New tough exchange between Antonis Samaras and Kyriakos Mitsotakis This in itself did not come as a surprise: their conflict has been going on for several years.
But now the former prime minister is increasingly openly raising the question not about the specific mistakes of the government, but about whether the current “New Democracy” remains the party it used to be.
The reason for a new round of conflict was the press conference of Kyriakos Mitsotakis at the 90th International Exhibition in Thessaloniki. The Prime Minister made it clear that he sees virtually no room for reconciliation with Antonis Samaras, and accused the former ND leader of systematically damaging the party.
The answer came almost immediately and was much harsher.
“Who has the expertise to damage the party is not decided by the Mitsotakis family, but by the people of the party.”
Samaras recalled that once about 800 thousand members and supporters of New Democracy elected him leader of the party, and then moved on to a direct attack on the political legacy of the current prime minister.
He listed high costs, corruption, direct government contracts, pressure on the middle class, problems of farmers and regions, migration, the OPECPE scandal, the Tempi tragedy, wiretaps and government foreign policy.
Samaras ended with a phrase that is much more important than the list of claims itself:
“This is not our party, Mr. Mitsotakis. This is the party of Mitsotakis.”
The full text of the statement is SKAI. Similar wording is published in.gr and other Greek media.
The conflict did not start yesterday
If you read this story only as Samaras’ reaction to Mitsotakis’ words in Thessaloniki, you might miss the point.
Their gap formed gradually. Samaras increasingly publicly argued with the government’s policies on issues of foreign policy, migration, relations with Turkey, the socio-cultural agenda and the functioning of state institutions.
By the fall of 2024, the confrontation had reached an open rupture. After another tough interview, Samaras was expelled from New Democracy. Kathimerini then directly described what happened as the result of an “increasing open confrontation” between the former and current prime minister.
Later Samaras went even further. In one of his long interviews, he stated that the ND has turned from a “party of principles” into “owner’s party” and that the current political entity is no longer the “New Democracy” that he knew.
“Athens News” has already noted that for Mitsotakis, the possible independent political project of Samaras is dangerous not because the former prime minister is necessarily capable of winning elections, but because he is capable take away several critical percentages of the right-wing electorate from ND.
On our Telegram channel We have also repeatedly drawn attention to the fact that potential new projects on the right are becoming an increasingly serious problem for ND – especially against the backdrop of declining loyalty of the traditional conservative electorate.
Samaras and Karamanlis: similar criticism, different strategy
Particularly important here is the comparison of Antonis Samaras with another former prime minister and former ND leader, Kostas Karamanlis.
Karamanlis has also repeatedly distanced himself from certain government decisions and criticized the state of institutions, foreign policy and some strategic decisions. But he is much less likely to turn disagreements into open personal war.
Samaras acts differently.
He systematically brings the conflict to the surface, personalizes responsibility and directly blames Mitsotakis for changing the ideological character of the party.
Moreover, even within the so-called Karamanlis wing, not everyone is ready to follow Samaras. In February 2026, Kathimerini noted that after Samaras’ particularly harsh formulation – “Mitsotakis is chaos” – some of the ND deputies traditionally close to Karamanlis publicly distanced themselves from the former prime minister.
This is an important limitation on his options: criticism of Mitsotakis within the traditional right camp exists, but it is far from automatically translated into support for Samaras.
What is Samaras really trying to achieve?
There is no clear answer yet.
There are at least three possible scenarios.
First: Samaras is trying to achieve the political weakening of Mitsotakis himself and to create a demand within the right camp for a change of leadership.
Second: his pressure should move the ND to the right – towards a tougher position on Turkey, migration, national issues and conservative social policies.
Third: the ultimate goal remains a separate political project that can gather part of the former ND electorate.
Samaras himself has still not completely ruled out the possibility of creating a new party. And it is this scenario that worries the ND leadership most.
Why is the conflict more dangerous now than a few years ago?
Three or four years ago, Mitsotakis could afford to ignore internal criticism much more easily.
Today the situation is different.
The government carries the political burden of several heavy topics at once: high prices, Tempi, wiretapping, OPECPE, corruption charges, the state of the regional economy and discontent in the agricultural sector.
At the same time, the right-wing electorate is becoming increasingly fragmented.
That is why the conflict with Samaras is now dangerous not so much because of the number of his personal supporters, but because where does he send dissatisfied ND voters.
Even a few percent of Mitsotakis moving to the right could completely destroy his strategic goal of gaining an independent majority in the next parliamentary elections.
The war is no longer for the seat, but for the inheritance of ND
That is why Samaras’s last phrase cannot be considered as another emotional insult.
Phrase “this is Mitsotakis’s party” is actually a political thesis.
Samaras is trying to separate two concepts: the historical New Democracy and the current leadership of the party.
Mitsotakis, on the contrary, is trying to prove that his course is a modern version of the ND, capable of holding both the center and the right electorate.
And here lies the real content of their old conflict.
For a long time now, we are talking not only about the personal hostility of the two former allies and not only about the specific policies of the government.
This is a debate about who has the right to define what it means to be a New Democracy voter today.
And the closer the next election gets, the more difficult it will be to keep this dispute within party history.
More Stories
Guilfoyle responded to the demand for resignation: the accusations are false, I am loyal to Trump
Iran accused Rubio of distorting ancient Greek history to justify war
The EU has limited Greece’s request to €700 million: assistance is possible, but only within the framework of current rules