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.
…
If the US wasn’t in it, the whole “fighting against ourselves” thing wouldn’t be a problem.
For any Americans listening in, I’m not expecting this to happen in the very near future, and Trump has indicated he’s not interested in military conflict. It does seem like the days of near-union are over, though, and who knows what his (possibly not fairly elected) successor will be like?
My point is, NATO makes no distinction between being attacked by an outside party vs being attacked by a member. Other members are still legally obligated to provide assistance. What sort of legally binding alliance are you expecting, that isn’t already covered by the preexisting agreements?
As far as I know, Canada has no mutual defence pacts not including America. We signed something with Europe recently, which is great, but it’s just about procurement. If we had any such agreement with a nuclear power I’d be less nervous. (And we share values. And Canada could provide all kinds of natural resources, if Europe or the UK needs)
I don’t think that’s actually true. How could it possible function if a full half of it’s capabilities are directed against another part of it? I pretty sure there’s no actual regulations on it. In the past there’s been a threat of conflict between Turkey and Greece, and the commentary I read at the time basically said that it would never escalate all the way, so we don’t need rules.
That’s what ‘no distinction’ means. Members have agreed to assist in case one of them are attacked, regardless of who’s doing the attacking. There’s a grey area if you can’t make the case for which party being the definite aggressor, but if the US were invading it would be pretty damn obvious.
To an impartial observer, sure. To a politician or a diplomat, that’s malleable. And, there’s a very strong incentive to find a way not to fight them.
I don’t know, do you think Europe would intervene on our behalf just under article 5, personally?
I would like to think so, but I’m some internet rando speculating on some unlikely foreign policy so my opinion here is worth less than the electrons it’s transmitting to your eyeballs.
I really hope you’re right.