Strong reactions erupted from SYRIZA–Progressive Alliance, ELAS (United Left), and the New Left following comments by New Democracy’s Secretary-General Konstantinos Kyranakis regarding the fatal attack in Thessaloniki. All three parties accused Kyranakis of attempting to collectively link the Left with political violence and of reviving a climate of deep political division.
SYRIZA: ‘Unacceptable and divisive’
Christos Giannoulis, spokesperson for SYRIZA–Progressive Alliance, described Kyranakis’ statements as “unacceptable,” “ill-timed,” and “divisive.” He noted that a mature political consensus has emerged across the spectrum—condemning lethal attacks regardless of political origin—but argued that Kyranakis’ remarks “reverse the country decades.” Giannoulis reaffirmed SYRIZA’s commitment to building a credible, progressive alternative to New Democracy and reiterated its openness to broader cooperation within the progressive space.
ELAS: ‘Civil-war rhetoric’
ELAS issued a sharply worded statement accusing Kyranakis of choosing “division and civil-war rhetoric” at a moment when the entire political establishment is united in condemning terrorism and defending democracy. The party declared it would not follow what it called “the downward spiral of disgrace,” adding pointedly: “If this is the Prime Minister’s political choice, we will leave him to it alone.”
New Left: Targeting the Left ahead of elections
The New Left echoed these criticisms, with its Secretary General, Gabriel Sakellariadis, asserting that Kyranakis appeared on orders from Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis to target the Left and reignite civil-war tensions ahead of upcoming elections. Sakellariadis claimed the government—under pressure from political corruption scandals—is pursuing a strategy of polarization, using rhetoric designed to equate the entire Left with acts of political violence.
A shared thread across all three responses is unequivocal condemnation of the Thessaloniki attack—and firm rejection of Kyranakis’ statements, which they characterize as ranging from divisive to outright civil-war incitement. They accuse the government of seeking to instrumentalize a tragic event to sharpen political confrontation.