Should Austria End Neutrality?
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 06. 2024
- Is it time for Austria to give up its neutral stance on the world stage? The war in Ukraine has seen many countries reevaluate their foreign and security policies. Most notably, Sweden and Finland have applied to join NATO. However, there are a number of European states that firmly cling to the policy of neutrality. One of the most important of these is Austria.
Austria's neutrality emerged during the Cold War. Following the end of the Second World War, it was occupied by the Allied Powers - Britain, France, the United States and the Soviet Union. However, this came to an end with the signing of the Austrian State Treaty, in 1955. In return for removing their troops, Austria agreed to permanent military neutrality. In the decades that followed, this principle became enshrined in the Austrian identity. And even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when many surrounding states joined NATO, it steadfastly retained its neutral stance. But with the start of the war in Ukraine, there have been suggestions that it is time for Austria to reconsider its neutral stance - a policy that it adheres to voluntarily. So far, though, public opinion stands strongly against any change. So too do the country's political leaders. Indeed, the country's chancellor has insisted that Austria will remain neutral. So, what exactly are the arguments for and against any change to Austrian neutrality?
A SPECIAL THANKS TO THE CHANNEL SPONSOR
WORLD POLITICS REVIEW
Providing in-depth news and expert analysis on global affairs to help make sense of the events and trends shaping our world.
Click here for your special discounted access:
wpr.pub/jkl
SUPPORT THE CHANNEL
Hello and welcome! My name is James Ker-Lindsay and here I take an informed look at International Relations, conflict, security, and statehood. If you like what you see, do subscribe. If you want more, including exclusive content and access to the channel Discord server, please consider becoming a Channel Member or support me through Patreon. Many thanks indeed!
SUBSCRIBE FOR FREE
czcams.com/users/JamesKerLind...
BECOME A CHANNEL MEMBER
/ jameskerlindsay
JOIN MY PATREON PAGE
/ jameskerlindsay
VIDEO CHAPTERS
00:00 Introduction and Titles
00:42 Neutrality and Changing European Security
01:48 Austria: Location and Population
02:32 The History of Austria
05:05 Austrian Neutrality During and After the Cold War
06:07 Public and Political Attitudes to Neutrality
07:19 The Case for Giving Up Neutrality
08:56 The Case Against Giving Up Neutrality
11:30 Could Austria Finally Give Up Its Neutrality?
SOURCES AND FURTHER READING
Austrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
www.bmeia.gv.at/en/
Austrian Armed Forces
www.bundesheer.at/english/
Austrian State Treaty
web.archive.org/web/201707091...
Austrian Neutrality after the Invasion of Ukraine
www.gisreportsonline.com/r/au...
Open Letter to the Federal President
unseresicherheit.org/1.-offen...
Austrian Permanent Neutrality
www.austrianinformation.org/w...
MY NEW BOOK!
Secession and State Creation: What Everyone Needs to Know
amzn.to/2MPY3W2
EQUIPMENT USED TO MAKE THIS VIDEO
kit.co/JamesKerLindsay
DISCLAIMERS
- The contents of this video and any views expressed in it were not reviewed in advance nor determined by any outside persons or organisation.
- Some of the links above are affiliate links. These pay a small commission if you make a purchase. This helps to support the channel and will be at no additional cost to you.
#Austria #Neutral #Neutrality #NATO #Ukraine #Russia
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
So, why do you think Austria refuses to reconsider its neutrality? While other countries, such as Finland and Sweden, have applied to join NATO. And even Switzerland seems open to a debate on its neutral stance, Austria steadfastly refuses to discuss it. As ever, I'll look forward to hearing your thoughts and comments below.
And please do check out the special offer for channel viewers over at World Politics Review. Their generous support really helps the channel. www.wpr.pub/jkl Many, many thanks!
If neutrality helps Austria gain peace and prosperity then that's a good thing.
Can you please do a video on the political side of the Cacao industry? Thank you.
I suspect the answer is unfortunately quite simple - Austria does not feel the heat from Russia in the way that Sweden and Finland do. They benefit from the stable, prosperous European order as much as anyone else does, but the danger to them seems more distant and so it is easier to ignore. Unfortunately people tend not to want to burst their own bubbles - it takes someone else to come along and do it for them!
Why are you even discussing this non-issue if over 90% of Austria's population wants to remain neutral and neutrality is written into their constitution?
Because others think it will "send a powerful message to Russia"? They don't want that. What has gotten into you?
@@SashaArsic His takes on the proxy war in Ukraine are really bad to say the least.
I think it's hilarious that Austria gets all the protection of NATO membership with none of the costs or obligations, merely by virtue of being surrounded by NATO members. Switzerland, too
It is what it is m8 :)
Yes. Can't force them to join but can shame them for their obvious money driven position.
Yes, that's not right. Austria gets all the benefits without the costs.
Well...I dont´t feel protectet by NATO. Rather threatened by US geopolitics.
@@austropithecus7055 stop listening to Russian lies, and start figuring things together for yourself? Just a thougut
It might be interesting to compare Irish and Austrian neutralities.
Austria is already “United” to Germany, heart and core of the EU.
Thanks so much. I certainly plan to do one on Ireland as well. It was a toss-up between the two for this one, but I had promised a look at Austria to a family friend who is a regular viewer! :-)
As long as Australia is in the Five Eyes, are they really neutral ?
Also what about secret protocols ? We have no clue what's really going on.
@@michaeldelisieux In which aspect do you think Austria is united to Germany?
@@scratchy996 Austria bro.
Not the Aussies. 🤦♂️😒
“C’mon Austria, let’s go for another round! “-Rest of Europe
“Nah, I’m gonna sit this one out “- Austria
"But we're really going to wreck this place! Nord Stream is just the beginning. If you don't help us wreck it just the way we want, you won't have any say about what's left standing. What? You wanna be like the Swiss in WWII?"
Smart
@@waynejohnson1786 Selfish.
@@AB-zl4nh Selfish? How?
Surely Austria needs to figure out what side of the fence it wants to be on no room to sit atop it.
Thanks for the videos! I know they probably take a lot of work. It's appreciated. It makes me feel smart and like I learned something
As an Austrian, born end of 70s, i grow up in the cold war era. In school we learned about our history and how importend our neutrality is. Thats planted deep in our heads. I never scrutinized it until Februar 2022. Now I do. I dont think that it is still up-to-date. I think our politicians, more or less are 'hiding' behind this "contract" - despite one of its patries isn't around anymore. The soviet Union. Those who "pressed" Austria into neutrality! It was by far voluntary!
It's hard to believe you are a real Austrian, maybe just a simp who tries so swing the pendulum in this regard because the first reaction from our politicians when Ukraine conflict escalated was to toss away our neutrality instantly. Chancellor literally gave a speech where he attacked our neutrality, where he said it's time to give it up an that it was just forced on us, of course it was not just him but the whole government like it's always the case.
The outcry was so massive, even in the mainstream media, that they back paddled literally the next day. It was much bigger than even when they tried to force vaccination. Now they say the opposite and act as if all of it never happened.
From my perspective i can tell it's impossible to just give up neutrality. Everybody beside the usual types who coincidently also all were vaccination fetishists are for abandoning it. I bet you are one of them.
