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.
…
pootin is the best marketeer for NATO
Damn, I didn’t have “Austria (potentially) breaks 70 years of neutrality” on my World War III bingo card.
Our neutrality is an empty vessel. A facade of former times. An excuse that we bend as needed. All about time to leave it behind us. The only reason it is still there are fearful politicians.
Well, they are within the EU so their neutrality is already debatable. But they are also a major spy hub because of this “neutrality” within their constitution.
if you choose to not pick a side, you already chose a side.
you chose to let others decide upon your fate. And those will rarely choose in your interest.
The same happens inside “a side” too. Just look at how the EU let the US bully it into a bullshit tariff deal. And i am fairly certain that “we need the US for security” was a relevant consideration for the EU to give in.
Maybe kick out all those Russian spies out of Austria first before you even consider NATO membership.
For anyone who doesn’t know Austria’s neutrality stance basically also meant that they didn’t do shit about Russian intelligence setting up shop in their country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria_and_Russian_intelligence
That’s not neutrality just compliance.
I read Austria as Australia and was very confused for a second
If they lost to a bunch of emus it wouldn’t surprise me to find out that they’re scared of the russians!
Fuck yes! Join us! We love you!
The world is now out of control. It’s time to take a stand and pick a side.
I pick the working class
It’s a shame most of the sides seem to suck
there’s almost never THE perfect choice. Those making you believe there’s one of them - those are the one’s that aren’t telling you the whole story in the first place.
Look at the options. Check them with your No-Gos. Focus on what remains - and pick what sucks the least.
You may not be perfectly happy, but an “okay” is WAY better than an “oh…my…god”
Who’s the side though. America is sliding into fascism so are they worth siding with? Europe needs to bulk up its defense so America isn’t needed.
One is sliding into fascism, the other has been an imperialist dictatorship for a long time.
I’d go with the one that is still salvageable.
there’s almost never THE perfect choice. Those making you believe there’s one of them - those are the one’s that aren’t telling you the whole story in the first place.
That so perfectly describes the (US) American Exceptionalism BS that STILL works with so much of the right/maga types.
It seems common with all people, but especially with Trumpers, to not look critically at one’s own country. Or religion. Or family. Or field. Or self!
I know right? I choose the Hague Group.
Oh wait what, you meant the genocide enabling Trump-led block?
As opposed to the genocide enabling Russian block?
I still know who I’d rather be pushing to be better.
That’s just tankie campism upside down.
In my post I literally take the side of the Hague Group. International law, UN courts, the Rome Statute, the rules based international order.
You want to push the West to be better? Take that side.
I mean, I do? I include the EU in this even if they are having trouble with Israel.
The EU has to earn its reputation as a champion of human rights and international law back. So far I haven’t seen any movement towards that. It’s not a lost cause yet but I am not optimistic.
the rules based international order.
LMAO, good joke.
All of that is correct, but you appear to be talking about voting, which isn’t really what the original thread was about
Eh, still applies. It’s about making choices in an imperfect world.
All the sides suck, but some clearly more than others
Oh yeah, it’s very much a case of choosing between a shit sandwich and a shit sandwich with glass. I’m not happy about the menu, but obviously hold the glass
I’m not sure one is better. It’s just our bias saying America isn’t hat bad.
Knowing Russian present and history with surrounding regions, I’d still pick the EU every day of the week.
US I’m not a fan of, but I get that they are THE superpower in the world today, traditionally aligned with the “West”, but they’re not very reliable.
How about, go all fuck yourselves and leave me live in peace?
And what if one side doesn’t leave you in peace?
I really want to see how a war between nuclear powers will play. Maybe then you all will understand my point of view.
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.
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.
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.
…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.
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.
Wait, Austria is not in the NATO??
as usual where austrian (any DACH country, really) bureaucracy is concerned: it’s not that simple…
we are technically neutral! …but participate in (and host!) NATO training exercises, use NATO equipment, use NATO tactics…
so we are a de-facto member. without actually being a member. but still kind of a member. but not really…see where this is going?
austrian neutrality exists only on paper. always has. it’s bullshit, a farce, and a national embarrassment.
Not being Austrian, it’s none of my business and it’s entirely up to them to decide, but that would be a step I’d truly appreciate.
Glad to hear they’re joining the struggle, but I’m not sure NATO is really where we want to keep investing our effort, what with the US doing it’s thing.
It’s a lot easier to ignore one party in an alliance than build up a new one from scratch
I actually fear that’s not true in this case. If America were to invade, say, Greenland, article 5 would be worthless. Nobody wants to fight them, and probably nobody will without a firm legal obligation. It’d be very easy for other countries to just cut their losses…
In Denmark’s case the EU also has a defense aspect. As a Canadian, I selfishly am really hoping for another defence pact that we could definitely join. There’s also the bit where the Americans are going to be in all the war planning rooms.
