Charting the Radical Right’s Influence on EU Foreign Policy

For an interactive map that illustrates the foreign policy positions of fourteen European radical-right parties, click here.

A New Political Landscape

The political landscape in the European Union (EU) is changing rapidly. For decades, the traditional mainstream parties of the center right and center left have been losing ground, while antiestablishment parties have been gaining support. According to research by the University of Amsterdam, 32 percent of voters opted for antiestablishment parties in 2021, up from 12 percent in the early 1990s.¹ Radical-right parties make up about half of this share, and their support has risen faster than that of any other group.

Many of the fourteen parties examined in this study have achieved vote shares of 20 percent or more. The radical right is now in government, or supports the government, in Finland, Hungary, Italy, Slovakia, and Sweden. In the Netherlands, it is likely that Geert Wilders’s Party for Freedom (PVV) will be part of a governing coalition. In other countries, these parties have become the leading opposition groups. In France, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) has been carefully preparing to win the 2027 presidential election.

Setbacks for the radical right in Poland and Spain in the second half of 2023 have shown that the relentless rise of these parties is not a foregone conclusion. However, current polling for several national elections and the June 2024 European Parliament elections indicates a strong likelihood of their continuing electoral success.² Chega (Enough), a recently established party that shot to 18 percent of the vote in Portugal’s March 2024 election, ended the country’s exceptionalism as one of the few European nations without a right-wing populist party.³ The June 2024 Belgian federal election may see the Flemish nationalist party Vlaams Belang (Flemish Interest), which so far has been strong in Flanders but kept out of national politics, break through at the federal level. Polling for Austria’s September 2024 parliamentary election suggests a surge in support for the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ).⁴

In contrast with populism, which has a thin ideology focused mainly on fomenting the anger of the so-called pure people against corrupt elites and which has risen on both the left and the right of the political spectrum, the radical-right parties of the 2020s have a more distinct ideological profile.⁵ All have national specificities, such as rural origins in Northern Europe or ethnonationalism in Central Europe. Several parties are rooted in postwar fascism, such as the FPÖ, RN, Brothers of Italy (FdI), the Alliance for the Unity of Romanians (AUR), and the Sweden Democrats (SD). For some groups, strong connections with society and well-developed party structures compensated for their marginal impact in national politics. Before its landslide victory in Italy’s 2022 parliamentary election, support for FdI hovered at around 5 percent, as it did for the party’s predecessor throughout the period since World War II.⁶ Other parties, such as Hungary’s Fidesz, gained ground as classic populist or even mainstream parties and benefited from an aura of respectability even as they shifted toward ethnonationalist or nativist positions.

Since the 1990s, liberal-democratic parties have started to adopt some of the ideas of the radical right while keeping the parties themselves out of government. In the 2000s, the radical right became normalized, in some countries becoming part of the political mainstream. During this process, as political scientists Cas Mudde and Jan-Werner Müller have argued, liberal-democratic parties have shifted toward the radical right in the hope—mostly in vain—of keeping their traditional electorates. Yet, in practice, this approach has led voters to prefer the real radical right to its imitators. In other words, the tactic of chasing the radical right has not paid off electorally. Voters have moved toward the radical right as a consequence, not as a cause, of liberal-democratic parties’ attempts to contain it.⁷

Today, the far right is dominated by the radical right, which, unlike the extreme right, accepts the essence of democracy but rejects its liberal elements: minority rights, the rule of law, and the separation of powers.⁸ The radical-right parties selected for this study all share deep antimigration sentiments, often determined by race or religion; a nationalism that makes these parties Euroskeptic and opposed to what they see as a Brussels-based dictatorship; and skepticism of climate change policies. Many of these parties also espouse deeply conservative family values that go against women’s and LGBTQ rights.

Foreign policy is usually not the strong suit of these parties, apart from their keen interest in the external dimension of migration policy. These parties pay close attention to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine but are sharply divided on this issue, with positions ranging from deep mistrust of Russia to close alignment with the Kremlin’s arguments. A future Donald Trump administration could lead to new divisions in the EU, as some member states are likely to align with the United States under any circumstances. This would mean that many of the EU’s current foreign policy positions, such as support for Ukraine, would come to an end. As radical-right parties rise to prominence at the national and the EU level, they are developing views on a range of foreign policy issues, building increasingly influential international networks and think tanks, and learning from each other’s successful tactics in solidifying their control of the state and propagating their values.⁹

For some radical-right parties that have been established in government, such as Fidesz and, until October 2023, Poland’s Law and Justice (PiS) party, the upgrading of foreign policy on their political agendas can be inferred by the fact that all diplomatic postings in the EU are political appointments. Hungary’s foreign policy machinery is under the direct control of the prime minister.¹⁰ Diplomatic colleagues of the Hungarian representatives in Brussels know that the country’s negotiating positions are micromanaged in Budapest.¹¹ Other countries, such as Italy and Finland, have chosen to rely on the credibility of career diplomats to navigate the Brussels machinery, preferring compromise over confrontation and isolation.

For a long time, European politicians and EU institutions have assumed the radical right could be contained. Now, the challenge of the radical right needs to be addressed more seriously. Just as this phenomenon has eroded democracy and the rule of law in some EU member states, so foreign policy may become affected at a time when collective action is most needed to address international issues. As the radical right challenges the EU’s attempts to navigate a dangerous world, European politics can no longer afford complacency.

The New Euroskepticism

Radical-right parties’ views on EU foreign policy are, of course, to a large extent determined by their overall attitudes to European integration. Here, parties have moderated their positions in the years since the United Kingdom’s (UK’s) 2016 Brexit referendum. Demands for countries to leave the EU or the eurozone have mostly been abandoned. The UK’s messy and painful departure from the union has turned such initiatives into vote losers in electoral campaigns. But there is growing ambition in wanting to shape Europe. Le Pen, for example, rallies about an upcoming liberation of Europe’s nations and peoples from a meddling EU “that does not hold a federal but [an] imperial vision.”¹² As Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has put it, “Our plan is not to leave the EU. Our plan is to conquer it.”¹³

Whether this shift represents a genuine change of attitude or just a tactical adjustment may vary from case to case. All of the parties covered by this study remain deeply skeptical of the EU. But tactics and goals differ. Many of these parties now propagate what Le Pen calls a “European alliance of nations,” organized strictly along intergovernmental lines, and this view is gaining traction.¹⁴ When in government, these parties can oppose specific policies not only based on their view of the policies’ merits but also with the aim of disrupting the policymaking process or undermining European integration generally—or as part of a tactical negotiation to get something in return.

Some parties demand a renegotiation of the EU’s treaties and a repatriation of powers to the member states. Others just reject any further transfers of competencies to the European level or the introduction of more majority voting, as opposed to decisionmaking by unanimity. Some parties, including the Alternative for Germany (AfD), threaten to leave the EU if returning powers to national capitals is unsuccessful. Insisting on the primacy of national law over EU law is another position broadly shared by these parties. With few exceptions, when national interests are directly concerned, radical-right parties are hostile to further EU enlargement.

There is no single pathway to interpret the behavior of the radical right when in government or opposition. The Finns Party and FdI have so far proved more pragmatic than many observers had expected, raising hopes that the radical right can be socialized into the system. In the case of the Finns Party, it is constrained by a carefully negotiated coalition agreement that has reined in some of the party’s foreign policy requests to ensure continuity with Finland’s traditional pro-European stance. In Italy, where FdI governs in coalition with another radical-right party and a populist center-right one, the government has chosen a pragmatic policy toward the EU, provided that Brussels responds to the country’s long-standing demands on migration—requests that have been made by Italian governments of all stripes.

Conversely, both PiS and Fidesz became more Euroskeptic during their terms in office and took steps to pursue confrontational relations with Brussels, mostly over rule-of-law issues but also by stoking bilateral relations with other member states and obstructing policy processes. Outside the eurozone and without the restraint associated with coming from a founding EU member state, these two parties have fewer inhibitions to creating tension with Brussels than, for instance, Italy, a large founding member.

Most of the radical-right parties covered by this study are represented in the European Parliament. Despite several attempts, they have so far failed to unite their forces within a single party group. Since the 2019 parliament elections, the parties are primarily organized in two groups: the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) and, farther to the right, Identity and Democracy (ID). Fidesz was a member of the center-right European People’s Party (EPP) until 2021, when it left following a two-year suspension from the group. There have been considerable fluctuations between these groups, with some parties and members of the European Parliament (MEPs) changing their alignment several times and others staying out of any group. There have been reports about Fidesz’s interest in joining the ECR.¹⁵ This could increase the group’s size, but it might hinder a rapprochement with the EPP.

An analysis of MEPs’ voting behavior on foreign policy issues confirms that these matters are contested on ideological grounds. Although nationality is a determining factor in the way an MEP votes, party affiliation tends to be more important.¹⁶ But these parties’ impact on the parliament’s foreign policy positions has so far remained modest. The mainstream party groups generally work well together on these issues, and the radical right remains divided.

This might change after the 2024 elections, when, according to current polling, both the ECR and ID can expect to make considerable gains.¹⁷ The two groups together might have around 25 percent of the MEPs in the new parliament. A significant rightward turn of the legislature could reduce support for measures to implement the European Green Deal, a package that aims to set the EU on the path to a green transition; for the enforcement of EU standards on the rule of law; and for EU enlargement. It could also result in a clear majority of MEPs supporting very restrictive immigration policies.¹⁸ And the parliament could become even more polarized on critical foreign policy challenges, such as supporting Ukraine’s defense against Russia’s invasion and responding to the Israel-Hamas war and the escalation in the Middle East.¹⁹

How the Radical Right Shapes EU Foreign Policy

Whereas populism has expanded in Europe over the past four decades, the radical right has only recently become politically important. The radical right’s achievement of positions of responsibility raises the need for deeper research into its foreign and security policy stances to better gauge its potential influence and impact in the near future. With this in mind, this study has three broad aims: to map the foreign policy positions of fourteen radical-right parties in different EU member states; to understand why and how these parties are influencing EU foreign policy; and to identify potentially divisive areas that could disrupt EU foreign and security policy.

Understanding how the radical right can influence EU foreign policy requires methodological rigor. Studies on the impact of populism—rather than of the radical right—on EU foreign policy have shown that there is more noise and media hype than concrete impact on decisionmaking. Alone, populist parties are rarely able to obstruct foreign policy decisions, show little interest in foreign policy, and often use critical rhetoric at home while falling into line in Brussels. Where they excel is in framing debates in polarizing and securitized terms, most notably on migration. And in doing so, they influence liberal-democratic parties, which take on positions that were previously prerogatives of populism.²⁰

EU foreign policy making has always been fraught with divisions and obstructions. It is an intergovernmental process that allows each member state to exercise a veto power, regardless of its political weight. Common EU positions have frequently been blocked or made hard to achieve by the opposition of one or more member states that claim to be acting in their national interests, notwithstanding the political stripe of the government. This study explores the extent to which the rise of the radical right puts this fragile component of EU policymaking further at risk.

Through the fourteen case studies, a review of existing literature, empirical research, and confidential interviews with individuals in key positions in the EU policymaking system, we have identified several ways in which the radical right shapes EU foreign and security policy. This analysis can shed light on whether these diverse radical-right parties can come together with an EU foreign policy agenda and, if so, what issues may become hard to handle at the EU level.

The dynamics through which the radical right impacts foreign policy can be indirect, by putting pressure on mainstream actors, or direct, by blocking consensus building, aligning with external powers, resisting the development of EU foreign policy architecture, or abusing institutional positions. The consequences of these tactics include the EU’s inability to agree on certain policies, a downgrading of the content of these policies, an erosion of trust among the actors in the foreign policy system, and a weakening of the EU’s international impact and credibility.

Putting Pressure on Mainstream Actors

The most evident dynamic is pressure on mainstream politics. Concerned about increasing electoral competition from the radical right, some European centrist and conservative parties have moved significantly to the right in their positions. These parties now advocate more restrictive migration and asylum policies, and some have even become hostile toward EU-level solutions, preferring a stronger national approach. In 2015–2016, several countries joined Hungary in calling for tough immigration policies and fiercely defensive border controls; today, most governments have moved toward restrictive policies. The needle has shifted toward the radical right.

A similar dynamic is now visible in the EU’s climate change policies. Several center-right parties have become very cautious about EU legislation in this area, particularly when it affects the lifestyle choices of voters or entrenched interests, such as agriculture. This shift has not yet changed the EU’s ambitious climate diplomacy, but the risk of a backlash is undeniable.

Several mainstream parties are also becoming more reluctant to deepen European integration. Reform through changes to the EU’s treaties is widely perceived as unacceptably risky: the negotiations would reveal too many divisions among European governments, and even if they were to reach agreement, the national referendums that would be needed to amend the treaties might be exploited by the radical right for political ends. But even reforms short of treaty change, such as more majority voting, have become unpopular in some countries. Across the EU, there is growing support for protecting member states’ regulatory freedom in economic, fiscal, and other areas.

Blocking Consensus Building

The radical right has raised its game by disrupting EU unity and blocking EU-level initiatives. Consensus building is notoriously difficult in foreign and security policy, especially when national interests are at stake. National vetoes have always plagued EU foreign policy making, but they have been relatively rare. When a government found itself in isolation, it usually fell into line after gaining some face-saving concessions. In recent years, however, the international atmosphere has favored realpolitik tactics and transactionalism. In the EU, blockages have become more frequent, and governments’ aversion to isolation has receded.

To a considerable extent, this trend is due to countries led by radical-right parties, in particular Hungary, which is responsible for the largest number of blockages in EU foreign policy making.²¹ Vetoes by radical-right governments can express strong disagreement over policy, but they can also be employed as leverage to promote other, unrelated objectives—as Hungary showed with its veto of EU financial support for Ukraine in 2023.

A proliferation of national vetoes necessarily weakens the solidarity of EU member states. Many governments find themselves in disagreement with proposed EU policies from time to time. If some member states regularly employ their vetoes, others will be increasingly tempted to do likewise. And as the likelihood of obstruction by one or more states increases, the ambition of EU foreign policy making will inevitably diminish. What is more, time spent in long internal negotiations to overcome national vetoes comes at the expense of outreach to external actors and thus reduces the effectiveness of EU action.

Aligning With External Powers

When in government, radical-right parties have aligned their countries with external powers. The EU’s relative decline on the global stage comes as other major powers are exerting growing influence on the EU in general and on individual member states in particular. The number of cases in which member states have blocked EU positions to accommodate such external powers has grown. Hungary has done this most often, usually for the benefit of China, to restrain criticism of Beijing’s human rights record and territorial ambitions; of Russia, to limit the scope of sanctions since Moscow’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine; or of Israel, to curb criticism of its practices in the occupied territories. Some diplomats are concerned about U.S. interference if Trump wins the 2024 U.S. presidential election.²²

Aside from external powers that willfully seek to influence EU positions, occasionally the radical right deviates from established EU policy and aligns with like-minded nonstate actors that operate outside the EU. For instance, on women’s and LGBTQ rights, the European radical right converges with global organizations such as evangelical churches and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

Often, alignment with outside powers is rhetorical and not followed through in practice. Nonetheless, it is harmful for EU cohesion, as the suspicion that some partners’ loyalties at times lie with such powers undermines trust within the bloc. In particular, aligning with external powers erodes confidence among foreign policy actors working in the EU system by affecting the habit of collegial cooperation and the behavioral practices of diplomats. This impedes practitioners’ readiness to share intelligence and confidential information, making work on some issues, such as strengthening economic security and enforcing sanctions, very challenging.

Resisting the Development of Foreign Policy Architecture

In line with their overall skeptical attitude toward EU integration and their nationalist philosophy, radical-right parties resist the further development of EU foreign policy institutions and procedures. They reject moving to majority voting on foreign policy and are skeptical of the empowerment of EU institutions and foreign policy actors. Most of these parties envisage EU foreign policy at best as a loose coordination mechanism that fully respects member states’ sovereignty to run their own national foreign policies. Most parties also take a negative view of efforts to develop the EU’s defense policy while looking more positively at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

These parties’ skepticism of European integration extends to external policies, particularly trade. Many of these parties sharply criticize the European Commission’s lead role in these areas and would prefer to put the member states in charge.

Abusing Institutional Positions

When they do take on roles in the EU system, radical-right parties perform unevenly. Fidesz and PiS were the first radical-right parties to nominate members of the European Commission. During the commissions of former presidents José Manuel Barroso and Jean-Claude Juncker, the commissioners from Hungary and Poland joined their colleagues and did not stand out by promoting national agendas. In the case of Hungary, this changed under the commission headed by the current president, Ursula von der Leyen.