Thank you so much for the comment Georg. I can imagine how important it would have been during your early years at school. I was born in the early 1970s and the Cold War was a really formative part of my growing up. But one does get the sense that there is more to it in Austria. I am just not quite sure why people would feel so strongly about it now.
@@JamesKerLindsay There are simply three reasons in my opinion.
How we are brought up and learn about it. I never heard something negative or a good counterargument to our neutrality.
The second is Switzerland which is seen as a positive example in these matters, also in many others or in general.
We are also a very EU skeptic country where Switzerland is also helpful.
The third is we don't understand why Danish jets were the first to bomb Lybia back in the day, just to name one blatant example.
Maybe it's also because the Kosovo conflict was pretty close to us with many fleeing here and many today know NATO had no white vest in this.
Another thing is that the powers that are have failed to portray Russia as big threat. You can not portray them as failing and incompetent on every level but at the same time act as if they wanna conquer all of Europa after they are done in Ukraine. Nobody here fears Russia.
There is also much to say about the government we have now but that's to much. I just say these people there have not much to do with what was voted for in the last elections. We had umultiple changes and many ministers leaving during Covid, it was unprecedented.
Edit: i responded to the wrong comment, shouldn't matter though.
" That's planted deep in our heads" - unfortunately that's how Austria and Germany works.
No matter what happens, the state always goes back to the old "plant things in their heads" method.
I have lived in Germany and Austria, and it's frightening how self-censored they are, due to the conditioning they get since childhood. Critical thinking is not allowed, and if you make a joke, you get the same : "Das darf man nicht sagen !" - " You are not allowed to say that !"
@@scratchy996 That's not the same in Austria as it is in Germany, not even close, not in the general public at least and i also never heard that here.
Who thought February last year was a good point to question our neutrality, proves first of all, that he as no idea what he even talks about, secondly would have done so anyway whatever the next good reason. What happened in February last year is the sole reason for Neutrality in the first place.
To act as if neutrality is fine until something happens you don't agree with is the pinnacle of hypocrisy.
High GDP per capita, low defence spending, surrounded by 'friends', able to play both ends against the middle and be economic friends with everyone. All about the money is it not?
Well, yes, that would certainly seem to be one very good answer! But I also get the sense that it goes further than this. I am just not sure why?
Not participating in war = being greedy
ofcourse
I would not underestimate how much authoritarian dictators like Orban and Putin have each other’s backs.
@@kerbatonbaton8108 well that’s because they’re safe. Imagine if Russia was on their border
@@sc1338 russia wanted ukraine to be neutral, they would not have attacked if it commited to neutrality instead of wanting to get nukes and join nato.
As an austrian, maybe I can give some insight into why neutrality such an important thing for many in Austria. After WW2, when we were occupied by the allies, the only thing - in the public view of most austrians - that kept the russians from occupying at least half of austria was our declaration of neutrality. This was repeated over the years, like a mantra - neutrality kept us safe, neutrality will keep us safe. Many austrians still believe, that by "keeping out of the conflicts of other countries" makes us safer than joining a military pact. Of course, they are mistaken - history has shown, that aggressors seldom care about the neutrality of countries while invading them. But one other aspect is, that austrians fear that they will be involved in other countries wars by NATO article 5 - so, giving up our neutrality, seems to a LOT of austrians like a very high risk to be pulled into wars, while keeping neutrality seems to them (mislead, as it is) to lower the risk of being involved in a war. The issue is so important for most austrians, that the government tries to avoid it as much as they can. We HAD a discussion about joining NATO - I think, it was in the middle to late 90ies - and the public backlash, especially from certain influencial media in Austria (see: Kronenzeitung), was so extreme, that the plans were dropped very quickly. At the moment, especially because of the war, Austrians see giving up their neutrality as even bigger risk than ever before, so I don't think it is likely we will give up that stance in the near future.
Very wise.
The real danger to humanity is when a malignant narcissist psychopath takes control of a country and perverts into a militaristic kakistocracy like Putin's Russia is today. Fact:: democratic countries rarely go to war just to expand itself as Russia is doing. If you want peace you have to fight for democracy and the rule of law . So really neutrality is a fanciful delusion. Austria is free loading on NATO as it is. They should show some backbone and join.
@@RobespierreThePoof eu is not the same as nato
So cow towing to Russia terrorist state is the reason for neutrality in Austria, time to join NATO & allies
You can't have it both ways eventually you have to pick a side
Thanks Prof 👍🏻👍🏻
One thing missing is the idea of whether or not diplomacy and national security should be subject to democracy and here it presents an interesting contrast. If Ukraine has the right to join NATO (worth supporting a war over), surely the overwehlming support for neutrality in Austria makes it a non issue, and its neighbors should not presssure it to join NATO.
I agree Austria shouldn’t be compelled by other states. It should come to its own democratic decision. NATO is not expansionist and it shouldn’t be. They should only join if they value European security as much as we do
Great video as always! The "mediator" argument is a bit funny to me, since I don't see how a non-european country could see Austria, a country as western as it gets in values and culture, as a neutral mediator. Maybe in a scenario where it's the best mediator it could get to mediate some country such country has with an European one who has an upper hand? Swiss and Austrian positions to me only make sense in a pre-EU world.
Thanks Eric. I think you are absolutely right. Austria openly sees itself as Western and argues that its neutrality is military, not political. Again, I think this is probably more of a smokescreen for retaining its neutrality, for whatever reason, than a serious argument for retaining it. And I completely agree about Swiss and Austrian neutrality in the current context. It really doesn't make sense.
@@JamesKerLindsayThe current context is exactly when neutrality is of paramount importance.
Exactly! Hitler was even born there!
Fairly easily actually. It historically been safe heaven for Russian spies, its elites is not much less tied to Gazprom and Russia then German were. But Germany at lest done some notable cleansing.
@@davidhess6593 Wow! Never heard that before!
I have always loved Austria, its a beautiful country. I found it fascinating that it's modern history is so similar to modern Germany. You did an excellent summary James.
As for Austria joining NATO, I think it should have the right to do so, but if I was the Austrian leadership I'd stick to neutrality as most Austrians still want to, and there's no reason to join NATO anyways, as Switzerland or the superpower of Liechtenstein, 😜 isn't going to attack it and all the other countries are in NATO and wouldn't do such as thing. Anyways, enjoyed the video James! Keep up the good work.
Thanks Asa. Always appreciated! :-)
I can see why Austrian leaders might feel that way, but it really does seem like freeloading to many outsiders. If every non-frontline country took that view then European security would rest on the combined abilities of an arc of states to defend everyone else. It perhaps says a lot that a country, knowing this, would sit back and just refuse to even have a debate.
Hi from Austria. There are actually potential security threats to Austria. The first being Hungary. The current Hungarian government is a little unstable and has publicly called on Austria to give Burgenland back (the area known as German South West Hungary until the end of WW1). There are also some tensions with Slovenia over the minority Sloven population in Southern Austria. If the EU were to collapse or Hungary or Slovenia were to leave these might become major problems.
