Austria’s Foreign Minister advocates for a discussion on the limits of neutrality, emphasizing the need for stronger defense amid rising global tensions.

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.

…

      • Kyden Fumofly@lemmy.worldEnglish
        36·
        3 days ago

        I really want to see how a war between nuclear powers will play. Maybe then you all will understand my point of view.

    • Zink@programming.devEnglish
      52·
      3 days ago

      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.

      • Kyden Fumofly@lemmy.worldEnglish
        14·
        3 days ago

        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.

        • Zink@programming.devEnglish
          2·
          3 days ago

          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

          Putting NATO as defenders is a huge talk.

          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:

          Russia will not invade a NATO country because the risk is too high

          …which sure seems to recognize that there is a threat from russia that needs deterrence, and that NATO is the thing that deters it.

          • Kyden Fumofly@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            2 days ago

            …which sure seems to recognize that there is a threat from russia that needs deterrence, and that NATO is the thing that deters it. I recognize that no country will attack a nuclear power. NATOs role is applying nuclear power to countries that not having it. Nuclear weapons make the stalemate, until one crazy guy makes the move. The thing is that we are back in the cold war era of thinking again. Like no real progress ever made in humanity.

            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.

            • Zink@programming.devEnglish
              1·
              2 days ago

              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.