How is article 5 different, or any less weak, than a similar mutual defence clause would be in a new alliance?
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)
My point is, NATO makes no distinction between being attacked by an outside party vs being attacked by a member.
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.
pretty sure there’s no actual regulations on it
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.
This is just the OG Nazis kissing the ring
As far as I’m concerned Austria suddenly being neutral was a peculiar turn of events anyway. This makes more sense on several levels imo.
Austria was split up similar to Germany after WW2. The Austrians managed through some god tier diplomacy to convince all four occupying forces to allow them to be a united properly independent country in 1955. However the cost for that was that they were neutral.
What a lovely succinct summary of what is imagine many have filled a book. Thanks, fascinating stuff
Trump and Putin are of the same cloth. Both creating distractions and keeping people scared so nobody is willing to deal with how shitty they are and remove them from power.
North Atlantic treaty 🐱 South pacific “island”
Austria, you know with Vienna and the Alps. Not Australia, with kangaroos and venomous anything.
Oh lol, feel like an idiot.
I think you’ve got the wrong 'straya there
Oi. Nothing to see. Gotta motor on.
I also read the title to fast. LoL
Where is the mentioning of Article 42 of the EU? That’s stronger than article 5.
Austria is also surrounded by Nato member states so everybody is already fighting when the war reaches Austria, unless they come from Switzerland.
This must be Nato pressuring Austria to join, not Austria wanting to join. Why do they want Austria to join?
Edit: Please look at a map before you downvote
I downvote because you try to insinuate something (NATO forcing Austria) when the actual article contains all necessary information on why Austria’s (!) Foreign Minister is raising the question (!).
That’s at least very much on the fence of argumenting in bad faith.
I think the article is in bad faith. No article 42, no threat analysis. How can Russia reach Austria? Without an answer to these questions it doesn’t make sense to directly state the need for Nato.
They mention the EU defence participation of Austria, so it’s not just overseight.
You must take offence to the question itself. I am not asking why Austria wants to join but why Nato wants Austria to join.
I think the article is in bad faith.
Then you’re barking at the wrong tree. It is Meinl-Reisinger raising this point and wanting to discuss this, not the article.
I am not asking why Austria wants to join but why Nato wants Austria to join.
Then you want to discuss something completely irrelevant to this article, which is only about the question (!) of Austria wishing to join NATO.
It is Meinl-Reisinger raising this point and wanting to discuss this
So the article could discuss this.
Then you want to discuss something completely irrelevant to this article, which is only about the question (!) of Austria wishing to join NATO.
I have explained why it is not irrelevant but you should know anyway. There is no net benefit for Austria in joining. Consequently the most relevant question is why it is happening anyway.
Your comments in this thread appear to represent a series of false claims blended with distractions and some forms of whataboutisms. When you then run out of arguments, you even accuse others of not understanding the issue. This is a really absurdly weird 50-cent warrior.
The reason why Austria reconsiders its stance on neutrality and joining Nato is obvious and clearly expressed in the article, and it is, of course, absolutely justified.
It is not obvious. In which scenario does Russia attack Austria?
Your questions don’t become better if you permanently repeat them while ignoring the answers, supposedly waiting for something you like to hear and read.
When the Cold War ended and the russian dominated countries gained their freedom, some of their war plans were revealed. A famous one is Seven Days to the River Rhine. It was an exercise gaming a Barbarossa-style surprise attack against western europe using nuclear weapons.
The Austrian capital Vienna was to be hit with two 500 kiloton atomic bombs (each bomb about 25 times the yield of the bomb that devastated Hiroshima). The exercise carefully avoided using nukes against the nuclear powers France and Britain but used them freely against everyone else; especially for terror attacks against civilian targets. This is very much in line with russian tactics displayed when the reformers were ousted and Russia resumed its traditional military aggression.
With Austria reeling from the atrocity, russian forces, bolstered by its colonial subjects, would have rolled through Austria and flanked NATO defenders in western Germany.
Yea… hm… let’s have a long hard thinking about why it is that suddenly so many European countries that haven’t been in NATO, suddenly want to join it. Why could that possibly be? I bet it must be those evil Americans, as always! Right? Riiight?
So the article could discuss this.
The article does discuss Meinl-Reisinger raising this point.
Consequently the most relevant question is why it is happening anyway.
…which is exactly what the article states in providing some of Meinl-Reisingers thoughts and arguments behind her reasoning to raise the question.
The article states that the Russian threat makes giving up neutrality necessary. But how can Russia conquer Austria? So the article only provides a superficial answer.
The article is citing Meinl-Reisinger. If you don’t like her argument, don’t blame the article.
This must be Nato pressuring Austria to join, not Austria wanting to join. Why do they want Austria to join?
They don’t “pressure” Austria to join, as well as Nato didn’t pressure Finland and Sweden to join. Finland and Sweden wanted to join because of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.