Also it's important to remember Austria still has conscription for all male citizens. You either have to go into the army for six months or spend nine months doing civil service. Normally at aged 19, so Austria does have the capacity to create a large army fairly quickly. Also Austria has a very robust military industrial complex with two of the biggest small arms manufacturing companies (and NATO suppliers) in the world, Glock and Steyr being based here. Firearm laws in general are also fairly relaxed (similar to the US in many cases) so citizens (normally with some military training already) can be organised as a functional militia without many problems.
Such concise info in short videos. Excellent. Thank you.
Thank you so much! :-)
Always covering the important subjects that no one else covers.
Hold on, let me finish making breakfast first, want to give it my full attention. Happy Friday Prof. 🙂
Good video professor James
As I understand it, in case of war with NATO the Soviet Union always intended to invade Austria and had military plans to that effect. So that cherished neutrality would not have helped much in that eventuality.
While that is true, and the austrian military during the cold war knew about it, and planned its strategy accordingly, said neutrality was the condition under which the societ union accepted a free austria. And that meant that as long as the cold war stayed cold, the USSR and it's allies would have no reason to invade.
If the cold war would have turned hot, yes, everybody knew it, and the austrian military doctrine was formed accordingly.
But the neutrality is seen as one mosaic piece of why the cold war stayed cold.
@@nirfz Don't respond reasonably to a CZcams comment. Who does that, honestly.
@@michaelthomas5433 🫡 ok, will remember next time 😁
Austria's neutrality is an Austrian choice. Leave them to decide for themselves. Let them have a referendum. Just as Sweden and Finland should have a referendum before applying for NATO.
Not everybody is so eager to join a military alliance that's been responsible for so much devastation in its relatively short history. There is no benefit to Austria in joining NATO. Such a commitment to expanding the American war machine only to nake yourself a viable target in one of their wars? There's a reason the Finnish and Swedish governments didn't have a referendum or any real public debate before deciding to join.
Interesting video, thank you!
Thanks so much!
Austria appears to know that it is very fortunate in being surrounded by very strong friends and probably knows that any new debate would undoubtedly be about contributing more money to the defence budget.
I think with regards to the "darker side" it should be mentioned that
A) The foreign minister that had Putin at her wedding was a member of the far right FPÖ, which essentially the Austrian version of the German AfD or the French Front/Rassemblement National. The real scandal here is that the FPÖ manages to garner so many votes - which has little to do with it being pro-Russian - rather than Putin being at her wedding. Additionally, this was at a time in which the American president also considered Putin a sort of friend. I think by leaving out this context, you made it sound WAY more sinister than it actually was compared to other western countries.
B) It might be true that Austria wasn't always keen on jumping on more sanctions against Russia, but neither was it alone with this hesitancy, nor did it ever get an exclusion like some eastern European countries. The fact of the matter is that Austria like Czechia or Slovakia is a central European land locked country and highly dependent on whatever gas is in the pipelines. If the only gas left for Austria is Russian, then that's it. There are no LNG terminals they can build.
Western Europe copium, Austria just doesn’t want to become reliant on the U.S like the rest of the West to the point of being a colony
This always has been the Austrian attitude: no matter how many people fight and die, for Austria only its own comfort and well-being is of importance.
Wolfgang Schüssel, was not a member of the “far right FPÖ” but the Austrian Chancellor and he is a member and the former chairman of the ÖVP , the Christian democratic and Conservative & Liberal Conservative Party.
For decades ÖVP regarded itself as a party of the centre and even the political plot twist of Kurz has not really changed this fact.
For two years Schüssel had worked as a supervisory board member of the Russian oil company Lukoil before he unwillingly and after harsh criticism ended his position in 2022.
The debate of neutrality in Switzerland has been around since Switzerland has been around.
Sweden has gave up or is giving up a policy which let the country go unscathed through more than two centuries. They have avoided WWI, WWII and the cold war and now they want to join a military alliance. Madness, total complete utter madness.
Finland has been not involved in a conflict since the end of WWII where they had the Soviet Union next to them which they fought with twice and since the last time they have been in good terms. And now they are giving up neutrality for what? Afraid of a country not able to conquer a country like Georgia and stuck in a war nobody knows when will end? Second madness, total complete utter madness.
But we have not to worry let's hope that when the next time we will be called to send their troops to look for biological and nuclear weapons in remote place where there are none or to chase a terrorist to be found somewhere else they will rejoice about the idea.
We are now miss the third madness here in Europe in order to realize that Europeans leaders need not experts but doctors.
Ich bin eine in Deutschland lebende Österreicherin und stehe zur Neutralität meines Heimatlandes. Die Gründe liegen in der Geschichte Österreichs. Wir haben in zwei verheerenden Weltkriegen Schuld auf uns geladen, wir waren Täter. Nie wieder darf Österreich sich an jedweden Konflikt beteiligen. Und ich denke auch, dass es jedem Land überlassen sein muss seine Staatsform selbst zu bestimmen. Und niemand hat das Recht das zu verurteilen, ebensowenig wie auch wir uns nicht in die inneren Angelegenheiten anderer Länder einzumischen haben, oder deren Staatsform zu kritisieren. Den Fehler, den ich bei meinem Heimatland sehe, war der Beitritt zur EU. Ein neutraler Staat sollte niemals einem Bündnis beitreten, dass wird ihn immerwieder in Konflikte bringen.
Austria is well protected on the East side of the country by NATO member Hungry, who cannot find time to admit Finland and Sweden into the NATO Alliance after 1 year and are heavily dependent upon Russia for their energy resources. So neutrality works until there are multiple tank divisions on their Eastern border.
Hungary and Austria's far right parties are besties, so weakening NATO and the EU is in both of their interests
@@waynejohnson1786 - like keeping NATO countries outside Schengen area that makes the help to Ukraine to be transported on longer routes?! When humanitarian aid to Ukraine must stay in a 20 km cue at the borders I guess makes Austria at least not neutral if not really pro-Russian.
And what, if I don´t feel protectet, but rather threaten by NATO and US geostrategy?
@@austropithecus7055 What geo-strategy are you talking about out of curiosity?
@@AndrewMann205 Maybe hegemony?
Thank you very interesting. Can you compare Swiss and Austrian neutrality? Can we say that the voluntary acceptance of this neutrality the main difference, the same as the difference in the voluntary acceptance of the neutrality between Sweden (voluntarily) and Finland (forced by major powers in 1945)?
Thanks Eugene. Great questions. Technically, Austrian neutrality was also voluntary. As a result, there’s no treaty holding it to its neutral stance. It could drop it tomorrow, if it wanted. The same for Switzerland, although the context was very different. In fact, the more one looks at it, the more obvious it becomes that many countries become neutral and then just stick with it without really thinking why it matters so much. Ukraine has been incredibly important in forcing many countries to think more deeply about it. The big question is why is Austria refusing to do this?
@@JamesKerLindsay As an Austrian I can answer this question. Most Austrians think we are too weak to participate in wars and thus believe if we are neutral, we stay out of conflicts and thats the best way to avoid war. Stupid, but unfortunately thats the way most people think here. Thus, any politician who even considers giving up neutrality is risking his career. I have to mention though that for the last 40-50 years, all Austrian schools teach kids from very young age that neutrality is extremely important and must be defended.
Stalin forced neutrality on Austria. He tried to do that with Germany too, but the Allies disagreed, so Germany was split in two.