In 2019, Fidesz’s first nominee as European commissioner, László Trócsányi, was rejected by the European Parliament for alleged conflicts of interest. His replacement, Oliver Várhelyi, was assigned the portfolio of EU enlargement and relations with the union’s neighborhood. His conduct in office soon became controversial. He was accused by officials and MEPs of neglecting the EU’s principle that progress toward accession should be conditional on the rule of law and democracy and of entertaining particularly friendly relations with Western Balkan leaders with autocratic tendencies, such as Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić and Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Milorad Dodik.²³ Equally controversial were Várhelyi’s repeated efforts to curtail the EU’s support for the Palestinian Authority, both before and after Hamas’s October 7, 2023, terrorist attacks against Israel. His actions at various points triggered calls by MEPs for an investigation into his conduct and for his resignation.

The rotating six-month presidency of the EU Council, which brings together national ministers, offers another opportunity for governments dominated by radical-right parties to attempt to shape EU policies according to their agendas. Hungary’s first presidency in 2011, shortly after Fidesz came to power, was generally perceived as pragmatic and reasonably successful, even though restrictive legislation in the country, including a media law, caused some heated debates in the European Parliament.

Hungary’s next presidency comes in the second half of 2024 at a time of much greater estrangement between Budapest and Brussels. Many voices in the parliament and civil society have called for Hungary’s presidency to be suspended or postponed. However, the decision lies with the council, and most member states prefer to respect the established sequence of presidencies. It will be interesting to see how Hungary will handle the challenge—although as far as foreign policy is concerned, the presidency’s role is limited, because both the European Council, which brings together EU leaders, and the Foreign Affairs Council have permanent chairs.

Areas Where the Radical Right Can Have an Impact

Despite sharing similar worldviews, European radical-right parties have not formed a coherent block capable of reshaping EU foreign policy, with the exception of migration policy. However, the situation could change if more radical-right parties were to win power or if there were a change in international circumstances, such as a victory of the radical right in the next U.S. presidential election. Thus, it is worth mapping the areas in which the current EU consensus could be undermined or even altered.

Migration

Opposition to migration and, by extension, to EU migration policies is the single issue that unites all radical-right parties and the area in which they have had the most significant impact. Some, such as FdI, RN, and the AfD, go as far as to warn against “ethnic replacement.”²⁴ These parties are particularly exercised about Muslim immigrants, with the PVV, for instance, having adopted Islamophobia as its primary ideology. Some parties are also opposed to European migration and hostile to Ukrainian refugees. Worries about the economic costs of asylum seekers and the impacts of migration on law and order and the labor market are common features, too.

Most parties advocate renationalizing migration and asylum policies and would resort to drastic measures, including extremely strict border management, naval blockades, the offshoring of asylum procedures to non-EU countries, and the return of unsuccessful asylum seekers to their countries of origin. Many radical-right parties oppose any significant EU role in regulating these matters as well as international rules such as the 1951 United Nations (UN) Refugee Convention or the 2018 UN Global Compact for Migration. A strengthening of the radical right could impede the implementation of regulations on migration, weaken the EU’s capacity to develop further common responses to the migration challenge, and result in a shift toward national policymaking on these issues.

Climate Change

Climate change policies have become fertile ground for exploitation by the radical right—and by external powers. For some radical-right parties, opposition to climate action is associated with nostalgia for a mythical rural past. These parties argue that the relatively small size of their countries compared with the biggest emitters, such as China, the United States, and India, makes national measures to reduce emissions irrelevant on a global scale. Many of the parties covered by this study accept the reality of climate change, but many of their members and followers question whether it is man-made.

The current European backlash against green policies, or greenlash, focuses on the European Green Deal and the Fit for 55 legislative package, which seeks to reduce EU emissions by at least 55 percent by 2030.²⁵ The radical right criticizes this package as an authoritarian elite project that ignores the economic and social costs to citizens and infringes on individual freedoms. Indeed, PiS and Fidesz fought a rearguard action against several elements of the green deal, but as these matters were subject to majority votes, the parties were unable to block them. Poland’s attempts to challenge part of this legislation in the European Court of Justice were similarly unsuccessful.

However, as with migration, these parties’ main impact on EU climate change policies may be indirect. If the radical right is successful in framing the debate about the green transition as an elite conspiracy against the people, mainstream parties will water down the scope and timeframe of the green agenda. The narrow majority with which the European Parliament adopted the EU’s nature restoration law in February 2024 is an indication of this trend.²⁶

Ukraine and Russia

EU policymakers have drawn comfort from the fact that the radical right was sharply divided by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In Poland and the Baltic states, Russia has long been perceived as a threat across the board. In Italy, the commitment of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s FdI-led government to Western efforts contrasted with the pro-Russia sentiments of her coalition partners and the views of earlier governments. Other radical-right parties moved from a Russia-friendly position to a condemnation of the Russian aggression.

But the radical right maintains a critical stance toward U.S. and EU policies, which, in its view, share some responsibility for the crisis. Several parties, including the FPÖ, Fidesz, Bulgaria’s Revival, the Slovak National Party, and the AfD, view Russia favorably. So far, only Orbán has continued to pursue close ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Hungary has obtained exceptions to EU sanctions against Russia to protect its interests in the form of Russian investment and, more generally, has sought to limit the scope and soften the impact of the measures.

With several radical-right parties maintaining open sympathies toward Russia, and others having made scarcely credible U-turns, EU sanctions and military support for Ukraine could be affected if the international context changes. Should Trump, as the next U.S. president, pursue a peace deal with Russia, as he has promised to do, European unity over Ukraine would likely come to an end.²⁷ Conversely, for the anti-Russia radical right in Northern Europe, including the Baltic states, a Trump-Putin rapprochement would be challenging. Diverse attitudes on this issue will remain a serious obstacle to efforts to unite the radical right.

Great-Power Competition

U.S. engagement with European security is likely to diminish—in an accelerated fashion if Trump becomes the next president and in a more gradual way if President Joe Biden is reelected. At present, most radical-right parties align with their country’s mainstream political stance on NATO. But anti-NATO and anti-U.S. sentiments also exist, usually tied to broader antiglobalist or sovereigntist ideologies and often coupled with pro-Russia sympathies or aspirations for an independent defense.

For example, the AfD wants Germany to distance itself from the United States and, by extension, from NATO. The party is more supportive of closer defense cooperation among EU countries. RN has called for France’s departure from the alliance’s integrated military command and is equally hostile to a stronger EU defense policy. The FPÖ opposes NATO, as it fiercely defends Austria’s neutral status. On the whole, an emboldened radical right would make it even harder for Europe to build a strategic defense profile, whether under the umbrella of NATO or of the EU.

Unlike Russia, China has not yet developed ties with the European radical right. Beijing is viewed with some skepticism, especially by Northern European radical-right parties. Meloni’s government has also pulled out of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Conversely, Fidesz and Revival are sympathetic to Chinese interests in Europe because they see Beijing as a source of investment. Because of its leanings toward external actors and its sovereigntist instincts, the radical right could become a hindrance to the EU’s work to bolster its economic security.

EU Enlargement

EU enlargement has long been the most important component of EU foreign policy and has assumed a new importance since the union granted candidate country status to Moldova, Ukraine, and Georgia in 2022–2023. The great majority of radical-right parties see enlargement critically and consider it costly and potentially conducive to more migration. RN, the PVV, the FPÖ, and the AfD have been particularly outspoken on this issue. Other parties, however, support particular candidates: PiS considers Ukraine’s accession important for Poland’s security; AUR looks at Moldova as part of Romanian territory; and Fidesz believes that EU membership for like-minded Western Balkan countries would enhance Hungary’s own influence in the union.

Apart from their overall skeptical attitude to enlargement, radical-right parties tend to support the raising of historical grievances and identity issues in the context of EU accession negotiations. Attempts to leverage EU enlargement to extract concessions from candidate countries have become one of the biggest obstacles to moving the process forward.

Values

As illiberal parties, radical-right groups mobilize to defend national identity, family values, and their countries’ Christian heritage, which they see as under attack from an undemocratic, oppressive liberal elite that has captured the EU’s values agenda. These parties oppose the promotion of this agenda in EU foreign policy and block EU initiatives in this direction. Moreover, the radical right views foreign policy mostly in a transactional manner and shows little interest in promoting respect for human rights, democracy, or the rule of law at the international level. These parties see no reason to criticize powerful third countries for deficits in this area, particularly if doing so could have negative consequences for their own bilateral relationships.

Yet, diplomats agree that the EU’s values-based agenda, especially with respect to women’s and LGBTQ rights, has already been downgraded.²⁸ Sweden has abandoned its feminist foreign policy. PiS was the most ideologically consistent actor in blocking common European positions and was joined by some—but not all—like-minded and conservative-led countries. Some radical-right governments, notably Italy’s, limit their skepticism of gender and LGBTQ rights to domestic politics, without letting their views affect their approach to EU policy.

Although the EU’s values debate is framed in ideological terms, diplomats see the obstructionism of some governments as transactional.²⁹ As long as they are relatively isolated, radical-right governments are less likely to block EU consensus building unless they have something to gain. However, a strengthening of radical-right parties in the EU institutions, in particular the EU Council, would likely further downgrade the promotion of values as an element of EU foreign policy. As a consequence, the EU would lose credibility as a promoter of fundamental values and be exposed to criticism for hypocrisy and double standards. These European divisions also play out in international organizations and aggravate the EU’s tensions with third countries.

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

One area in which the EU is experiencing global accusations of double standards and suffering reputational damage is the Israel-Gaza war, on which the union has divided and divisive positions. The reasons for these divisions run deeper than the rise of the radical right, but these parties do share a pronounced pro-Israel stance. Radical-right parties perceive Israel as a frontline state against Islamist terrorism, a view that resonates with their domestic policies against immigration and multiculturalism. In some cases, paradoxically, anti-Semitic sentiments coexist with a pro-Israel position. Indeed, adopting such a position has helped some parties distance themselves from their anti-Semitic roots. The recent rightward drift of Israeli politics, and contacts between like-minded parties in Israel and Europe, has reinforced the pro-Israel stances of radical-right parties.

The divisions among EU member states are so deep that the radical right’s influence plays only a small part in explaining the union’s problems in agreeing on a common position on the Israel-Gaza war. But the radical right did contribute to the EU’s paralysis. In February 2024, Hungary opposed the imposition of EU sanctions against Israeli settlers in the West Bank and blocked an EU statement that warned against Israel’s planned offensive into Rafah. And days after the October 7 attacks, a post by Várhelyi on X (formerly Twitter) announcing the EU’s suspension of aid to the Palestinians was viewed by 5 million people within the space of a few hours.³⁰

Development Aid

The most significant impact of radical-right parties on development cooperation is their insistence on leveraging aid to obtain reductions in migration flows. In these parties’ view, recipient countries should make it more difficult for people to leave and should support the return of irregular migrants. The SD and the FdI have been particularly active in this regard, with Meloni in January 2024 launching a major investment program for Africa supposedly aimed at addressing the root causes of migration and promoting cooperation on these issues.³¹ Other parties, including the Finns Party and the PVV, place more emphasis on reducing overall levels of assistance. Central European rightist parties have generally been reluctant donors and slow in adopting EU guidelines on development aid. But whereas PiS remained close to the mainstream, Fidesz has been highly critical of EU aid policy while increasing bilateral funding aimed at promoting national objectives.

Radical-right parties have so far not significantly influenced development assistance provided by the commission and the European Investment Bank. But as many mainstream parties follow the radical right in linking aid to cooperation on migration, this idea is likely to become a prominent feature of future EU debates, including on new programs, such as the Global Gateway initiative for infrastructure investment.

Conclusions

All radical-right parties share a strong ethnonationalist orientation. This unites them in their reflexive mistrust of anything foreign and unfamiliar and in their skepticism of regional and global institutions and norms. But this orientation also divides them, as national interests and narratives vary a great deal and are often at odds with each other. As the fragmentation of these parties in the European Parliament shows, these divisions have so far hampered the parties’ ability to work together and reduced their overall impact.

There are variations in the radicalism of these parties’ aversion to European integration, but they all aim at protecting national sovereignty against further infringement by what they see as an unelected Brussels bureaucracy. They converge in their skepticism of the EU’s migration and asylum policies, which they hold responsible for the massive inflows of migrants in recent years, and they are increasingly hostile to the European Green Deal. In defense of Christian and traditional family values, radical-right parties criticize the EU’s gender and LGBTQ policies and are generally reluctant to raise human rights concerns in their relations with third countries. These parties are mostly opposed to further EU enlargement but make exceptions when national interests favor the inclusion of particular neighbors.

The sharpest divisions among radical-right parties concern their relations with Russia and China. A deep mistrust of Russia means that many parties support Ukraine’s efforts in the ongoing war, while others are openly sympathetic toward Moscow and buy into its anti-Western narratives. On China, many of these parties have not yet developed clear positions, but an interest among Central European parties in strong economic relations with Beijing contrasts with the skeptical attitude of their Nordic counterparts.

Where radical-right parties converge, such as on migration and climate change, they are also likely to find support from mainstream parties and influence EU policies. EU initiatives with objectives that these parties oppose tend to run into difficulties. Where the parties are divided, their influence depends on the EU’s decisionmaking procedures. On topics on which the EU decides by a majority vote, their impact is likely to remain limited. Where unanimity is required, such as on foreign policy, radical-right parties in governing coalitions still have an important blocking ability. In cases where a party that threatens to use its national veto can be isolated, as Hungary was on EU assistance to Ukraine, the chances of overcoming the blockage are good. But if other leaders with similar views are at the table, the risk of paralysis is high.

Contagion and Socialization

Interviews with foreign policy practitioners in Brussels have revealed two tendencies with opposite effects: contagion and socialization.

If individual actors aggressively assert narrow national interests, reject compromise, and block decisions, this tends to result in an overall lowering of solidarity in the entire group. This is particularly true in a setting such as the EU Council, which is based on cooperation and reciprocity and lacks effective means to penalize obstructionism. The more such actors appear on the scene and the more concessions they manage to extract, the greater the temptation will be—even for originally cooperative parties—to engage in similar behavior. Everybody has national interests to protect, and nobody wants to be played for a fool. As a consequence of this contagion, the quality of cooperation will deteriorate.

Orbán’s behavior has already had significant negative effects on EU foreign policy. However, on issues such as Ukraine, where the stakes are high and the vast majority of member states are united, the cohesion of the rest has so far been maintained. But if there are more EU leaders who prioritize purely national objectives and show little regard for the union’s common interests, centrifugal tendencies are likely to prevail.

Radical-right parties in opposition tend to adopt extreme positions to mobilize their voter base and attain a high national profile. When they come to power, these parties usually have to moderate their demands, either because they need to accommodate coalition partners or simply because their original views clash with a complex reality. Working in EU institutions can greatly reinforce this tendency toward greater pragmatism. Sitting in the European Council and the EU Council, radical-right leaders and ministers are drawn into a process designed to lead to negotiated outcomes based on compromise. For many—though by no means all—such politicians, this socialization effect will eventually overrule their ideological baggage. Gradually, outsiders can become insiders with a stake in the system.

Meloni’s FdI is currently the most prominent example so far of this trend. Fears that her government would become another disruptor in EU politics, possibly in close cooperation with Orbán’s, have not come true. Notwithstanding the traditionally pro-Russia views of her coalition partners, Meloni has supported Ukraine. Even on migration—a highly sensitive issue for her party—her policies have been more pragmatic than observers had expected. It remains to be seen how long this will last.

The two tendencies—contagion and socialization—work in parallel but also against each other. Should further crises and increased volatility in European politics bring several radical-right leaders, such as Wilders, Le Pen, or the FPÖ’s Herbert Kickl, to power in a short time, contagion would probably overwhelm the EU’s socialization capacity. A calmer period with only limited progress of the radical right might tame existing radical-right leaders and keep Orbán at bay.

Internal Cohesion and External Credibility

Radical-right parties’ contentious ideology, which is at odds with the EU’s fundamental values, as well as their transactional approach to foreign policy making and innate skepticism of the EU institutions trigger centrifugal dynamics in the EU. As a consequence, solidarity and trust among the member states and their willingness to deepen mutual interdependence are weakened.

All of these trends not only make the EU less able to withstand the pressures of future challenges, but they also have important ramifications for the EU’s effectiveness as an international actor. Diplomats already complain that the time spent in exhausting committee negotiations to reach a consensus on foreign and security policy issues is to the detriment of the EU’s engagement with the rest of the world.³² The EU’s international stances and multilateral policies are further undermined when radical-right governments align with external powers or global organizations, or simply do not follow the EU’s collective positions when voting in international bodies. As a consequence, the EU’s values-based agenda becomes downgraded, damaging the union’s credibility.

