President Donald Trump on Thursday accused six Democratic members of Congress of “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”“It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.Trump’s post was referring to lawmakers who previously served in the military or intelligence community who were featured in a social media video posted this week telling service members they do not have to carry out “illegal orders.”“Their words cannot be allowed to stand – We won’t have a Country anymore!!! An example MUST BE SET,” Trump wrote, going on to add in a subsequent Truth Social post: “LOCK THEM UP???”The lawmakers seen in the video are Sens. Elissa Slotkin, of Michigan; Mark Kelly, of Arizona; U.S. Reps. Chris Deluzio, of Pennsylvania; Maggie Goodlander, of New Hampshire; Chrissy Houlahan, of Pennsylvania; and Jason Crow, of Colorado.In that video, they say, “No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution. Know that we have your back, don’t give up the ship.”The lawmakers did not specify what orders they were talking about, but they all framed their message as a warning about the rule of law. “We have been in contact with the House Sergeant at Arms and the United States Capitol Police to ensure the safety of these Members and their families. Donald Trump must immediately delete these unhinged social media posts and recant his violent rhetoric before he gets someone killed,” House Democratic leaders Hakeem Jeffries, Katherine Clark and Pete Aguilar said in a statement.
“It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.
Trump’s post was referring to lawmakers who previously served in the military or intelligence community who were featured in a social media video posted this week telling service members they do not have to carry out “illegal orders.”
“Their words cannot be allowed to stand – We won’t have a Country anymore!!! An example MUST BE SET,” Trump wrote, going on to add in a subsequent Truth Social post: “LOCK THEM UP???”
The lawmakers seen in the video are Sens. Elissa Slotkin, of Michigan; Mark Kelly, of Arizona; U.S. Reps. Chris Deluzio, of Pennsylvania; Maggie Goodlander, of New Hampshire; Chrissy Houlahan, of Pennsylvania; and Jason Crow, of Colorado.
In that video, they say, “No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution. Know that we have your back, don’t give up the ship.”
The lawmakers did not specify what orders they were talking about, but they all framed their message as a warning about the rule of law.
“We have been in contact with the House Sergeant at Arms and the United States Capitol Police to ensure the safety of these Members and their families. Donald Trump must immediately delete these unhinged social media posts and recant his violent rhetoric before he gets someone killed,” House Democratic leaders Hakeem Jeffries, Katherine Clark and Pete Aguilar said in a statement.
The European Parliament is on high alert for cyberattacks and foreign interference in the run-up to the EU election in June.
POLITICO reported in December that an internal review showed that the institution’s cybersecurity “has not yet met industry standards” and is “not fully in-line with the threat level” posed by state-sponsored hackers and other threat groups.
One member of the security and defense subcommittee went in for a routine check on Tuesday, which resulted in a discovery of traces of spyware on their phone. The member told POLITICO it wasn’t immediately clear why they were targeted with hacking software.
Parliament’s Deputy Spokesperson Delphine Colard said in a statement that “traces found in two devices” prompted the email calling on members to have their phones checked.
“In the given geopolitical context and given the nature of the files followed by the subcommittee on security and defence, a special attention is dedicated to the devices of the members of this subcommittee and the staff supporting its work,” the statement said.
The new revelations follow previous incidents with other European Parliament members targeted with spyware. Researchers revealed in 2022 that the phones of members of the Catalan independence movement, including EU politicians, were infected with Pegasus and Candiru, two types of hacking tools. That same year, Greek member of the EU Parliament and opposition leader Nikos Androulakis was among a list of Greek political and public figures found to have been targeted with Predator, another spyware tool. Parliament’s President Roberta Metsola previously also faced an attempted hacking using spyware.
Parliament’s IT service launched a system to check members’ phones for spyware in April last year. It had run “hundreds of operations” since the program started, the statement said.
WARSAW — Poland’s top two leaders met face-to-face Monday, but neither PM Donald Tusk nor President Andrzej Duda gave any sign they are prepared to retreat in their political conflict.
The dispute was sparked by the change of government, with Tusk’s new administration moving swiftly to purge people associated with the previous nationalist Law and Justice (PiS) party government, to retake control of the public media, and to roll back changes to the justice system that set off a multi-year conflict with Brussels.
Tusk’s Justice Minister and Chief Prosecutor Adam Bodnar moved last week to replace the head of the National Public Prosecutor’s Office without getting Duda’s approval, prompting the president to denounce Bodnar’s actions as “pathetic.”
Tossed into that volatile mix is the fate of two PiS politicians, Mariusz Kamiński and Maciej Wąsik, who are in prison after being convicted of abuse of power, but who are being called political prisoners by PiS.
That’s poisoned relations between Duda, a former PiS member still seen as loyal to the party, and Tusk, who has pledged to return Poland to being a European liberal democracy, and to prosecute politicians and PiS nominees accused of wrongdoing over the past eight years.
In a news conference after their meeting in Warsaw’s presidential palace — where the prime minister had to cool his heels for a few minutes before being admitted to see Duda — Tusk said he wanted better relations, but was prepared to wait out the remaining months until Duda’s final term ends in 2025.
“If we can’t make it, we will survive this year and three months, we will look for different ways,” Tusk said, adding: “Politics is to negotiate, to seek compromise between political forces. But politics, good politics, cannot be about finding a compromise between lies and truth, lawlessness and law.”
He also said he had told Duda that the president “has had a hand since 2015 in the devastation of the rule of law and legal order in Poland.”
In his own press conference, Duda called for “deescalation” of the conflict, but also said: “I appealed to the prime minister to restore the situation in accordance with the law. Not only with the law, but also with the constitution.”
Prosecutorial trials
Duda is outraged over the changes to the prosecutor’s office.
“The dismissal of the head of the National Public Prosecutor’s Office … requires written consent from the president. What the justice minister did has no legal bearing and is worthless,” Duda said.
Some lower ranking prosecutors, many seen as loyal to the old government, have rebelled against Bodnar. Duda met with them earlier Monday.
But Tusk isn’t giving an inch, insisting that National Prosecutor Dariusz Barski was improperly appointed in 2022 so there is no need to fire him as he never officially held the post.
“I only confirmed to president that we’re going to adhere to law, court judgments and the constitution,” Tusk said. “There’s no room for negotiations here — we cannot adhere to law only a bit or to the constitution only a bit.”
“I hope that in the future the president will lean to this interpretation,” Tusk added.
Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal, a top court that is viewed as being under control of PiS nominees, also waded into the fight on Monday by issuing a decree suspending the government’s nomination of Barski’s replacement and ordering Bodnar and “all public authorities to refrain from any actions hindering Barski’s exercise of rights, duties, and competencies.”
Krystyna Pawłowicz, one of the tribunal’s justices, made her views clear in a Sunday tweet, saying: “The neo-Bolshevik demolition of Poland is progressing.”
Imprisoned politicians
Duda is also incensed over the imprisonment of Kamiński and Wąsik. He pardoned the pair in 2015, but the Supreme Court later ruled that pardon was to no effect as it was issued before their final conviction. A lower court reopened the case and in December sentenced them to two years in prison for abuse of power while leading a corruption case back in 2007 aimed at destroying a party that was a coalition partner of PiS.
The two were arrested inside Duda’s palace last week and are now in prison, where they say they are on a hunger strike. Duda said last week he had initiated a pardon procedure to release them, but instead of simply issuing another pardon — which would free them from prison but also underline they had been convicted of a crime, which would strip them of their parliamentary seats — Duda tossed the matter to Bodnar.
He asked the justice minister to begin an amnesty procedure, which can take as long as two months and won’t necessarily return a positive finding. In the meantime, Duda wants the two released from prison, but the government fears if that happens, Duda will again claim that his 2015 pardon was effective and that the two are still MPs, despite a ruling by the speaker of parliament vacating their parliamentary seats.
Duda said he had called on Tusk, as Bodnar’s boss, to release Kamiński and Wąsik.
“I appeal once again to the minister. I have also made a personal appeal to the prime minister on this issue today, to influence his subordinate to make this happen,” Duda said.
So far the government has shown no inclination to release the pair.
“If he decides to grant clemency, of course, the detainees should be released the same day,” Tusk said, before adding another dig at Duda: “I was very keen to convince the president — unsuccessfully so far, I think — but to convince all politicians in Poland in general that they are not above the law, nor do they stand beside the law, that we should all be subject to the law to the same degree, even if some of its verdicts are not convenient for us.”
On December 29, Judge Ann Aiken of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon took senior status, but she did not retire from the bench. On the very same day, Judge Aiken denied the federal government’s motion to dismiss Juliana v. United States, the so-called “Kids Climate Case,” and directed the parties to begin preparing for a trial. It is an astounding order that threatens to bring cliamte litigation back to the Supreme Court, and outcome few climate activists should want.
A bit of background. The Juliana litigation began in 2015, when a group of youth plaintiffs filed suit alleging, among other things, that the federal government’s failure to control greenhouse gases violates their substantive due process rights to life, liberty, and property, including a right to a “stable climate system,” violates their right to equal protection, and failed to uphold its “public trust” obligation to hold certain natural resources in trust for the people and for future generations.
As one would expect, the federal government sought to dismiss the case. Not only did the district court deny the motion to dismiss, it also denied the federal government’s request to certify the decision for interlocutory review. Faced with the prospect of extensive discovery requests and a looking trial, the federal government sought a writ of mandamus and stay of the proceedings, first with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and eventually at One First Street.
While the Supreme Court did not grant the federal government’s motions, it issued two orders—one in July and one in November 2018—that made clear the justices believed Judge Aiken had misapplied the relevant rules (including that governing interlocutory review) and not-so-subtly directing the Ninth Circuit to get the district court in line. The Ninth Circuit issued a stay and Judge Aiken reconsidered her prior decision to deny interlocutory review, leading to the Ninth Circuit’s decision in January 2020 to dismiss the case on standing grounds.
One might have thought the Ninth Circuit’s decision would have put an end to the Juliana litigation. After all, the Ninth Circuit’s mandate instructed the district court to dismiss the case, so that is all there was left to do after the plaintiffs had exhausted their opportunities for en banc review and certiorari. But Judge Aiken had other ideas, and instead ordered the parties to have a settlement conference and granted the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their pleadings so as to keep the case alive.
As one would have predicted, the federal government again sought to have the case dismissed, arguing that the district court was required to do so given the Ninth Circuit’s mandate, and that even were that mandate not binding the plaintiffs continue to lack standing and failed to state viable constitutional or other claims upon which relief could be granted. Once again, Judge Aiken refused to let the case die, denying the federal government’s motion, save for dismissing the plaintiffs’ equal protection and Ninth Amendment claims.
From Judge Aiken’s opinion:
The parties do not disagree that the climate crisis threatens our ability to survive on planet Earth. This catastrophe is the great emergency of our time and compels urgent action. As this lawsuit demonstrates, young people—too young to vote and effect change through the political process—are exercising the institutional procedure available to plead with their government to change course. While facts remain to be proved, lawsuits like this highlight young people’s despair with the drawn-out pace of the unhurried, inchmeal, bureaucratic response to our most dire emergency. Top elected officials have declared that the climate emergency spells out “code red for humanity.” Burning fossil fuels changes the climate more than any other human activity. The government does not deny that it has promoted fossil fuel combustion through subsidies; tax exemptions; permits for fossil fuel development projects; leases on federal lands and offshore areas; permits for imports and exports; and permits for energy facilities. Despite many climate change suits around the country, in 2023, the United States witnessed record-breaking levels of oil and gas production. And recent calculations conservatively estimate that the United States provides the oil and gas industry $20,000,000,000.00 annually in an array of subsidies.