@@Harry_S._ There is a say "the gentle lamb feeds from two sheep" . Also as a neutral country Austria allows Russian economical interest to spread around Europe like an octopus.
finland was forced, but Sweden chose to be neutral because it didn’t want to complicate things for finland
Austrian here. While the chancellor may have said that Austria will never join NATO, that doesn't mean that there's no discussion about it whatsoever in Austria. It's still more of a niche issue here, which is why politics refuse to start a formal discussion about it, but compared to pre-2022, there's many more people, journalists and private individuals alike, who started talking about it and arguing to join than before. Before, there simply was no question to speak of, now there IS a question, though it's answered mostly negatively - for now. The discussion keeps going though in the background, and I wouldn't be surprised if public opinion slowly starts shifting over the next years, all else being equal.
The Austrian state and with it the Austrian identity in its current form is very young, it's only even existed in its current form since 1955, and has from its inception always been deeply linked to neutrality, so opening up a debate about neutrality basically means opening up a debate about the very question of what Austria even is as a state. That's a highly personal and emotional question for everyone involved, which explains a large part of the resistance against addressing it more openly on a societal level. That also means that alongside the discussion of neutrality, it's also necessary for the Austrian society to open up a discussion with itself about its role in the wider world, which is necessarily a rather slow process. The question of neutrality, in my mind, cannot be adequately addressed (unless forced to by the outside) without having found common ground on the second question.
And lastly, though the war in Ukraine has changed our security environment drastically, there just isn't the same level of immediacy for us to resolve the question as there was for Sweden and Finland. Finland directly borders Russia and Sweden can be reached via the baltic sea without interference, while for Russia to be able to target Austria, they still need to get through the entirety of Ukraine, which has proven at this point to be a very slow process should they ever manage to do so at all, and then trigger a war with NATO by invading Hungary on top of it. Would the Russians be fighting Hungary, I'm sure we would be on the fast-track to joining the very next day.
So the issue is very complex, and though I don't think we will join NATO anytime in the near future, I wouldn't be surprised if there were more serious political discussions starting to happen a couple years down the road, all else being equal.
Great video.
Thanks for the video Dr. Ker Lindsay!
It seems Switzerland may give military aid to Ukraine without officially changing its neutral position; perhaps that could be a solution for Austria, however it doesn’t seem from the examples you’ve given that there’s any appetite domestically for that whatsoever among.
My outsider’s opinion, based on the examples of domestic politics you cited, is that the fact that it would require a constitutional amendment, and be comparatively risky vs just letting it further play out, makes abandoning neutrality basically a non-starter for Austria.
It is very interesting that the neutrality clause was allowed to be voluntary on Austria’s part since the constitution was created via international treaty. That whole 1955 situation is incredibly undercovered yet very notable:
The Soviets basically never voluntarily withdrew from anywhere. For example, Stalin never withdrew from anywhere again after the Soviets were given the run-around by the Persians on oil concessions in 1946 following the deal to hand back East Kurdistan and South Azerbaijan, where they had formed Soviet puppet states. Despite this, Stalin was content to leave the occupation regime in place in Eastern Austria, rather than forming a satellite state, because the western allies never attempted to unite their Austrian occupation zones into a state either.
Then, after Stalin’s death, as Khrushchev was steadily taking more and more power from nominal-successor Malenkov, the Soviet Union opened the door to a treaty and agreed to withdraw its troops from Lower Austria, ending the state enterprise that effectively ran its occupation zone.
This effectively moved the Iron Curtain (which would become much more militarized in the decade following 1955) back 75 km from the north bank of the Danube, also preventing West Vienna from becoming an enclave like West Berlin.
Very interesting topic that deserves more attention.
Anyway I’ve already gone on too long, thank you again for the video professor!
Thanks a lot, LocalLT. Great insights, as always. I should imagine that a constitutional change would not be terribly difficult if they really wanted to do it. But there just seems to be no appetite for this. I think this is what confuses me the most about it all. Why are people so opposed? The argument that this is the way it has always been doesn't seem to ring true. Many other countries are re-evaluating their positions. It just seems that Austria doesn't want to, for whatever reason. 1955 is certainly a really interesting story. Perhaps something to return to in future.
Interesting analysis, James. Thank you. Like someone else mentioned it might be interesting to look at Ireland’s neutrality status at some point. Although about as far as you can get in Europe from Ukraine it’s always seemed to me to be quite vulnerable out on the Atlantic seaboard from possible incursion! Just a thought.
Yes, a program on Ireland would be good. However, Ireland has enjoyed a pact with the UK where the UK would step in to defend Ireland in times of need.
Let's just say that they will not join NATO any time before Romania joins Schengen.
Romania will join Schengen when comrade Putin will tell Austria that they can accept this! As a Romanian I can say we will never ever forget that Austria was the only country that voted against our country? Neutrality? The wedding of Karin Kneissl? Austria is a Russian puppet! It was also obvious at the OSCE meeting in Vienna!
@@MihaiMarinescuJr I am already in the process of withdrawing my savings from one of their banks and switching them to an Italian bank.
I live in austria, they have contempt for putin but don't really care for NATO adventures either. It's a small country they just want to live in peace.
As they did along the Austrian historical path .....
This is very good video and interesting premise for Austria that is opening an much more serious question.
Is neutrality prohibited for world countries since 2022 Ukraine War? To me, it seems like it is not as other countries and a lot of very loud crowds are forcing other countries to make stance and thus forcing them into the conflict that they have no connections to or do not want to have anything to do with it. It really speaks more about those who are forcing them, I would first question such "allies".
And one last thing, my personal opinion of course: those who are most loud about others joining X war against Y country should be the first to go and explain to mothers of that country in person why their sons should go in foreign country, fighting foreign people to protect foreign people and possibly die while doing it.
So, if your country would be on border with Russia and invaded you will invite Russians to have a coffee and not asking for help from neighbors . Are you a 3th grade at school?.
Thanks. I can see why people might feel that it is a long way away and very far removed, but it is important to see the alliance in broader terms. If Ukraine falls, then which country would be next? Estonia, Latvia, Poland, etc. We need the security of a joint alliance. And that alliance only works if countries not immediately threatened are willing to give a guarantee that they will step in. If we are to be having a debate, then it should be about the morality of having to explain to the parents of Russian soldiers why their sons have been sent to invade a sovereign state that hadn't attacked Russia.
Wouldn't it be a bit dictatorial to change the policy when 90% of the population disagrees with it?
@@Shineon83 the thing is if Austria was to get attacked there are plenty of countries they would have to get through that are nato for them to be attacked . And if nato hasn’t stopped them yet what’s the point . Unless ofcourse a Nato country attacked them ?
@@southamptonfan3460 @Shineon83 So basically it's only a threat to them if NATO goes rouge or if NATO breaks up and the European parts goes to war amongst itself.
@@shaybs yeah and even then it’s a threat anyway . Austria is in a perfect position . Grow their army and completely free defence . They can’t complain .