When democratic backsliding and the unraveling of the rule of law occur in the EU, the external impact is not only reputational damage. Such developments also give radical-right political forces in neighboring countries a blueprint to dodge the rule-of-law conditions the EU places on its closest partners. This trend weakens the union’s enlargement agenda and contributes to the consolidation of illiberal forces in countries close to the EU.

The Trump Factor

A return of Donald Trump as U.S. president would have a hugely disruptive influence on the EU, which would splinter into various factions, with some countries advocating a stronger and more autonomous EU and others seeking to assuage Trump for the sake of U.S. security guarantees. In this context, it would be very hard for the EU to find unity in the pursuit of many of its current foreign and security policies. This challenge would be made even more difficult by European governments that include the radical right and share ideological affinities with Trump.

Ukraine would be the first victim of this political constellation, as the EU would find it difficult to muster sufficient commitment to continue its financial and military support for the country. Efforts to strengthen the EU’s economic security would be paralyzed both by the influence of external actors seeking to shape EU positions and by the radical right’s skepticism of coordination from Brussels on economic and foreign policies. Europe would become a playground for a possible heightened U.S.-China rivalry, with some radical-right parties acting as Trojan horses and others invoking national sovereignty and protectionism.

What is less clear is whether Trump can be a unifying factor for the European radical right, which currently represents a spectrum with anti-U.S. and pro-Russia sentiments at one end and pro-U.S. and anti-Russia preferences at the other. In the case of a Trump-Putin rapprochement, these parties might find themselves in a schizophrenic predicament.

Responding to the Radical Right

For the political mainstream, the rise of the radical right offers important lessons and needs to be met with robust, coherent responses. First and foremost, the EU as a liberal, democratic project has no future without its core values. Parties committed to these values need consistent cooperation to isolate the most determined disruptors and persuade wavering partners to come on board.

The responsibility to contain the radical right lies primarily with mainstream parties working at the national level. These need to resist the temptation to mimic the radical right. Experience has shown that this tactic backfires and strengthens the radical right, which may become the new mainstream. Whenever a national coalition with a radical-right party is inevitable, mainstream parties should ensure to include binding guardrails in coalition agreements so that the entire government remains committed to European values and principles.

Mainstream political forces should actively engage in dialogue with all parties that are democratic and not racist, even if they are critical of EU institutions and policies. Many of these parties have not yet fully developed positions on most foreign policy issues. There should be space for persuasion and convergence.

At the EU level, member states should pursue efforts to make the EU foreign policy making process more flexible. The rise of radical-right parties has made the transition to majority voting even more difficult than it was already, but there might be opportunities for softer measures, such as more use of constructive abstention. In some cases of blockages, the EU’s treaty provisions on enhanced cooperation could offer a way forward. Also, making a declaration on behalf of a very large majority of member states is sometimes preferable to remaining silent.

The president of the European Commission has considerable influence over the nomination of European commissioners. She should make sure that they work in a nonideological manner for the EU’s common interests and are assigned portfolios for which their party backgrounds do not create conflicts of interest.

The rule of law is not only a key principle of the EU but also a crucial requirement for the functioning of the internal market. The EU institutions therefore need to remain strict and consistent in their handling of instruments to ensure respect for the rule of law. The institutions need to resist attempts to leverage other policy objectives to weaken the EU’s rule-of-law conditionality.

Finally, interviews suggested that Trump’s return as U.S. president would severely aggravate many of Europe’s external challenges and exacerbate the internal disruption from radical-right parties. Preparing for this eventuality in both the EU and NATO requires serious planning that should start now.³³

The authors would like to thank the national and EU diplomats and policymakers interviewed for their confidence in sharing their insights.

Carnegie Europe is grateful to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland for their support of this work.

Notes

¹ “Home,” The PopuList, https://popu-list.org.

² Mingo Garscha, “EU Parliamentary Projection: Three-Way for Third and Sixth Place,” Europe Elects, March 4, 2024, https://europeelects.eu/2024/03/04/february-2024/.

³ Paul Kirby and Alison Roberts, “Centre Right Wins Portuguese Election as Radical right Surges,” BBC News, March 11, 2024, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68526833.

⁴ “Welche Partei würden Sie wählen, wenn am nächsten Sonntag Nationalratswahl wäre?” [Which Party Would You Vote For If There Were a National Council Election Next Sunday?], Statista, 2024, https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/288503/umfrage/sonntagsfrage-zur-nationalratswahl-in-oesterreich-nach-einzelnen-instituten/.

⁵Cas Mudde, “The Populist Zeitgeist,” Government and Opposition 39, no. 4 (2004): 541–563, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00135.x.

⁶ “Camera 04/03/2018” [Chamber of Deputies, March 4, 2018], Eligendo, https://elezionistorico.interno.gov.it/index.php?tpel=C&dtel=04/03/2018&es0=S&tpa=I&lev0=0&levsut0=0&ms=S&tpe=A.

⁷ Cas Mudde, The Far Right Today (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2019); Larry M. Bartels, Democracy Erodes From the Top: Leaders, Citizens, and the Challenge of Populism in Europe (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2023); Jan-Werner Mueller, “Mainstreaming the Far right,” Project Syndicate, October 20, 2023, https://www.project-syndicate.org/onpoint/populism-far-right-relies-on-mainstream-conservative-elites-by-jan-werner-mueller-2023-10; and Werner Krause, Denis Cohen, and Tarik Abou-Chadi, “Does Accommodation Work? Mainstream Party Strategies and the Success of Radical Right Parties,” Political Science Research and Methods 11, no. 1 (2023): 172–179, https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2022.8.

⁸ Mudde, The Radical right Today.

⁹ “‘National Conservatives’ Are Forging the Global Front Against Liberalism,” Economist, February 15, 2024, https://www.economist.com/briefing/2024/02/15/national-conservatives-are-forging-a-global-front-against-liberalism.

¹⁰ Péter Visnovitz and Erin Kristin Jenne, “Populist Argumentation in Foreign Policy: The Case of Hungary Under Viktor Orbán, 2010–2020,” Comparative European Politics 19 (2021): 683–702, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41295-021-00256-3.

¹¹ Authors’ off-the-record interviews with EU diplomats in January and February 2024.

¹² “Discours de Marine Le Pen – Agde 18 septembre 2022” [Speech by Marine Le Pen—Agde, September 18, 2022], National Rally, September 18, 2022, https://rassemblementnational.fr/discours/discours-de-marine-le-pen-agde-18-septembre-2022.

¹³ Ben Hall, Marton Dunai, and Henry Foy, “Viktor Orbán: What Is the Endgame for Europe’s Chief Disrupter?,” Financial Times, February 1, 2024, https://www.ft.com/content/e158834e-1860-4dee-9d2f-3458ec71f287.

¹⁴ Davide Basso, “Marine Le Pen réinstalle le duel avec Emmanuel Macron dans ses propositions sur l’Europe” [Marine Le Pen Reestablishes the Duel With Emmanuel Macron in Her Proposals on Europe], Euractiv, January 18, 2022, https://www.euractiv.fr/section/elections/news/marine-le-pen-reinstalle-le-duel-avec-emmanuel-macron-dans-ses-propositions-sur-leurope/.

¹⁵ Henry Olsen, “If Fidesz Joins the ECR That Would Be Good for Hungary – and Good for Europe,” Brussels Signal, February 20, 2024, https://brusselssignal.eu/2024/02/if-fidesz-joins-the-ecr-that-would-be-good-for-hungary-and-good-for-europe/.

¹⁶ Simon Otjes, Harmen van der Veer, and Wolfgang Wagner, “Party Ideologies and European Foreign Policy. Examining the Transnational Foreign Policy Space,” Journal of European Public Policy 30, no. 9 (2023): 1793–1819, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13501763.2022.2096103.

¹⁷ “EU Election Projection 2024,” Europe Elects, https://europeelects.eu/ep2024/.

¹⁸ Cunningham and Hix, “A Sharp Right Turn.”

¹⁹ Max Becker and Nicolai von Ondarza, “Geostrategy From the Far right,” Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, March 1, 2024, https://www.swp-berlin.org/publikation/geostrategy-from-the-far-right.

²⁰ Rosa Balfour et al., “Europe’s Troublemakers – The Populist Challenge to Foreign Policy,” European Policy Centre, March 8, 2016, https://www.epc.eu/en/Publications/EUROPES-TROUBLEMAKERS--The-p~257da8; and David Cadier and Christian Lequesne, “How Populism Impacts EU Foreign Policy,” Sciences Po, November 2020, https://sciencespo.hal.science/hal-03592985.

²¹Nicole Koenig, “Qualified Majority Voting in EU Foreign Policy: Mapping Preferences,” Jacques Delors Centre, February 10, 2020, https://www.delorscentre.eu/fileadmin/2_Research/1_About_our_research/2_Research_centres/6_Jacques_Delors_Centre/Publications/20200210_Policy_Brief_QMV_Koenig__1_.pdf.

²² Authors’ off-the-record interviews with EU diplomats in January and February 2024.

²³ Zosia Wanat and Lili Bayer, “Olivér Várhelyi: Europe’s Under-Fire Gatekeeper,” Politico, October 5, 2021, https://www.politico.eu/article/oliver-varhelyi-eu-commissioner-enlargement-western-balkans-serbia-human-rights-democracy-rule-of-law/.

²⁴ Steve Rose, “A Deadly Ideology: How the ‘Great Replacement Theory’ Went Mainstream,” Guardian, June 8, 2022, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/08/a-deadly-ideology-how-the-great-replacement-theory-went-mainstream.

²⁵ “Fit for 55,” European Council, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/green-deal/fit-for-55-the-eu-plan-for-a-green-transition/.

²⁶ Louise Guillot, “EU Nature Law Survives Conservative Backlash in Final Parliament Vote,” Politico, February 27, 2024, https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-nature-law-survives-conservative-backlash-in-final-parliament-vote/.

²⁷ Rosa Balfour, "Kriege und Wahlen: Europa muss sich für ein schwieriges Jahr wappnen" [Wars and elections: Europe must prepare for a difficult year], Der Tagesspiegel, December 21, 2023, https://www.tagesspiegel.de/internationales/kriege-und-wahlen-europa-muss-sich-fur-ein-schwieriges-jahr-wappnen-10948681.html.

²⁸ Authors’ off-the-record interviews with EU diplomats in January and February 2024.

²⁹ Authors’ off-the-record interviews with EU diplomats in January and February 2024.

³⁰ Barbara Moens, Suzanne Lynch, and Gregorio Sorgi, “Europe Struggles to Present Consistent Messaging on Palestinian Aid,” Politico, October 10, 2023, https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-battles-to-present-common-front-on-palestinian-aid/.

³¹ Hannah Roberts, “As Meloni Embraces Africa, Europe Holds Its Breath,” Politico, January 29, 2024, https://www.politico.eu/article/meloni-italy-africa-energy-migration-far-right/.

³² Authors’ off-the-record interviews with EU diplomats in January and February 2024.

Austria: Fortress Austria, Permanently Neutral

The Freedom Party of Austria: Evolution and Profile

The Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) was founded in 1956 as a coalition between German nationalists—many of them former members of the Nazi Party—and a more liberal political group. The following three decades, in which the party received only modest electoral support, were marked by repeated struggles between these two wings. During a relatively liberal period, the FPÖ joined a governing coalition with the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPÖ) from 1983 to 1986.

In 1986, Jörg Haider, the charismatic leader of the German nationalist wing, took over the FPÖ. Two years later, he called the Austrian nation a “freak,” but responding to the increasing European orientation of the country’s two mainstream parties, the SPÖ and the center-right Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP), he later undertook a far-reaching patriotic rebranding of the FPÖ, which he combined with xenophobic and Euroskeptic propaganda.¹ Skillfully exploiting the public’s fatigue with Austria’s prevailing model of grand coalitions between the two main parties, Haider led the FPÖ to a series of electoral successes.²

From 2000 to 2006, the FPÖ joined a governing coalition led by the ÖVP’s Wolfgang Schüssel, a move that was perceived in Western Europe as a breach of the European Union’s (EU’s) cordon sanitaire around radical-right parties and triggered diplomatic sanctions by the other fourteen EU member states. The FPÖ’s participation in the government was overshadowed by scandals and resulted in electoral defeats and the party’s breakup—albeit temporarily. However, by 2017, the FPÖ had regained much of its earlier strength and again entered a governing coalition with the ÖVP under Sebastian Kurz; after further scandals, this coalition broke up in 2019. In that year’s parliamentary election, the FPÖ won 16.2 percent of the vote—a loss of 10 percentage points compared with the previous election.³

Yet, once again, the party proved its resilience and skill in attracting the support of angry voters. The FPÖ gained ground in regional elections in Lower Austria, Carinthia, and Salzburg. As of this writing, the party is leading in polling for the next parliamentary election, due in fall 2024, with up to 30 percent of the vote, followed by the ÖVP and the SPÖ, with roughly 23 percent each.⁴ The SPÖ, the Greens, and the New Austria and Liberal Forum have ruled out a coalition with the FPÖ, while the ÖVP is keeping its options open. The FPÖ is also expected to do well in the June 2024 elections to the European Parliament, where the party belongs to the Identity and Democracy group.

Under its current chairman, Herbert Kickl, the FPÖ maintains a strong focus on migration. The party is also highly critical of EU and Austrian climate change policies. The FPÖ considers Austrian support for Ukraine and sanctions against Russia a violation of Austria’s neutrality, and the party is exploiting widespread anger about the cost-of-living crisis as well as enduring resentment toward Austria’s relatively harsh restrictions during the coronavirus pandemic.

Relationship With the EU

The FPÖ’s attitude to European integration has gone through profound changes. A 1968 party program contained a commitment to a European federal state with common foreign, monetary, and economic policies and supported Austria joining the European Communities, the precursor of the EU. At the time, the Austrian political mainstream considered participation in European integration to be incompatible with Austria’s neutral status.⁵ But in the early 1990s, as Austria was negotiating its accession to the EU, the FPÖ under Haider turned skeptical. In the campaign for the 1994 referendum on accession, the party opposed Austria’s membership, arguing that Brussels’s bureaucratic centralism would threaten Austria’s national identity.

In the following years, FPÖ politicians repeatedly flirted with the idea of a referendum on leaving the EU or the eurozone.⁶ However, during its periods in government, the FPÖ left the management of EU business mostly to the broadly pro-European ÖVP ministers. Against the background of a skeptical public, Austria’s consent to the EU’s big bang enlargement in 2004 and 2007 was masterminded by Schüssel. The FPÖ signaled its unhappiness and played for time but ultimately fell into line.

Like other radical-right parties, the FPÖ moderated its views on the EU after Brexit. An Austrian exit from the union is no longer on the agenda, but deep-seated Euroskepticism persists. The current party program asserts—under the telling headline “Austria First”—a commitment to “a Europe of self-determined peoples and fatherlands and to cooperation within Europe according to the basic principles of subsidiarity and federalism. The destiny of Europe must be characterised by the organisational freedom of its states.”⁷ The program opposes “forced multiculturalism, globalisation and mass immigration” and highlights “the western values, the cultural heritage and the traditions of the European peoples.”

It follows from this position that the FPÖ opposes reform of the EU’s treaties, which would, in the party’s view, only result in more Brussels-based centralism at the expense of the member states’ sovereignty. For the same reasons, the FPÖ also rejects an extension of majority voting, as opposed to decisionmaking by unanimity, in the EU Council.

Recently, Kickl has ramped up the party’s aggressive anti-EU rhetoric. Speaking in May 2023, he accused the EU of “undermining Austria’s well-earned prosperity, its permanent neutrality, and its sovereignty” and demanded a “Fortress Austria” to protect the country not only against mass migration but also against the selling out of national competencies to Brussels.⁸

A part of this aggressive tone is due to the incipient campaigns for the crucial 2024 national and European Parliament elections. However, one should not assume that if the FPÖ were to participate in the government after the next national election it would again behave pragmatically. According to current polls, the party might well end up as the stronger partner in a coalition, which would greatly enhance its influence. Also, the FPÖ’s only potential coalition partner, the ÖVP, traditionally a distinctly pro-European party, increasingly tends toward Euroskeptic positions as it worries about losing further voters to the FPÖ. Thus, there is a considerable risk of Austria hardening its line on European integration.

Foreign Policy Positions

Foreign policy has never been an important part of the FPÖ’s profile. The party’s general attitude to policy is framed by a strong focus on protecting Austria’s identity in a narrow and conservative sense. In line with the party’s slogan, “Austria First,” the FPÖ is distrustful of foreign entanglements, dismissive of notions of international solidarity, and skeptical of development cooperation. There is a strong current of anti-Americanism in the party, combined with considerable sympathy for Russia’s policies. The FPÖ’s earlier German nationalist orientation has been replaced by a heavy emphasis on Austrian patriotism. In terms of security policy, the party’s top priority is the preservation of Austrian neutrality, which it sees as threatened both by the EU’s active sanctions policies and by moves toward closer EU defense cooperation.