Defendants maintain that, because tackling the climate crisis is complex, and no single remedy may entirely redress plaintiffs’ harms caused by climate change, the judiciary is constrained by the Constitution from offering any redress at all. . . . Defendants contend that the issue of climate change is political in its nature, and that redress of plaintiffs’ alleged injuries must be sought from Congress. … That unnecessarily narrow view overlooks one clear and constitutional path to shielding future generations from impacts of the onslaught of environmental disaster: that it is the responsibility of the judiciary to declare the law that the government may not deprive the People of their Constitutional guarantee of the God-given right to life. U.S. CONST. art III; U.S. CONST. amend. V; Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 170 (1803).
Plaintiffs’ allegations are that collective resolve at every level and in every branch of government is critical to reducing fossil fuel emissions and vital to combating climate change. That curbing climate change requires an all-hands-on-deck approach does not oust the Court from its province or discharge it of its duty under the Constitution to say what the law is. Marbury 5 U.S. at 170. Combatting climate change may require all to act in accord, but that does not mean that the courts must “throw up [our] hands” in defeat. . . .
The legislative and executive branches of government wield constitutional powers entrusted to those branches by the People through the democratic process. … So too, as part of a coequal branch of government, the Court cannot shrink from its role to decide on the rights of the individuals duly presenting their case and controversy. Marbury, 5 U.S. at 170. . . .
Some may balk at the Court’s approach as errant or unmeasured, but more likely than not, future generations may look back to this hour and say that the judiciary failed to measure up at all. In any case over which trial courts have jurisdiction, where the plaintiffs have stated a legal claim, it is the proper and peculiar province of the courts to impartially find facts, faithfully interpret and apply the law, and render reasoned judgment. Such is the case here.
Among other things, Judge Aiken declares the existence of a substantive due process right to a “climate system that can sustain human life.”
Exercising “reasoned judgment,” the Court finds that the right to a climate system that can sustain human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society.
Defendants contend plaintiffs are asserting a right to be free from pollution or climate change, and that courts have consistently rejected attempts to define such rights as fundamental. Defendants mischaracterize the right plaintiffs assert. Plaintiffs do not object to the government’s role in producing any pollution or in causing any climate change; they assert the government has caused pollution and climate change on a catastrophic level, and that if the government’s actions continue unchecked, they will permanently and irreversibly damage plaintiffs’ property, their economic livelihood, their recreational opportunities, their health, and ultimately their (and their children’s) ability to live.
In this opinion, this Court simply holds that where a complaint alleges governmental action is affirmatively and substantially damaging the climate system in a way that will cause human deaths, shorten human lifespans, damage property, threaten human food sources, and dramatically alter the planets ecosystem, it states a claim for a due process violation. To hold otherwise would be to say that the Constitution affords no protection against a government’s knowing decision to poison the air its citizens breathe or the water its citizens drink. . . .
We cannot vow to uphold the Constitution’s protection of a God-given right to life, and at the same time, exercise “judicial restraint” by telling plaintiffs that “life” cannot possibly include the right to be free from knowing government destruction of their ability to breathe, to drink, or to live. “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the [C]onstitution is intended to be without effect.” Marbury, 5 U.S. at 174. Plaintiffs have adequately alleged infringement of a fundamental right and defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied on this issue.
The most startling part of Judge Aiken’s decision is not the sweeping assertions of constitutional rights, but her refusal to certify the opinion for interlocutory review, without comment. This is striking because it was Judge Aiken’s prior refusal to permit interlocutory review which ultimately prompted two separate Supreme Court orders indicating that she had misapplied the standard in 28 U.S.C. §1292 and the Ninth Circuit’s ultimate stay.
The last time around, Judge Aiken deigned to explain her actions, offering both an explanation for her initial denial of interlocutory review and her subsequent reversal. This time, however, her opinion offers not a word in defense of her decision to deny the federal government’s request, even though nothing has changed that would alter the application of §1292’s standards to this case, and the Supreme Court’s admonitions remain on point. There is simply no other way to describe this aspect of her opinion other than as outright judicial defiance (and illustrates how some “shadow docket” orders are more a measured response to misbehavior by lower court judges than a sign of High Court activism).
Judge Aiken’s decision is not merely defiant, but reckless as well. The Department of Justice has little choice but to seek review of this decision, even if through a writ of mandamus, and if the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit does not intervene, the question could reach the Supreme Court, where the justices are already considering whether to grant review of other climate litigation.
Those filing various nuisance and tort suits against energy companies have been working hard to keep their cases out of federal court (and with much success). Whereas the energy companies characterize the suits as unbounded efforts to dictate energy policy in state courts, the plaintiffs in those cases stress that they are simply pursuing state law claims in state courts, and that such questions are not worth the Supreme Court’s review. Suits like Juliana (and the recently filed Genesis B case), threaten to disrupt the plaintiffs “business as usual” narrative and offer the justices good cause to step in to make sure climate litigation does not get out of hand.
Many cliamte activists are cheering Judge Aiken’s latest ruling. But should her shenanigans lead to premature High Court review of pending climate claims, they may come to rue the day Judge Aiken refused to let the Juliana litigation stay dead and buried.
* * *
For those interested, here are my prior posts on the Juliana litigation:
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said Thursday the European Commission is blackmailing Hungary by withholding billions in frozen funds over rule-of-law concerns.
Orbán said the blackmail is “a fact,” even admitted by the blackmailers themselves — members of the European Parliament.
“In our view, Hungary fulfils all the qualities of the rule of law, and when the European Commission has specific needs, we implement everything from them, and we are also cooperative,” Orbán told reporters in Budapest during a press conference. “You cannot blame me for doing everything I can to promote Hungary’s interests in such a blackmailed situation.”
Orbán’s government has been embroiled in a long-standing dispute with Brussels, which has frozen billions of EU funds intended for Hungary over concerns about human rights and the rule of law in the country.
Last week, the European Commission unblocked €10.2 billion in frozen EU cohesion funds earmarked for Hungary.
The commission said the timing of the funding release — which came just a day before the European Council, where Orbán was threatening to block the start of Ukraine’s accession talks to the EU and a further aid package to Kyiv — was coincidental. But many EU politicians have warned Brussels not to give in to what they perceive as blackmail from the Hungarian leader.
In the end, Orbán did a U-turn and allowed EU leaders to approve the start of negotiations for Ukraine to join the bloc.
There is more money at stake for Budapest and Orbán is still blocking a €50 billion aid package for Kyiv, which leaders are set to discuss early next year.
MADRID — Spain’s latest political turmoil is extending a years-long battle between the two main parties over appointments of top judges.
In recent months, Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez secured a new term by offering an amnesty deal to Catalan separatists in exchange for political support. This was met by outrage from the right-wing opposition, many in the judiciary and prominent lawyers, who have warned such a move could be seen as unconstitutional. Now, this antagonism is feeding into a paralysis in the judiciary’s governing body.
For years, Sánchez’s governing Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE) and the Popular Party (PP) clashed over judicial appointments and reform. The two have vied to control the judicial authority and as a result, the entire judiciary, with appointed judges labeled “conservative” or “progressive,” and their political allegiance public knowledge.
The PP, in particular, has delayed efforts to reach a deal on new appointments, demonstrating the deteriorating relationship in the months since Sanchez’s offer of Catalan amnesty. The judiciary has become their political battleground.
Critics say conservative leaders are fearful of losing control of the Supreme Court, where conservative-backed judges dominate.
PP leader Alberto Núñez Feijóo, who could not gather enough support to govern despite winning July’s election, has continued to thwart attempts by Sánchez to reach a deal and instead has called for a reform of laws governing appointments.
This reflects the Popular Party’s broader political agenda, said Lluís Orriols, a political scientist at Madrid’s Carlos III University.
“The [Popular Party] hasn’t been accusing the government of not managing the economy or of being corrupt or inefficient, its main angle of attack is to accuse the government of eroding the rule of law,” he said.
Terms of judges sitting on Spain’s General Council of the Judiciary, expired five years ago and they remain on the council until the government can appoint new judges. The council, which appoints top judges, has been unable to appoint 23 out of 79 Supreme Court positions that have opened up due to retirements and deaths during the half-decade hiatus.
The PSOE and PP have not managed to secure the three-fifths support needed from parliament to make new appointments. Currently, Spain’s highest judicial authority, dominated by judges appointed by the PP in 2013 when it was in power, operates on an interim basis, drawing concern from the EU.
European Commissioner for Justice Didier Reynders recently described new appointments on Spain’s General Council of the Judiciary as “a matter of priority.”
Such is the entrenched nature of the stand-off that both sides have now agreed to let the European Commission mediate.
The EU’s 2023 justice scorecard placed Spain 23rd in the bloc for public perception of independence of courts and judges, with political pressure the most commonly cited cause of interference.
Pedro Sanchez appauds prior a Parliamentary debate on the eve of a vote to elect Spain’s next premier, at the Congress of Deputies in Madrid on November 15, 2023 | Javier Soriano/AFP via Getty Images
“As well as damaging the credibility of public institutions, this [dispute] demonstrates that the Spanish justice system is very susceptible to party political interference,” said Joaquim Bosch, a judge and spokesman in the Valencia region for the Judges for Democracy (JxD) association, which has frequently criticized the judiciary.
The politicization of the judiciary has been a recurring theme for decades. In 1985, the Socialist government of Felipe González, keen to limit the influence of the many Franco-era judges still serving, introduced a reform that allowed parliament to appoint members of the judiciary council.
While the dispute over the judiciary’s governing body has continued, tensions have been simmering between Sánchez’s parliamentary allies and the courts. Much of the ill-feeling from judges can be attributed to a contentious 2022 sexual consent law, overseen by leftist party Podemos, which inadvertently led to the reduction of sentences of hundreds of sex offenders, pitting it against judges it accused of misinterpreting the reform.
“We have been called sexist, patriarchal, ‘fascists in a toga’ – everything under the sun,” said María Jesús del Barco Martínez, president of the Professional Association of Magistrates (APM), Spain’s largest organization of judges.
Sanchez’s recent decision to provide amnesty to those involved in the 2017 Catalan independence referendum, which he previously said was not possible, has also led him directly into conflict and reproach from those atop the country’s justice system.
The government insists the bill is legally watertight. However, before the legislation was presented to parliament, the APM issued a strongly worded statement against it, warning that the amnesty “attacks the very bases of the state and the rule of law.”
Much of the criticism from the judicial bench comes from the part of the amnesty deal that refers to “lawfare,” the use of legal systems and institutions to hurt opponents, a buzzword for Catalan nationalists, who believe state institutions have acted against them in recent years. Many cite lengthy jail terms given to independence leaders in the wake of the failed illegal Catalan independence drive.
The government’s willingness to discuss lawfare – Sánchez has used the word himself recently, albeit when accusing the Popular Party of blocking judicial council appointments – enraged judges.
Del Barco Martínez said: “There is nothing that interferes more in the work of a judge than politicians telling them what they have to do or checking to see whether what they have done fits in with what politicians want. In a Bolivarian regime you can do that, maybe, but not in a democracy.”
The clash between Sánchez’s parliamentary allies and the judiciary shows little sign of ending, with both sides feeling aggrieved.
