to detect and destroy them. I do not know, consequently, whether the Romanian army could have shot down the Russian attack drone last week, which hit a block in Galați, but did not do so, or whether it could not bring it down because it still lacked "capabilities." And if it lacked "capabilities," again I do not know what kind of "capabilities" it was missing: machine guns, radars, anti-drone drones, software, helicopters, or what else. It is said that they were requested from NATO, but they have not yet arrived. We do not know precisely why they have not arrived. Our bureaucracy, their bureaucracy? On the other hand, if the army could have shot it down with the F16 planes, again I am not sure I know why it did not do so. The army says it would have endangered the civilian population, as the drone was flying over populated areas, and the reaction time was too short to find a suitable situation. Plausible. Still, it is a fact that until now no Russian drone that entered from Ukraine into our territory has been shot down for two years. Incompetence? Or reasonable prudence? My fellow countrymen who know better say that they could have shot down this one, which, look, caused casualties (fortunately, only two lightly injured), as well as others from the past, and that they did not do it. Why? Lack of courage, "strategic caution," some more vocal ones said. They had no law, the authorities respond somewhat confused. But now they do, and yet... Let us look at the Poles, at the Baltics. Why can they, and we cannot?

Also, I can only listen to others when they want to clarify for me what this drone was looking for in our country. Just that opinions are mixed here, although all are expressed in the most peremptory tone. It is generally said that the drone, coming from a swarm that attacked southern Ukraine, was diverted to reach over Galați. Diverted by whom? By the Ukrainian defense, which hit it but did not destroy it? It seems so. This would mean it was an unfortunate accident. Sure, in the general circumstances of the war triggered and continued by Russia, which took the risks, but still... Or was it deliberately sent just over the border, to stir fear and confusion, as others claim to know? (If so, it succeeded fully.)

My fellow countrymen know perfectly well how the Romanian Government (the interim one, as the other no longer exists) and especially the president should have reacted. "He reacted too late," some shouted already at eight in the morning. "He did not request the activation of NATO Article 4." "He should have declared the Russian ambassador persona non grata," reproached the same ones. "But he did well. He closed the Russian consulate in Constanța. He directly accused Russia. Moreover, for the first time, he directly accused internal forces of playing Russia's game – in filigree, it could be read not only AUR but also PSD."

In short, some, with the utmost certainty, reproached Nicușor Dan that he still "has weapons" and reacts softly to Russian provocations – a fact that encourages them. Others, with just as much aplomb, said that, at least for now, he reacted correctly and appropriately. "Experts" contradict each other.

My fellow countrymen are very sure, in general, of what they assert, in all matters and, of course, the war in Ukraine is no exception. Undoubtedly, some general data are quite evident, at least for those who are not blinded by malice or blindness: Russia as the aggressor, the necessity of supporting Ukraine to defend Europe, the increasingly negative role of Trump who seems to want to "punish" Europe, Russian-inspired propaganda demobilizing support for Ukraine, our traitors who favor Russia's "peace." The problem is that, to react effectively, it seems we are still quite exposed, we lack "capabilities." Here, experts and non-experts, we all seem to agree.

So lacking in "capabilities," as we are for now, at least we should have more often and more promptly, from the authorities, the necessary words – precise, clear words that tell the truth, even if unpleasant, that do not sugarcoat reality, that do not beautify it, that do not create confusion, that do not play with painted crows, that do not speak administrative gibberish, that do not make us guess riddles, that do not mumble, that do not hide under technicalities – words that bring a touch of passion, strength, determination, moral clarity. Words that can make, if necessary, a difference, even history. (And, of course, that respect grammar.)

https://www.dilema.ro/situatiunea/drone-capabilitati-si-cuvinte