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.
…
The world is now out of control. It’s time to take a stand and pick a side.
I pick the working class
It’s a shame most of the sides seem to suck
there’s almost never THE perfect choice. Those making you believe there’s one of them - those are the one’s that aren’t telling you the whole story in the first place.
Look at the options. Check them with your No-Gos. Focus on what remains - and pick what sucks the least.
You may not be perfectly happy, but an “okay” is WAY better than an “oh…my…god”
Who’s the side though. America is sliding into fascism so are they worth siding with? Europe needs to bulk up its defense so America isn’t needed.
One is sliding into fascism, the other has been an imperialist dictatorship for a long time.
I’d go with the one that is still salvageable.
That so perfectly describes the (US) American Exceptionalism BS that STILL works with so much of the right/maga types.
It seems common with all people, but especially with Trumpers, to not look critically at one’s own country. Or religion. Or family. Or field. Or self!
I know right? I choose the Hague Group.
Oh wait what, you meant the genocide enabling Trump-led block?
As opposed to the genocide enabling Russian block?
I still know who I’d rather be pushing to be better.
That’s just tankie campism upside down.
In my post I literally take the side of the Hague Group. International law, UN courts, the Rome Statute, the rules based international order.
You want to push the West to be better? Take that side.
I mean, I do? I include the EU in this even if they are having trouble with Israel.
The EU has to earn its reputation as a champion of human rights and international law back. So far I haven’t seen any movement towards that. It’s not a lost cause yet but I am not optimistic.
It’s an ongoing project. Imo the best chance the world has.
LMAO, good joke.
All of that is correct, but you appear to be talking about voting, which isn’t really what the original thread was about
Eh, still applies. It’s about making choices in an imperfect world.
All the sides suck, but some clearly more than others
Oh yeah, it’s very much a case of choosing between a shit sandwich and a shit sandwich with glass. I’m not happy about the menu, but obviously hold the glass
I’m not sure one is better. It’s just our bias saying America isn’t hat bad.
Knowing Russian present and history with surrounding regions, I’d still pick the EU every day of the week.
US I’m not a fan of, but I get that they are THE superpower in the world today, traditionally aligned with the “West”, but they’re not very reliable.
How about, go all fuck yourselves and leave me live in peace?
And what if one side doesn’t leave you in peace?
I really want to see how a war between nuclear powers will play. Maybe then you all will understand my point of view.
That’s essentially the NATO side though. That’s the side that wants to keep things how they are. Borders and governments stay intact. In contrast, the other side wants to go back to sprawling warring empires.
In the first sentence above I said “essentially” because it’s obviously way, way more complicated than I described.
Normally in this kind of “if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice” situation, that third choice is that you will just deal with whichever regime ends up governing your particular patch of dirt. If you are off the grid living in the woods and not drawing attention to yourself, it might work out alright for you.
That’s not a safe bet when we’re talking about modern day governments though. If things degrade to the point of a nuclear exchange, the forest you live in could be on fire an hour from now or frozen a month from now.
NATO? Wants to keep things how they are? With USA major part of it? No one wants to keep thing how they are. Everyone wants more.
Russia will not invade a NATO country because the risk is too high (Europe has nukes).It’s just an exsuse to drive the world in an arms race and a cold war 2.
WW3 won’t be about what regime governs what, but if human civilisation will survive.
Picking sides brings nothing. I always side with the defenders, no matter what. Putting NATO as defenders is a huge talk.
Like I said, it is way, way more complicated than a simple high-level comparison.
I’m in the US, so my country alone fucks with so many people that there cannot be a good side.
I pointed out leaving borders intact and stuff like that because Russia is the one actively invading another country and killing ridiculous numbers of its own citizens in the process.
And can I point out that you said
Which is totally valid in general. We’ve already established NATO does bad shit, interferes with the affairs of others, etc.
But earlier you said:
…which sure seems to recognize that there is a threat from russia that needs deterrence, and that NATO is the thing that deters it.
Thats why I’m not picking sides. It doesn’t really matter and i don’t have to. If they start the shit its the same for everybody.
Well for us “choosing sides” is just an exercise for the purpose of discussion. Nobody cares what we as individuals think, and in reality most people will choose the same thing as you: keep my head down and wait for the distant craziness to die down.
But nations have things differently, especially if their geography makes them a target. There are many possible outcomes between world peace and nuclear armageddon. Plus there could be various economic & trade effects they might consider even more relevant than physical safety.
Edit to add: Not to repeat myself, but the probability of “if they start the shit” happening can also be affected by what choice a nation makes. Since the consequences of a war could quickly spiral to world-ending levels, making the choice that provides the greatest deterrence is arguably more important than choosing the “good” side.