“We are seeing a clear conflict of powers in this country: there is a battle being waged between the judiciary and the executive,” said Orriols, of Carlos III University. “The judiciary is using its resources to defend itself from what it feels is an attack by parliament and Catalan institutions while the executive feels that the judiciary is overreaching.”
WARSAW — After eight years of rule by the nationalist Law and Justice (PiS) party, Polish voters on Sunday chose change — giving three opposition democratic parties enough seats to form a new government.
So now is the way clear to bring Poland back into the European mainstream after dallying as an illiberal democracy?
Not so fast.
The country’s likely ruling coalition faces years of very hard political graft to undo the changes wrought by PiS since 2015.
Here are five main takeaways from an election that will shake Poland and Europe.
1. Job No. 1 — creating a new government
The final result puts PiS in first place, with35.4 percent, according to a preliminary vote count, and 194 seats, but that’s too few for a majority in the 460-member lower house of parliament.
“We will definitely try to build a parliamentary majority,” said Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki.
The first move belongs to President Andrzej Duda, a former PiS member who has always been loyal to the party. He has said that presidents traditionally choose the leader of the largest party to try to form a government, but if PiS really is a no-hoper, Duda could delay the formation of a stable government.
Under the Polish constitution, the president has to call a new parliamentary session within 30 days of the election. He then has 14 days to nominate a candidate for prime minister; once named, the nominee has 14 days to win a vote of confidence in parliament.
If that fails, parliament then chooses a nominee for PM.
That means if Duda sticks with PiS, it could be mid-December before the three opposition parties — Civic Coalition, the Third Way and the Left — get a chance to form a government. Together, they have248 seats in the new legislature.
There are already voices calling on the opposition to short-circuit that by striking a coalition deal with the signatures of at least 231 MPs, demonstrating to Duda that they have a lock on forming a government.
Once in power, the opposition will find that ruling isn’t easy.
What unites the three is their distaste for PiS, but their programs differ markedly.
Civic Coalition, the largest party under the leadership of Donald Tusk, a former prime minister and European Council president, is part of the center-right European People’s Party in the European Parliament. But it also contains smaller parties from different groupings like the Greens.
The Third Way is a coalition of two parties — Poland 2050, founded by TV host Szymon Hołownia, and the Polish People’s Party (PSL), the country’s oldest political force representing the peasantry. Poland 2050 is part of Renew while PSL is in the EPP. The grouping skews center right, which means it’s likely to clash with the Left on issues like loosening draconian abortion laws.
The Left is in turn an amalgamation of three small groupings whose leaders have often been at daggers drawn.
2. There’s a mighty purge coming
A non-PiS government will have a very difficult time passing legislation as it will not have the three-fifths of parliamentary votes needed to override Duda’s veto; his term ends in 2025.
The new administration’s first job will be cleaning PiS appointees out of controling positions in government, the media and state-controlled corporations. Poland has a long tradition of governments rewarding loyalists with cushy jobs, but PiS took it to an extreme not seen since communist times.
Most of those people face dismissal.
“We will fire all members of supervisory boards and boards of directors. We will conduct new recruitment in transparent competitions, in which competence, not family and party connections, will be decisive,” says the Civic Coalition electoral program.
“We’ll end the rule of the fat cats in state companies,” says the Left’s program.
The immediate market reaction was positive, with energy company Orlen up more than 8 percent on the Warsaw Stock Exchange on Monday, and the biggest bank, PKO BP, up over 11 percent.
Poland’s state media became PiS’s propaganda arm — along with a chain of newspapers bought by state-controlled refiner Orlen — hammering Tusk as the traitorous “Herr Tusk” more loyal to Germany than Poland. Not a lot of people in the media are likely to survive what’s coming, if the new government succeeds in its goal of shutting down the National Media Council — a body stuffed with PiS loyalists that manages public media.
Poland’s state media became PiS’s propaganda arm, hammering Tusk as the traitorous “Herr Tusk” more loyal to Germany than Poland | Zbignieuw Meissner/EFE via EPA
But losing a job isn’t the worst of what’s awaiting many.
3. Go directly to jail
When Tusk’s party last won power from a short-lived PiS government in 2007, the winners treated their political rivals with kid gloves and hardly anyone was prosecuted. This time the gloves are off.
In its political program, Civic Coalition promises to prosecute anyone for “breaking the constitution and rule of law.”
It aims at Duda, Morawiecki, PiS leader Jarosław Kaczyński and Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro, Central Bank Governor Adam Glapiński for mismanaging the fight against inflation, and Orlen CEO Daniel Obajtek for heading a controversial buyout that saw the sale of part of a large refinery to foreign interests.
Expect prosecutors to track down the numerous scandals that have hit PiS over the years — from the government of former Prime Minister Beata Szydło refusing to publish verdicts issued by the Constitutional Tribunal, to Duda refusing to swear in properly elected judges to the tribunal.
There are also dodgy contracts issued during the panicky early phase of the COVID pandemic, millions spent on a 2020 election by mail that had not been approved by parliament, state companies setting up funds that poured money into PiS-backed projects, a bribes-for-visas scandal, and many more.
Many people with corporate jobs kicked back part of their salaries to PiS. Additionally, state-controlled companies directed a torrent of advertising money to often niche pro-government newspapers while neglecting larger independent media.
All of those transactions are likely to be examined and — if found to be against the interests of the corporation and its shareholders — could result in criminal charges.
The coalition promises to “hold responsible” people “guilty of civil service crimes.”
4. Reaching out to Brussels
Tusk is a Brussels animal — he spent five years there as European Council president and was also chief of the European People’s party.
PiS’s departure marks a sea change with the EU — which spent eight years tangling with Warsaw over radical changes to the judicial system aimed at bringing judges under tighter political control.
The European Commission moved to end Poland’s voting rights as an EU member under a so-called Article 7 procedure, blocked the payout of €36 billion in loans and grants from the bloc’s pandemic recovery fund, sued Poland at the Court of Justice of the EU, while the European Parliament passed resolutions decrying Warsaw’s backsliding on democratic principles.
The European Commission moved to end Poland’s voting rights as an EU member under a so-called Article 7 procedure | Kenzo Tribouillard/AFP via Getty Images
“The day after the election, I will go and unblock the money,” Tusk vowed before the vote.
Although Tusk said all that’s required is “a little goodwill and competence,” it’s going to be tougher than he’s letting on. The PiS government tried to unlock the money by passing a partial rollback of its judicial reforms, but they’re stuck in the PiS-controlled Constitutional Tribunal. Passing any new law will require Duda’s signature and without that, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen doesn’t have the legal basis to acknowledge that Poland has met the milestones it needs to achieve to get the money.
“Perhaps the strategy of Tusk will be to try to reopen the negotiation on the milestones and kind of striking a new deal with the European Commission,” said Jakub Jaraczewski, a research coordinator for Democracy Reporting International, a Berlin-based NGO.
5. Making waves in Europe
PiS made a lot of enemies — and the new government will try to undo that damage.
Relations with Berlin have been foul, with Kaczyński pounding the German government for wanting to undermine Polish independence and accusing Berlin of aiming to strike a deal with Moscow “because it is in their economic interest as well as that of their national character: the pursuit of domination at any cost.” Kaczyński and other PiS politicians have also constantly harried Germany for not coming clean about wartime atrocities against Poland.
Tusk has been careful not to touch that issue for fear of harming his party’s electoral chances, but he’s historically had good relations with Berlin — although Poland, no matter under which government, is a big and often prickly country that’s not an easy partner.
Tusk blamed PiS for the downturn in relations with Ukraine after the Polish government restricted Ukrainian grain imports not to annoy Polish farmers and to say it would not send more weapons to Kyiv. Tusk called it “stabbing a political knife in Ukraine’s back, while the battles on the frontline are being decided.”
While Brussels, Berlin and Kyiv will be breathing a sigh of relief at the change of direction in Warsaw, things are likely to be a little more tense in Budapest. Poland and Hungary had a mutual defense pact, blocking the needed unanimity in the European Council to move on the Article 7 procedure.
Without Kaczyński to protect him, Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán is much more exposed. There are other populists in Europe, like Italy’s Giorgia Meloni and Robert Fico, who looks likely to take over in Slovakia, but they don’t face Article 7 procedures and their countries have tight relations with the EU — making it difficult to see why they’d risk that to go out on a limb to save Orbán.
Paola Tamma contributed reporting.
This article has been updated with the final election results.
WARSAW — It’s squeaky bum time in the EU’s fifth most populous country.
After months of bitter campaigning, scandals, gaffes, attacks and just one debate, the political landscape ahead of Sunday’s general election is pretty much where it was a year ago. Two big parties — the ruling nationalist Law and Justice (PiS) party and the centrist Civic Coalition — are far ahead and a clutch of smaller parties are straggling far behind.
It’s a testament to the very deep divisions in Polish society.
The government’s backers see the opposition as traitorous sell-outs willing to hand Poland off the Germany (or even Russia) and to turn Poland into an irreligious, gay-friendly dystopia subservient to Brussels and filled with Muslim immigrants.
Opposition backers warn that if Law and Justice wins a third term in office, it will succeed in throttling what’s left of Polish democracy by completing its takeover of the courts, attack independent media and isolate Poland from its partners in the European Union.
1. What do the polls show?
POLITICO’s Poll of Polls currently has PiS at 37 percent while the Civic Coalition is at 30 percent.
Three smaller parties are also likely to make it into the next parliament.
The center-right Third Way is at 11 percent and the Left is at 10 percent. Both have pledged to join with Civic Coalition to oust PiS from power.
Far-right Confederation is at 9 percent — it’s the only possible coalition partner for Law and Justice, even though its leaders say they won’t do that. The two parties have similar nationalist views, but their economic policies are very different.
2. Why is everyone watching the small parties?
The rules are that parties need to win 5 percent of the vote to get seats in parliament, but coalitions need 8 percent.
Third Way — which unites the Poland 2050 party started by TV host Szymon Hołownia and the agrarian Polish People’s Party — faces that hurdle. If it falls short, the remaining parties in parliament will get a boost, and that would likely put PiS very close to a stand-alone majority.
“How smaller parties will fare is crucial,” said Ben Stanley, an associate professor at the University of Social Sciences and Humanities in Warsaw.
3. Are the elections free and fair?
Free maybe, but not very fair.
The government is boosting social spending, and held country-wide picnics where government officials got to hobnob with voters — all financed by the taxpayer. It is also promising rewards to localities with the highest vote total — a contest that only applies in the smaller towns that tend to be strong PiS backers.
The state-controlled media is firmly in the government’s camp, despite being obliged by law to be impartial. A chain of newspapers owned by state refiner Orlen is also backing PiS — and papers are even rejecting advertising from opposition parties.
Finally, the government has put forward a referendum with four questions that are designed to harm the opposition and don’t actually reflect any real policies. The one on migration reads: “Do you support the admission of thousands of illegal immigrants from the Middle East and Africa, according to the forced relocation mechanism imposed by European bureaucracy?”
The referendum has no spending limit, so state-owned corporations are pouring vast sums into the campaign. The Polish Post Office even sent leaflets to customers explaining the referendum and helpfully showing a mock ballot marked four times “no” — reflecting the government’s view.
Finally, the vote count will be supervised by judges appointed by the ruling party.
As of Friday evening, a grouping of foreign election observers was complaining that they still hadn’t received accreditation from the electoral commission to watch the vote.
