Austria’s Foreign Minister Beate Meinl-Reisinger has called for an open discussion on the country’s long-standing neutrality, stating that it no longer guarantees national security in the face of growing geopolitical instability and an increasingly aggressive Russia.
In an interview with Die Welt, Meinl-Reisinger emphasized that neutrality alone does not protect Austria and pointed to the importance of strengthening defense capabilities and deepening international partnerships. “Austria is protected by investment in its own defense capacities and in its partnerships,” she said.
The minister’s remarks follow a proposal by Emil Brix, Director of the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna, suggesting that Austria consider joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Meinl-Reisinger expressed support for a public debate on the issue, acknowledging that the current political and public majority remains opposed to NATO membership.
…
Meinl-Reisinger also addressed Russia’s ongoing war against Ukraine, stating that Ukraine seeks peace, while Russia continues its campaign of aggression. She added that if Russian leader Vladimir Putin were genuinely interested in peace, he would have engaged in ceasefire negotiations.
…
Where is the mentioning of Article 42 of the EU? That’s stronger than article 5.
Austria is also surrounded by Nato member states so everybody is already fighting when the war reaches Austria, unless they come from Switzerland.
This must be Nato pressuring Austria to join, not Austria wanting to join. Why do they want Austria to join?
Edit: Please look at a map before you downvote
I downvote because you try to insinuate something (NATO forcing Austria) when the actual article contains all necessary information on why Austria’s (!) Foreign Minister is raising the question (!).
That’s at least very much on the fence of argumenting in bad faith.
I think the article is in bad faith. No article 42, no threat analysis. How can Russia reach Austria? Without an answer to these questions it doesn’t make sense to directly state the need for Nato.
They mention the EU defence participation of Austria, so it’s not just overseight.
You must take offence to the question itself. I am not asking why Austria wants to join but why Nato wants Austria to join.
Then you’re barking at the wrong tree. It is Meinl-Reisinger raising this point and wanting to discuss this, not the article.
Then you want to discuss something completely irrelevant to this article, which is only about the question (!) of Austria wishing to join NATO.
So the article could discuss this.
I have explained why it is not irrelevant but you should know anyway. There is no net benefit for Austria in joining. Consequently the most relevant question is why it is happening anyway.
@[email protected]
Your comments in this thread appear to represent a series of false claims blended with distractions and some forms of whataboutisms. When you then run out of arguments, you even accuse others of not understanding the issue. This is a really absurdly weird 50-cent warrior.
The reason why Austria reconsiders its stance on neutrality and joining Nato is obvious and clearly expressed in the article, and it is, of course, absolutely justified.
It is not obvious. In which scenario does Russia attack Austria?
Your questions don’t become better if you permanently repeat them while ignoring the answers, supposedly waiting for something you like to hear and read.
There hasn’t been an answer, just evasions.
When the Cold War ended and the russian dominated countries gained their freedom, some of their war plans were revealed. A famous one is Seven Days to the River Rhine. It was an exercise gaming a Barbarossa-style surprise attack against western europe using nuclear weapons.
The Austrian capital Vienna was to be hit with two 500 kiloton atomic bombs (each bomb about 25 times the yield of the bomb that devastated Hiroshima). The exercise carefully avoided using nukes against the nuclear powers France and Britain but used them freely against everyone else; especially for terror attacks against civilian targets. This is very much in line with russian tactics displayed when the reformers were ousted and Russia resumed its traditional military aggression.
With Austria reeling from the atrocity, russian forces, bolstered by its colonial subjects, would have rolled through Austria and flanked NATO defenders in western Germany.
Yea… hm… let’s have a long hard thinking about why it is that suddenly so many European countries that haven’t been in NATO, suddenly want to join it. Why could that possibly be? I bet it must be those evil Americans, as always! Right? Riiight?
Yes, let’s have that thinking. It makes some sense for the other countries but not for Austria.
The article does discuss Meinl-Reisinger raising this point.
…which is exactly what the article states in providing some of Meinl-Reisingers thoughts and arguments behind her reasoning to raise the question.
