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.
…
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.
@[email protected]
Several of your statements here in this thread have been proven incorrect already, but you are coming up with the next claim just to maintain a derailed opinion. That doesn’t make sense and it’s waste of time.
Where is a proof? Comments discuss strawmen but none explains how Russia threatens Austria.
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.
I guess that’s up to the Austrians to decide where they feel safer in the current environment in Europe.
Yes, but we should care if they are manipulated.
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.
That’s your opinion. But it’s up to the Austrians to decide how they feel and what they do. Don’t you agree?
Don’t make it personal. These comments have nothing to do with how Austria will decide.
We can argue independently about the Russian threat to Austria.