4. What are the mechanics of voting?
All campaigning ends at midnight Friday and media stop all political reporting.
Polls open at 7 a.m. for about 29 million registered voters.
More than 600,000 are registered outside the country — a record. However, a new arbitrary rule limits vote counting in foreign locations to 24 hours; if the count is not finished by then all the ballots in that voting precinct are scrapped. Most foreign voters back the opposition.
The polls close at 9 p.m. and the media will immediately flash the result of exit polls — which cannot be published while voting continues — which historically have been fairly accurate.
The vote count begins immediately, and the national electoral commission will announce a running total. By Monday morning there should be a pretty good idea of the official vote winner.
5. How is a government formed?
The first move will belong to PiS-allied President Andrzej Duda.
Polish president Andrzej Duda | Wojtek Radwanski/AFP via Getty images
In line with Poland’s constitution, the president is free to nominate a prime minister. Duda said traditionally the president chooses a candidate from the overall election winner — which is almost certain to be Law and Justice.
The newly nominated prime minister then has to win an absolute majority of the 460-member Sejm, the lower house of parliament.
If the nominee fails, parliament takes over and has 14 days to nominate a new PM candidate who then has to win another confidence vote.
If that ends in no government, the ball is back in the president’s court and he has 14 days to pick another nominee. This time the nominee only needs a simple majority in the confidence vote.
6. What happens if no government is formed?
Running through the efforts to win a parliamentary majority could take a couple of months. If that fails, Duda cuts short the parliamentary term and calls a new election, which has to take place within 45 days.
That means a new election — and another bitter campaign — sometime in the spring of 2024.
WARSAW — Poland’s opposition held an enormous rally in Warsaw and other cities on Sunday — claiming more than a million people took part — but the mood two weeks ahead of the election is grim rather than triumphant.
That’s because the ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party has been holding on to a significant lead in the polls. POLITICO’s Poll of Polls has PiS at 38 percent while Civic Coalition, the main opposition grouping, is at 30 percent.
The Million Hearts march called by Donald Tusk, a former prime minister who heads the Civic Coalition, was supposed to lift the spirits of opposition supporters and show them that PiS — in power since 2015 — can be beaten.
“The impossible has become possible, when I see this sea of hearts, when I see these hundreds of thousands of smiling faces, I feel that this turning point in the history of our homeland is approaching,” Tusk told the crowd in Warsaw.
But the mood among the thousands of people streaming through the heart of the Polish capital — many waving red-and-white Polish or deep-blue EU flags — was more sober.
“I’ve had it up to my ears with the government of these awful people who are destroying my country,” said Kalina de Nisau, wearing a wrap made out of knotted EU and Polish flags. “But I’m not certain that this march will change the outcome. It’s very difficult.”
While Tusk and other party leaders were exhorting the huge crowd in Warsaw, PiS leaders were in Poland’s coal mining capital of Katowice to warn darkly of the dangers awaiting Poland if Tusk and his allies win on October 15.
Merkel and migrants
“If we succeed in beating [Civic Coalition] we’ll chase away Tusk. Where? To Berlin,” announced Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, hitting on a popular PiS theme that Tusk is in cahoots with Germany to cripple Poland. He then called Tusk the “political husband” of former German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
He also accused Tusk of trying to organize a wave of illegal migrants into the EU, waving a sheaf of documents he said spelled out the scheme “in black and white.” PiS is trying to deflect the blowback from a growing bribes-for-visas scandal where Polish consulates are accused of issuing work visas for cash, and also of issuing huge numbers of visas to non-EU citizens.
Germany last week brought in heightened border controls on its frontiers with the Czech Republic and Poland to curb an influx of asylum seekers.
PiS also downplayed the scale of the opposition march — which may be the largest in Polish history.
Jarosław Kaczyński, the leader of PiS and Poland’s de facto ruler, denounced “powerful media” that support Tusk for exaggerating the size of the rally.
“They are able to say, for example, that there were a million people in Warsaw today, as Tusk said, although both photos and police statements state that there were 60,000,” Kaczyński said, quoting an unofficial police estimate. During the rally, the route of the march was 4 kilometers long and the eight-lane streets and sidewalks were densely packed with people.
Tusk seized on the size of the crowd to insist it shows a desire to break with PiS, which has seen years of bitter fights with Brussels over accusations it is backsliding on rule of law and democracy thanks to radical changes made to the justice system.
“It’s not about this being the largest political demonstration in European history,” Tusk said. “Europe lives in the hope that Poland will again become a 100 percent European country, democratic and free.”
But a PiS defeat in two weeks is going to need a very rapid change in fortunes for the opposition. Otherwise, PiS is likely to be the largest party, and will then have to hunt for partners to form a coalition that would see it ruling for an unprecedented third four-year term.
“I’m not very optimistic,” said Katarzyna Osuch, walking along with the sea of people in Warsaw. “I think PiS might continue ruling. … I’m very disappointed.”
WARSAW — The campaign language ahead of this year’s Polish general election is apocalyptic — painting it as an existential battle for the soul of the EU’s fifth most populous country — but the likeliest outcome is a chaotic stalemate.
If the ruling nationalist Law and Justice (PiS) hangs on to power for a third term there isn’t much more it can do to wreck Poland without quitting the EU — and there’s little prospect of that. If the opposition pulls off a stunner and wins it will be so hemmed in by PiS-controlled courts and institutions and by a hostile president that it won’t be able to do much more than tweak the optics rather than surgically remove the growths added by Law and Justice.
Internationally, Poland is too important to be kept in the deep freeze forever; with a fast-growing economy, a big military and a key role in supplying Ukraine, it is no Slovakia. A PiS win will mean greater efforts to find some accommodation with Warsaw; an opposition victory will dramatically improve the atmosphere, but there are limits to even an opposition-ruled Poland’s coziness on many issues that are key to the EU.
An opposition victory could weaken PiS’s institutional advantages that it’s been using to skew the playing field in its favor — potentially leading to a longer-term shift away from the right-wing party that’s dominated Polish politics for the past eight years. But it’s no quick fix.
According to PiS, opposition leader Donald Tusk is a disloyal Pole who is working on behalf of both Germany and Russia to turn the country into a puppet state by letting in hundreds of thousands of migrants.
Oh, and he also wants to raise the retirement age.
Jarosław Kaczyński, the PiS chief and Poland’s real ruler, thundered to his supporters on Sunday: “Donald Tusk had to agree to make Poland subservient to Germany and therefore to Russia.”
“Stop Tusk. Only PiS can ensure Poland’s security,” trumpets an election ad.
For the opposition, led by Tusk’s Civic Coalition, another four-year term with Law and Justice at the helm means real danger for the future of Poland as a democratic country, as well as undermining the rights of women thanks to a draconian abortion law and an LGBTQ+ minority subjected to attacks by ruling party officials.
“Law and Justice is poison,” Tusk said at a campaign rally this summer. “Every day, every month they are in power is a growing threat to our security.”
Those fighting words are designed to budge the electorate; POLITICO’s Poll of Polls shows PiS at 37 percent while Civic Coalition is at 30 percent — meaning any new government is going to require cobbling together a coalition with smaller parties.
Polish Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the Law and Justice (PiS) ruling party Jarosław Kaczyński has promised that if his party wins, he’ll continue the judicial system changes that have so distressed the EU | Marian Zubrzycki/EPA-EFE
It’s not all rhetorical spin.
“There is always a tendency to say this is the most important election since 1989 [the election that ended communist rule], but this time there is a somewhat stronger case for making that argument. The level of polarization is evidence for that,” said Aleks Szczerbiak, a professor of politics at the University of Sussex in the U.K.
High stakes
The outcome is going to be watched very closely, from Brussels to Kyiv.
For the European Union, the hope is that if PiS is ousted Poland will return to the ways of Tusk, who served as Polish prime minister during a remarkable era of comity with the EU and with Germany before going on to become president of the European Council. As an added sweetener, Brussels will likely quickly move to release €36 billion in loans and grants from the bloc’s pandemic recovery fund held up over worries that PiS’s court system reforms undermine judicial independence.
The EU court cases, parliamentary resolutions, infringement procedures and Article 7 effort to strip Poland of its voting rights would also likely be shelved.
The German government would also sigh with relief at seeing the back of a government that has fiercely needled Berlin at every occasion and also called for up to $1.3 trillion in compensation for the destruction caused by the Nazi occupation; although the opposition hasn’t cut itself off from that demand.
Poland has been one of Ukraine’s fiercest advocates during the war — sending tanks and jet fighters ahead of most other countries, offering diplomatic support, receiving millions of refugees who fled the early days of the war, and serving as the main transshipment point for weapons and other aid heading east.
But the election campaign has soured that relationship.
Warsaw led the charge in blocking Ukrainian grain exports, worried it would undercut Polish prices and harm farmers — a key voting bloc. When Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy dared to criticize Poland at the U.N., a furious President Andrzej Duda compared Ukraine to a drowning man who poses a danger to his rescuers.
“We say to the Ukrainian authorities — do not do what goes against the interests of Polish farmers,” lectured Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, who said last month that Poland would stop sending weapons to Ukraine while it rebuilt its own stocks.
Poland’s Foreign Minister Zbigniew Rau skipped this week’s summit in Kyiv. Getting relations back on an even keel will take “a titanic effort,” he said.
Tusk promised a reset: “We cannot allow good Polish-Ukrainian relations to depend on the negligence and chaos created by the Polish government.”
Polish opposition leader and former premier, Donald Tusk addresses participants of a rally in Warsaw on October 1, 2023 | Wojtek Radwanski/AFP via Getty Images
A PiS victory will send shock waves across Europe.
Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán, Kaczyński’s closest ally, has been building his illiberal democracy for over a decade. With Rome governed by right-winger Giorgia Meloni, Slovakian populist Robert Fico scoring a victory in last week’s election, and the far-right Alternative for Germany party rising fast in the polls, the signal is that the right is gaining strength across the Continent.
That’s likely to further erode the tenuous hold on power of centrist parties in the European Parliament in next year’s election.
It will also block any chance of agreeing on a migration pact to tackle the thousands of people crossing EU borders and kill any effort to reform EU institutions ahead of an expansion to Balkan countries and Ukraine.
“A PiS government will block reforms on issues like taxation and foreign policy that threaten the national veto right. There is also a different approach to migration,” warned a senior Polish government official who spoke on condition of being granted anonymity. “We have another model of the European Union.”
Reality bites
However, despite the rhetoric, the reality is that the election is unlikely to mean a radical worsening of relations between Warsaw and Brussels.
Kaczyński has promised that if his party wins he’ll continue the judicial system changes that have so distressed the EU, after admitting that the reforms made so far haven’t worked. He vowed: “This time it will succeed.”
But his party has already sent out peace feelers to Brussels, trying and so far failing to backtrack on some changes to top courts to get the Commission to release the blocked funds.
If Law and Justice wins a third term, EU institutions will have to decide whether they want to continue the confrontation, or else make peace with a Poland that has firmly chosen a populist course.
“It takes two to tango. Maybe there will be a will to compromise on both sides,” said the Polish government official.
Permanent ostracism is also untenable, as Hungary showed this week by playing a skillful game of getting the EU to release blocked funds to avoid Orbán vetoing aid for Ukraine.
Despite opposition charges that PiS wants to pull Poland out of the EU in a Polexit — a cry from parts of the far right — Law and Justice says it has no intention of following the U.K. out of the bloc.
