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.
…
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.
Will you blame Russia for its crimes?
And yours? Is your view on NATO or Russia shaped by propaganda?
You stated out of the blue that NATO must be pressuring Austria. No proof, no connection to the article. I consider this a try to derail and to spin.
You offer no arguments. You’re being disproven and your only answer is “yea, but still no”. So it’s irrelevant.
I very much hope the same won’t happen to Austria. As it is only happening to Ukraine because we desperately try to save it from Russian destruction despite all the indescribable harm it is suffering since 2022. No country wants this to happen to them, no country will take the risk. This is why Austria wants this discussion. It is beyond me how anyone cannot understand this, although I’m coming to the conclusion that this is less a “can” problem but more a “want” problem.
Yes, from you. I am not saying that Austria will be attacked by Russia, even though I kind of say it. This feels like an argument with AI.
Don’t try to make your argument mine. It is only you that tries to narrow this on an attack on Austria in order to disprove the necessity of an Austrian membership. I told you what the actual security gains for Austria can be in NATO and those are irrespective of a Russian attack on Austria. So are we finally done with this idea?
And btw, still curious:
Will you blame Russia for its crimes?
No. Where is the gain if Ukraine also has it?
There is no other threat for Austria.
They are guilty of their crimes. If I blame them don’t I imply that somebody else is guilty but I put the blame on Russia?