[8] After this a tour of the United Kingdom followed, where he held conferences in Oxford and at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and had meetings at the Foreign Office;[8] Brucan then went to Moscow, where he claimed to have met Gorbachev (though in an earlier account, Brucan only claimed to have met Alexander Yakovlev) in an hour-long meeting, being given assurances that if Ceaușescu was ousted, the Soviet Union would not intervene.
[13] The text of the letter was very clear in its practical demands and set a stark tone, particularly the part in which they compare Romania with Africa, hinting to a future of underdevelopment.
[3] Four of the six were moved from their houses in the exclusivist district of Primăverii to places like the outskirts of Bucharest and the other two were detained:[15] Despite increased pressure, most contributors to the protest refused to withdraw their statement.
[18] Although lacking in actual popular support,[17] the letter was argued to be among the most important and influential acts of opposition during its period, and a notorious break with the tradition of strict obedience and party discipline.
[17] Nevertheless, political scientist Michael Shafir argues that the act of collective dissent within the Party was "too little, too late" and that if it had been done in the mid-1970s, it might have had some consequences and could have been a starting point for some real changes.