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.
…
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
You can’t be that oblivious that you interpret it like that.
You take more offense in Austria considering NATO than in Russia waging war.
I take no direct offence. Both are about politics in which I am not directly involved.
The offence is that the media in general uses the Russian aggression to justify the reduction of civil rights. In this case there is no direct benefit so that the empty argument becomes visible.
You find excuses/explanations for Russia’s actions (war) but don’t accept excuses/explanations for Austria’s actions (NATO). Strange, isn’t it?
Which is neither case nor topic here.
I gave you a clear example for a benefit, hence this point is invalid.
No, because they are on different sides of the conflict. If Nato commits crimes, Germany will be responsible, like we are after WW2. So I have to be dilligent.
For Russia, I have to find their motivation because the propaganda I receive paints them as irrational monsters. They are still the enemy, but dehumanising them supposedly was a mistake, so I look for their rational motives.
Then better don’t go back to my initial comment. The entire point is the wrong justification.
Nothing substantial. Ukraine is not part of Nato and already receives the information.
Somehow, I have the feeling you don’t see it as clear when it comes to Russia’s crimes.
How does finding any “motivation” change your view on them waging a war of aggression? What is there to explain? What to excuse? Does it somehow alleviate them from their responsibility for their crimes?
Also, I have very strong doubts that the propaganda you receive paints Russia as the monsters.
You said: “The offence is that the media in general uses the Russian aggression to justify the reduction of civil rights.” This is neither topic of this article nor of your initial comment. Stop moving the goalposts.
Your personal assessment is irrelevant to the actual substantiality.
Ukraine is receiving this data, because it is actively attacked and we won’t just stand there and let that happen. Also, given the circumstances, Ukraine is as embedded into NATO as possible and would love to be in NATO any minute. But I guess you’re of course strongly opposed to this as well.
Nobody will blaim me for Russian crimes. I evaluate the countries for different roles.
No
The usual stuff does.
Where do you think all of this ends?
Besides that arguments should be convincing. But you kind of agree:
Guess what, the same will happen with Austria.