The article states that the Russian threat makes giving up neutrality necessary. But how can Russia conquer Austria? So the article only provides a superficial answer.
The article is citing Meinl-Reisinger. If you don’t like her argument, don’t blame the article.
You wrote that all answers are in the article. I only care about that Austria is not directly threatened by Russia so that they could continue being neutral.
@[email protected]
They don’t “pressure” Austria to join, as well as Nato didn’t pressure Finland and Sweden to join. Finland and Sweden wanted to join because of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.
If a country wants to become a Nato member, it must apply for membership. This is also what the article says. It is Austria that reconsiders its stance on neutrality, considering Nato membership.
Nato doesn’t pressure no one to join, and it never did. Your statement is misleading.
Lol ask Greece about that
Btw, countries don’t apply but are invited.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO
Especially Finland makes sense, even though they are also protected by article 42. But that motivation is not transferable to Austria.
There is no believable motivation for Austria. Consequently there must be another incentive.
@[email protected]
This is false.
As was, for example, the case with Finland’s application back in 2022 (and very much with all other Nato members’ applications), the new member sign up works as follows:
Regarding your comment:
This is false.
Austria’s motivation is the Rising Russian Threat. It’s in the headline. The reason is Russia’s unprovoked war against Ukraine, namely the full-scale invasion that started in 2022.
Addition:
Btw, Ex-Nato head George Robertson said Putin wanted to join alliance in the early 2000s but did not want to wait in line with ‘countries that don’t matter’
That’s russian propaganda. Putin’s Russia demanded a “veto-right” over military action. Such a thing does not exist in NATO. The very idea is bonkers, as it would mean denying the right to collective self-defense. Even then, Putin acted in bad faith.
And I am questioning that headline. It doesn’t make sense for Austria. Austria is surrounded by Nato members and has Article 42 protection. Nato cannot offer more security while Austria enters the obligation to defend America, Canada and Türkiye. What does Nato offer?
Sweden is also surrounded by Nato members. Denmark, too. The Netherlands. Belgium. France (with the exception of Switzerland). Your argument doesn’t hold.
Austria’s motivation is the Rising Russian Threat. It’s in the headline.
Best thing is you look it up yourself: www. nato.int
Sweden shares a body of water with Russia, so there is some sense. For the others, remember that defence against a potentially dangerous Germany was needed.
Please name one scenario in which Austria is safer in Nato. I only see more obligations and a higher risk of first strikes by giving up neutrality.
Wow, what an analysis.
In my view, the Rising Russian Threat is far bigger in any scenario. This is why Austria reconsiders Nato membership.
What is Russia threatening in Austria?
The idea that A42(7) is stronger than A5 is not that broadly supported. A42(7)'s wording implies a stronger commitment to “assistence”, whereas A5 seems to rely on states militarily retaliating when one of them is attacked, as if they themselves were attacked.
So even if A42(7) implies a greater obligation to assist, the kind of assistence is left nebulous, so there may not be an obligation to militarily assist. With A5, military assistance and the use of armed forces is explicitly mentioned, even if the exact length of the obligation to provide it is less clear.
Regardless, from these debates we have seen that most countries seem to believe that A5 should be used for military defence in case of a military attack, whereas A42(7) can be used for other types of attacks, e.g. terrorist attacks.
Remember there was a pretty big uproar when Greece merely suggested that they could invoke A42(7) against Turkey. So even if in theory you end up concluding that A42(7) is stronger, reality might disagree.
Greek and Cypriot security concerns viz. Turkey being sidelined is a huge hole in the European security architecture and a huge blind spot of the efforts to de-risk European security from the overdepenence to the US.
So long as Turkey keeps occupying half of an EU state’s territory, taking Article 42 as any kind of military guarantee is unserious.
Edit: I genuinely want to hear the objections of the people who downvoted this. What am I not seeing?
Some of these people may be living in the NATO states surrounding Austria and have opinions about that parasitic attitude. Perhaps the easiest solution would be for the Czech Republic to annex Austria.