If a country wants to become a Nato member, it must apply for membership. This is also what the article says. It is Austria that reconsiders its stance on neutrality, considering Nato membership.
Nato doesn’t pressure no one to join, and it never did. Your statement is misleading.
Lol ask Greece about that
Btw, countries don’t apply but are invited.
The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO
They don’t “pressure” Austria to join, as well as Nato didn’t pressure Finland and Sweden to join. Finland and Sweden wanted to join because of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.
Especially Finland makes sense, even though they are also protected by article 42. But that motivation is not transferable to Austria.
There is no believable motivation for Austria. Consequently there must be another incentive.
Btw, countries don’t apply but are invited.
This is false.
As was, for example, the case with Finland’s application back in 2022 (and very much with all other Nato members’ applications), the new member sign up works as follows:
Once a country expresses its desire to join the alliance (and only then, ed.), the [Nato] member states assess the request and decide if they want to invite the aspirant to begin accession talks. If they do issue the invitation (after the country expressed its desire to join, ed.), the process officially begins and technical talks are launched in Brussels between specialised teams.
Regarding your comment:
There is no believable motivation for Austria. Consequently there must be another incentive.
This is false.
Austria’s motivation is the Rising Russian Threat. It’s in the headline. The reason is Russia’s unprovoked war against Ukraine, namely the full-scale invasion that started in 2022.
Addition:
Vladimir Putin wanted Russia to join Nato but did not want his country to have to go through the usual application process and stand in line “with a lot of countries that don’t matter”, according to a former secretary general of the transatlantic alliance.
George Robertson, a former Labour defence secretary who led Nato between 1999 and 2003, said Putin made it clear at their first meeting that he wanted Russia to be part of western Europe. “They wanted to be part of that secure, stable prosperous west that Russia was out of at the time,” he said […]
Ex-Nato head George Robertson said Putin wanted to join alliance in the early 2000s but did not want to wait in line with ‘countries that don’t matter’
That’s russian propaganda. Putin’s Russia demanded a “veto-right” over military action. Such a thing does not exist in NATO. The very idea is bonkers, as it would mean denying the right to collective self-defense. Even then, Putin acted in bad faith.
Austria’s motivation is the Rising Russian Threat. It’s in the headline.
And I am questioning that headline. It doesn’t make sense for Austria. Austria is surrounded by Nato members and has Article 42 protection. Nato cannot offer more security while Austria enters the obligation to defend America, Canada and Türkiye. What does Nato offer?
Sweden is also surrounded by Nato members. Denmark, too. The Netherlands. Belgium. France (with the exception of Switzerland). Your argument doesn’t hold.
Austria’s motivation is the Rising Russian Threat. It’s in the headline.
What does Nato offer?
Best thing is you look it up yourself: www. nato.int
Sweden shares a body of water with Russia, so there is some sense. For the others, remember that defence against a potentially dangerous Germany was needed.
Please name one scenario in which Austria is safer in Nato. I only see more obligations and a higher risk of first strikes by giving up neutrality.
For the others, remember that defence against a potentially dangerous Germany was needed.
Wow, what an analysis.
In my view, the Rising Russian Threat is far bigger in any scenario. This is why Austria reconsiders Nato membership.
The idea that A42(7) is stronger than A5 is not that broadly supported. A42(7)'s wording implies a stronger commitment to “assistence”, whereas A5 seems to rely on states militarily retaliating when one of them is attacked, as if they themselves were attacked.
So even if A42(7) implies a greater obligation to assist, the kind of assistence is left nebulous, so there may not be an obligation to militarily assist. With A5, military assistance and the use of armed forces is explicitly mentioned, even if the exact length of the obligation to provide it is less clear.
Regardless, from these debates we have seen that most countries seem to believe that A5 should be used for military defence in case of a military attack, whereas A42(7) can be used for other types of attacks, e.g. terrorist attacks.
Remember there was a pretty big uproar when Greece merely suggested that they could invoke A42(7) against Turkey. So even if in theory you end up concluding that A42(7) is stronger, reality might disagree.
Greek and Cypriot security concerns viz. Turkey being sidelined is a huge hole in the European security architecture and a huge blind spot of the efforts to de-risk European security from the overdepenence to the US.
So long as Turkey keeps occupying half of an EU state’s territory, taking Article 42 as any kind of military guarantee is unserious.
Edit: I genuinely want to hear the objections of the people who downvoted this. What am I not seeing?
Some of these people may be living in the NATO states surrounding Austria and have opinions about that parasitic attitude. Perhaps the easiest solution would be for the Czech Republic to annex Austria.
I wonder if they also considered formally allying with Russia, but on the balance decided that NATO was a better option
Russia is literally the reason they are considering joining NATO, so no.
Austria Reconsiders NATO Membership Amid Rising Russian Threat
Did the country surrounded by NATO members on all sides consider allying with NATO’s enemy?
They’re secretly hoping they’ll get to bomb an occupied Romania