During the ÖVP-FPÖ coalition in 2017–2019, Karin Kneissl, who was nominated by the FPÖ but was not a party member, headed Austria’s foreign ministry. Apart from the eccentric idea of inviting Russian President Vladimir Putin to her wedding and Austria’s refusal to sign the United Nations Global Compact for Migration, Austrian foreign policy during that time did not deviate significantly from the EU mainstream.

Immigration and Asylum

Ever since Haider assumed the party leadership in 1986, resistance to immigration has been a central policy platform of the FPÖ and a major vote winner. Contrary to all the evidence, the party program insists that “Austria is not a country of migration.”⁹ In fact, as of August 2023, 26.4 percent of the country’s inhabitants had a migration background.¹⁰ The party ascribes a high value to Austria’s identity, as shaped by its German language, culture, and history, and takes a highly restrictive line on the integration of foreigners. There is a particular bias against migrants and asylum seekers from Muslim-majority countries.

According to FPÖ politicians, if the EU cannot secure its external borders, the member states will have to defend their national borders and the passport-free Schengen Area will not survive.¹¹In response to a recent rise in asylum applications, the party demanded a cap on such applications, pushbacks of migrants and effective technical barriers at the Austrian border, the criminalization of illegal border crossings, massive pressure on third countries to support migrant returns, and the transfer of asylum seekers to camps in third countries.¹² The party rejects the EU’s attempts to develop a common asylum policy and, in particular, any notion of burden sharing.

While the FPÖ’s positions are extreme, the party has succeeded in shaping the discourse on these issues in Austria. Particularly the ÖVP, which currently leads the government, but also other mainstream parties are shifting toward an increasingly restrictive stance on migration and asylum. It is difficult to see this trend changing anytime soon.

Russia and Ukraine

The Austrian political establishment has for decades enjoyed excellent relations with Russia. For a long time, the FPÖ remained an outsider in this respect. But around the time of Moscow’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, relations between the party and Russia began to develop dynamically. FPÖ politicians began propagating the Russian narrative on the conflict and condemned EU sanctions on Moscow. Some even participated as election monitors in the 2014 referendum on the status of Crimea. In 2016, the FPÖ signed a cooperation agreement with Russia’s leading party, United Russia—although, according to the FPÖ, the accord has since lapsed. So, while the Austrian mainstream finally distanced itself from Russia, the FPÖ intensified its engagement.

Kickl does not belong to the party’s more pro-Russia faction. Nonetheless, after Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, he pleaded for understanding on “both sides” and assigned some of the responsibility for the conflict to the United States.¹³ To this day, FPÖ politicians continue to argue along these lines. They reject sanctions against Russia, highlight the cost of the conflict to Austria’s economy, and claim that Austria’s participation in these sanctions violates the country’s neutrality.¹⁴ The FPÖ takes a particularly negative view of EU military support for Ukraine, maintaining that neutral Austria should instead work diplomatically toward an immediate ceasefire.

Security and Relations With the United States

In the 1990s, several prominent FPÖ politicians considered Austrian neutrality to be obsolete and supported an early application for the country’s membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).¹⁵ But in later years, the party took note of the enduring popularity of neutrality among Austria’s population and turned itself into a passionate defender of the country’s neutral status. With the exception of brief periods in 2000–2003 and 2017–2019 when FPÖ politicians held the position of defense minister, the party has looked at EU initiatives to develop its security and defense policy with suspicion and regularly criticizes the government for its participation in these efforts.

There is a significant anti-American bias in the FPÖ, which goes back to the party’s German nationalist origins. Lately, some FPÖ politicians, like those in other radical-right groups in Europe, have attempted to build relationships with right-wing U.S. Republicans, with whom they share a distaste for liberal values.¹⁶

Climate Change

For a long time absent from the Austrian debate on the climate transition, the FPÖ in 2023 discovered Austrians’ widespread anger about energy transition measures and climate activists as an important new source of political support. FPÖ politicians stop short of denying the reality of climate change and take a positive view on promoting renewable energy. But they attack the European Green Deal—a package of policy initiatives that aims to set the EU on the path to a green transition—and the Austrian government’s measures as excessive and overambitious, claiming that the main emitter countries, China, India, and the United States, are not making similar efforts.¹⁷ According to the FPÖ, oil and gas will remain essential to keep the European economy going.

The FPÖ considers the EU’s climate change policies to be an authoritarian elite project that ignores the economic and social costs for normal people and massively constrains individual freedom, particularly of car owners. Kickl has even coined the phrase “climate communism.”¹⁸ FPÖ politicians also criticize Austria’s contribution to financial support for the Global South for climate goals.¹⁹

EU Enlargement

Polls indicate very little support in Austria for EU enlargement to the Western Balkans or Ukraine.²⁰ Nonetheless, the government maintains a positive narrative about the accession ambitions of the Western Balkan countries. Unsurprisingly, this provokes heavy criticism from the FPÖ. According to Kickl, further EU enlargement would threaten the union’s stability and economic balance. All of the newly acceding countries would receive huge funds from the EU budget and contribute very little to it. The FPÖ rejects collective EU debt as a way to finance support for Ukraine or future enlargement, arguing that this would progressively undermine the sovereignty of the member states.²¹

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Despite its roots in Nazism, the FPÖ has held a pro-Israel stance for a long time. This alignment was particularly evident in the views of Heinz-Christian Strache, a previous party leader. Strache’s perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict closely resembled those of Israel’s right-wing Likud party and The Jewish Home, a former radical-right party.²² He supported Israel’s right to build settlements in the West Bank and advocated moving the Austrian embassy in Israel from Ramat Gan to Jerusalem. The current party leader, Herbert Kickl, sharply condemned Hamas’s attack on Israel in October 2023.²³ Like other European radical-right parties, the FPÖ portrays itself as philo-Semitic and pro-Israel, a position that is also part of its broader anti-Muslim and hardline stance on migrants.

Notes

¹ “Haiders umstrittenste Sager” [Haider’s Most Controversial Sayings], Die Presse, December 30, 2016, https://www.diepresse.com/1462760/haiders-umstrittenste-sager.

² Susanne Frölich-Steffen, “Die Identitätspolitik der FPÖ: vom Deutschnationalismus zum Österreich-Patriotismus” [The Identity Politics of the FPÖ: From German Nationalism to Austrian Patriotism], Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 33, no. 3 (2004): 281–295, https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-60678.

³ “Nationalratswahl 2019” [2019 National Council Election], ORF, 2019, https://orf.at/wahlergebnisse/nr19/#ergebnisse/0.

⁴ “Welche Partei würden Sie wählen, wenn am nächsten Sonntag Nationalratswahl wäre?” [Which Party Would You Vote For If There Were a National Council Election Next Sunday?], Statista, June 30, 2023, https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/288503/umfrage/sonntagsfrage-zur-nationalratswahl-in-oesterreich-nach-einzelnen-instituten/.

⁵ “Parteiprogramme” [Party Programs], Political Academy of the Freedom Party of Austria, https://www.fbi-politikschule.at/blauesoesterreich/programmatik/parteiprogramme/.

⁶ “SK-Dokumentation: Die Aussagen der Freiheitlichen zum EU Austritt” [SK Documents: The Statements of the Freedom Party About Leaving the EU], OTS, February 12, 2019, https://www.ots.at/presseaussendung/OTS_20190212_OTS0188/sk-dokumentation-die-aussagen-der-freiheitlichen-zum-eu-austritt.

⁷ “Party Programme of the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ),” Freedom Party of Austria, 2011, https://www.fpoe.at/fileadmin/user_upload/www.fpoe.at/dokumente/2015/2011_graz_parteiprogramm_englisch_web.pdf.

⁸ “FPÖ – Kickl zum Europatag: „Die Zukunft der EU ist die Gemeinschaft souveräner Staaten und kein zentralistischer Superstaat“” [FPÖ—Kickl on Europe Day: “The Future of the EU Is a Community of Sovereign States, Not a Centralized Superstate”], OTS, May 9, 2023, https://www.ots.at/presseaussendung/OTS_20230509_OTS0132/fpoe-kickl-zum-europatag-die-zukunft-der-eu-ist-die-gemeinschaft-souveraener-staaten-und-kein-zentralistischer-superstaat.

⁹ “Parteiprogramm der Freiheitlichen Partei Österreichs (FPÖ)” [Party Program of the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ)], Freedom Party of Austria, June 18, 2011, https://www.fpoe.at/parteiprogramm.

¹⁰ “Mehr als ein Viertel der Bevölkerung hat Wurzeln im Ausland” [More Than a Quarter of the Population Has Roots Abroad], Statistik Austria, August 24, 2023, https://www.statistik.at/fileadmin/announcement/2023/08/20230824MigrationIntegration2023.pdf.

¹¹ “FPÖ – Hofer: Das Modell Schengen ist gescheitert” [FPÖ—Hofer: The Schengen Model Has Failed], OTS, November 11, 2020, https://www.ots.at/presseaussendung/OTS_20201111_OTS0149/fpoe-hofer-das-modell-schengen-ist-gescheitert.

¹² “Asylstopp jetzt! Das 20-Punkte-Maßnahmenpaket der FPÖ” [Stop Asylum Now! The FPÖ’s Twenty-Point Package of Measures], Freedom Party of Austria, https://www.fpoe.at/asylstopp-jetzt.

¹³ “Kickl fordert Verständnis für Russland und kritisiert EU-Sanktionen” [Kickl Calls for Understanding for Russia and Criticizes EU Sanctions], Der Standard, May 8, 2022, https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000135534618/kickl-fordert-verstaendnis-fuer-russland-und-ein-ende-der-eu/.

¹⁴ Voralberg Online, “Kickl für Waffenstillstand zwischen Ukraine und Russland” [“Kickl for ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia”], February 27, 2024,
https://www.vol.at/kickl-fur-waffenstillstand-zwischen-ukraine-und-russland/8590330.

¹⁵ “SK-Dokumentation: Neutralitäts-Feindschaft hat in FPÖ lange und unrühmliche Tradition!” [SK Documents: Hostility to Neutrality Has a Long and Inglorious Tradition in the FPÖ!], OTS, February 23, 2023, https://www.ots.at/presseaussendung/OTS_20230223_OTS0127/sk-dokumentation-neutralitaets-feindschaft-hat-in-fpoe-lange-und-unruehmliche-tradition.

¹⁶ Sandra Schieder and Fabian Schmid, “Freedom Party im Trump-Land: Die USA-Reisen der FPÖ” [Freedom Party in Trump Country: The FPÖ’s Trips to the United States], Der Standard, January 6, 2023, https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000142294314/freedom-party-im-trump-land-die-usa-reisen-der-fpoe.

¹⁷ FPO, “Hauptverantwortung für Klimaschutz liegt bei größten CO2-Produzenten” [“The main responsibility for climate protection lies with the largest CO2 producers”], November 18, 2022,
https://www.fpoe.at/artikel/hauptverantwortung-fuer-klimaschutz-liegt-bei-groessten-co2-produzenten/.

¹⁸ “Kickl wettert in Leoben "gegen Allianz der Verrückten"” [Kickl Rails “Against Alliance of Crazy People” in Leoben], Der Standard, June 30, 2023, https://www.derstandard.at/story/3000000177153/asyl-kickl-rundumschlag-in-leoben-gegen-allianz-der-verr252ckten.

¹⁹ “FPÖ – Kassegger: “Klimapolitik von Schwarz-Grün und der EU ist Torpedo gegen unsere Wirtschaft, Freiheit und Wohlstand!” [FPÖ—Kassegger: “The Climate Policy of the Black-Green Coalition and the EU Is a Torpedo Against Our Economy, Freedom, and Prosperity!”], OTS, June 1, 2023, https://www.ots.at/presseaussendung/OTS_20230601_OTS0196/fpoe-kassegger-klimapolitik-von-schwarz-gruen-und-der-eu-ist-torpedo-gegen-unsere-wirtschaft-freiheit-und-wohlstand.

²⁰ “ÖGfE-Umfrage: Keine Mehrheit für EU-Erweiterung, geteilte Meinungen zu Ausbau des Schengen-Raums” [ÖGfE Survey: No Majority for EU Enlargement, Divided Opinions on Expanding the Schengen Area], Austrian Society for European Politics, May 12, 2023, https://www.oegfe.at/umfragen/oegfe-umfrage-keine-mehrheit-fuer-eu-erweiterung-geteilte-meinungen-zu-ausbau-des-schengen-raums-3/.

²¹ “FPÖ – Kickl: Schluss mit den gefährlichen EU-Erweiterungsfantasien der ÖVP” [FPÖ—Kickl: Put an End to the ÖVP’s Dangerous EU Enlargement Fantasies], OTS, March 16, 2022, https://www.ots.at/presseaussendung/OTS_20220316_OTS0056/fpoe-kickl-schluss-mit-den-gefaehrlichen-eu-erweiterungsfantasien-der-oevp.

²² Raphael Ahren, “In Austria, Rise of Pro-Israel, Far-right Faction Forces Israel Into Corner,” Times of Israel, October 11, 2017, https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-austria-rise-of-pro-israel-far-right-faction-forces-israel-into-corner/.

²³ APA-OTS, “FPÖ - Kickl verurteilt heimtückischen terroristischen Angriff auf Israel auf das Schärfste” [“FPÖ - Kickl strongly condemns the insidious terrorist attack on Israel”], October 7, 2023, https://www.ots.at/presseaussendung/OTS_20231007_OTS0019/fpoe-kickl-verurteilt-heimtueckischen-terroristischen-angriff-auf-israel-auf-das-schaerfste.

Bulgaria: A Pro-Kremlin Disruptor Throws a Wrench in the Works

Revival: Evolution and Profile

The Bulgarian radical right has in recent years been firmly occupied by the nationalist, anti-Western, pro-Kremlin party Revival. The name refers to Bulgaria’s nineteenth-century revival of a national consciousness, cultural regeneration, and a revolutionary impetus for national liberation and autonomy from the Ottoman Empire. While other radical-right nationalist parties have not typically commanded a constant presence in Bulgaria’s public and media space, Revival has been able to significantly exceed the traditional appeal and influence of such political groups.

Since it was established in 2014, Revival’s ascendancy in Bulgarian politics has been shaped by the party’s persistent messaging and positioning. It started to run a very effective, high-impact social media campaign, particularly on Facebook. Revival’s ability to move from the political fringes to the mainstream of public debate was underlined not least by the party’s appeal to pro-Russia societal sentiments and nationalist leanings. Bulgaria’s permissive media and political environment further enabled Revival’s anchoring in the mainstream. Nationwide television channels catapulted the party and its leader, Kostadin Kostadinov, from social media influencer to a larger political force.

The combined effect of the party’s political communication strategy and the general political and societal receptiveness to its messages has been a steep increase in Revival’s electoral support. In Bulgaria’s November 2021 parliamentary election, the party garnered 4.9 percent of the vote and entered the parliament for the first time; by the April 2023 election, it had gained 14.2 percent of the vote.¹

Revival’s political rise and its presence in the parliament have provided the party with a wide platform from which to advance its initiatives. Four methods employed by the party stand out. First, it has pushed virulent pro-Russia and anti-Western disinformation, undermining societal confidence in the importance of Bulgaria’s Euro-Atlantic commitments. Second, Revival has consistently organized protests, especially against providing military aid to Kyiv and in favor of maintaining Bulgaria’s neutrality in the Russian war against Ukraine. Third, the party has moved from rhetorical aggression to violent skirmishes in the parliament, including physical attacks on political opponents.² And fourth, Revival has weaponized the conduct of referendums, in particular on the introduction of the euro in Bulgaria, as part of its Euroskeptic campaign.

The main impact of Revival’s activities has been to cause political disruption and undermine Bulgarians’ faith in the whole political class, which the party sees as treasonous for acting against Bulgaria’s national interests—defined by Revival as being in line with those of the Kremlin. Moreover, the party’s propagandist discourse has sown doubt in the country’s Euro-Atlantic path and its memberships in the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Revival has thus attempted to create a societal base with a predominantly anti-Western orientation that can hamper pro-Western politicians’ decisiveness in situating Sofia as a reliable contributor to Euro-Atlantic decisionmaking.

