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.
…
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.
It starts, for example, with your false claim that aspiring Nato members must not apply but are invited. Just read your comments. Stop pro-Russia trolling and get a life.
That’s a side issue and I have accepted the explanation. It doesn’t proof anything about the Russian threat to Austria.
Just in case that it is not a language thing, I haven’t claimed that they must not apply (in the sense of not allowed to apply). I only stated that they are invited.
That’s the main issue. An argument against the Russian threat is seen as fighting for Russia. I think there is some threat but it is extended beyond reasonable to corrupt our democracies. If we cannot separate between reasonable and unreasonable we will end up with all our freedoms taken.
In this case the threat of Russia is no reason for Nato membership. And yet the argument is accepted by the majority. To me that looks dangerous.