The results of the Polish general election could influence the upcoming European Parliament election and Poland’s presidential election in 2025 | Wojtek Radwanski/AFP via Getty Images
“PiS’s direction has always been toward the EU,” said PiS MP Radosław Fogiel.
And an opposition-led Poland would also be no easy partner for Brussels. After the initial flush of warmth, perennial problems will return like Poland’s continued addiction to coal-fired power, its reluctance to join the euro, and a suspicion of large flows of migrants — also voiced by Tusk during the campaign.
“Even if there is a change of government, there will still be very strong public opposition to a change in migration policy,” said Jacek Czaputowicz, a former foreign minister under the PiS government, speaking at the Warsaw Security Forum.
Poland’s large and powerful farming sector will be a huge issue for Ukrainian grain exports and for future efforts to recalibrate the EU to accommodate new and poorer members.
Ukrainian politicians hope that the war of words with Warsaw will die down after the election.
“War is exhausting for Ukraine and for Poland too, so emotions are felt on both sides, in addition, the election campaign in Poland, that tends to politicize everything, even economic issues,” said Andriy Deshchytsia, former Ukrainian ambassador to Poland, adding: “However, the Russian threat is still here, just like a year ago … so we don’t have any other choice but to sit and search for a compromise.”
As bad as it gets
At home, the election is also unlikely to have the earth-shattering impact that’s being voiced during the campaign.
PiS has done a lot of damage over the last eight years, and it’s difficult to see how much more it can do while still remaining a member of the EU. The state media is a Euro-lite version of North Korea, state-controlled corporations are stuffed with party hacks, the highest courts are firmly under political control, much of the Roman Catholic Church functions as a PiS acolyte, the police don’t mind clubbing the occasional opposition protester, the prosecutor’s office has become a political plaything — dropping investigations of the well-connected while fiercely pursuing the regime’s opponents.
But expanding that control will be difficult in an economy that has a large and vibrant private sector, a strong civil society and hefty private media.
Non-government media operators are owned by foreign companies that have shown no sign of backing out of the Polish market; an earlier effort to tangle with American-owned TVN, the country’s largest private television network, was quickly slapped down by Washington.
The EU is also working on a rulebook that aims to secure media independence against political pressure and foster pluralism; Commission Vice President Věra Jourová warned it “will be a major warning signal for member states.”
An opposition win would dramatically change the optics with Brussels, and a new government would scrap further legal changes to courts. But any effort to roll back those reforms, and any other PiS legislation, will run into a significant hurdle: President Duda.
There is a chance that Poland’s President Andrzej Duda will cooperate, as Tusk has threatened to prosecute him for violating the constitution | Leon Neal/Getty Images
There is no poll predicting an opposition win so gigantic that it would gain a two-thirds majority of MPs needed to overturn presidential vetoes. The country’s top courts are filled with judges appointed by the current government, meaning legislation will also be caught up in endless litigation.
“Even if they win an outright majority, which doesn’t look likely at the moment, this is an internally divided opposition and they face a president who will be able to veto their legislation,” said Szczerbiak.
However, there is a chance that Duda will cooperate, as Tusk has threatened to prosecute him for violating the constitution.
“Duda is a dealmaker,” said Wawrzyniec Smoczyński, a political analyst and president of the New Community Foundation. “Tusk is a big risk for him and the way to lessen that is to strike a deal.”
If Duda doesn’t play ball, a non-PiS government could be limited to purging state companies, the government and the media of PiS loyalists.
“Overnight you will get the public media back. Everyone will be booted out of there,” Tusk pledged.
Those small steps are unlikely to satisfy opposition backers yearning for revenge against Law and Justice and a clean break with the last eight years.
“For Poland, it’s all fucked up,” said Paweł Piechowiak, taking part in last week’s massive opposition march in Warsaw while waving huge Polish and EU flags, his cheeks painted in rainbow colors. “You can’t wreck this country any more than it is.”
But those personnel changes may have longer term consequences by switching public media away from backing PiS, which could undercut that party’s base of support in rural and small-town Poland.
That could change the political dynamic, especially if the next government is short-lived and there is an early election; it could also influence the upcoming European Parliament election and Poland’s presidential election in 2025.
“The parliamentary election could be viewed as the first round of a longer campaign,” said Szczerbiak.
Veronika Melkozerova contributed reporting from Kyiv.
WARSAW — Poland’s ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party is in the fight of its political life ahead of next month’s general election — and in its scramble for votes it’s taking aim at the country’s alliance with Ukraine.
The latest blow came from Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, who on Wednesday said that Poland has halted shipments of its own armaments to Ukraine.
“We are no longer transferring weapons to Ukraine, because we are now arming Poland with more modern weapons,” Morawiecki told Poland’s Polsat television.
It’s true that Poland has sent most of its Soviet-era tanks, fighters and other weapons to Ukraine and doesn’t have much left in its stocks. Warsaw will also continue allowing arms shipments from other allies to pass through its territory.
“Poland still functions as a hub for international aid,” said government spokesperson Piotr Müller, adding that the country is fulfilling its existing military supply contracts with Ukraine.
But Morawiecki’s comments come at a time when relations between Warsaw and Kyiv are the frostiest since Russia’s invasion a year and a half ago, and add to the impression that the nationalist party is undermining its alliance with Ukraine for electoral gain.
“Morawiecki wasn’t saying anything that wasn’t obvious … but to say such a thing at such a time escalates the conflict,” said Marcin Zaborowski, a director with the Globsec think tank.
The catalyst is grain.
Poland, Hungary and Slovakia have closed their markets to Ukrainian grain imports, in violation of the rules of the European Union’s single market, arguing they need to protect their farmers from price drops.
Ukraine has retaliated by filing a lawsuit against them at the World Trade Organization. It has also threatened to block some Polish agricultural exports to Ukraine.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy took a swipe at those countries at the United Nations this week, saying: “Alarmingly, some in Europe play out solidarity in a political theater — turning grain into a thriller … they’re helping set the stage for a Moscow actor.”
Polish President Andrzej Duda scrapped a meeting with Zelenskyy in New York due to a scheduling conflict, and the Ukrainian ambassador to Warsaw was summoned to the foreign ministry to explain. Morawiecki characterized relations with Kyiv as “difficult.”
Political calculation
In Poland, the core reason for the move is PiS’s need to shore up its support among rural voters and also to peel away supporters from the far-right Confederation party, many of whose backers are skeptical about helping Ukraine.
The Polish government sent tanks and jet fighters to Ukraine at a time when many other countries were balking at sending such equipment to Kyiv | Omar Marques/Getty Images
“Ukrainians ruthlessly took advantage of the Polish government being a sucker, emphasized their sympathy, which of course was not there, took the cash, and now they will declare a trade war on us,” Confederation leader Sławomir Mentzen told the Polish press.
Jacek Kucharczyk, head of the Institute for Public Affairs, a Warsaw-based think tank, characterized the shift in tone by the ruling party as “a desperate electoral ploy.”
In POLITICO’s poll of polls, PiS has the support of 38 percent of voters while Civic Coalition, the leading opposition party, is at 29 percent. If that holds, Law and Justice won’t have enough seats in parliament to rule on its own and so will have to try to form a coalition; Confederation is the likeliest target, although the party says it won’t join forces with PiS.
But the trends look worrying for PiS.
The government has been hit with a growing visas-for-bribes scandal that now has the European Commission asking for explanations. A new poll by United Surveys shows that if the main opposition parties join together, they would be able to cobble together a majority government after the October 15 election.
Shifting narrative
The U-turn on Ukraine may help shore up some of PiS’s electoral base. But it could cause other problems.
It undermines the government’s main foreign policy win. After years of bitter conflicts with the European Union and other key allies over rule of law, media freedom and backsliding on democratic standards, Poland’s strong support for Ukraine changed the narrative in Brussels and in Washington.
Millions of ordinary Poles helped Ukrainian refugees fleeing across the border in the immediate aftermath of the Russian attack. The Polish government sent tanks and jet fighters to Ukraine at a time when many other countries were balking at sending such equipment to Kyiv, fearing Russian retaliation. Warsaw also took delight in pointing out the shortcomings of European countries like Germany and France.
Zelenskyy even called Poland a “sister.”
In an address to the Polish nation made last year in Polish, he said: “I will remember how you welcomed us, how you help us. Poles are our allies, your country is our sister. Your friendship forever. Our friendship forever. Our love forever. Together we will be victors.”
Opinion polls show there is still strong support for helping Ukraine, with about three-quarters of Poles wanting to accept refugees.
Millions of ordinary Poles helped Ukrainian refugees fleeing across the border in the immediate aftermath of the Russian attack | Omar Marques/Getty Images
“The risk is that PiS voters broadly support the pro-Ukraine policy, and such a rapid policy change could be difficult to explain,” said Kucharczyk.
PiS has toyed with skepticism about Ukraine in the past — raising the issue of wartime massacres of Poles by Ukrainian nationalist guerrillas — but the overarching message was that Poland is Ukraine’s firmest friend.
The narrative shift is being welcomed in Moscow.
In New York, Duda compared Ukraine to a desperate, drowning person.
“A drowning person is extremely dangerous, he can pull you down to the depths … simply drown the rescuer,” Duda said.
That got a thumbs-up from the Kremlin.
“Never before did I agree with Duda as strongly as I did after this statement. Everything he said is correct,” said Russian foreign ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova.
The Polish opposition is also going on the attack.
Radosław Sikorski, a former Polish foreign minister and now a member of the European Parliament for the Civic Coalition, called Morawiecki’s comments “criminally stupid.”
“Even if we don’t have much more to give then why is he saying this in public! Does he really want [Russian President Vladimir] Putin to calculate that one or two more pushes and Ukraine will fall?” he tweeted.
Kyiv is now trying to downplay any rift with Warsaw.
Oleksandr Merezhko, head of Ukraine’s parliament committee on foreign relations, said he felt Morawiecki’s weapons comments weren’t linked to the growing trade fight.
“Like every politician, I know that during an election campaign, rhetoric can be quite emotional,” he said.
Bartosz Brzeziński and Veronika Melkozerova contributed reporting.
Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on Saturday slammed a report from the European Parliament on the country’s EU accession talks and threatened to “part ways” from the bloc.
Questioned by journalists about the report, Erdoğan said that “the EU is trying to break away from Turkey,” according to Turkish state media Anadolu Agency.
“We will make our evaluations against these developments and if necessary, we can part ways with the EU,” Erdoğan said ahead of a trip to attend the United Nations General Assembly in New York.
The European Parliament report, adopted this week in Strasbourg, said talks over Ankara’s accession to the bloc should not be resumed in current circumstances, voicing the EU’s concerns about human rights and rule of law violations. Instead, European lawmakers advocated finding “a parallel and realistic framework” for relations between Brussels and Ankara.
“We have recently seen a renewed interest from the Turkish government in reviving the EU accession process,” said the lead lawmaker on the file, Spanish Socialist Nacho Sánchez Amor, upon adoption of the report on Wednesday.
“This will not happen because of geopolitical bargaining, but only when the Turkish authorities show real interest in stopping the continuing backsliding in fundamental freedoms and rule of law in the country,” Sánchez Amor said.
Tukrey-EU ties have deteriorated amid Erdoğan’s increasingly autocratic behavior following a failed coup attempt in 2016.
Talks over Turkey’s accession to the bloc have stagnated for years. In July, however, EU foreign ministers agreed to move forward with relations.