Nevertheless, it remains to be seen whether the party has already reached its maximum electoral potential. In Bulgaria’s October 2023 local elections, Revival’s political fortunes dwindled, as the party came fifth in terms of the number of members of municipal authorities elected, and no large or medium-sized city elected a Revival candidate as its mayor. Revival’s influence may be further reduced by robust civic and political leadership that can critique and unmask, rather than silently legitimize, the party’s illegitimate discourses and actions. For instance, Bulgarian Prime Minister Nikolay Denkov has called out Revival’s behavior as unacceptable and tantamount to a war on European values and urged greater scrutiny of the party’s actions. The Ministry of Interior has pledged to intervene in cases of incitement of riots and violence.³

Relationship With the EU

Revival’s overall anti-Western, nationalist discourse weaves together emotionally tinged opposition to liberalism, globalization, gender ideology, and the West while extolling traditional conservative values. This discourse has defined the party’s negative portrayal of the EU as a neocolonialist master that infringes on Bulgarian sovereignty.

At the same time, Revival characterizes the country’s political elite as anti-Bulgarian puppets controlled by the EU, which the party compares with the totalitarian system established by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The party uses this characterization of its political opponents as an ostensible justification to demand a renegotiation of the terms of Bulgaria’s EU membership. Revival’s leader has spoken out against Bulgaria’s lower levels of subsidies compared with other EU members, such as France and Germany (although without clarifying which subsidies he was referring to), and the EU’s stratification along a two-speed model. Kostadinov has claimed that if he comes to power and no agreement on renegotiating Sofia’s place in the EU is reached, a referendum on membership needs to ensue.⁴

Revival, which has not yet stood in a European Parliament election, looks to the June 2024 vote as a way to establish a reformed EU by strengthening member states’ sovereignty. The party has announced its intention to set up a new parliamentary group, modeled on its political experience in Bulgaria, to “advance freedom” in the whole of Europe.⁵ In December 2023, Kostadinov attended a conference in Florence that gathered radical-right party leaders from across Europe and aimed to galvanize their campaigns ahead of the 2024 elections. Kostadinov emphasized that “the EU represents the greatest threat to European civilization” and reiterated an ostensible dilemma between reform of the union and a series of exits from the EU by member states.⁶

Revival has also attempted to tarnish the agreement on Bulgaria’s March 2024 partial entry into the EU’s passport-free Schengen Area, labeling it a “criminal deal.” Kostadinov has stoked unfounded claims and fears that the Bulgarian government conspired to accept more refugees, turning the country into a “huge refugee camp” in exchange for Austria’s agreement to drop its opposition to Sofia’s membership in the Schengen Area.⁷

Rhetoric aside, Revival’s most politically tangible activity has been the collection of some 470,000 valid signatures in favor of a referendum on the planned introduction of the euro in Bulgaria.⁸ The party spearheaded the anti-euro campaign, promoting a narrative that the currency’s introduction would infringe on Bulgarian sovereignty and lead to the impoverishment of Bulgaria’s economy and population. Revival railed against what it saw as pro-euro propaganda, describing it as the silencing of alternative views critical of the currency and the European single market. Ultimately, however, the parliament’s legal commission overthrew the draft resolution for the vote on the grounds that it breached the Bulgarian constitution and that the parliament had the ultimate competence to decide whether a plebiscite should take place.

Foreign Policy Positions

Revival’s foreign policy positions have promoted Russia’s interests and stances while undermining Bulgaria’s Euro-Atlantic commitments. Overall, the leverage that the party exerts over Bulgaria’s external relations is indirect: through the threat of civil unrest and the reinforcement of anti-Western attitudes, Revival has the potential to dilute the decisiveness with which Sofia pursues pro-Western policies.

The party has much less direct influence on Bulgaria’s foreign policy, as Revival’s prospects of becoming part of the executive are limited. Revival has declared a goal of governing on its own, which is currently unrealistic, given that the party’s electoral support hovers at around 13 percent.⁹ Moreover, even political forces with which the party shares common positions have not demonstrated any enthusiasm for formally aligning themselves with Revival.

Revival has made frequent use of protests to promote its foreign policy agenda. At a rally in 2023, the party railed against weapons supplies to Ukraine, the introduction of the euro in Bulgaria, and the Istanbul Convention, a treaty of the Council of Europe that opposes violence against women. The party claimed to be aiming to stop the EU’s interference in Bulgaria’s internal affairs, which it said would “destroy our motherland.”¹⁰ Revival’s live coverage of the march pushed a disinformation narrative against Western values, which supposedly undermine Bulgaria’s national sovereignty.

Immigration and Asylum

Since the start of the war in Ukraine in February 2022, Revival has condemned the reception of Ukrainian refugees and tarnished their image. The party has made false analogies, claiming that while Bulgarians emigrate, illegal migrants enter the country and wreak havoc by committing crimes. Kostadinov has painted an apocalyptic picture by asking whether refugees must start committing murder in the center of Sofia before the government will introduce restrictions on their entry.¹¹

At the same time, Revival has weaponized a propagandist discourse that deplores supposed abuses committed by the Ukrainian authorities against the Bulgarian minority in Ukraine. According to this propaganda, the Bulgarian government is not providing humanitarian aid for its compatriots in Ukraine, and Ukrainian special services will curtail the Bulgarian minority’s linguistic freedom. Revival has further drawn an analogy—most often implicitly—between Ukraine’s Russian speakers and its Bulgarian minority. The party’s comparison of these two minorities was echoed by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at a press conference in March 2022. He specifically likened the ostensibly dire circumstances of Russian speakers in Ukraine to the situation of other minorities there, including Bulgarians and Hungarians.¹²

Combining the two disinformation narratives about Ukrainian refugees and Bulgarian communities abroad, Kostadinov asserted in May 2023 that the Bulgarian minority in Ukraine should receive autonomy and threatened that if the party came to power, Revival would deport all Ukrainians from Bulgaria.¹³

Russia and Ukraine

Revival has consistently and vociferously promoted Russia’s narratives about its war against Ukraine and attempted to undercut Bulgarian support for Kyiv.

At the start of the Kremlin’s military aggression, the party refused to vote in favor of a parliamentary declaration condemning the war, and it has since come out against sanctions on the Kremlin. Revival frames Russia-critical and pro-Western stances in Bulgarian politics as treasonous and a consequence of the EU’s and NATO’s domination of Bulgarian politics. Notably, when Kostadinov visited Ukraine in 2022, the Ukrainian authorities banned him from reentering the country for the next ten years because he heads a pro-Russia political party and was therefore thought to represent a threat.¹⁴

Revival has also organized numerous rallies calling for Bulgarian neutrality in the war. At the beginning of April 2022, Revival convened a pro-neutrality protest with the goal to get rid of “national traitors” who are critical of Moscow, “reestablish Bulgarian statehood,” do away with NATO’s “foreign occupation” of Bulgaria, and remove foreign interests that are allegedly trying to implicate the country in a war in which it has no stake.¹⁵ A similar protest against Bulgaria’s provision of military aid to Ukraine took place in May 2022.

In November of that year, Revival organized a protest condemning the Bulgarian parliament’s decision to support weapons supplies to Kyiv. Revival’s supporters—along with those of the center-left Bulgarian Socialist Party—additionally protested against the renaming of areas near the Russian embassy in Sofia as “Heroes of Ukraine Alley” and “Boris Nemtsov Square,” the latter after the murdered Russian liberal politician.¹⁶ A public petition that opposed the renaming gathered over 2,600 signatures.¹⁷ The party has also repeatedly attempted to forcefully remove the Ukrainian flag from the Sofia municipality building.

More broadly, Revival claims that Europe is the victim of a geopolitical clash between the United States and Russia and that Sofia silently supports the EU’s decisions while losing out because of sanctions on Russia.

NATO

Revival further connects its pro-neutrality narrative to anti-NATO rhetoric. The party has asserted that NATO represents a threat to Bulgarian national security and called for Bulgaria’s exit from the alliance. Revival has suggested that Bulgaria can leave NATO as soon as 2024 on the occasion of the twenty-year reassessment of the agreement on the country’s 2004 entry into the organization.¹⁸ Indeed, the party has opposed Sofia’s NATO membership more insistently than its place in the EU.

Revival has publicized false claims that NATO membership has led to a threefold decline in Bulgaria’s military capacity and that Bulgaria is an object rather than a subject of international law.¹⁹ At an event on March 3, 2022, to mark Bulgaria’s national independence day, Revival members and supporters carried the Russian flag, chanted pro-Russia slogans, and called for Bulgaria’s withdrawal from NATO.²⁰

Kostadinov has further promoted a false narrative about Bulgarian troops being dispatched to the battlefield in Ukraine. The supposed revelations were said to confirm his earlier declarations that the United States and NATO would like to embroil Bulgaria in the war and inflict Bulgarian casualties, which would open a gulf between Sofia and Moscow.²¹ Nevertheless, a draft parliamentary resolution by the party to annul an agreement between the United States and Bulgaria on defense cooperation was overthrown by other political parties in June 2023.²²

China

Although positioning in relation to China has not been a lynchpin in Revival’s policies, the party has occasionally expressed pro-Beijing views. It has praised China as a model for Bulgaria’s development, particularly when it comes to the party’s desire for a “quick decolonization” of the Bulgarian state and economy.²³

In an exception to the general absence of political discussions and positioning on Taiwan, Revival has accelerated its contacts with Chinese diplomats and asserted its unwavering support for the One China principle. Kostadinov has condemned a “rude American intervention” in China’s internal affairs through U.S. support for Taiwanese “separatists” and has called for increased Bulgarian participation in the Belt and Road Initiative.²⁴

Democracy and Minority Rights

As part of its attack on liberal Western values, Revival has promoted a conservative discourse and attempted to portray pro-Western, democratically minded politicians as fascists. Revival baselessly accused its main political opponent, the coalition between We Continue the Change and Democratic Bulgaria, of deploying “repressive and fascist” methods to oppose the Revival-led proposal for a referendum on the euro.²⁵ A post on the party’s Facebook page cited Revival Member of Parliament Deyan Nikolov, who had claimed in the Bulgarian National Assembly that Euro-Atlanticism was a modern form of fascism.²⁶

Revival has persistently attempted to suppress minority rights. Anti-LGBTQ propaganda assumed a practical expression when the party forcibly boycotted the release of a movie as part of the 2023 Sofia Pride Film Fest. The party labeled Close, which tells the story of teenage boys coming of age as they explore issues of intimacy, friendship, and external opprobrium, a “pedophile” production that disseminates “gender ideology.”²⁷

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Revival has refrained from adopting a clear stance on the Israel-Hamas war, particularly in the immediate aftermath of Hamas’s October 7, 2023, terrorist attacks. The party has not posted any positions on the conflict on its platforms, despite its frequent use of social media. However, the party has issued some sporadic statements on the war and abstained from a vote in the Bulgarian parliament on a resolution to condemn the October 7 attacks.²⁸ Kostadinov said that the resolution “had not been written in Bulgaria,” and while he acknowledged that Hamas had carried out a terrorist attack, he also stated that Israel was waging a full-fledged war, rather than responding to a terrorist cell, and was conducting ethnic cleansing of Gaza’s Arab population.²⁹

Against this backdrop, it is worth noting that Revival is notorious for its anti-Semitic rhetoric and has been repeatedly condemned by the Israeli embassy in Bulgaria for its anti-Semitic statements.³⁰

Rumena Filipova is the chairperson of the Institute for Global Analytics in Bulgaria, where her main research interests focus on the politics and international relations of Central and Eastern Europe.

Notes

¹ “Избори за президент и вицепрезидент и народни представители” [Elections for President and Vice President and National Assembly Representatives], Bulgarian Central Election Commission, November 14, 2021, https://results.cik.bg/pvrns2021/tur1/rezultati/index.html; “Избори за народни представители” [Elections for National Assembly Representatives], Bulgarian Central Election Commission, October 2, 2022, https://results.cik.bg/ns2022/rezultati/index.html; and “Избори за народни представители” [Elections for National Assembly Representatives], Bulgarian Central Election Commission, April 2, 2023, https://results.cik.bg/ns2023/rezultati/index.html.

² “‘Така звучи Путин на български език’. Плюене, счупени очила и одрана буза в НС (видео)” [“That’s What Putin Sounds Like in Bulgarian”: Spitting, Broken Glasses, and a Torn Shirt at the National Assembly (Video)], Mediapool, June 1, 2023, https://www.mediapool.bg/taka-zvuchi-putin-na-balgarski-ezik-plyuene-schupeni-ochila-i-odrana-buza-v-ns-video-news348222.html.

³ “Денков с остра критика към „Възраждане“, призова институциите да се намесят” [Denkov Sharply Criticizes “Revival,” Urges the Institutions to Intervene], Darik, June 27, 2023, https://dariknews.bg/novini/bylgariia/denkov-s-ostra-kritika-kym-vyzrazhdane-prizova-instituciite-da-se-namesiat-2351327.

⁴ “Костадинов: Имаме цивилизационни различия с другите партии” [Kostadinov: We Have Civilizational Differences With the Other Parties], Revival, March 31, 2023,; and “Костадин Костадинов: Ако съм премиер, предоговарям България в ЕС” [Kostadin Kostadinov: If I Am Prime Minister, I Will Renegotiate Bulgaria’s Place in the EU], Focus, May 6, 2023, https://www.focus-news.net/novini/Bylgaria/Kostadin-Kostadinov-Ako-sum-premier-predogovaryam-Bulgariya-v-ES-1667145.

⁵ “Костадин Костадинов: „Възраждане“ ще оглави нова група в следващия Европарламент” [Kostadin Kostadinov: “Revival” Will Be at the Helm of a New Group in the Next European Parliament], BNR, April 8, 2023, https://bnr.bg/varna/post/101806989/kostadin-kostadinov-vazrajdane-shte-oglavi-nova-grupa-v-sledvashtia-evroparlament; and “Възраждане амбицирана да създаде свое политическо семейство в ЕП” [Revival Has the Ambition to Create Its Own Political Family in the EP], News.bg, September 11, 2023, https://news.bg/politics/vazrazhdane-ambitsirana-da-sazdade-svoe-politichesko-semeystvo-v-ep.html.

⁶ “На крайнодесните в Европа, сред които и "Възраждане", им се иска да са трета сила в Европарламента” [The Far Right in Europe, Including “Revival,” Wants to Become the Third-Biggest Force in the European Parliament], Mediapool, December 4, 2023, https://www.mediapool.bg/na-krainodesnite-v-evropa-sred-koito-i-vazrazhdane-im-se-iska-da-sa-treta-sila-v-evroparlamenta-news353962.html.

⁷ “Костадин Костадинов: Сделката за влизането на България в Шенген е престъпна” [Kostadin Kostadinov: The Deal for Bulgaria’s Entry Into Schengen Is Criminal], bTV, January 12, 2024, https://www.btv.bg/shows/lice-v-lice/videos/kostadin-kostadinov-sdelkata-za-vlizaneto-na-balgarija-v-shengen-e-prestapna.html#.

⁸ “‘Възраждане‘ твърди, че валидните подписи за референдума за еврото са над 470 000” [“Revival” Claims That There Are Over 470,000 Valid Signatures for the Referendum on the Euro], Mediapool, June 7, 2023, https://www.mediapool.bg/vazrazhdane-tvardi-che-validnite-podpisi-za-referenduma-za-evroto-sa-nad-470-000-news348424.html.

⁹ “Обществено-политически нагласи: март 2024“ [Sociopolitical Attitudes, March 2024], Alpha Research, March 2024, https://alpharesearch.bg/post/1019-obshtestveno-politicheski-naglasi-mart-2024.html.

¹⁰ Revival, “Излизаме, за да защитим правото” [We are coming out to defend our right], Facebook, May 17, 2023, https://www.facebook.com/vazrazhdane.bg/posts/pfbid02LNP4cLG2fMvqFMm7ydhY5XKcWWC3kts1utjjdFAFBf2gCuq3LduXStLamrVsR5jwl.

¹¹ Revival, “Докато нашите деца излизат от държавата и емигрират навън” [As our children leave the state and emigrate abroad], Facebook, November 8, 2022, https://www.facebook.com/vazrazhdane.bg/posts/pfbid0GHQMnSQCbsAShrja2yJdytnVzyXFwYEaqmnjEBLJCt5KVB891jNb9oEjteKMzrFUl.

¹² “Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s Remarks and Answers to Media Questions,” Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, March 10, 2022, https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1803752/.

¹³ “Българи от Украйна призоваха Костадинов да бъде подведен под отговорност” [Bulgarians in Ukraine Called for Kostadinov to Be Held Accountable], Focus, June 1, 2023, https://www.focus-news.net/novini/Bylgaria/Bulgari-ot-Ukraina-prizovaha-Kostadinov-da-bude-podveden-pod-otgovornost-1699903.

¹⁴ “Костадин Костадинов обяви, че е изгонен от Украйна заради информация, че е проруски политик” [Kostadin Kostadinov Announced That He Was Expelled From Ukraine Due to Information That He Is a Pro-Russian Politician], Svobodna Evropa, March 7, 2022, https://www.svobodnaevropa.bg/a/31740689.html.