@@southamptonfan3460 The likelihood of a rouge NATO or split Europe in the next 50-100 years seems very slim so yeah. They're good! 😅
@@shaybs things happen . USA has gone rouge on countries already . In nato to
My preconceived notions was that OR and RU had deep economic ties similar to DE or HU, but I did a modicum of research and discovered that not to be the case. Indeed, trade between the countries has been in decline for over a decade (imports peaked in 2012: 4.09B, exports 2013: 3.48B; 2020: 1.96B, 1.95B). RU was OR's 17th most important trading partner, well behind most EU countries as well as the US and China.
So perhaps economic ties aren't the reason for Austria's hesitancy. But money isn't just economics. RU does have extensive political networks across Europe and Austria is certainly no exception. The far right is much stronger in Austria than it is in, say, Germany.
I hadn't heard of the Austrian far-right. AfD in Germany seems to get 10% of votes, is the equivalent parties in Austria stronger?
The country code for Austria is AT, not OR
@@chinguunerdenebadrakh7022 they get 20 but no colations usly
Austria was basicly at the root of both world war.
I understand that they want to take a pause in the 3rd chapter.
Except that Germany started WW2 by attacking Poland (no matter where Hitler came from).
@@TheAustrianAnimations87 *said the austrian*
@@Slithermotion *Said the one who can't accept true facts.*
To try to abolish Austria's neutrality is as difficult as trying to tighten gun laws in the US: No matter how hard you try, you will always fail. Austria's neutrality is besides our ban on nuclear power plants a holy cow in Austrian politics. Since we shrank after WW1 to a tiny country, we literally define ourselves along with skiing and Mozart as a neutral nation without nuclear energy.
Adding to that, it is a open secret that the NSA operates together with the Austrian military a SIGINT-facility near Bratislava at Königswarte in Austria, that contributes significantly to Americas reconaissance capabilites in Eastern Europe. This a great example of how the Austrian state doesn't take it that seriously with military neutrality.
So, in fact, being part of the Western bloc
Excellent video.
The big positive is that it can bank on its adherence to neutrality should times change.
However, would Austria really be able to stay neutral if it was surrounded by an aggressive state? It hasn’t the natural fortress of Switzerland.
Yes, but it will not, because Austria is basically Russia's go-to money launderer. (Raffeisen)
You do realize that he still believes Russia invaded Ukraine right?
I thought Cyprus was laundering most of the dirty money that comes out of Russia?
@@FlamingBasketballClub Yes, because it did. Get the fuck out of here Moscal. You fucking creature. You and your evil nation have no place here.
@@FlamingBasketballClub While you obstinately refuse to believe in your lying eyes 🤣
@@wyqtor It's hilarious that you still believe in a narrative that was created by the mainstream news media. I gotta laugh at your stupidity.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Why does Austria refuse to reconsider its neutrality?
You've now and previously laid out what Austria abandoning neutrality can do for Europe, but not what advantage that holds for Austria. 90% of Austrians seem to think it's not much. You note that it has no hostile neighbors and can freeload off of said neighbors in terms of defense - what makes joining NATO a better offer than that?
NATO forces are hated worldwide.
They are considered to be Warmongers.
@@stanton7847 This dude really said Russian aggression. Que the proxy war.
🌚🌝
It's worse: Victor Orban - the current Leader of Hungary - a NATO-member - wants to correct their borders with Eastern Austria and reclaim the Burgenland... (well, he wants parts of western-Ukraine, too) So... in a way Austria's borders are questioned and threatened by a Nato-country, and whenever Orban decides to replay Donbas in the Burgenland... - Our tanks got recently famous for not having guns but coloured broomsticks. Perhaps the Swiss would come and help us, but I don't think so...
@@stanton7847
>>"There has been little pressure to push Austria out of its position of neutrality at this point.
Q Why should Austria give up its neutrality?
A Because if it doesn't the collective West will punch it in the mouth.
@@MagnaMater2 The EU would have to help us. There is something called "Beistandspflicht" which is similar to nato's article 5
Thank you Austria 🇦🇹 by remaining neutral, you don't wanna interfere in your neighbors affairs, you mind your own business,,,,,,,South Africa ❤
Were all pretty global now. Austria is an EU member and it's fate is tied, to a large degree to the fate of Europe.
"Mind your own business" = be 100 percent selfish and not care about others
I share a very unpopular opinion in Austria, but I still think it's right. The right answer to the senseless aggression of Russia would be to follow the example of Finland with 100% and finally enforce NATO entrance. Entering NATO is the correct response!
Geopolitics can always change very quickly! This does not necessarily always have anything to do with supporting war.
Why should my home country, Austria, be an artificial security risk for international spying?
Why?
The soldiers of the Austrian Armed Forces should have to do their part for Europe in the future and ensure the integrity of the international order just as all surrounding partners are doing.
This hypocritical free-riding on so-called neutrality is the absolute peak of Austrian hypocrisy, especially for the horse-deworming party and its financiers from the Kremlin!
If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have taken the side of the oppressor.
I am pleasently surprised you decided to cover my home country this week and I want to add two things:
Austria does support Ukraine during this war, but not by sending lethal aid. Austria supports Ukraine financially and with humanitarian aid (i.e. equipment for Ukrainian hospitals and fire brigades).
I don't think Austrian neutrality is popular because it saves money. I actually think most Austrians would support spending more on defense if surveyed. It's rather that neutrality is a big part of Austria's national identity and in my view the result of a historic trauma. Between and during WW1 and WW2 Austria suffered enormously. In addition to people losing loved ones, the economy was in shambles. In the aftermaths of both wars people in Vienna were starving and Austria heavily relied on international humanitarian aid. Since Austria's declaration of neutrality and the start of an era of peace and prosperity in Austria coincided, I think many Austrians made a connection between the two that doesn't really exist (after WW2 all of Western Europe experienced peace and prosperity, not just neutral Austria).
In fact, Austrian peace and prosperity are firmly built on the security and stability of its European partners. Since neutrality prevents my country from helping our partners in some cases, I think it would be in Austria's national interest to rethink its security policy.
Yes, you can really consider yourself lucky to have been born in a country which has wreaked so much havoc on the innocent during WWII yet subsequently experienced a steady economic growth and "prosperity", as you so aptly put it... owing to unsavoury and treacherous deals with the Big Four.
Lucky but with a huge moral debt upon your shoulders. It's a huge irony and unfairness of fate that a country-perpetrator like Austria is now better off than some of its victims. Although I'm not sure that's something you ought to take pride in.
Thanks Igor. I had wanted to do this for a while. (And had actually promised this to a family friend and regular viewer who is half-Austrian.) You are right. Austria is supplying non-lethal support to Ukraine. But it is so interesting to hear the comments from Austrians noting how deeply ingrained the idea is in the country - even if they feel that the time has come for a debate. I think what surprises me is the degree to which neutrality seems even more entrenched in Austria than it is in Switzerland. I know the contexts are very different, and I did a video on Swiss neutrality last year, but it is nevertheless fascinating.
@@paulwarren4947 You can't inherit moral debt. You wouldn't put a man in prison because his great-grandfather commited murder. Most of the people responsible for the crimes you're talking about are long dead and there is nothing that Austrians living today could do to undo them.
I also don't think that countries can have moral debt. Countries aren't people. Countries don't make decisions, the people living in these countries make decisions.
