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.
…
You don’t seem to understand how the multinational AWACS component works. The planes are operated and manned by the nations participating in it. They don’t just get passed on some data, they actually collect it. So it looks like this, where a German soldier is working next to two Norwegians aboard one of these planes.
Article 42 governs the mutual defence in case of an attack on one of the member states. It doesn’t govern any sort of military cooperation in times of peace. NATO does.
Of course it doesn’t to you. But then again, let’s be real: what ever will? You entered this discussion with an opinion already set in stone and nothing I or anyone else will say will realistically convince you otherwise. You have more excuses, show more understanding, for Russia’s war against Ukraine than for Austria thinking about discussing entering NATO, so what’s there left to say here?
Nothing, because Austria doesn’t join Nato to reduce the Russian threat.
My raw data argument was not very clever but you reminding me that the members operate AWACS doesn’t show that it reduces the threat. It’s nice that Nato membership allows participation but that doesn’t change the security situation for Austria.
Knowing about propaganda, I think it’s necessary to be more critical of western arguments because all those values are deeply ingrained. Despising Russia comes easy. That’s why I want logical arguments that don’t rely on existing emotions.
What do you think is the argument that should have convinced me?
Austria doesn’t join NATO. One of Austria’s leading politicians is suggesting having an open discussion about reconsidering NATO membership. That this is because of the Russian aggression and lust for war is something as blatantly obvious as can get. Of course, to acknowledge this would mean acknowledging the Russian fault in this and apparently, this isn’t an option for people that don’t want to adapt their world views to changing realities.
It literally does. It allows Austria access to an aspect of defense they do not have otherwise. So of course it improves the security situation for Austria.
If you don’t think it is logical to despise Russia for what it is doing, namely waging a war of aggression to annex a neighboring country and expand its borders in a scale we haven’t seen here since Nazi Germany decided that its neighbouring countries should no longer exist, what’s there left to say?
Never questioned by me, however I would add an ‘alledged’ to the emotional part.
All the things unsaid. You loosen the scope of my question while you focus your answers on a very specific scope.
Don’t you think it is logical to despise Russia for what it is doing, namely waging a war of aggression to annex a neighboring country and expand its borders in a scale we haven’t seen here since Nazi Germany decided that its neighbouring countries should no longer exist?
If you look through the lense of hybrid warfare, it’s comparatively small, even for ‘here’.
To despise the war itself logically you have to despise other wars and violence in equal proportions, even, or especially if they don’t happen here.
I can’t tell if you do. The limiting of the scope to here makes me think that you are aware of a broader context that would lead you to a different judgement that you want to avoid.
You try to tell me that the war Russia is waging, which forced them to switch to war economy, which forced them to mobilise, which forced them to recruit foreign fighters and weapons from countries such as North Korea or Iran, which has them deploy several hundred thousand soldiers and which has them experienced a six-figure sum of losses, is “comparatively small”?
Do you really?
With a generous definition of hybrid warfare, yes.
Thanks for this honesty. You choose to be generous towards Russia that currently is busy destroying it’s neighbouring country by military force, yet seem to be very upset about Austria wanting to discuss a possible future within NATO. How unmasking! :D