¹⁵ Boris Mitov, “Под руското знаме. “Възраждане” свика протест за “неутралитет” спрямо войната в Украйна” [Under the Russian Flag: “Revival” Calls a Protest for “Neutrality” on the War in Ukraine], Svobodna Evropa, April 6, 2022, https://www.svobodnaevropa.bg/a/31788914.html.

¹⁶ Karina Karanyotova, “Протест срещу алея ‘Героите на Украйна’, пл. ‘Борис Немцов’ и украинското знаме пред Столичната община” [Protest Against “Heroes of Ukraine” Alley, “Boris Nemtsov” Square, and the Ukrainian Flag in Front of the Sofia Municipality], BNT, April 21, 2022, https://bntnews.bg/news/protest-sreshtu-aleya-geroite-na-ukraina-pl-boris-nemcov-i-ukrainskoto-zname-pred-stolichnata-obshtina-1192402news.html.

¹⁷“Против преименуване на алеята до Руското посолство на ‘Героите на Украйна’” [Against Renaming the Alley Next to the Russian Embassy “Heroes of Ukraine”], Peticiq, https://www.peticiq.com/361121.

¹⁸ “Костадин Костадинов: През 2024 г. можем да излезем от НАТО” [Kostadin Kostadinov: We Can Leave NATO in 2024], 24 Chasa, July 29, 2022, https://www.24chasa.bg/bulgaria/article/12160852.

¹⁹ Revival, “НАТО причини три пъти намаляване на българския отбранителен потенциал” [NATO caused the Bulgarian defense potential to decrease three times], Facebook, April 18, 2023, https://www.facebook.com/vazrazhdane.bg/posts/pfbid0382PANiegmy1jKLCu9BtHdnisAxSL6bL49qSqpaFk5i35LoH6yJp4MKWUf9dHSrQil.

²⁰ “Викове ‘предатели’ и руски знамена посрещнаха Кирил Петков на Шипка” [Chants of “Traitors” and Russian Flags Greeted Kiril Petkov at Shipka], Mediapool, March 3, 2022, https://www.mediapool.bg/vikove-predateli-i-ruski-znamena-posreshtnaha-kiril-petkov-na-shipka-news332915.html.

²¹ Dilyana Gaytandjieva, “Костадин Костадинов: САЩ подготвят България за война срещу Русия” [Kostadin Kostadinov: The United States Is Preparing Bulgaria for a War Against Russia], Obektivno, March 13, 2023, https://obektivno.bg/kostadin-kostadinov-sasth-podgotvyat-balgariya-za-vojna-sreshtu-rusiya/.

²² “Парламентът не прие да се отмени споразумението за отбрана със САЩ” [Parliament Did Not Vote in Favor of Terminating the Defense Agreement With the United States], BNR, June 7, 2023, https://bnr.bg/radiobulgaria/post/101834517/parlamentat-ne-prie-da-se-otmeni-sporazumenieto-za-otbrana-sas-sasht.

²³ “Костадин Костадинов: Китай продължава все по-уверено да върви по пътя на своето национално възраждане” [Kostadin Kostadinov: China Continues to Walk Ever More Confidently the Path of Its National Revival], 24 Chasa, October 20, 2022, https://www.24chasa.bg/mezhdunarodni/article/12852017.

²⁴ Rumena Filipova, “Bulgaria: Viewing Taiwan Through the Chinese Prism,” in Beyond the Dumpling Alliance: Tracking Taiwan’s Relations With Central and Eastern Europe, ed. Matej Šimalčík, Alfred Gerstl, and Dominika Remžová, Central European Institute of Asian Studies, March 12, 2023, https://ceias.eu/beyond-the-dumpling-alliance/.

²⁵ Revival, “Фашистките методи на ПП-ДБ няма да предотвратят провеждането на референдум!” [The fascist methods of PP-DB will not prevent a referendum!], Facebook, June 23, 2023, https://www.facebook.com/vazrazhdane.bg/posts/pfbid02FmGq9tt8AeT59XA81eLuiK9LMkpkur6EPAfU3rMewaKSAcLFWGZJ21DLq2CN9ocAl.

²⁶ Revival, “Силна реч на Деян Николов от Възраждане 14.06.2023 г.” [Powerful speech by Revival’s Deyan Nikolov, June 14, 2023], Facebook, June 14, 2023, https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?ref=watch_permalink&v=928611704863414.

²⁷ Revival, “Варна каза НЕ на педофилията” [Varna said NO to pedophilia], Facebook, June 25, 2023, https://www.facebook.com/vazrazhdane.bg/posts/pfbid0Xcw5DnQRQC9RQyPh5yLX5HPA8nsAZkhLfp5nwwX9zgxUABX5KR3QLQkLid1x9duBl; and Revival, “Ще се борим докрай!” [We will fight to the end!], Facebook, June 19, 2023, https://www.facebook.com/vazrazhdane.bg/posts/pfbid0i2BzCghKhqRJRK5kB2V76sVnyTdGoHLPaPFJTKuhPTx5UPeknWNw3LXZxeuAg1Sl.

²⁸ Zlatina Zekhirova, “Без подкрепа от "Възраждане" и БСП парламентът осъди войната на "Хамас" в Израел” [Without the Support of “Revival” and the BSP, the Parliament Condemned the War of “Hamas” in Israel], Dnevnik, October 13, 2023, https://www.dnevnik.bg/politika/2023/10/13/4539492_parlamentut_osudi_voinata_na_hamas_s_izrael/.

²⁹ “Костадин Костадинов: Ако има заплаха за нашата сигурност, това е правителството” [Kostadin Kostadinov: If There Is a Threat to Our Security, It Is the Government], bTV, October 15, 2023, https://www.btv.bg/shows/120-minuti/videos/kostadin-kostadinov-ako-ima-zaplaha-za-nashata-sigurnost-tova-e-pravitelstvoto.html#.

³⁰ “Службите проверяват антисемитски колаж с лика на Соломон Паси, споделен в група на "Възраждане"” [Authorities Investigate Anti-Semitic Collage of Solomon Passy’s Face Shared in “Revival” Group], Svobodna Evropa, July 14, 2023, https://www.svobodnaevropa.bg/a/32503975.html.

Estonia: A Vocal Dissenter With Limited Policymaking Influence

The Conservative People’s Party of Estonia: Evolution and Profile

The Conservative People’s Party of Estonia (EKRE) was founded in 2012 as a successor to the People’s Union of Estonia, an agrarian-populist party active from 1994 to 2012, and the Estonian Patriotic Movement, a small political pressure group established in 2006 to advocate for the interests of ethnic Estonians. From 2008 to 2011, the latter group was headed by Martin Helme, who now leads EKRE. He took over the reins from his father, Mart Helme, and the father-and-son duo has formed the party’s core leadership.

EKRE gained momentum in the mid-2010s thanks to the growing popularity of its opposition to Estonia’s polarizing Registered Partnership Act, which introduced civil unions for same-sex couples, and its strong criticism of the European Union (EU) and its migration policies.¹ The party came third in the 2019 Estonian parliamentary election, receiving 17.8 percent of the vote and nineteen out of 101 seats.² It was then invited to join a governing coalition with the center-left Estonian Center Party and the conservative Fatherland party. However, two years of continuous scandals, driven mostly by the EKRE leadership’s inflammatory rhetoric, curbed the Estonian Center Party’s appetite for keeping the coalition together, and in January 2021, that government collapsed. This stint marked the only time that EKRE has had seats in the cabinet.

The 2019 election also confirmed that the most important new divide in Estonian politics is between those parties that enforce a cordon sanitaire around EKRE and those that see cooperation as viable in some circumstances. The former group currently includes the liberal Estonian Reform Party, led by Prime Minister Kaja Kallas, the center-left Social Democratic Party, and the centrist newcomer Estonia 200. These parties hold socially progressive values and are in the ruling coalition as of this writing. The latter group comprises the Estonian Center Party and Fatherland, but both realized before the 2023 parliamentary election that their proximity to EKRE had started to hurt their electoral chances and tried to put some distance between themselves and the party.

In that election, EKRE received 16.1 percent of the vote and lost two seats in the parliament. The party came second overall, losing only to the Estonian Reform Party.³ However, Martin Helme had built his campaign on the promise of a credible alternative to the Estonian Reform Party and Kallas. Therefore, observers saw EKRE’s election result as a defeat that shattered the party’s hopes of climbing back into the government.

EKRE is a populist-right party whose positions are based on Euroskepticism, nativism, and an anti-elite sentiment. The party declares the “people” and the “nation” to be its highest values, yet its understanding of who belongs to this group is restrictive.⁴ EKRE has been present in the European Parliament since 2019, where it has one parliamentarian, Jaak Madison, and is a member of the Identity and Democracy group.

Relationship With the EU

EKRE has continuously campaigned for less Europe, emphasizing that the EU should be a union of independent nation-states. The party’s antifederalist stance distinguishes it from Estonia’s other mainstream parties, which are more pro-EU or ambiguous on the matter. EKRE is generally against any measures that would strengthen the union over the member states. Additionally, the party has argued that Estonia should endorse the supremacy of its constitution and refuse to comply with any EU legislation that might imperil Estonia’s existence as a nation-state.⁵

In the early 2000s, during his first prominent political endeavor, Martin Helme campaigned against Estonia’s accession to the EU. He has since opined that Estonia should have stayed outside the union but accepted the result of the referendum that endorsed membership. Yet, he has criticized the EU for becoming more aggressive and misusing its power. During their time in the government, both Mart and Martin Helme expressed the possibility of Estonia leaving the EU yet stopped short of taking any concrete action in this direction.

One analysis has argued that EKRE’s approach to EU membership is conditional: the party is willing to cooperate with the EU institutions to the extent that doing so does not jeopardize Estonia’s sovereignty.⁶ Additionally, EKRE has taken a pragmatic stance toward EU funds, for example by referencing them several times in the party’s 2015 manifesto as a tool for regional economic development.⁷

Foreign Policy Positions

Because EKRE’s 2019–2021 stint in the government was rather short and largely dominated by the coronavirus pandemic, and due to the moderating effect of coalition politics, the party’s actual influence on foreign policy making has been limited. However, as a vocal dissenting opposition party, EKRE has shaped debates by representing one extreme viewpoint. This is especially salient when it comes to Euroskepticism, the promotion of so-called traditional values, and opposition to minority rights, immigration, and the EU’s European Green Deal, a package of policy initiatives for the union’s green transition.

Foreign policy statements are often intermingled with domestic politics. This behavior is not unique to EKRE. However, as Estonia’s foreign and security policy is usually characterized by a strong domestic political consensus, it is much easier for EKRE to distinguish itself from other parties on these questions than on other issues and thus provide an alternative option for voters. Despite this, EKRE matches the widespread view in Estonian mainstream politics with its anti-Russia stance.

EKRE is generally in favor of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and supports good relations with the United States, especially in security matters; this stance was even more pronounced during the administration of former U.S. president Donald Trump. EKRE disapproves of strengthening EU defense policy, which the party sees as a path toward downgrading Estonia’s security relations with the United States. EKRE has been sympathetic to Hungary’s Fidesz and Poland’s Law and Justice parties, especially praising their family policies and firm positions against the EU institutions. In other foreign policy matters, EKRE either does not hold a strong consolidated view or does not play it up in debates.

Minority Rights

Most often, EKRE’s criticism of the EU is lumped together with a wide range of other issues on which the party wants to show its strong stances. A quote from Martin Helme’s speech at the 2023 party congress exemplifies this tendency well:

As long as I lead [EKRE], we will not support the homorevolution, the green revolution, forced vaccinations, [or] the physical and mental ritual sacrifice of children to the cult of transsexuality. We will not accept the Russification of Estonia or the disarmament of Estonia, even if it is done while shouting “Slava Ukraina” [Glory to Ukraine]. We will not be eager instigators of the Third World War, nor will we willingly offer ourselves as the battleground for that war. We will not accept the imposition of European Union supremacy over our sovereignty, nor will we follow . . . the World Economic Forum’s recommendation to eat insects instead of meat and to travel on foot or by bicycle instead of using cars.⁸

The culture war issues that draw Helme’s ire in the first sentence are all topics that EKRE has often blamed on Estonia’s liberal governments kowtowing to globalists in Brussels. The EU is not mentioned explicitly, but name-dropping these issues follows the usual narrative of protecting the values of the so-called pure people from the morally corrupt, multicultural, and liberal West.

The party sees the protection of LGBTQ rights as a tool to subject the majority to rule by the minority. While in the government, EKRE campaigned for a national referendum to stipulate that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. This push ticked the boxes for two of EKRE’s favorite topics: presenting itself as the safeguard of the silent majority and expanding the tools of direct democracy. In the end, the coalition collapsed, so support for the referendum bill dissolved. At the same time, Estonian diplomats were told to refrain from publicly supporting LGBTQ rights.

Similarly, EKRE strongly opposes any initiatives to regulate hate speech, as it sees such measures as another oppressive mechanism by the liberal parties⁹ and the EU institutions to curtail the freedom of speech and discriminate against conservative views. On both promoting LGBTQ rights and curbing hate speech, EKRE sees the EU not as a defender of liberal values and democracy but as an organization that uses these issues to chip away at the well-being of the majority by presenting itself as concerned with the rights of minorities.

Russia and Ukraine

The next two sentences in Helme’s quote consider the effects of Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and reveal EKRE’s balancing act. First, he presents a strong anti-Russia sentiment, objecting to the Russification of Estonia. This line runs counter to all demographic, societal, and cultural trends in the country, unless it is to be taken as a code for the arrival of mostly Russian-speaking Ukrainian refugees from Russia’s war. Next, however, Helme refers to the military aid Estonia has provided for Ukraine as the disarmament of Estonia. In contrast, General Martin Herem, the commander of the Estonian Defense Forces, has asserted that Estonia’s armed forces have become stronger by increasing their ammunition stocks, modernizing their weapons systems, and growing the country’s voluntary paramilitary force, the Estonian Defense League.¹⁰ Then, Helme states that EKRE will not eagerly instigate the Third World War—but leaves his audience wondering whom exactly he sees as fanning the flames.

Russia’s war has put EKRE in an uncomfortable position: stuck between nativist and anti-elite discourse. Statements from both the party leadership and its grassroots supporters have, over the years, often been anti-Russia. They have called out the Russian ethnicity of some Estonian politicians, berated the use of the Russian language in Estonia, and depicted EKRE’s political opponents, the mainstream media, and the security police as parts of Russia’s propaganda machinery.

At the same time, EKRE has been trying to boost its appeal among Russian speakers in Estonia, based on their shared support for traditional family values. A 2023 report by the European Center for Populism Studies speculated that this move might be the reason for the increased ambiguity in EKRE’s foreign policy narrative.¹¹ This approach could also be a matter of party politics: EKRE’s main opponent, the Estonian Reform Party, and its next of kin, Fatherland, have already established themselves as the most vocal hawks on Russia. A more fleeting position allows EKRE room for maneuver in debates.

EKRE’s standing in official resolutions is much clearer. The party joined Estonia’s other parliamentary parties in condemning Russia’s February 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Furthermore, the parliament voted unanimously to recognize Russia’s actions as genocide against the Ukrainian people and declare Russia a terrorist state. When a similar resolution was put on the agenda in the European Parliament, Madison voted in favor.

Immigration and Asylum

In addition to the risk of Estonian disarmament, EKRE often focuses on the perceived threat of the Russian-speaking or other Slavic minorities and the danger this threat may pose to the Estonian ethnic majority and use of the Estonian language. Like other populist right-wing parties, especially in Central and Eastern Europe, EKRE has been hostile to immigrants. Unlike Hungary and Poland, though, Estonia has a considerable population with foreign origins: close to 30 percent in 2023.¹² With over 40,000 Ukrainian refugees who have applied for protection in Estonia, Ukrainians now make up more than 3 percent of the population.¹³

Finding fault with Ukrainians is not as easy for EKRE as it would be with non-European, non-Christian refugees—but that has not stopped the party from trying. EKRE politicians have described the Ukrainians fleeing the war as “a massive influx” and a threat to Estonia’s social welfare system.¹⁴ EKRE’s ideological arguments against immigration and the acceptance of refugees range from those based on ethnicity (that Slavic speakers weaken the position of the Estonian language) and demographics (that Tallinn has ceased to be an Estonian-majority city) to economic arguments (that using immigration to cover worker shortages will cause problems down the road) as well as security reasons (that the police is unable to check all new arrivals) and health concerns (that immigrants even carry diseases).¹⁵

EKRE has claimed that the number of Ukrainians staying in Estonia is twice as large as the official figure and that they constitute an unsustainable burden on the country’s social welfare system while strengthening the position of the Russian language.¹⁶ EKRE wants Estonia to stop accepting war refugees into the country, preferring to support them in Ukraine and neighboring states. Furthermore, the party has demanded clear residence and employment requirements for those who receive temporary protection.