Some Austrians did commit great crimes and some still do, but saying that therefore all Austrians who'll ever live have "debt on their shoulders" seems very harsh. By that standard, there probably isn't one person on Earth that doesn't have "debt on their shoulders".
I certainly don't think Igor is taking any pride in the past! But I think you raise an interesting point. Austria's neutrality is the result of past decisions. But now it can be argued that it is immoral of a new threat. It's as if there just isn't much of a national conversation about all this.
@@paulwarren4947 in love and war everything is fair ! Say whatever
Austria never was neutral: Austria is a strong supporter of Austria!
In the cold, hard light of reality there is no need for Austria to give up its neutrality, no more than Ireland. Austria isn't a military powerhouse or even a remarkable military power. It is safely tucked in and surrounded by NATO partners, it gains the benefits of NATO without actually having to participate (financially or physically). Lord Falkland once famously said "If something isn't absolutely necessary to do it is absolutely necessary not to do it".
True is: we are a nuisance. Whenever a Nato-weapons-transport needs to go through or over our country there is negotiations and paperwork. During the Krim-annexation we watched colons of Nato-weapons and tanks going through our territory, and I remember everybody that saw them got either anxious, because that meant we had gotten on Russias bad side and might be declared an enemy, or angry that we didn't prohibit it, because we would be dragged in, again. And whenever Austria joined anyone for a fight against Russia, we lost. Thank you. We will pass this time. Our Greatgrandfathers faught and died at Lemberg. Our Grandfathers faught and died at Stalingrad. Neither was worth it.
Very good description of the issue.
Just one more thing: Austria's national holiday remembers the day of the declaration of the "everlasting neutrality".
So, besides the imperial history and the denial of responsibility for second world war and holocaust atrocities, neutrality was one of the key elements for forming an Austrian nationalism after WWII.
So...the current situation as neutral country isn't only popular and cheap, but also suites the national narrative. As you said, there are very few people who lobby for NATO and their arguments are very abstract. There is also very little discussion on PESCO and wether it is actually compatible with neutrality. So, you see it is a very delicate issue.
By the he way: How about a video on PESCO and wether this war in Ukraine has given NATO a second life and therefore halted PESCO?
Thanks so much. Great point about the national holiday. It is so interesting how deeply this has become enshrined in the national consciousness. And it certainly does mean that Austria can save a lot of money. But it also seems rather unfair that other countries take on the burden of protecting each other - security that Austria also benefits from. And great topic suggestion on PESCO. Thanks!
@@JamesKerLindsay Not only that, Austria is playing economical games against the interest of other countries in Europe .
@@JamesKerLindsay Neutrality was the condition for Austria not losing an eastern part to the Soviet empire like Germany. As in Germany, the eastern part of the country was occupied by the Soviets and the capital by the 4 Allies. The state treaty (Staatsvertrag) with the obligation of neutrality was signed by the 4 Allies and Austria. Legally, Austria would have to ask the Allies (including Russia) for permission to join NATO. Although it is questionable whether Russia is the legitimate legal successor to the USSR, such negotiations are of no interest to anyone here. We are surrounded by friendly states and see no reason to change anything about our status. This may seem selfish to some, but as we say here, your shirt is closer to you than your jacket.
Best regards from Vienna.
As an Austrian, I would say the 26th October is typically just called national day and no one really talks about neutrality. There is a military parade that's about it. Austria has 14 public holidays and a public holiday just 5 days later on the 1st November, and no one really notices what they are for, most the time. Some people put flags up by they do that for May 1st as well.
Austria is proud of it's army (we still have conscription, so everyone's in it (or civil service) - which was retained after a referendum), lax gun laws, two of the world's biggest small arms manufacturing companies (who supply a lot of NATO's small arms - especially pistols). Also the FPÖ look like they are going to form the next Austria government next year and they just love Putin (as they are anti "woke" etc etc).
Hd to look up what PESCO is, as i hadn't heard this abbreviation before. PESCO has a "opt in" policy which means you can take part in something or not.
So each member state has a choice.
It's a bit like the § in the EU contracts about helping each other if one country is attacked. There's an extra point made for militarily neutral countries to be able to act within their neutrality. Meaning they can do their part in providing humanitarian aid etc.
As for the national holiday. I'm a bit over 40 now, and i have never heard it been called the day of neutrality, it was always the "day the last foreign solider left austria" and that's what people around where i am see it as.
Neutrality would not be cheap if our country would actually keep the promises about the neutrality. First of all, our neutrality was said to be "in the way of swiss neutraility" which by the time these words were formed meant being armed to the teeth and beyond, being ready to defend at any time.
What our country has done was cheap out. Sure we have a long standing tradition for that since at least the 19th century...
One reason for loosing against prussia was that the army could not afford to switch from muszzle to breech loaders like the prussians had. (Emperor FJ could choose 2 out of 3 important things to modernize, and he chose artillery and ships.) And in WW1 if we take a look, italy outnumbered A-H in guns and ammo 5:1 and 8:1. And that despite italy being in a way worse industrial position. ->having lower industrial capabilities and capacities.
Our country had the biggest army on paper going into WW1 of all the participants. But that was only men, not material. (And after mobilization etc. the others equalled the numbers or surpassed them by far.)
Here in Sweden we have a long history of neutrality but unlike Austria, a politician inviting Putin to a wedding would be completely unthinkable, akin to political suicide. Their right-wing government also seem to be quite cozy with Orban and then there's the 2019 government collapse because of Russian collusion so I'm guessing their tepid reaction towards Russia has more to do with them having russophile tendancies rather than Austria adopting a neutral stance. If it was Turkey instead of Russia invading say Bulgaria I think you would've seen a stronger reaction from Austria.
Those sentiments probably date in some way back to the Empire days though they were also competitors then?
The far-right government you're talking about collapsed in 2019 and the current Austrian government is politically 100% pro-Ukranian.
This is especially true as the far right Russian fans the FPÖ look likely to win the governmental election next year (mainly down to the opposition to mandatory vaccines and the cost of living though). Also mandatory conscription and civilian gun ownership are quite popular in Austria and that helps push neutrality.
The majority in austria has not that much russophile tendencies as the FPÖ has.
I find your example with Turkey and Bulgaria quite interesting, i think the difference there would be:
1: Bulgaria is a EU member, and the Articles in the EU contracts state that each country has to help, and for neutral countries: in a way that does not interferre with their neutrality. So there at least would be an actual contract obligation for austria to help Bulgaria.
Austria does continuosly send humanitarian aid to Ukraine, and provides refuge for ukranians of course. Wihtout obligation, so you can imagine that at least that level has to be reached in your example too, otherwise the country would be liable to international critique.
But 2: there would be quite some unsettlement/unrest/turmoil inside austria, as there are many turkish immigrants in austria.
Mainly in the bigger cities. And while a number of them are integrated well, there's still a considerable number of second or third generation immigrants that do not even want to integrate, and poudly claim to feel turkish way more than austrian.
This has shown in the last turkish election where a large number of turkish immigrants in austria still were elligeble to vote in the turkish elections and over 75% of those voted for Erdogan. (They live here where they enjoy freedoms they would not have under him, they enjoy repsect of human rights by police and juristiction here which has gone downhill under Erdogan, but they don't care, they vote for him and are not effected by it.)
