Since then, accusations from russophobic segments of the Romanian press began to follow. Journalists of the Voice of Russia were called "KGB officers who use their journalistic documents as a cover", and readers of the Voice of Russia’s Romanian site were declared "Moscow’s fifth column". Romania’s former Minister of Justice accused Voice of Russia journalists of "making lists of Romanian politicians, whose reputation it was necessary to destroy", and of "destroying it later". In addition, some German journalists were deeply hurt by the successes of the Voice of Russia. The Romanian site of the German Deutsche Welle radio station published an article accusing the Voice of Russia of undermining the constitutional order of Romania. The article also stated that the new Romanian Constitution would be written in accordance with the tastes of Russian journalists.
At the end of 2012, Director of the Institute of International Relations of the Romanian Academy of Sciences, Dan Dungachu, joined in on the warpath against the Voice of Russia. This "expert" has become famous for his numerous Russophobic statements, and he also managed to work as an adviser on European integration to the acting President of Moldova Mihai Ghimpu. Dungachu’s statements are interesting because, due to an unfortunate misunderstanding, the Romanian mass media consider him to be the greatest specialist on geopolitical issues and relations with Russia. When a journalist asked him what role the Voice of Russia played in Russia's actions in Eastern Europe, the Romanian expert replied, "Moscow uses special information instruments in Romania and the Republic of Moldova... We are a kind of an experiment: Europeans listen to the statements of Moscow about us in order to understand Russia’s next steps. In respect to Romania, Russia affords such things, which it will not afford in respect to other European countries". The interviewer then asked a more specific question, "What is the goal of Moscow’s communication strategy?” Every time, when something happens in Bucharest, the Voice of Russia internet site voices the Kremlin's opinion on the subject. What changes may these comments bring in the political life or public opinion?" Dan Dungachu added his idea by saying, "This strategy creates a mess, and casts doubt on Romania’s commitments in respect to the West. This is a schizophrenic strategy. On the one hand, they praise politicians who don't suffer from pathological Russophobia, and on the other hand, they claim that the Romanian gold taken away to Moscow is no longer there, or that the Republic of Moldova speaks another language, not Romanian, and that the Republic of Moldova was occupied by the Romanian army... Russia cannot “seduce” either Romania, or the Republic of Moldova. Russia believes that its gestures and statements are seductive, but they are more associated with rape, than with seduction".
We can’t help but sympathize with the Romanian "expert". We can also only feel but sympathy for his students whom he teaches political science. An extremely vivid imagination is needed to understand the breadth and depth of the personal problems of the Romanian political analyst, who considers relations between countries exclusively in the terms of "seduction" and "rape". Dan Dungachu cannot understand that speaking the truth is easy and pleasant; and it is the truth that the Romanian and Western media are trying to conceal, and that has become the foundation of the Voice of Russia’s success in Romania. The public has grown tired of this "seduction" and appreciates honesty, without smoothing over the differences, and the public has also become interested in topics that are labeled as “taboo” by the European establishment. The Romanian mass media’s motto is: "America is right even when it is wrong, and it’s better to write unfavorably about Russia or not to write at all". The economic and political crisis has destroyed pleasing illusions of European society and has broken rose-colored spectacles of many Europeans. No wonder that readers are looking for alternative sources of information, and the Voice of Russia has become a source, that can be trusted. The Voice of Russia has revealed the truth about the EU and the United States’ intervention in the internal political life of Romania, has spoken out on the "forbidden" topics of the results of privatization, and many of the forecasts by the Russian broadcaster’s analysts have come true. Naturally, all this has led to strengthening of the Voice of Russia’s influence in Romania. Western propagandists feel that they have lost the monopoly in the ideological sphere, and only this can explain their impotent rage against the Russian broadcaster.