These views align with EKRE’s historical stance of seeing immigration as a potential threat to the Estonian nation, language, and culture and, thus, to Estonia’s constitution. The country already has a restrictive immigration policy, but EKRE has been trying to tighten it even further. The 2019 coalition agreement declared its opposition to mandatory refugee quotas and promised to pay special attention to checking illegal residents in Estonia and fighting illegal immigration at the borders of the EU’s passport-free Schengen Area.¹⁷ During its time in opposition, EKRE has presented various bills to curb immigration into Estonia by targeting low-skilled and short-term workers, start-up employees, and foreign students. The party opposes any EU legislation or international agreement that, in its eyes, limits the state’s sovereignty in setting immigration policy.

Climate Change and Energy

Returning to Helme’s quoted statement, he uses standard right-wing rhetoric to suggest that sustainability is just another tool to restrict state sovereignty and people’s autonomy. Rhetoric and policies against attempts to mitigate climate change are a new addition to EKRE’s agenda. These positions have emerged in response to the EU’s and the Estonian government’s recent actions; before the late 2010s, climate change issues were not a priority in either domestic politics or foreign policy.

The situation changed with the European Green Deal in July 2019, when EKRE was still part of the government. Although EKRE dismissed the initiative, the domestic and international criticism that followed when Estonia and three other EU member states blocked the union’s collective commitment to climate neutrality by 2050 resulted in the government making a U-turn and endorsing the plan.¹⁸ In the Helmes’ father-and-son weekly radio show, Martin Helme explained that since other EU countries had already decided on the union’s political course, it made more sense for Estonia to tag along and receive benefits than to be punished for lagging behind. Yet, Mart Helme stated that EKRE would never agree to trans-European climate taxes.¹⁹

EKRE’s arguments against climate change action are long and diverse. Madison finds the EU’s climate goals unrealistic and harmful to efforts to win the war in Ukraine. Rain Epler, an EKRE member of parliament and a former environment minister, has argued that the green transition is a tool for a global “corporation” to earn exorbitant profits, often at the expense of vulnerable members of society and the environment itself.²⁰

Climate change topics are closely connected to the question of energy independence and Estonia’s use of shale oil, a fossil fuel. EKRE believes that Estonia’s energy security must always come first, even if that means increased use of shale oil. In addition, the party supports nuclear energy and has promised to start preparing for its safe introduction. The party’s position on renewable sources is more ambiguous, ranging from “nice if possible” to “unreliable and part of the new climate hysteria.”²¹EKRE wants Estonia to stop paying renewable energy subsidies and remove the carbon dioxide quota from its electricity production costs—steps that the party sees as simple ways to reduce energy prices.

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Following Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attacks on Israel, EKRE reinforced its firm pro-Israel stance. Mart Helme affirmed that supporting Israel is in Estonia’s vital interest, as “the terrorists of Hamas and Hezbollah are direct proxies of Iran and indirect proxies of Russia.”²² He warned of severe consequences for the West if Israel fails to eradicate Hamas. Similarly, Madison equated support for Israel with backing for Ukraine as necessary actions against considerable security threats. Although he acknowledged that not all Muslims in Europe are radicalized, he also warned that alleged widespread support for Hamas in migrant camps and among asylum seekers indicated further security threats for Europe.²³

In October 2023, EKRE Deputy Chairman Henn Põlluaas participated on behalf of the party in a pro-Israel rally in front of the Estonian parliament. Põlluaas affirmed that Hamas was the personification of evil and denounced Estonian activists who attempted to raise awareness of Palestinian civilian deaths.²⁴ This stance is in line with the previous pro-Israel rhetoric of the party, which has emphasized that it would be in favor of moving the Estonian embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.²⁵

Merili Arjakas is a junior research fellow at the International Centre for Defence and Security.

Notes

¹Mari-Liis Jakobson, Tõnis Saarts, and Leif Kalev, “Radical Right Across Borders? The Case of EKRE’s Finnish Branch,” in Political Parties Abroad: A New Arena for Party Politics, ed. Tudi Kernalegenn and Emilie van Haute (London: Routledge, 2020), 21–38.

² “Hääletamis- ja valimistulemus” [Voting and Election Result], Valimised, March 8, 2019, https://rk2019.valimised.ee/et/election-result/election-result.html.

³ “Eesti Vabariik kokku” [Republic of Estonia in Total], Valimised, April 20, 2023, https://rk2023.valimised.ee/et/election-result/index.html.

⁴Kristi Raik and Erle Rikmann, “Resisting Domestic and External Pressure Towards De-Europeanization of Foreign Policy? The Case of Estonia,” Journal of European Integration 43, no. 5 (2021): 603–618, https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2021.1927011.

⁵“EKRE Programm” [EKRE Program], Conservative People’s Party of Estonia, 2015, https://ekre.ee/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/EKRE-PROGRAMM-KONSERVATIIVNE-PROGRAMM.pdf.

⁶Andres Kasekamp, Mari-Liis Madisson, and Louis Wierenga, “Discursive Opportunities for the Estonian Populist Radical Right in a Digital Society,” Problems of Post-Communism 66, no. 1 (2019): 47–58, https://doi.org/10.1080/10758216.2018.1445973.

⁷“EKRE Programm,” Conservative People’s Party of Estonia.

⁸“Martin Helme EKRE kongressil: ühelgi liberaalil pole moraalselt üleolekut meid noomida või õpetada” [Martin Helme at the EKRE Congress: No Liberal Has A Moral Superiority to Scold or Teach Us], Postimees, June 10, 2023, https://www.postimees.ee/7793135.

⁹Roberta Vaino, “EKRE is expecting compromise from coalition regarding hate speech law”, EER, May 13, 2021, https://news.err.ee/1608211048/ekre-is-expecting-compromise-from-coalition-regarding-hate-speech-law.

¹⁰Andres Einmann, “Kaitseväe juhataja aastapäevakõne” [Anniversary Speech of the Chief of the Defense Forces], Postimees, February 24, 2023, https://www.postimees.ee/7719797.

¹¹Mari-Liis Jakobson and Andres Kasekamp, “The Impact of the Russia-Ukraine War on Right-Wing Populism in Estonia,” in The Impacts of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine on Right-Wing Populism in Europe, ed. Gilles Ivaldi and Emilia Zankina, European Center for Populism Studies, March 8, 2023, https://doi.org/10.55271/rp0017.

¹²“Rv071: Native and Foreign-Origin Population by County After the 2017 Administrative Reform, Sex and Age, 1 January,” Statistics Estonia, 2023, https://andmed.stat.ee/en/stat/eri-valdkondade-statistika__loimumine/RV071/table/tableViewLayout2.

¹³“Estonia’s Aid to Ukraine,” Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, January 2, 2024, https://vm.ee/en/estonias-aid-ukraine.

¹⁴Jaak Madison, “Mitte lõimumine, vaid assimileerumine ning mitte nüüd peale Prantsusmaa märatsemisi, vaid juba ammu” [Not Integration, but Assimilation, and Not Now After the Riots in France, but a Long Time Ago], Postimees, July 3, 2023, https://arvamus.postimees.ee/7807391; and “Jaak Valge: Immigratsioon – suurim oht Eesti rahvusriigile” [Jaak Valge: Immigration—the Biggest Threat to the Estonian Nation-State], Uued Uudised, August 25, 2022, https://uueduudised.ee/arvamus/suur-lugu-jaak-valge-immigratsioon-suurim-oht-eesti-rahvusriigile/.

¹⁵Examples from three EKRE politicians, summarized by the author; and Loora-Elisabet Lomp, “Helme: võib-olla hakkavad sajad tuhanded Ukraina sõjapõgenikud prostitutsiooniga tegelema” [Helme: Maybe Hundreds of Thousands of Ukrainian War Refugees Will Start Working in Prostitution], Postimees, April 13, 2022, https://www.postimees.ee/7500215.

¹⁶“EKRE Rahvastikuprogramm” [EKRE Population Program], Conservative People’s Party of Estonia, January 10, 2023, https://www.ekre.ee/ekre-rahvastikuprogramm-paastame-eesti-rahvusriigi/.

¹⁷“Jüri Ratase II valitsuse aluspõhimõtted aastaiks 2019–2023” [Basic Principles of the Second Cabinet of Jüri Ratas for 2019–2023], Government of Estonia, January 5, 2021, https://www.valitsus.ee/juri-ratase-ii-valitsuse-aluspohimotted-aastaiks-2019-2023.

¹⁸Raik and Rikmann, “Resisting Domestic and External Pressure.”

¹⁹“‘Räägime asjast’: kliimavõitlus meenutab bolševike sõjakommunismi ja hilisemat rahuliikumist” [“Let’s Talk About It”: The Climate Struggle Recalls Bolshevik War Communism and the Later Peace Movement], Uued Uudised, October 6, 2019, https://uueduudised.ee/uudis/eesti/raagime-asjast-kliimavoitlus-meenutab-bolsevike-sojakommunismi-ja-hilisemat-rahuliikumist/.

²⁰“Rain Epler: rohepööre on globaalse korporatsiooni võimalus teenida ülikasumeid” [Rain Epler: The Green Revolution Is an Opportunity for a Global Corporation to Make Superprofits], Uued Uudised, February 9, 2023, https://uueduudised.ee/uudis/eesti/rain-epler-rohepoore-on-globaalse-korporatsiooni-voimalus-teenida-ulikasumeid/.

²¹“Rene Kokk: kuni meil pole piisavalt taastuvenergiat, peab meil energiajulgeolekuks olema oma odav elekter omast põlevkivist” [Rene Kokk: Until We Have Enough Renewable Energy, We Must Have Our Own Cheap Electricity From Our Own Oil Shale for Energy Security], Uued Uudised, November 8, 2022, https://uueduudised.ee/uudis/eesti/rene-kokk-kuni-meil-pole-piisavalt-taastuvenergiat-peab-meil-energiajulgeolekuks-olema-oma-odav-elekter-omast-polevkivist/; and “Henn Põlluaas: meie oma põlevkivielektri hinda ei mõjuta Putini tegevus, Ukraina sõda ega Nord Pooli spekulatsioonid” [Henn Põlluaas: Our Own Oil Shale Electricity Price Is Not Affected by Putin’s Actions, the War in Ukraine, or Nord Pool’s Speculation], Uued Uudised, December 11, 2022, https://uueduudised.ee/arvamus/henn-polluaas-meie-oma-polevkivielektri-hinda-ei-mojuta-putini-tegevus-ukraina-soda-ega-nord-pooli-spekulatsioonid/.

²² Mart Helme, “Mart Helme: Iisraeli toetamine on Eesti elulistes huvides” [Mart Helme: Supporting Israel Is in Estonia’s Vital Interests], Eesti Päevaleht, November 7, 2023, https://epl.delfi.ee/artikkel/120245767.

²³Jaak Madison, “Euroopa migrandilaagrid tähistasid Iisraeli ründamist rõõmuhõisetega” [Europe’s Migrant Camps Celebrated the Attack on Israel With Cheers], Arvamus, October 8, 2023, https://arvamus.postimees.ee/7871418.

²⁴ “Henn Põlluaas Iisraeli toetaval meeleavaldusel: EKRE soovib Eesti saatkonna üleviimist juudiriigi ajaloolisesse pealinna Jeruusalemma” [Henn Põlluaas at a demonstration in support of Israel: EKRE wants to transfer the Estonian embassy to the historical capital of the Jewish state, Jerusalem], Uued Uudised, October 2023,
https://uueduudised.ee/uudis/eesti/henn-polluaas-iisraeli-toetaval-meeleavaldusel-ekre-soovib-eesti-saatkonna-uleviimist-juudiriigi-ajaloolisesse-pealinna-jeruusalemma/amp/.

²⁵ Mait Ots and Helen Wright, “EKRE ties moving Israeli embassy to Jerusalem to Rigiikogu obstruction”, EER, December 13, 2023,
https://news.err.ee/1609193680/ekre-ties-moving-israeli-embassy-to-jerusalem-to-rigiikogu-obstruction.

Finland: A Radicalization of Views, a Broadening Foreign Policy Palette

The Finns Party: Evolution and Profile

The Finns Party has its roots in Finnish agrarian populism. The party was established in 1995 as the successor to the Finnish Rural Party (SMP), a small populist party that was active between 1959 and 1995.¹ The SMP claimed to defend the “forgotten people,” above all Finland’s rural population and entrepreneurs, and displayed a strongly anticommunist stance.²

Like the SMP, the Finns Party initially mixed center-left-leaning socioeconomic attitudes with populism, cultural conservatism, and nationalism. The weight of sociocultural authoritarianism and ethnonationalism in the Finns Party’s platform grew gradually over the 2000s as the party became increasingly attractive—and welcoming—for nationalist and anti-immigration activists. By the early 2010s, many scholars duly defined the Finns Party as a populist radical-right party.³

The Finns Party won its first seat in the Finnish parliament in 1999 but remained a marginal political actor until the late 2000s. The party’s first major success was in the 2009 European Parliament elections, when it gained 9.8 percent of the vote.⁴ Two years later, at the height of the eurozone crisis, the Finns Party achieved its real breakthrough. Campaigning against bailouts for struggling eurozone members, the party finished third in Finland’s 2011 parliamentary election with 19.1 percent of the vote, almost quintupling its vote share compared with the previous national election.⁵

The SMP’s legacy provided a reputational shield for the Finns Party, facilitating its 2015 entry into the national government as part of a three-party right-of-center coalition. However, participation in the government seriously dented the party’s popularity. In 2017, the Finns Party’s long-time chair, Timo Soini, stepped down and was replaced by member of the European Parliament and anti-immigration blogger Jussi Halla-aho.

After Halla-aho’s election, his associates, who represented the Finns Party’s nativist wing, occupied all of the key positions in the party leadership, sealing its radicalization. Meanwhile, the party’s coalition partners announced that they would end their cooperation with it. This provoked a split, with all of the party’s government ministers and their allies forming a separate group called Blue Reform. The remainder of the Finns Party under Halla-aho was forced into opposition, where it gradually rebuilt its support.

In June 2021, Halla-aho declared that he would not seek another term as party leader, which led to the election of Halla-aho’s disciple Riikka Purra as the new chair. In the 2023 national parliamentary election, Purra led the Finns Party to yet another electoral success, as the party achieved its best-ever result of 20.1 percent of the vote.⁶ After the election, the Finns Party was included in a four-party right-of-center government led by the National Coalition Party.

The Finns Party’s programmatic evolution and changing domestic ambitions have led to shifting affiliations in the European Parliament. In its first term in 2009–2014, the party was a member of the staunchly Euroskeptic Europe of Freedom and Democracy group, before switching to the somewhat more moderate European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group. After Halla-aho’s election, the party left the ECR and allied itself with the newly formed radical-right Identity and Democracy (ID) group. However, in 2023, the Finns Party rejoined the ECR, arguing that Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine compelled the party to rethink its cooperation networks and join a group with an uncompromising commitment to defending “Western civilization and the European security policy architecture.”⁷

Relationship With the EU

Euroskepticism has been a central part of the Finns Party’s political platform since the beginning. This position reflects deeply held beliefs in the party, but it is also a strategic choice that sets the Finns Party apart from Finland’s other political parties, most of which are traditionally in favor of the European Union (EU). The Finns Party’s general attitude toward the EU is well summed up by the slogan “Wherever the EU is, there’s a problem,” which was coined and extensively used by Soini.⁸

Writing in 2012, Finnish political scientist Tapio Raunio identified three issues that form the core of the Finns Party’s Euroskepticism, all of which continue to be present in the party’s programs and rhetoric.⁹ First, like some left-wing populist parties, the Finns Party portrays the EU as an elitist bureaucracy that undermines national democracy and serves the interests of big business or the large member states. Second, the Finns Party consistently criticizes Finnish decisionmakers for failing to defend Finland’s national interests in Brussels, including on issues such as the EU budget or the Common Agricultural Policy. Third, the Finns Party depicts the EU as a bridge to increased immigration, which the party views as a threat to the country’s social security system and a cause of societal problems.

As for the EU’s external policies, the Finns Party has vocally opposed EU enlargement. Moreover, the party has emphasized the EU’s weakness as a foreign and security policy actor and argued that Finland’s membership in the union does not provide the country with any kind of protection.

