How Austria blocked Putin's allies from forming a government and whether the crisis can be overcome
Austria’s first-ever far-right chancellor and one with close ties to Russia. This scenario seemed almost inevitable until recently. But it has been avoided, at least for now.
This is good news for Ukraine, as the worst-case scenario for Kyiv has been avoided.
There are now several possible paths forward.
Read more in the article by Khrystyna Bondarieva, a European Pravda journalist – A setback in Ukraine’s favour: how Austria avoided a far-right chancellor and what comes next.
After its triumphant performance in the September elections, the far-right Freedom Party (FPÖ), led by Herbert Kickl, did not immediately get the chance to form a government.
On 22 October, President Alexander Van der Bellen gave the mandate to form a government to the second-place Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP).
ÖVP, the Social Democratic Party (SPÖ) and the liberal NEOS party failed to form a coalition.
This failure cost ÖVP Chancellor Karl Nehammer his position.
Nehammer’s departure opened the door to coalition talks between the Freedom Party and the ÖVP, now under its new leader, Christian Stocker.
This second attempt to form a government also collapsed though.
Finally, on Wednesday, 12 February, Herbert Kickl returned the mandate to the president.
Why did the Freedom Party and the People’s Party fail to agree?
The pro-business wing of the ÖVP initially pushed for a coalition with the far-right, believing they could find common ground on economic policy.
Major sticking points between the two parties, already apparent before negotiations began, remained unresolved.
The biggest disagreements centered on policies toward Russia and the European Union.
For instance, it was hard to imagine that a Chancellor Kickl, known for his openly pro-Russian stance, would support continued EU sanctions against Moscow, which the ÖVP backs.
The Freedom Party also demanded Austria withdraw from all agreements it deemed incompatible with its neutrality, including the European Sky Shield air defence initiative, NATO’s Partnership for Peace, the EU’s defence project PESCO, and the bloc’s rapid reaction forces.
Another major dispute concerned the rule of law. The FPÖ wanted European legislation, including rulings from the European Court of Human Rights and EU courts, to no longer take precedence over national law, something the ÖVP found unacceptable.
A further sticking point was the battle for key ministerial positions.
The Freedom Party, which won significant support thanks to its hardline anti-immigration rhetoric, insisted on controlling the Interior Ministry.
The ÖVP, however, refused to give up this crucial ministry under any circumstances.
After the coalition talks collapsed, President Van der Bellen outlined four possible paths forward: a renewed attempt to form a coalition, a minority government, a government of technocrats, snap elections.
The Social Democrats, NEOS, and the Greens have signaled their openness to talks with the ÖVP.
If no viable coalition can be formed, the only remaining option will be snap elections, potentially as early as summer. This scenario would be the most favourable for the far-right Freedom Party.