->The austrian citizenship excludes double citizenship unless the state of austria "benefits" from it. So in essence, if you are a celebrity it's allowed to have a dual citizenship, if not, bad luck and you can only have the austrian *or* a different one.
So all the ones who have not yet the austrian citizenship, or don't even want it still obtain their turkish one and are thus allowed to vote in turkish elections.
Those who are integrated well and thus also have austrian citizenship can't legally vote in the turkish election. (And they would also have been more likely to not vote for Erdogan i guess.)
So your example, while a very interesting thought experiment is a rather different animal and not really comparable
A very accurate and unbiased description!
Thank you. Good reporting and maps. Go Democracy.
If 90% of Austrians want to remain neutral, than that should be the way forward for them. It would be ridiculous for the government to go against the wishes of the majority.
But surely political leaders also have a responsibility to open up a national debate on a policy that may be against the country's wider interests, and is certainly against the interests of Austria's closest partners?
@@JamesKerLindsay Sorry, going against 90% of the Citizens is not democratic. If 40-50% , debatable but not 90% which is a majority of the population.
The only way to alter the Majority neutrality would be to brainwash them by the govt or political party.
Austria should stay neutral and enjoy cordial relationship with both sides
@@Sk-po9dxWe only favour "democracy" if you vote the way we want you to. If you step out of line, we only want to hear from your oligarch officials. They know what's best for you!
I'm pretty certain the public opinion might turn, if you run some five years of advertisments. People changed ther minds about joining the EU.
@@gfys756 through the the referendum 90% is against it. So your comment is irrelevant
There seems to be a pattern of Central European nations (Austria, Poland, Hungary) taking advantage of what international organisations have to offer them but not willing to do their fair share of the job…
I wouldn't include the Poles in that list. As one of the few NATO countries that meet the 2% target and their military and political support for Ukraine, they've certainly been punching above their weight
Poland is on the opposite corner. Poland is like that 30 years old man on minimum wage still donating more to charity than the average upper middle class man.
@@catalinmarius3985poland is traditionally mainly taking money and hardly giving any. And even to this day they are refusing to take refugees when they have the wrong skin color. Only the refugees that are ok in their racist society have human worth for them.
You're as wrong as you can possibly be when it comes to Poland. It's abundantly clear that you don't have the faintest idea of current geopolitics.
Countries closer to Russia (as Poland or Baltic States) know better than many others how dangerous Russia is. Austria, Hungary, Croatia are not so close and also are all ex- members of the Austro-Hungary Empire. The last year Austrian vote for Schengen admission probed this: yes for Croatia and no for Romania.
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” Elie Wiesel
It's easy to be neutral when rockets do not fly over Your heads and You are surrounded by friendly, stable countries. In past Baltic countries wanted to be neutral to and we all know how it ended. By not responding to threats of modern world Austria is only inviting disaster in future and is peacefully watching, how global order is dismantled piece by peace.
One interesting point that I didn't hear discussed was the impact on Austria's psyche (or its view of itself and its immediate neighbors) as a result of being the losing side of two world wars and how that may play its choice to adopt a neutral stance. If NATO wants Austria to join, it needs to find what trauma it has suffered and work with Austria to work through it. Perhaps the answer lies in a fear that its northern neighbor, Germany, will again it leading down a path to a war that it does not want. Or perhaps their guilt over the way they treated their neighbors. Or perhaps it fears that its application will be rejected by eastern NATO nations which at one time it oppressed. Like individuals, it seems that nations are, in part, a product of their past, and understanding a nation's past goes a long way to understanding its actions in present.
I mean if it finds itself on the UK/US's side then historically they won't lose.
@@scarletcrusade77 Thank you for your reply.
Are you saying that Austria needs to follow its own interests?
@@resrussia I'm saying if it sides with the USA and UK the likely hood if it losing are less. Historically this has been the case, think when Austria teamed up with UK in Napoleonic wars and won eventually.
@@scarletcrusade77 Thank you for taking the time to help me better understand your comment.
While I agree with you, I think that one of the things the West needs to understand is Austria's current choice. Like with all human behavior, there are surface reasons related to the current political climate, but often have fundamental reasons as a result of past experience.
Also, if anyone has suggestions for books on Austria between the world wars and the Cold War, I would appreciate it. A quick search of Amazon turned up very little in terms of suggested books on the subject.
it was Austria the one that lead Germany into world wars you know Hitler was Austrians and the Austrians started ww1
Finland: Russia bad amirite?
Switzerland: We're neutral but not on Ukraine.
Austria: Neutrality today, neutrality tomorrow, neutrality forever!
Could you try to do the Maltese neutrality too?
This discussion is the poster boy for NONE OF OUR BUSINESS!
Not sure I understand?
@@JamesKerLindsay It sure does seem like you don't!
Whatever Austria decides to do, they better check with Turkey before making a commitment to join NATO. With regard to Sweden, they have a longer commitment to neutrality but decided to go ahead and apply to NATO anyway in spite of a 200 year tradition of neutrality.
Haha! Indeed. Great point. And we thought that Turkey was difficult with Sweden and Finland!
Correct analysis. Neutrality was logical during the Cold War, given the fact that the USSR had 5 million men sitting in Germany and tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. However, today, Russia is not the USSR and Austria, Switzerland and Ireland need to get their proverbial shite together and join the West formally, militarily, diplomatically and economically. Not doing so, is an abdication of moral responsibility.
The real question is not if they could but if they should
Although I feel it's a very theoretical scenario since it would be almost impossible for their government to change their status quo with the majority of the population been against such an event
Whenever the majority agrees with you guys, the majority opinion is law, but when they disagree, then suddenly we need more “debate” in order to “convince” people that they are wrong.
Facts
Irish neutrality is mixed up with its relationship with the UK. This includes: the partition of Ireland by the British in 1922, the British continuing disregard of Ireland when making major decisions such as the 2016 Brexit referendum, and the alliance between the Tory party and Ulster unionists. Finally, in NATO, the Irish military would become a subsidiary of the British military. That would not sit well with many in Ireland.
Thanks. I plan to do a video on Irish neutrality soon. (It was a toss up between Ireland and Austria this week.) Like Austria, I think people hide behind convenient excuses. Times have changed radically from era after WWII and the height of the Troubles in the 1970s. I’ve never seen a reason to argue that NATO membership would make the Irish armed forces a subsidiary of the U.K. armed forces. And they work together in other situations, such as UN missions. And, besides, the US is the key NATO power - not a country known for being hostile to Ireland! And NATO isn’t about members dealing with their issues against each other. It is about mutual defence in the face of external threats. Greece and Turkey have a difficult relationship but are NATO members. I’ve never heard a Greek say that makes it subordinate to Turkey.
@@JamesKerLindsay Ireland is in quite an unusual place in Western Europe, surrounded by several former empires. You have to remember that as conservative as many of our past governments have been, anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism has long played a defining role in the FP ideology of our state (think of it like the petrostate consensus in Norway). It's how independence emerged, after all. Ordinary people here, across the spectrum, united in boycotting South Africa during the 1980s - we identified with the oppressed native Africans. Today Palestine is still a massive cause, such that even the centre-right are on board, and its flag is regularly found at sporting events. Where else do you find that in Europe? There was an extraordinary amount of criticism of Bush and the Iraq War in the 2000s, it turned a lot of people off the US, after Clinton's great work in the NI peace process. American foreign policy is a dirty word here.
