Follow us on social

Austria’s Freedom Party breaks ranks on Ukraine

Austria’s Freedom Party breaks ranks on Ukraine

More political upheaval over Europe's handling of the war, fueling populist-nationalism across Europe

Analysis | Europe

The rise of the populist right in European elections continues as Herbert Kickl, the controversial leader of the populist-nationalist Freedom Party (FPÖ) appears on course to become Austria’s new chancellor after attempts to form a centrist coalition collapsed.

In a historic first for postwar Austria, the Freedom Party won the elections in September with 29%, followed closely by the center-right People’s Party (ÖVP). Chancellor Karl Nehammer resigned after having failed, after prolonged talks, to form a coalition with the social democrats and liberals. On January 6, President Van der Bellen asked Kickl to attempt to form a government. Talks immediately began with the interim leader of the People’s Party.

The Freedom Party campaigned on opposition to supporting Ukraine. The People’s Party and other major parties favor continued humanitarian and diplomatic support; neutral Austria has not supplied weapons but has backed EU sanctions against Russia. Because ÖVP and FPÖ agree on immigration and other domestic policy issues, they are considered likely to be able to form a governing coalition, having between them a comfortable majority of seats. However, it is unclear whether FPÖ’s distinctive positions on foreign and security policy will be tempered by partnership with ÖVP.

The novel prospect of a government headed by FPÖ has elicited alarm and anxiety among many Austrians, although the ÖVP and FPÖ have previously governed together, with FPÖ as the more junior partner. In this sense, Austria has long since abandoned the ‘firewall’ strategy followed by Germany, which forbids any coalition with the populist right. Kickl was Interior Minister under ÖVP Chancellor Sebastian Kurz until a major scandal in 2019 forced the Freedom Party out of power. Kickl has led the party’s recovery from near collapse in public support in the aftermath of the scandal.

The uneasy partnership of the two parties began in the early 2000s when under the controversial leadership of Jörg Haider. Haider had moved the Freedom Party sharply to the right, and the EU imposed diplomatic sanctions on Austria to protest his party’s involvement in government. Once a speechwriter for Haider, Kickl follows in Haider’s footsteps with passionate and polarizing positions on immigration.

Germany’s Doppelganger?

Germany is approaching elections on February 23 with a solid “firewall” against coalition with the populist right Alternative for Germany (AfD). Because of the obvious parallels, the Austrian case is closely followed in Germany. The Greens’ leader Robert Habeck said Austria’s example showed that centrist parties needed to learn to stick together, while the AfD’s leader Alice Weidel called for the CDU/CSU to join AfD to form a “bourgeois” majority.

As in Germany, Austria’s center-right supports Ukraine and sanctioning Russia, while the populist right in both countries firmly opposes continuing on that policy course. Both center-right and center-left in both countries call for sharp curbs on immigration, reflecting, to some extent, anxieties among the public about security. Kickl’s attacks on the mainstream press and media, his call for a ‘Fortress’ Austria to keep out migrants, and his aspiration to serve as ‘Volkskanzler’ (people’s chancellor) evoke comparisons to the AfD’s Bjorn Höcke, the party’s leader in the state of Thuringia.

AfD now polls at about 20%, second to the center-right CDU/CSU at about 30% but ahead of the social democrat SPD (16%) and the Greens (13%). If the trend of growing support for AfD continues, it will become more and more difficult to form stable governing majorities that exclude them. From the standpoint of the CDU/CSU, the cooperation in governing coalitions of the center-right ÖVP and FPÖ may serve as a cautionary tale because FPÖ has, at last, surpassed the ÖVP in popular support and is, therefore, less amenable to moderating its more controversial positions. On the other hand, some conservative members of the German center-right might eventually be tempted to form a coalition with AfD rather than being obliged to adopt the compromises needed to form a “grand coalition” with the center-left Social Democrats. Coalition with CDU/CSU is clearly the AfD’s principal avenue to power.

'Orban 2.0' a potential headache for Brussels — and Kyiv

Kickl is close to Hungary’s President Viktor Orban and calls him a role model. If Kickl becomes Chancellor, he is likely to join Orban in opposing the periodic renewal of EU sanctions on Russia. Kickl’s Freedom Party and Orban’s Fidesz in June founded the “Patriots for Europe” action in the European Parliament, where they press for enhancing the power of member states and curbing the power of the Commission.

Although Austria is not a heavyweight in Europe, the addition of one more EU member to the small camp of open opponents of continuing support for Ukraine will have consequences, especially as negotiations to end the war may soon begin. However, it is possible that ÖVP will be able to win concessions from Kickl on the Ukraine issue in return for joining the governing coalition.


Top Photo: Austrian far-right Freedom Party (FPO) Secretary General Kickl addresses a news conference in Vienna. Source: Reuters
Analysis | Europe
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Bombers astray! Washington's priorities go off course

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.