While the Finns Party’s Euroskepticism has been constant, there has been some variation in the way the party has approached EU issues over time. Euroskepticism and, more specifically, criticism of bailouts for eurozone members during the eurozone crisis were key to the Finns Party’s 2011 electoral success. However, in the following years, the party moderated its rhetoric somewhat to become an acceptable coalition partner. As a member of the Finnish government in 2015–2017, the Finns Party was forced to accept a third bailout package for Greece—a bitter pill for the party considering its earlier stance.

After the 2016 Brexit vote in the United Kingdom, the party briefly toyed with the idea of a referendum on Finland’s EU membership but refrained from explicitly demanding such a vote. When Halla-aho took over as party chair in 2017, the relative importance of Euroskepticism in the Finns Party’s political platform decreased, as the party focused more on promoting its hardline stance on immigration and criticizing other parties’ climate change policies. However, heated debates about the EU’s post-pandemic recovery fund provided the Finns Party with another opportunity to highlight its Euroskeptic credentials.

Foreign Policy Positions

The Finns Party published its first foreign and security policy program in 2022. Before this, the party’s manifestos had dealt extensively with the EU, immigration and asylum, energy, development aid, and defense and security. However, the party had developed very few foreign policy positions beyond these matters. With its 2022 program, the party introduced a somewhat broader palette of foreign policy positions. Nevertheless, the Finns Party’s views on immigration and asylum, energy and climate change, development aid, the EU, and defense continue to form the core of its foreign policy agenda, in many cases shaping the way the party approaches other international issues.

Immigration and Asylum

During the first half of Soini’s 1997–2017 chairmanship, immigration and asylum policies were not particularly prominent in the Finns Party’s platform. However, from the 2010s, these issues took on a more significant role. Calls for foreigners to integrate into the Finnish population and find work gradually gave way to more categorical rejections of “harmful immigration” and skepticism of the economic benefits of any kind of immigration.¹⁰

After Halla-aho took over as party chair in 2017, the shift toward more overtly anti-immigration and anti-multiculturalist views gathered pace. By 2019 at the latest, immigration and asylum had become by far the most prominent policy area for the Finns Party. The party stressed that this was not just another issue but rather a “cross-cutting theme” that “influenced many sectors of society and politics as well as every Finnish person.”¹¹ In recent years, immigration and asylum policies have featured in all Finns Party campaigns for local, national, and European Parliament elections and in the party’s positions in most other policy areas.

This change is exemplified in the party’s attitude toward the quota refugee system through which the United Nations high commissioner for refugees suggests to Finland a predetermined number of refugees for resettlement each year. In 2011, the Finns Party characterized the scheme as less problematic than asylum applications submitted at the border. Ten years later, the party was calling for the whole system to be abolished and proclaiming zero asylum applications as an ideal goal.

The Finns Party has proposed many policy options to make Finland an unappealing destination for refugees, cut immigration expenses, limit the number of humanitarian immigrants in the country, and deport or encourage the emigration of refugees already in Finland. The main rationales offered by the party for these measures are the cost of humanitarian migrants and foreign workers in low-wage employment, their perceived inability and unwillingness to integrate, a loss of social cohesion, an increase in crime, and a risk of terrorism. The party views Finland’s immigration policies as having created such profound problems that the situation cannot be fixed without stopping or at least drastically limiting further immigration.

The Finns Party stresses nativist rhetoric and self-interest. The party sees Finland as the country of Finns that should look out for the interests of Finns first. As long as there are Finns in need, the party argues, money should not be wasted on what it calls “asylum tourists” looking for a better life.¹² Instead, people in need of asylum should be assisted near to where they came from in countries closer in culture to their own, and with a view to repatriation at the earliest opportunity. The party points to Ukrainians as an example of deserving European refugees who should be welcomed, but even they should expect fixed-term asylum and eventual repatriation, according to the party.

The Finns Party and its politicians have used Islamophobic and racist themes in their election campaigns.¹³ Several prominent party members, including Halla-aho, have been convicted of hate speech related to incitement against an ethnic group.¹⁴ However, the party has repeatedly denied the charge of racism. Instead, it has attempted to portray its position as simply defending Finnish people, society, and culture.¹⁵ The party labels pro-immigration policies as harmful moral posturing by a liberal elite, which threatens Finland’s economy and social fabric. Workers from EU countries are deemed more than sufficient to meet any foreign labor needs, with no need for immigration from farther afield.

Climate Change and Energy

The Finns Party’s attitude toward climate change and energy policy has undergone significant shifts over time. Protecting Finland’s clean natural landscapes and maintaining a balanced relationship with nature have been parts of the party’s platform since its founding. The party has portrayed nature as a patrimony to be passed on to future generations in an improved condition. Initially, the party also viewed renewable energy as a preferred energy source because it is generated domestically. However, the party has interpreted the concept rather expansively to include peat burning.

The Finns Party’s support for peat burning and wood-based fuels has remained consistent, as it sees them as “genuinely domestic energy sources.”¹⁶ However, attitudes toward wind power have changed. After initially welcoming wind as another form of domestic renewable energy, from 2016 onward the party drew attention to alleged negative health impacts of wind turbines and criticized their inability to produce energy consistently. Later, the party called for a cut in government subsidies for wind-power production.

At the same time, the Finns Party has adopted a more positive attitude toward nuclear energy. This attitude is reflected in the way the party views other European countries’ policies in this area. For example, the party has criticized Germany’s decision to close its nuclear power plants for adversely impacting peak-consumption energy prices in Finland. Instead of a single European electricity market, as promoted by the EU, the party proposes a Nordic or possibly a Nordic-Baltic market, or even full self-sufficiency, as a more nationally beneficial alternative.

Self-sufficiency, lower energy prices, and Finland’s economic interests have been key concerns in the Finns Party’s energy policy. According to the party, energy and climate change policies should support employment and economic growth instead of hindering them. While the party is in favor of moving toward lower carbon emissions, it views the whole process from the perspective of national interests. Finland is a small country that has already done its share, the party believes, and doing more will not have a global impact. In fact, lowering carbon emissions can be harmful, the party warns. Handicapping the Finnish economy through climate change policies will only put it at a competitive disadvantage compared with countries like China that pollute more. Doing more than one’s minimum share is ridiculed by the party’s politicians as moral posturing at the public’s expense.

In the same vein, the Finns Party resents any EU interference in Finland’s climate change and energy policy choices. Even when the party agrees with EU policies, such as the goal of eliminating all Russian fossil-fuel imports, it tends not to trust the efficacy of EU mechanisms. There is also a pervasive suspicion that EU climate change policy and international treaties are forcing Finland to pay for mistakes made by others. Nevertheless, the Finns Party has tended more toward maximizing Finland’s national interests and avoiding being a front-runner on climate issues than toward rejecting a joint climate change policy.

The Finns Party leadership has, at least in recent years, affirmed that climate change is real and that it is “likely that humans have something to do with it.”¹⁷ However, there are plenty of climate change skeptics of varying degrees in the party. Where there is a broad consensus is that even if the phenomenon is real, Finland should not take it upon itself to try to change the world.

Development Aid

The Finns Party’s attitude toward development aid has attempted to balance two contradictory views. On the one hand, the party’s “Finland first” policies have cast development aid as something fundamentally undesirable. The party has portrayed such aid as wasteful spending of Finnish taxpayers’ money for the benefit of corrupt foreign regimes instead of needy Finns. This line of argument has emphasized the alleged ineffectiveness or even counterproductive nature of development aid and used problematic tropes of African leaders. The policy implication of this standpoint has been to demand significant cuts to development aid allocations, increased monitoring and evaluation of aid effectiveness, a concentration on fewer countries, and tighter anticorruption measures that can lead to funding being cut off.

On the other hand, the Finns Party has seen development aid as a potentially useful tool to reduce migration pressures—or at least as a justification for promoting a harsher asylum policy in favor of helping people closer to their home countries. In this sense, the party’s development aid policy is inextricably linked to its immigration and asylum policies. In line with this immigration-related goal, the party has called for a focus on the rights of women and girls, as this can have an impact on reducing population growth. The party also views conflict resolution, humanitarian aid, and assistance for catastrophes as good uses of development aid funds. Likewise, the party sees assisting Ukraine after Russia’s 2022 invasion as an exception to its fundamental objection to development aid.

Russia and Ukraine

The Finns Party’s position on Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine does not differ from that of Finland’s other parliamentary parties. The Finns Party condemns the Russian aggression in unequivocal terms, supports sanctions against Russia, and is in favor of aiding Ukraine. Halla-aho, in particular, has been very vocal about the threat posed by Russia and expressed strong sympathy with Ukraine, even opening several of his statements in the Finnish parliament in Ukrainian.

In the past, the Finns Party’s views on Russia and Ukraine have not been as clear-cut. After Russia’s March 2014 annexation of Crimea, then party leader Soini argued that the crisis in Ukraine was an example of how EU membership meant that Finland “gets drawn into all those international situations and conflicts in which the EU decides to become involved.” Moreover, he stressed that his party wanted Finland to “invest in good relations with Russia” and that harmful sanctions should be avoided for as long as possible.¹⁸ Individual Finns Party members of parliament (MPs) have put forward similar arguments since. By contrast, Halla-aho has consistently denounced Moscow’s actions in Ukraine, calling for stronger sanctions against Russia as early as September 2014.

Defense and NATO

While there has been some ambiguity over the Finns Party’s views on Russia and Ukraine, the party has invariably advocated a strong national defense, for example by urging Finland to withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty on antipersonnel mines to better protect its eastern border.¹⁹

In response to Russia’s war in Ukraine, the Finns Party—like most of Finland’s parties—changed its views on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and supported Finland’s May 2022 decision to seek membership in the alliance. Before that, the party’s attitude toward NATO had been predominantly critical. Its 2007 and 2015 electoral programs argued that membership would have detrimental consequences for Finland’s defense; expose the country to new threats, such as terrorism; and limit its international room for maneuver. Both manifestos also blamed Finland’s political and media elites for allegedly trying to push Finland toward NATO. However, after February 2022, most Finns Party MPs quickly expressed strong support for joining the organization.

China

While the Finns Party had hardly mentioned China in previous programs and manifestos, the party’s 2022 foreign and security policy program articulated a highly critical view of the country’s “increasingly aggressive foreign policy” and “ever starker despotism.” The document painted China as posing “this century’s greatest economic, political, and military challenge to the West” and portrayed China’s relations with Russia as close.²⁰

In response, the Finns Party called on Finland to support the forging of a united Western front against China and urged the EU to stand in solidarity with countries targeted by “hostile Chinese policies” and deepen ties with Japan, which the party saw as Finland’s natural ally in East Asia. As in several other policy fields, the Finns Party also found a way to link China to immigration policy. The 2022 program mentioned Chinese students at Finnish universities and warned of Chinese industrial espionage and innovation theft.

The Finns Party’s tough 2022 China policy can be seen as a new development and a departure from previous leanings. The policy was articulated just six months after Mika Niikko, a Finns Party MP, was forced to step down from his role as chair of the Finnish parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee. Although his resignation followed a controversial tweet about Ukraine’s NATO ambitions, Niikko had also been criticized during his time as committee chair for having too close relations with China. Beyond his 2015–2018 tenure as vice chair of the parliament’s China Friendship Group, investigative journalists revealed in 2020 that his ties to China were much more extensive.²¹

Tuomas Iso-Markku is a senior research fellow at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA).

Timo R. Stewart is a senior research fellow at FIIA.

Notes

¹ David Arter, “Analysing ‘Successor Parties’: The Case of the True Finns,” West European Politics 35, no. 4 (2012): 803–825, https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2012.682346.

² David Arter, “The Breakthrough of Another West European Populist Far Right Party? The Case of the True Finns,” Government and Opposition 45, no. 4 (2010): 484–504, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2010.01321.x.

³ Arter, “The Breakthrough.”

⁴ Tapio Raunio, “European Parliament Election Briefing No 26: The European Parliament Election in Finland, June 7, 2009,” European Parties Elections and Referendums Network, June 2009, https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=epern-no-26-finland-2009.pdf&site=266.

⁵ Tapio Raunio, “Election Briefing No 63: Europe and the Finnish Parliamentary Elections of April 17, 2011,” European Parties Elections and Referendums Network, May 2011, https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=epern-election-briefing-63.pdf&site=266.

⁶ David Arter, “The Making of an ‘Unhappy Marriage’? The 2023 Finnish General Election,” West European Politics 47, no. 2 (2024): 426–438, https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2023.2233072.

⁷ Nicolas Camut, “Far-Right Finns Party Moves to ECR Group in EU Parliament,” Politico, April 5, 2023, https://www.politico.eu/article/far-right-finns-party-ecr-european-conservatives-and-reformists-group-parliament/.

⁸ Sappo Varjus, “Kommentti: Purran on vaikea irtautua EU-vastaisuudesta – se on perussuomalaisten DNA:ssa” [Comment: It Is Difficult for Purra to Abandon Euroskepticism—It Is in the Finns Party’s DNA], Ilta-Sanomat, January 27, 2023, https://www.is.fi/politiikka/art-2000009354258.html.

⁹ Tapio Raunio, “‘Whenever the EU Is Involved, You Get Problems’: Explaining the European Policy of the (True) Finns,” Sussex European Institute, February 2012, https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=epern-working-paper-26.pdf&site=266.

¹⁰ “Perussuomalainen Suomi: Jotain rajaa” [The Finns Party’s Finland: There Must Be Some Kind of a Limit], Finns Party, 2019, https://www.perussuomalaiset.fi/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/PS_vaihetoehtobudjetti_2019_final.pdf.

¹¹ “Perussuomalainen eduskuntavaaliohjelma 2019” [The Finns Party’s 2019 Parliamentary Election Program], Finns Party, 2019, https://www.perussuomalaiset.fi/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Eduskuntavaaliohjelma-2019.pdf; and “Perussuomalaisten maahanmuuttopoliittinen ohjelma 2023” [The Finns Party’s 2023 Immigration Policy Program], Finns Party, 2023, https://www.perussuomalaiset.fi/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/MaahanmuuttopolOhjelmaIso.pdf.

¹² “Perussuomalainen Suomi,” Finns Party.

¹³ David Mac Dougall, “Outcry as Finland election campaign hit by 'racist' advertising,” Euronews, March 17, 2023, https://www.euronews.com/2023/03/17/outcry-as-finland-election-campaign-hit-by-racist-advertising.

¹⁴ European Agency for Fundamental Rights, “Finland / Supreme Court / KKO:2012:58, R2010/1101,” June 8, 2012, https://fra.europa.eu/en/databases/criminal-detention/node/6670.

¹⁵ Yleisradio Oy, “Finns Party MP cannot promise end to party's racism scandals,” September 1, 2023, https://yle.fi/a/74-20048047.

¹⁶ “Perussuomalainen vaihtoehtobudjetti 2014” [The Finns Party’s 2014 Alternative Budget], Finns Party, October 22, 2013, https://www.perussuomalaiset.fi/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Varjobudjetti_2014_lopullinen.pdf.

¹⁷ Jari Korkki, “Jussi Halla-aho kiistää perussuomalaisten täyskäännöksen ilmastonmuutoksessa” [Jussi Halla-aho Denies the Finns Party’s Complete Reversal on Climate Change”], Uusi Suomi, January 25, 2020, https://www.uusisuomi.fi/uutiset/jussi-halla-aho-kiistaa-perussuomalaisten-tayskaannoksen-ilmastonmuutoksessa-suhteellisuudentaju-unohtuu/f0bb8f2a-86f3-4936-b21a-a50ee6503edc.

¹⁸ “Täysistunnon pöytäkirja 23/2014 vp” [Minutes of the Plenary Session 23/2014 vp], Parliament of Finland, March 12, 2014, https://www.eduskunta.fi/FI/vaski/sivut/trip.aspx?triptype=ValtiopaivaAsiakirjat&docid=PTK+23/2014+ke+p+1.

¹⁹ Pekka Vanttinen, ”Growing calls for Finland to withdraw from Ottawa Mine Ban Treaty”, Euractiv, March 4, 2022, https://www.euractiv.com/section/all/short_news/growing-calls-for-finland-to-withdraw-from-ottawa-mine-ban-treaty/.

²⁰ “Perussuomalaisten vaihtoehtobudjetti 2022” [The Finns Party’s 2022 Alternative Budget], Finns Party, 2022, https://www.perussuomalaiset.fi/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Perussuomalaisten-vaihtoehtobudjetti-2022.pdf.

²¹ Kirsi Skön, “Kiinalaiset maksoivat useita Mika Niikon matkoja” [The Chinese Paid for Several of Mika Niikko’s Trips], YLE, February 9, 2020, https://yle.fi/aihe/artikkeli/2020/02/09/kiinalaiset-maksoivat-useita-mika-niikon-matkoja-kansanedustajan-kiina-yhteydet.