Ukraine faces decisive months ahead as key allies gear up for crunch elections. While early presidential campaigning in the US and a looming general election in Poland will grab the international headlines, a snap election in Slovakia on 30 September may prove every bit as consequential. 

With Robert Fico — Slovakia’s former prime minister and one of the West’s most outspoken critics of the Ukrainian war effort — poised to win the vote, a change of government in Bratislava could have a profound effect on EU policymaking. Fico has promised that if his party makes it into government “we will not send a single bullet to Ukraine,” proudly proclaiming that “I allow myself to have a different opinion to that of the United States” on the war.  

Fico has also claimed on the campaign trail that “war always comes from the West and peace from the East,” and that “what is happening today is unnecessary killing, it is the emptying of warehouses to force countries to buy more American weapons.” Such statements have resulted in him being blacklisted by Kyiv as a spreader of Russian propaganda.  

Yet the former prime minister spearheads a new brand of Left-wing, anti-American populism that has become a powerful force in Central Europe since the war began. Perceptions that “the Americans occupy us” — as one MP in Fico’s Smer party evocatively put it — are shared with a similar groundswell of anti-Western opinion in the neighbouring Czech Republic.  

Yet Smer has been handed a chance to gain power thanks to the chaos which has engulfed Slovakia’s pro-EU, pro-Western forces. Personal grievances coupled with serious policy errors tore apart a four-party coalition formed after elections in 2020, leaving Fico to capitalise on heightened mistrust in establishment politics. Smer is expected to become the nation’s largest party after this month’s election, with an anticipated 20% of the vote.  

Whatever the specific makeup of the new government, if Smer is the largest party it will likely pursue a foreign policy similar to that of Viktor Orbán’s government in Hungary. A halt to until-now generous Slovak arms shipments to Ukraine is Fico’s central electoral pledge, while the arrival on the scene of another Orbán-style government prepared to obstruct EU aid efforts for Ukraine would create a serious headache. That is particularly the case as Brussels struggles to win support for both short and long-term war funding commitments. 

Victory for Fico would also amplify Orbán’s scepticism about the overall Western narrative on Ukraine — a scepticism which the Hungarian Prime Minister recently conveyed to Western conservatives during an interview with Tucker Carlson. Orbán portrayed Ukraine’s attempts to win back the territories taken by Russia as ultimately hopeless and claimed that Donald Trump’s promise to end the war quickly makes him “the man who can save the Western world”. 

Like Trump in America and Orbán in Europe, Fico is hated with a passion by establishment forces. But in Slovakia, the pro-Western establishment itself has become so mistrusted that power may soon pass to a man intent on shattering what’s left of European unity on Ukraine. 

“You really thought that after carrying out a short, limited attack, we would accept your request for a ceasefire? Pull back, or none of your bases in the region will remain safe. Our finger is on the trigger.” So warned Mohsen Rezaei, a member of Iran’s Expediency Discernment Council and a senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) figure, in an interview this week with Iranian state television. His remarks were a response to threats by US President Donald Trump, who had said that if the Islamic Republic continued the mass killing of protesters, the American military would confront the regime. Despite this bullish rhetoric, Trump told Reuters on Wednesday that he was unsure whether opposition figure Reza Pahlavi, Iran’s Crown Prince and son of the last shah, would be able to muster enough support to rule over the country if the current leadership were toppled.

The Islamic Republic’s narrative about the protests which have gripped the country for the past two weeks is by now familiar. They are portrayed as a foreign plot orchestrated by American and Israeli intelligence services. Protesters are routinely labelled “CIA and Mossad agents”, or even “Isis members”, accused of terrorising civilians to inflate the death toll. The head of Iran’s judiciary recently reinforced this line, declaring that since Trump had openly expressed support for the protesters, “this time no one will be shown leniency. Leniency is for those who have been deceived, but now the enemy’s plan is clear.”

Yet while Tehran uses Trump’s statements to justify an intensified crackdown, the message coming from Washington appears markedly different. On Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters the President had been informed that executions scheduled for earlier in the week had been halted. According to the White House, the regime had paused the killings following American pressure.

With Iran under a near-total internet shutdown and severe restrictions on telephone communications, verifying events on the ground is increasingly difficult. While exact numbers are practically impossible to verify, human rights organisations have said that more than 3,000 people were killed in just one week. But according to one protester who spoke to me from Tehran, demonstrators are attempting to hold the streets despite growing disillusionment with Washington’s mixed signals.

“One day Trump asks us to take over government offices and promises support,” said Babak (not his real name), a journalist who spoke to me via Starlink. “Then we see military movements across the country and start hoping the US might intervene. The next day, he says the regime has promised not to kill more people.” He added. “We can see with our own eyes that people are still being killed in the streets. They have unofficially declared martial law.”

Babak fears that Washington may be contemplating a Venezuela-style solution, replacing the supreme leader while leaving the rest of the system intact. “That will not work in Iran,” he said. “We want the entire regime gone, followed by a referendum so people can decide the country’s future.”

He was referring to a pledge made by Reza Pahlavi, whose father’s rule ended with the 1979 revolution. Pahlavi has said he is willing to lead a transitional period toward democracy and oversee a free referendum, while insisting that he does not necessarily seek a future governing role, depending on the outcome.

Trump, who has met Pahlavi at least once during a gala in Florida in 2023, struck a cautious tone when asked by Reuters about the opposition figure. “He seems very nice, but I do not know how he would play within his own country,” the US President said. “And we really are not up to that point yet. I do not know whether or not his country would accept his leadership, and certainly if they would, that would be fine with me.”

For Babak, the choice must ultimately rest with the Iranians themselves. “It is up to us to choose our future leader”, he said. “It is up to us to evaluate candidates and vote freely based on their record and capabilities.” He concluded that “Trump’s shift in tone is seen as an obstacle. We fear he may strike a deal with Tehran and leave Iranian protesters betrayed.”

Yet in the broader Iran story, one name is conspicuously absent: Benjamin Netanyahu. After the Iran-Israel confrontation last summer, Netanyahu publicly encouraged Iranians to rise up against the regime, promising that Israel stood with them. Today, however, he has fallen noticeably silent.