KYIV — President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s move to equate wartime corruption with treason is triggering a backlash from officials and watchdogs, who warn the plan could hobble Ukraine’s main anti-graft forces.
Two senior officials following the proposal, who were granted anonymity to speak candidly, say concerns are growing within Ukraine’s anti-graft agencies that Zelenskyy’s plan will take top corruption cases away from their oversight and pass them to the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), which falls under the president’s command.
The SBU could, potentially, have the power to bury corruption cases involving top officials. The move, the officials say, could put Ukraine’s anti-corruption infrastructure under threat, and anti-corruption watchdogs are sounding the alarm.
By equating corruption to treason, Zelenskyy’s office is manipulating the public’s desire for justice, saidVitaly Shabunin, head of the Anti-Corruption Action Center (Antac), a Ukrainian nongovernmental organization that monitors graft. In reality, Shabunin added, Zelenskyy’s office is pursuing other goals: to protect high-level officials from corruption charges and obtain tools to destroy opponents.
“SBU will investigate the same cases as NABU [the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine], which means that evidence in ‘sensitive’ cases for the president’s office will be destroyed. After [President’s Office Deputy Head Oleg] Tatarov’s case was transferred from NABU to the SBU — it was buried there … Now the office wants to make that into practice,” Shabunin warned.
As journalists and anti-graft organs start to uncover more alleged corruption schemes during the first months of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion which began in February 2022, Zelenskyy thinks those days were so tough that officials should be cut some slack.
“February and March 2022 — it was a fight for the existence of Ukraine. If I see the corruption cases dated that time, I demand solid evidence. If there is one [evidence], the guilty must be punished by court, not public opinion,” Zelenskyy said in a televised interview. “As for my idea of equating corruption to state treason during wartime, I think it will be a very serious instrument to make them not even think about it [corruption].”
In practice, it will mean the collapse of the anti-corruption system, Antac said in a statement.
“According to the sources of the Anti-Corruption Center, the draft law will give the right to investigate top corruption to the SBU — a security service, controlled by the president’s office,” Antac said in a statement. Current and former senior officials in the SBU have been named by Ukrainian media as being close to Zelenskyy’s office — an accusation that was brushed off by Zelenskyy’s right-hand man Andriy Yermak as “conspiracy theories.”
Zelenskyy acted to begin the process of changing the law after another case of wartime corruption was uncovered last week, in which two high-ranking Ukrainian officials were named as suspects in an embezzlement scheme involving the procurement of humanitarian aid.
“I don’t know whether Ukrainian MPs will support my idea, but I will definitely propose it … We have to implement systemic changes. This is the way to fight corruption,” Zelenskyy said.
He added that his office will submit the bill to Ukraine’s parliament within a week.
“This is the way to fight corruption,” Zelenskyy said | Sergei Chuzavkov/AFP via Getty Images
“I have set a task, and the legislators of Ukraine will be offered my proposals on equating corruption with high treason during wartime,” Zelenskyy said Sunday evening. “I understand that such a weapon cannot operate constantly in society, but during wartime, I think it will help.”
Corruption scandals in Zelenskyy’s administration have drawn increased attention at the same time as the country is pushing to start membership talks with the European Union.
The deadline for Ukraine’s seven-step progress is approaching in October and the country, so far, has fulfilled only two steps, Ukraine’s Deputy Prime Minister on European and Euro-Atlantic Integration Olha Stefanishyna said during a conference in Kyiv earlier this month. Still, Stefanishyna said, partners acknowledged tremendous progress Ukraine made during the war and she still hopes accession talks will start in December.
Though Zelenskyy personally has not been implicated in scandal, some 77 percent of Ukrainians think he is responsible for ongoing corruption in the government and local military administrations, according to a poll by the Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation think tank published at the beginning of August.
Zelenskyy’s allies hit back at any suggestion he is to blame, amid repeated scandals that have rocked the government in 2023 in the humanitarian aid, and military recruitment and procurement sectors. And they support the president’s move to put wartime corruption on par with treason.
Mykhailo Podolyak, adviser to the head of Zelenskyy’s office, told POLITICO the president’s initiatives will strengthen anti-corruption infrastructure and its effectiveness.
“The president is starting this discussion to put a clear ‘equal’ sign in the mass consciousness between wartime corruption and treason. Strengthening the punishment for corruption crimes and removing the possibility of release on bail for those accused of corruption is a demonstration of the seriousness of his intentions,” Podolyak said.
An estimated 500,000 people marched through downtown Warsaw Sunday afternoon in a huge rally against the ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party, held on the 34th anniversary of the breakthrough election that effectively ended communist rule in Poland.
The march was called by Donald Tusk, former Polish prime minister and former president of the European Council, who is now leading his Civic Platform (PO) party in a bid to defeat PiS in an election due later this year.
“You’re all here because you have just believed we can win,” Tusk told the crowd, which filled Warsaw’s Castle Square. People in the crowd were holding up white-and-red flags and anti-government placards, including the locally famous ones with eight asterisks, denoting the Polish for “f*** PiS.”
“Here’s my pledge to you today: We are going to win this election and hold PiS accountable,” Tusk said.
The rally, which appeared to be the biggest political demonstration in Poland in decades, took place just a few days after PiS-friendly President Andrzej Duda signed off on controversial legislation setting up a special commission to probe Russian influence on Poland’s security. The commission will have vast powers including slapping whoever is found to be making political decisions under Russia’s sway with a 10-year ban from holding public office.
Poland’s opposition has said that the proposed sanctions of the special commission could be used to remove Tusk from politics under trumped-up allegations.
Following criticism in Poland, as well as from the U.S. and the EU, Duda has since moved to blunt the commission’s powers. That would, however, require another vote in the parliament.
Poland is gearing up for what is set to be a close election this fall. According to POLITICO’s Poll of Polls, Tusk’s Civic Platform is currently trailing PiS. But the ruling party does not have enough support to guarantee it a majority in the next parliament.
The standing of PiS in the polls has weakened in 2023 in the wake of double-digit inflation and an economic slowdown. Both are expected to ease later this year, possibly giving the ruling party some room to outdo the opposition and secure an unprecedented third consecutive term in office.
ATHENS — Greece’s conservative ruling party achieved a landslide victory in Sunday’s election, but it will have to wait for a second vote later this summer in its bid to secure an outright majority.
The New Democracy party of Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis managed to gain a double-digit lead over its main rival, the left-wing Syriza party, and was missing only a few seats for a majority even with the new proportional representation system, according to early results.
“The political earthquake that occurred today calls on all of us to accelerate the process for a final governmental solution,” Mitsotakis declared Sunday evening from his party headquarters.
“The data from the ballot box is catalytic — it proves that New Democracy has the approval to govern independently and strongly and they demanded it emphatically, in an absolute way,” he said.
With 75 percent of the votes counted, New Democracy was poised to get 40.8 percent of the vote and 145 seats in the 300-seat parliament. Syriza was lagging with only 20.1 percent and 72 seats, while the Socialist Pasok party had 11.7 percent and 42 seats. The Communists KKE had 7.1 percent and 25 seats and the nationalist Greek Solution 4.5 percent and 16 seats.
Three smaller parties that initially looked poised to get 3 percent and top the threshold to make it to parliament, eventually scored lower. The participation rate was at 59.2 percent, the Interior Ministry reported.
Nonetheless, New Democracy didn’t gather the percentage of votes — 45 percent — needed to win an outright majority.
Mitsotakis managed to gain among voters despite his premiership being burdened with a spying scandal, spiraling inflation and mounting concerns over the rule of law.
“Our collective bodies will be convened immediately in order to evaluate the election results,” said Syriza leader Alexis Tsipras, calling the results extremely negative for his party.
However, he said “the election cycle is not yet over, as there will probably be a second election and therefore, we do not have the time to wait. We must immediately make all changes necessary, in order to give the best possible conditions to the next crucial and final electoral battle.”
“It is a devastating outcome for the opposition, especially for Syriza,” said Wolfango Piccoli, co-founder of risk analysis company Teneo.
“It will take a long time for the main opposition party to recover, leaving New Democracy in a position to dominate Greek politics and run the government with no meaningful scrutiny,” he said.
“The outcome of today’s vote will be welcome by investors, but ND’s dominance of the political system together with a weak opposition may raise concerns about clientelism and the quality of policy-making,” Piccoli added.
“The resounding victory of New Democracy sends a clear and undisputed message all over Europe,” said Thanasis Bakolas, the center-right European People’s Party secretary general, adding that this is the first time since 2000 in Greece that the incumbent government emerges stronger after its term.
“A message to Brussels? — Today’s electoral result is a clear message against all those outside Greece who have consistently questioned the quality of Greek democracy and the will of the Greek people,” Bakolas added.
Starting from Monday, each of the three leading parties will get the mandate to form a government, starting with the winner, before passing to the second and then third party. Each one will have up to three days to try to form a government.
If there is no agreement on a coalition, the parliament elected on Sunday will be sworn in and then dissolved, paving the way for a second round of elections to take place and a caretaker government will be sworn in.
Bolstered by his triumph, Mitsotakis is expected to immediately seek a second vote, rejecting the option of a coalition after this first round of voting.
That means Greeks will probably head to the ballot boxes again on June 25 or July 2, with New Democracy poised to gain an outright majority, thanks to a system that grants the winning party in the second round up to 50 bonus seats.
There’s an Emmanuel Macron-shaped shadow hovering over this week’s U.S. visit by Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki.
In contrast to the French president — who in an interview with POLITICO tried to put some distance between the U.S. and Europe in any future confrontation with China over Taiwan and called for strengthening the Continent’s “strategic autonomy” — the Polish leader is underlining the critical importance of the alliance between America and Europe, not least because his country is one of Kyiv’s strongest allies in the war with Russia.
“Instead of building strategic autonomy from the United States, I propose a strategic partnership with the United States,” he said before flying to Washington.
In the U.S. capital, Morawiecki continued with his under-the-table kicks at the French president.
“I see no alternative, and we are absolutely on the same wavelength here, to building an even closer alliance with the Americans. If countries to the west of Poland understand this less, it is probably because of historical circumstances,” he said on Tuesday in Washington.
Unlike France, which has spent decades bristling at Europe’s reliance on the U.S. for its security, Poland is one of the Continent’s keenest American allies. Warsaw has pushed hard for years for U.S. troops to be stationed on its territory, and many of its recent arms contracts have gone to American companies. It signed a $1.4 billion deal earlier this year to buy a second batch of Abrams tanks, and has also agreed to spend $4.6 billion on advanced F-35 fighter jets.
“I am glad that this proposal for an even deeper strategic partnership is something that finds such fertile ground here in the United States, because we know that there are various concepts formulated by others in Europe, concepts that create more threats, more question marks, more unknowns,” Morawiecki said. “Poland is trying to maintain the most commonsense policy based on a close alliance with the United States within the framework of the European Union, and this is the best path for Poland.”
Fast friends
Poland has become one of Ukraine’s most important allies, and access to its roads, railways and airports is crucial in funneling weapons, ammunition and other aid to Ukraine.
That’s helped shift perceptions of Poland — seen before the war as an increasingly marginal member of the Western club thanks to its issues with violating the rule of law, into a key country of the NATO alliance.
Warsaw also sees the Russian attack on Ukraine as justifying its long-held suspicion of its historical foe, and it hasn’t been shy in pointing the finger at Paris and Berlin for being wrong about the threat posed by the Kremlin.
