In Ireland today The counting of votes in the presidential election is being completed, and everything indicates that the country will get a new, tenth president – Catherine Connolly, an independent socialist from Galway who opposes “Western militarism” and NATO policies. According to preliminary results, the 68-year-old politician has a convincing advantage over her rival, former government minister Geezer Humphries of the center-right Fine Gael party.
Connolly’s victory will be significant not only for Ireland itself, but also for the whole of Europe, where the influence of politicians who combine socialist rhetoric with harsh criticism of the United States, NATO and the EU is growing.
A former clinical psychologist and lawyer, Connolly has made a name for herself as an independent MP who is not afraid to make bold statements. She has compared Germany’s defense spending to the Nazi militarization of the 1930s, opposed the EU’s ReArm Europe plan, which would increase the defense budget by €800 billion, and has repeatedly called American foreign policy “guilty of genocide”; in the Gaza Strip.
Connolly is an active critic of Israel and even stated that Hamas is “part of the Palestinian people”, for which she received a sharp response from the Irish government and international partners. Although she later formally condemned Hamas’ actions, her rhetoric remains strongly anti-Israel.
At the same time, Connolly managed to unite the entire Irish left spectrum – from the nationalists of “Sinn Fein” to the social democrats and “Greens”. They formed a joint bloc in the presidential election for the first time, which became a powerful signal of protest against the center-right government of Michael Martin.
Connolly’s campaign has become a social media phenomenon, winning support from young voters through podcasts, video interviews and endorsements from popular bands Kneecap and Mary Wallopers. Her Irish-speaking identity and message of “defending neutrality against Western militarization” have resonated with a generation tired of traditional parties.
Although the position of Irish president is largely ceremonial, diplomats are already warning that a new head of state could complicate foreign policy relations with the EU and the US, which support the Irish economy.
European context: from Dublin to Bratislava
The Irish elections are embedded in a broader European trend of the growth of left- and right-wing populist movements that criticize Western institutions, sanctions against Russia and military aid to Ukraine.
In Slovakia, Prime Minister Robert Fico, who openly opposes support for Kyiv, returned to power under the slogans of “peace and neutrality”.
In Hungary, Viktor Orban has long positioned himself as the “voice of reason” in the EU, maintaining relations with Moscow.
In Germany, the right-wing populist AfD and the left-wing Sarah Wagenknecht Alliance are using anti-war messages to attract voters.
In France, Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s party blames NATO for escalating the war in Ukraine, while the right, led by Marine Le Pen, criticizes sanctions against Russia as a “blow to the European economy”.
The general trend is obvious: anti-system politicians – on the left and right – are converting voter fatigue from conflicts and social tensions into a protest against Western security policy.
What What do the Irish say about Catherine Connolly and the Irish presidential election?
We analyzed the discourse of Reddit users’ comments under Politico’s article on the new Irish leader and identified key narratives.
- “The Irish president has no real power”
The most common opinion is that the presidency is ceremonial, so there is no need to dramatize the victory Connolly. She does not determine foreign policy, does not influence NATO or EU membership, and in fact performs representative functions.
- “This is not a pro-Russian choice, but a reaction to a weak competitor”
Many commentators believe that voters supported Connolly not because of her views on NATO or Ukraine, but because the other candidate (from the government) was weak, “wooden” and did not inspire confidence.
- “Voters voted for competence and independence”
Some emphasize that Connolly is perceived as an intelligent, honest and independent political figure who will be the “conscience of the nation”, similar to Michael D. Higgins.
- “Her positions are not new, and are similar to previous presidents”
Many Irish people are reminded that Ireland has long elected center-left, socialist-minded presidents, including Mary Robinson, Mary McAleese and Michael Higgins. Therefore, “shock” foreign media seems exaggerated.
- “Connolly is not a “tanker”, but an old-fashioned pacifist”
Let’s clarify that the term “tankie” (English tankie) is modern political slang that comes from left-wing circles, but over time has come to mean a certain type of radically left, authoritarian worldview. Some users admit that she criticizes NATO, German rearmament, and mocks the United States, but at the same time does not support Russia and does not justify aggression. She is described more as a “naive left-wing pacifist” than as a pro-Russian political figure.
- “The Irish voted for domestic issues.”
Many emphasize that the real motives of voters are domestic, not geopolitical: the housing crisis, the high cost of living, problems in the healthcare system.
- “Politico simplified the situation.”
Some Irish users criticize the Politico article for exaggeration and “clickbait,” believing that the external media misinterprets the specifics of Irish politics.
- “Yes, she did.” controversial statements”
At the same time, many commentators acknowledge that Connolly has a history of questionable statements: comparing German rearmament with the 1930s, statements about the “context” of the Salisbury poisoning, a trip to Syria, etc. Some consider this “naivety”, others – “tank mentality”.
Most Irish people do not perceive Connolly’s victory as a turn towards pro-Russian or anti-European sentiments. It is rather:
-a protest against the government parties;
-a choice of moral authority, not a political player;
-a manifestation of traditional Irish neutrality and center-left culture.
However, even critics acknowledge that her views on international affairs could pose reputational risks if she makes public statements that are not appropriate – even with the president’s limited powers.
Implications for Ukraine
For Ukraine, the Irish case and the general trend of the growth of anti-NATO and Eurosceptic movements in Europe carry a direct and strategic risk. It is about not only about changing political emphases in individual countries, but about the gradual erosion of the consensus within the EU on war, security and support for Kyiv.
Even if official governments remain pro-Ukrainian, the changing public climate is gradually putting pressure on political decisions. Politicians like Catherine Connolly, Robert Fico or Sarah Wagenknecht have no real power in the field of foreign policy, but their rhetoric normalizes “war fatigue”.
This creates the ground for the emergence in the electoral field of the demand for “peace through compromise with Moscow”, even if this compromise involves concessions in territory or security guarantees for Ukraine.
When anti-system politicians become mouthpieces of skeptical sentiments, EU governments begin to adjust their policies under pressure from the electorate. This can manifest themselves:
- in delays or blocking of new aid packages;
- in the rejection of long-term military support programs;
- in the growing influence of political forces that seek to “review the sanctions policy”.
And even if decisions are formally made at the Brussels level, they may be weakened or delayed, as has already happened more than once due to the position of Hungary or Slovakia.
The rhetoric of politicians like Connolly hits not only the institutions, but also the perception of Ukraine as a “victim of aggression”. Instead of a clear dichotomy “aggressor-victim”, the idea of “two sides” is forming in the minds of some Europeans conflict” that must be agreed upon.
This is one of the main narratives that Russia actively promotes through its supporters and information networks. And when it is picked up by democratic politicians, even those who are not inherently pro-Russian, it is legitimized in public discourse.
If anti-Atlantic or “neutralist” forces gain a majority or significant positions in the parliaments of EU member states, this may lead to a reformatting of the European security strategy.
Instead of the policy of deterring Russia, a policy of “balancing” may appear, i.e. attempts to “agree” with Moscow at the expense of Ukraine’s interests. This will mean:
- weaker support for Ukraine’s membership in the EU and NATO;
- slowing down defense contracts;
- pressure on Kyiv with demands to “freeze the conflict”.
Russian propaganda actively uses cases such as Connolly’s victory to demonstrate the “split of the West”. The Kremlin presents this as evidence that Europe is tired of supporting Ukraine and that “even in stable democracies of Western Europe” societies are beginning to doubt the advisability of confronting Moscow.
In this sense, the Irish elections have a symbolic weight that goes far beyond the borders of Ireland itself.