“Old Europe believed in an agreement with Russia, and old Europe failed,” Morawiecki said in a joint news conference with U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris. “But there is a new Europe — Europe that remembers what Russian communism was. And Poland is the leader of this new Europe.”
That’s why Macron’s comments have been seized on by Warsaw.
According to Poland’s PM Mateusz Morawiecki, Emmanuel Macron’s talks of distancing the EU from America “threatens to break up” the block | Ludovic Marin/AFP via Getty Images
“I absolutely don’t agree with President Macron. We believe that more America is needed in Europe … We want more cooperation with the U.S. on a partnership basis,” Marcin Przydacz, a foreign policy adviser to Polish President Andrzej Duda, told Poland’s Radio Zet, adding that the strategic autonomy idea pushed by Macron “has the goal of cutting links between Europe and the United States.”
While Poland is keen on European countries hitting NATO’s goal of spending at least 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense — a target that only seven alliance members, including Poland, but not France and Germany, are meeting — and has no problem with them building up military industries, it doesn’t want to weaken ties with the U.S., said Sławomir Dębski, head of the state-financed Polish Institute of International Affairs.
He warned that Macron’s talks of distancing Europe from America in the event of a conflict with China “threatens to break up the EU, which is against the interests not only of Poland, but also of most European countries.”
For Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, next month’s election is of massive historical significance.
It falls 100 years after the foundation of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s secular republic and, if Erdoğan wins, he will be empowered to put even more of his stamp on the trajectory of a geostrategic heavyweight of 85 million people. The fear in the West is that he will see this as his moment to push toward an increasingly religiously conservative model, characterized by regional confrontationalism, with greater political powers centered around himself.
The election will weigh heavily on security in Europe and the Middle East. Who is elected stands to define: Turkey’s role in the NATO alliance; its relationship with the U.S., the EU and Russia; migration policy; Ankara’s role in the war in Ukraine; and how it handles tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean.
The May 14 vote is expected to be the most hotly contested race in Erdoğan’s 20-year rule — as the country grapples with years of economic mismanagement and the fallout from a devastating earthquake.
He will face an opposition aligned behind Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, nicknamed the “Turkish Gandhi,” who is promising big changes. Polls suggest Kılıçdaroğlu has eked out a lead, but Erdoğan is a hardened election campaigner, with the full might of the state and its institutions at his back.
“There will be a change from an authoritarian single-man rule, towards a kind of a teamwork, which is a much more democratic process,” Ünal Çeviköz, chief foreign policy adviser to Kılıçdaroğlu told POLITICO. “Kılıçdaroğlu will be the maestro of that team.”
Here are the key foreign policy topics in play in the vote:
EU and Turkish accession talks
Turkey’s opposition is confident it can unfreeze European Union accession talks — at a standstill since 2018 over the country’s democratic backsliding — by introducing liberalizing reforms in terms of rule of law, media freedoms and depoliticization of the judiciary.
The opposition camp also promises to implement European Court of Human Rights decisions calling for the release of two of Erdoğan’s best-known jailed opponents: the co-leader of the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party Selahattin Demirtaş and human rights defender Osman Kavala.
“This will simply give the message to all our allies, and all the European countries, that Turkey is back on track to democracy,” Çeviköz said.
Even under a new administration, however, the task of reopening the talks on Turkey’s EU accession is tricky.
Turkey’s opposition is aligned behind Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, nicknamed the “Turkish Gandhi” | Burak Kara/Getty Images
Anti-Western feeling in Turkey is very strong across the political spectrum, argued Wolfango Piccoli, co-founder of risk analysis company Teneo.
“Foreign policy will depend on the coherence of the coalition,” he said. “This is a coalition of parties who have nothing in common apart from the desire to get rid of Erdoğan. They’ve got a very different agenda, and this will have an impact in foreign policy.”
“The relationship is largely comatose, and has been for some time, so, they will keep it on life support,” he said, adding that any new government would have so many internal problems to deal with that its primary focus would be domestic.
Europe also seems unprepared to handle a new Turkey, with a group of countries — most prominently France and Austria — being particularly opposed to the idea of rekindling ties.
“They are used to the idea of a non-aligned Turkey, that has departed from EU norms and values and is doing its own course,” said Aslı Aydıntaşbaş a visiting fellow at Brookings. “If the opposition forms a government, it will seek a European identity and we don’t know Europe’s answer to that; whether it could be accession or a new security framework that includes Turkey.”
“Obviously the erosion of trust has been mutual,” said former Turkish diplomat Sinan Ülgen, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Europe think tank, arguing that despite reticence about Turkish accession, there are other areas where a complementary and mutually beneficiary framework could be built, like the customs union, visa liberalization, cooperation on climate, security and defense, and the migration agreement.
The opposition will indeed seek to revisit the 2016 agreement with the EU on migration, Çeviköz said.
“Our migration policy has to be coordinated with the EU,” he said. “Many countries in Europe see Turkey as a kind of a pool, where migrants coming from the east can be contained and this is something that Turkey, of course cannot accept,” he said but added. “This doesn’t mean that Turkey should open its borders and make the migrants flow into Europe. But we need to coordinate and develop a common migration policy.”
NATO and the US
After initially imposing a veto, Turkey finally gave the green light to Finland’s NATO membership on March 30.
But the opposition is also pledging to go further and end the Turkish veto on Sweden, saying that this would be possible by the alliance’s annual gathering on July 11. “If you carry your bilateral problems into a multilateral organization, such as NATO, then you are creating a kind of a polarization with all the other members of NATO with your country,” Çeviköz said.
A protester pushes a cart with a RRecep Tayyip Erdoğan doll during an anti-NATO and anti-Turkey demonstration in Sweden | Jonas Gratzer/Getty Images
A reelected Erdoğan could also feel sufficiently empowered to let Sweden in, many insiders argue. NATO allies did, after all, play a significant role in earthquake aid. Turkish presidential spokesperson İbrahim Kalın says that the door is not closed to Sweden, but insists the onus is on Stockholm to determine how things proceed.
Turkey’s military relationship with the U.S. soured sharply in 2019 when Ankara purchased the Russian-made S-400 missile system, a move the U.S. said would put NATO aircraft flying over Turkey at risk. In response, the U.S. kicked Ankara out of the F-35 jet fighter program and slapped sanctions on the Turkish defense industry.
A meeting in late March between Kılıçdaroğlu and the U.S. Ambassador to Ankara Jeff Flake infuriated Erdoğan, who saw it as an intervention in the elections and pledged to “close the door” to the U.S. envoy. “We need to teach the United States a lesson in this elections,” the irate president told voters.
In its policy platform, the opposition makes a clear reference to its desire to return to the F-35 program.
Russia and the war in Ukraine
After the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Turkey presented itself as a middleman. It continues to supply weapons — most significantly Bayraktar drones — to Ukraine, while refusing to sanction Russia. It has also brokered a U.N. deal that allows Ukrainian grain exports to pass through the blockaded Black Sea.
Highlighting his strategic high-wire act on Russia, after green-lighting Finland’s NATO accession and hinting Sweden could also follow, Erdoğan is now suggesting that Turkey could be the first NATO member to host Russian President Vladimir Putin.
“Maybe there is a possibility” that Putin may travel to Turkey on April 27 for the inauguration of the country’s first nuclear power reactor built by Russian state nuclear energy company Rosatom, he said.
Çeviköz said that under Kılıçdaroğlu’s leadership, Turkey would be willing to continue to act as a mediator and extend the grain deal, but would place more stress on Ankara’s status as a NATO member.
“We will simply emphasize the fact that Turkey is a member of NATO, and in our discussions with Russia, we will certainly look for a relationship among equals, but we will also remind Russia that Turkey is a member of NATO,” he said.
Turkey’s relationship with Russia has become very much driven by the relationship between Putin and Erdoğan and this needs to change, Ülgen argued.
Turkey brokered a U.N. deal that allows Ukrainian grain exports to pass through the blockaded Black Sea | Ozan Kose/AFP via Getty Images
“No other Turkish leader would have the same type of relationship with Putin, it would be more distant,” he said. “It does not mean that Turkey would align itself with the sanctions; it would not. But nonetheless, the relationship would be more transparent.”
Syria and migration
The role of Turkey in Syria is highly dependent on how it can address the issue of Syrians living in Turkey, the opposition says.
Turkey hosts some 4 million Syrians and many Turks, battling a major cost-of-living crisis, are becoming increasingly hostile. Kılıçdaroğlu has pledged to create opportunities and the conditions for the voluntary return of Syrians.
“Our approach would be to rehabilitate the Syrian economy and to create the conditions for voluntary returns,” Çeviköz said, adding that this would require an international burden-sharing, but also establishing dialogue with Damascus.
Erdoğan is also trying to establish a rapprochement with Syria but Syrian President Bashar al-Assad says he will only meet the Turkish president when Ankara is ready to completely withdraw its military from northern Syria.
“A new Turkish government will be more eager to essentially shake hands with Assad,” said Ülgen. “But this will remain a thorny issue because there will be conditions attached on the side of Syria to this normalization.”
However, Piccoli from Teneo said voluntary returns of Syrians was “wishful thinking.”
“These are Syrians who have been living in Turkey for more than 10 years, their children have been going to school in Turkey from day one. So, the pledges of sending them back voluntarily, it is very questionable to what extent they can be implemented.”
Greece and the East Med
Turkey has stepped up its aggressive rhetoric against Greece in recent months, with the Erdoğan even warning that a missile could strike Athens.
But the prompt reaction by the Greek government and the Greek community to the recent devastating earthquakes in Turkey and a visit by the Greek Foreign Minister Nikos Dendias created a new backdrop for bilateral relations.
A Turkish drill ship before it leaves for gas exploration | Adem Altan/AFP via Getty Images
Dendias, along with his Turkish counterpart Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, announced that Turkey would vote for Greece in its campaign for a non-permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council for 2025-26 and that Greece would support the Turkish candidacy for the General Secretariat of the International Maritime Organization.
In another sign of a thaw, Greek Defense Minister Nikos Panagiotopoulos and Migration Minister Notis Mitarachi visited Turkey this month, with Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar saying he hoped that the Mediterranean and Aegean would be a “sea of friendship” between the two countries. Akar said he expected a moratorium with Greece in military and airforce exercises in the Aegean Sea between June 15 and September 15.
“Both countries are going to have elections, and probably they will have the elections on the same day. So, this will open a new horizon in front of both countries,” Çeviköz said.
“The rapprochement between Turkey and Greece in their bilateral problems [in the Aegean], will facilitate the coordination in addressing the other problems in the eastern Mediterranean, which is a more multilateral format,” he said. Disputes over maritime borders and energy exploration, for example, are common.
As far as Cyprus is concerned, Çeviköz said that it is important for Athens and Ankara not to intervene into the domestic politics of Cyprus and the “two peoples on the island should be given an opportunity to look at their problems bilaterally.”
However, analysts argue that Greece, Cyprus and the EastMed are fundamental for Turkey’s foreign policy and not much will change with another government. The difference will be more one of style.
“The approach to manage those differences will change very much. So, we will not hear aggressive rhetoric like: ‘We will come over one night,’” said Ülgen. “We’ll go back to a more mature, more diplomatic style of managing differences and disputes.”
“The NATO framework will be important, and the U.S. would have to do more in terms of re-establishing the sense of balance in the Aegean,” said Aydıntaşbaş. But, she argued, “you just cannot normalize your relations with Europe or the U.S., unless you’re willing to take that step with Greece.”
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced Monday he would postpone a controversial reform that would give parliament more control over the country’s judiciary, after weeks of mass protests against the legislation.
“When there’s an option to avoid civil war through dialogue, I take a time off for dialogue,” he said in a press statement delivered shortly after 8 p.m. local time amid ongoing protests involving supporters from both sides. He added that “out of national responsibility,” he is delaying the final readings of the divisive judicial appointments bill until the next session of the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, which starts in early May.
Netanyahu sparked weeks of chaos with proposals to rein in Israel’s top court, while he is currently on trial for corruption himself and could benefit from the overhaul.
The proposed reform consists of a series of bills that would grant the Knesset more oversight over the country’s judiciary — including how judges are selected, what laws the Supreme Court can rule on, as well as overturning Supreme Court decisions.
Monday’s announcement follows calls for action from President Isaac Herzog, who had demanded earlier in the day that the government “halt the legislative process immediately” in a statement on Twitter.
The legal overhaul was an important part of Netanyahu’s program upon returning to power last December to head a coalition government that has been described as the most right-wing in Israel’s history.
Israel’s Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara has said that Netanyahu, who is standing trial on charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust, should not be involved in a judicial overhaul before the end of his court cases, in case of a potential conflict of interest.
Netanyahu has denied wrongdoing, calling the corruption charges “a witch hunt.”
The judicial reform has triggered enormous protests nationwide in the past three months. On Sunday evening, tens of thousands of demonstrators gathered in cities across the country to oppose Netanyahu’s dismissal of his defense minister, Yoav Gallant, for challenging the reform, announced by the prime minister’s office in a brief statement.
In reaction, Gallant wrote on Twitter: “The security of the state of Israel always was and will always remain my life mission.”
The growing popular dissent against the judicial overhaul grew Monday as the leader of Israel’s top trade union called for a general strike, according to French newswire AFP. According to The Times of Israel, all flights were grounded at the country’s main international airport, while public hospitals only provided emergency care.
Thousands of demonstrators gathered once again in front of parliament on Monday to protest the reforms, while far-right leaders, like National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, had called their supporters to a join counter-rally in support of the reform, which was reportedly also attended by several thousand government supporters later in the day.
Jamie Dettmer is opinion editor at POLITICO Europe.
In the weeks leading up to Russia’s invasion, senior Ukraine opposition politicians and former ministers were brimming with frustration. They’d been imploring President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to meet with them — something he’d not done since his landslide election nearly two years before.
They’d also been urging him to boost funding for the country’s armed forces for months, clamoring for Ukraine’s reservists to be called up as America’s warnings of an invasion intensified — an invasion Zelenskyy still thought unlikely. They wanted intensive war-planning, including the drafting and publication of civil defense orders, so people would know what to do when the guns roared.
“Ukraine is trapped with a national leader who does not think strategically,” Lesia Vasylenko, a lawmaker and member of the liberal and pro-European political Holos party, had told me five days before the invasion.
“I think that’s the thing he will be blamed for later. It’s not about knowing everything. It’s about refusing to have in your entourage experts who know what questions to ask, and having advisers who can contradict and challenge you, and we may pay a price for that,” she’d fumed.
Of course, Zelenskyy’s missteps — as Vasylenko and many other opposition lawmakers see them — have since been forgiven, but they have not been forgotten. And these missteps form the basis of their worries for post-war Ukraine. They see a pattern that will become even more troubling when the guns fall silent, arguing that the president’s strengths as a lionhearted wartime leader are ill-suited for peacetime.
War hasn’t done anything to temper Zelenskyy’s impatience with governing complexities or with institutions that don’t move as fast as he would like or fall in line fast enough. He prefers the big picture, ignores details and likes to rely on an inner circle of trusted friends.
But while the comedian-turned-president is being lauded now — even hero-worshipped — by a starstruck West for his inspirational wartime rhetoric, spellbinding oratory and skill at capturing the hearts of audiences from Washington to London and Brussels to Warsaw, Zelenskyy floundered as president before Russia invaded. Few gave him much chance of being reelected in 2024, as his poll numbers were plummeting — his favorability rating was at 31 percent by the end of 2021.
He had promised a lot — probably too much — but achieved little.
“Ukraine has two main problems: the war in the Donbas and the fear of people investing in the country,” Zelenskyy had said shortly after his election win. But his anti-corruption efforts stalled and were unhurried, while his promise to solve the problem of the Donbas went nowhere. And in his early eagerness to clinch a peace deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who declined a sit-down, some criticized Zelenskyy for thinking too much of his powers of persuasion and charisma.
“He thought peace would be easy to establish because all you needed to do was to ‘look into Putin’s eyes’ and talk to him sincerely,” said lawmaker Mykola Kniazhytskyi.
“He became president without any political experience, or any experience in managing state structures. He thought running a state is actually quite simple. You make decisions and they have to be implemented,” Kniazhytskyi told me. And when things went wrong, his reaction was always, it’s “the fault of predecessors, who need to be imprisoned,” Kniazhytskyi said.
But while the comedian-turned-president is being lauded now, he floundered as president before Russia invaded | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Yet, Zelenskyy’s transformation from disappointing peacetime leader to, in the hyperbolic words of French public intellectual Bernard-Henri Lévy, “a new, young and magnificent founding father” of the free world, has been startling.
Even his domestic critics doff their caps to him for his strengths as a superb communicator: His daily addresses to Ukrainians have steadied them, given direction and boosted morale, even when spirits understandably flag. And they acknowledge he likely saved the country by declining U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s offer for “a ride” out of Kyiv.
“He has become a compelling leader,” said Adrian Karatnycky, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and author of the upcoming “Battleground Ukraine: From Independence to the Russian War.” According to Karatnycky, Zelenskyy’s strengths as a communicator match the times. “He’s good at channeling public opinion, but he’s more effective now because the country is much more united and surer about its identity, interests and objectives. He’s still the same guy he was — an actor and performer — but that makes him an ideal war leader because he’s able to embody the public impulse,” he added.
But when normal politics are in play and the public isn’t united, Zelenskyy’s an inconsistent leader who switches the script and recasts the story to chase the vagaries and whims of public opinion. “When the public purpose is clear, he has great strength, and in wartime, he has behind him the absolute power of the state. But when the carriage turns into a pumpkin again, he’s going to have to cope with a very different world,” Karatnycky concluded.
And that world hasn’t really gone away.
Domestic political criticism is mounting — though little noted by an international media still enraptured by Zelenskyy’s charismatic appeal and enthralled by the simple story of David versus Goliath.
Meanwhile, in the Verkhovna Rada — the country’s parliament — frustration is building, with lawmakers complaining they’re being overlooked by a government that was already impatient of oversight before the war and now shuns it almost entirely. Zelenskyy has only met with top opposition leaders once since Russia invaded — and that was nearly a year ago.
“The routine of ministers being questioned by the Rada has been abandoned,” said opposition lawmaker Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze, a member of the European Solidarity party and former deputy prime minister in the previous government of former President Petro Poroshenko.
“Wartime does call for urgent decisions to be taken quickly, and it calls for shortened procedures. And so that’s kind of understandable,” she said. “But we are seeing decisions being increasingly centralized and concentrated in fewer hands, and this is having an impact on the balance of political power, and [it’s] damaging to the system of governance we are trying to develop and the strengthening of our democratic institutions in line with the criteria laid out by the EU for convergence.”
Klympush-Tsintsadze is worried the recent wave of anti-corruption arrests was more an exercise in smoke and mirrors in the run-up to February’s EU-Ukraine summit — and one that might be used as an opportunity to centralize power even further. “If someone thinks that centralization of power is the answer to our challenges, that someone is wrong,” she added. “I think it is important to watch very closely how anti-corruption cases develop, and whether there will be transparent investigations, and whether the rule of law will be closely observed.”
According to Kniazhytskyi, we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that Zelenskyy is a populist politician and shares the personality-focused flaws of this breed. However, what cheers the opposition lawmaker is how Ukrainian civil society has bloomed during the war, how local self-government has been strengthened because of wartime volunteering and mutual assistance and how some state bodies have performed — notably, the railways and the energy sector.
It is this — along with a strong sense of national belonging forged by the conflict — that will form the foundation of a strong post-war Ukraine, he said.
Hungary’s reputation as the troublemaker of Europe will be burnished on Wednesday as its parliament begins debating a contentious issue: whether to give Finland and Sweden the green light to join NATO.
Along with Turkey, Hungary has yet to ratify the applications of Finland and Sweden to join the transatlantic defense alliance more than eight months after NATO leaders signed off on their membership bid at a summit in Madrid.
While NATO members are more concerned about the potential of Turkey to stonewall accession for the Nordic countries — President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has been blocking Sweden’s application, alleging that Stockholm is harboring Kurdish militants — the government of Viktor Orbán has also been dragging its heels on parliamentary approval for the process.
Hungary’s ratification process will finally begin on Wednesday, with a debate due to kick off in the parliament in Budapest ahead of a vote — expected in the second half of March.
But already, there are signs of trouble ahead.
Máté Kocsis, head of Orbán’s nationalist Fidesz party caucus in parliament, said last week that a “serious debate” had now emerged over the accession of the two countries. Hungary now plans to send a delegation to Sweden and Finland to examine “political disputes” that have arisen.
Orbán himself echoed such views. The Hungarian leader, who has an iron grip on his Fidesz party, said in an interview on Friday that “while we support Sweden and Finland’s accession to NATO in principle, we first need to have some serious discussions.”
He pointed to Finland and Sweden’s previous criticism of Hungary’s record on rule-of-law issues, asserting that some in his party are questioning the wisdom of admitting countries that are “spreading blatant lies about Hungary, about the rule of law in Hungary, about democracy, about life here.”
“How, this argument runs, can anyone want to be our ally in a military system while they’re shamelessly spreading lies about Hungary?”
Orbán’s comments have confirmed fears in Brussels that the Hungarian leader could try to use his leverage over NATO enlargement to extract concessions on rule-of-law issues.
Finland and Sweden have been among the most critical voices around the EU table over rule-of-law concerns in Hungary, with Budapest still locked in a dispute with the European Union over the disbursal of funds due to Brussels’ protests over its democratic standards.
European Commission Vice-President Věra Jourová said earlier this month that Hungary must sort out the independence of its judiciary “very soon” if it wants to receive €5.8 billion in grants due from the EU’s COVID-19 recovery fund.
Helsinki and Stockholm have kept largely silent on the looming vote in Budapest, reflecting in part a reluctance to stir up controversy ahead of time.
Sweden, in particular, has been treading a fine line with Turkey, seeking not to alienate Erdoğan even as allies now acknowledge the possibility of the two countries joining at different times — an apparent acceptance that Erdoğan could further hold up Sweden’s bid.
NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg visited Helsinki Monday, where Finland’s push to join the alliance topped the agenda. He urged both Turkey and Hungary to confirm the membership bids — and soon.
“I hope that they will ratify soon,” Stoltenberg said of the Hungarian parliament’s discussions. Asked if he was in contact with Hungary on the issue, he replied that it was a decision for sovereign national parliaments, adding: “The time has come. Finland meets all the criteria, as does Sweden. So we are working hard, and the aim is to have this in place as soon as possible.”