Thanks. But Ireland isn’t that unusual. There is strong Palestinian sentiment elsewhere. And many NATO members have no history of imperialism. Again, it doesn’t seem very convincing.
@@pio4362 what is FP?
James: I thoroughly enjoy your videos. If you select to disregard the matter of Irish/British relations, both current and historical, in your future video on Ireland’s neutrality you will be missing the elephant in the room in this particular matter.
Could you put Croatian subtitles, prof Ker-Lindsay?
Interesting point about the EU being a defacto alliance, Malta and Cyprus are no longer in the non-aligned movement for this reason
Thanks. Great point. You are absolutely right. Cyprus had to leave the Non-Aligned Movement when it joined the European Union.
Also Malta and Cyprus are part of the Commonwealth as well
It is a great analysis, for sure, and yet as always it has the "victors of 1919 point of view." I hope you would mention the wording of the Treaty of Frankfurt 1871 with the same zeal and self understanding, with which you mention how the respecting of Austria's separation form Germany as it was anchored in the treaty of Versailles. I spent some time of my youth in Elsass 1980, and I know from personal experience what I am talking about.
So, a couple of questions:
- Track 2 diplomacy in the dark rooms? Are there any signs that Austria is able to get consecessions from Russia in terms of prisoner swaps, shipping, trade or intelligence etc?
- Is there some naivety in austrias political leadership, since the domains of warfare and diplomacy are rapidly changing these days, and security is more and more a global issue rather than simple territorial defence with blood, sweat and tears?
To 1: sadly not. The visit of the austrian chancellor was used by russian propaganda in their own narrative. So it was a nice try that in the end didn't help much.
To 2: there is some naivety among the austrian population rather than politicians about that topic. And it has to do with the historical experiences, international and national narrative about the last two World wars and fear of being dragged into a conflict.
And the illusion that being neutral would help avoid the same again.
(You know, everybody "knows" that "we caused both world wars, were the bad ones and lost because we are very bad at fighting".
And other countries are quite sensitive with austrian decisions: as soon as a right wing party that was not as right wing as other parties that ruled in europe before and since made it into a coalition government in 99', there were sanctions among the EU countries against austria.)
I mean like who’s gonna attack Austria, can’t do it without going through all of nato
Liechtenstein has the border, the Prince is however a good and peaceful man.
what about evil aliens? they will come from above 👽 but they will not attack because austrians are 'freeloaders' 🤡 and neutral, galactic level of neutrality
This position is honestly baffling. Shall I remind that Austria as part of the EU has to also enforce protection of other EU members. I argue that even if the EU is not a military organization, the connection between member states to actually enforce the protection of each other is much greater than NATO. A military organization can fail, but it this case all countries have a shared economy and population in all member states.
When Austria gets loud, it usually gets annexed by Germany.
It is fair to mention, that Austria is the home of the OSCE and therefore coudn´t exclude Russian propagandists easily, being the representative of the member of the OSZE that Russia still is.
It is also member of EU and of Schengen area and many of those Russians were on the black list for their evolvement in the crimes in Ukraine. It seems that for Austria it was more important to have the Russians in Vienna.
As an Austrian, I wouldn't say anybody is neutral here, but getting involved is also not appealing. The video gradually becomes more and more condescending. This way you won't start a conversation, so much is clear. So Austrians don't know or think about where their history comes from?! (11:49) Your report seems to weigh 90% against neutrality, as if there's an ethical case against it. Like issuing a moral complaint to a mother who doesn't send her children to war. It's a position one may argue for, but I think you should make your agenda clear from the get-go.
I am not sure how presenting the arguments on both sides and the counterarguments can be viewed as condescending. But I certainly stand by my conclusions. I think any reasonable outside observer would draw the same conclusions. It just seems that the country doesn't want to have a conversation about neutrality, and it really isn't clear why. It's all very well condemning outsiders for raising that point. But you haven't tried to answer it either.
@@JamesKerLindsay I linked to the part where you say that Austrians don't know the history of their country and make the claim they don't think about it. It's condescending as you don't take the Austrians for full here. I think I answered the other part: People don't want to get involved in other peoples battles if they don't have to. We're not a money sink for the EU and we're already part of the sanctions and aid circle anyhow, nobody supports Putin here. Then rally a country smaller than Bavaria for war - for what? If you want a piecefull country to militarize (on the side you're on, in particular), isn't the burden of argument with you? What's the "conversation" that's not being had? By conversation you mean neighboring countries issuing moral complaints that a piecefull country doesn't buy fighter jets that provenly can't start and reach full speed _within_ the country.
Austria trying to be neutral while at the same time being a member of the European Union doesn't make sense.
Thanks. I agree. It makes little sense. It just seems like hanging on to a claim to neutrality for the sake of it, when it really doesn't mean very much. Indeed, it is worse than that. It means freeloading off the security provided by others.
NATO and EU are two completly different organisations. One is economic, political and social alliance and other military alliance with emphasis on security. There are countries in EU hat are not NATO member and NATO members which are not part of EU and Europeans states that are neutral but still members of Partnership for Peace and states that are not member of any alliance. These two don't mix.
It's a common market nothing more.
Sweden and Finland have not considered themselfes as neutral countries since joining the EU in 95 but as military non-aligned.
Thanks. It gets a little complicated trying to explain their exact - and actually rather different - stances in a short video about Austria. Neutrality is used as a widely understood shorthand. But officially you are right, certainly in the case of Finland. (Sweden was neutral.) I have in fact done a video on Sweden and Finland and the background to their positions: czcams.com/video/053AT2vTU-Y/video.html
It's been a century since the Treaty of Trianon. The Cold War had come snd gone. Austroa has been a very well-behaved neutral nation this entire time. There's no risk any return of the Hapsburgs or thr Austro-Hungarian Empire. No risk of any new German nationalist Anschluss. No risk of German imperialism.
Forced neutrality has done it's job.
The countries that need to be disciplined now are Russia and, to a lesser extent, China. It's in Austria's interests to join the unified European response to the new Russian imperialism in full.
Sitting on your hands hiding behind the mountains saying "but you told us never to fight again!" while your best-friends get smacked around by a bully is simply avoiding responsibility.
I respected Scandinavian neutrality, of which my family is descended, their neutrality symbolized respect to other cultures, and traditions and privacy, not to dictate to others, not to meddle the affairs of others. Simply put, minding your own business meant stability and peace. But it also exposes another Scandinavian trait that is common, being stingy (cheap) with ones money. As a American tax payer, I am pleased with this change of attitude, in a shrinking world, where Utopias can't exist on their own anymore.
Austria is member of EU and all around Austria are allies and friendly countries, they don't need to be members of Nato because Nato by defending itself is also defending Austria, also EU is talking about creating a defence force so in that way Austria will be protected, maybe before Austria wanted to be neutral not to provoke Soviets, now it is just a case of good geographical position.
wouldn't that argument go for many more countries? France, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Netherlands etc. are all in non-threatened positions. The world would be a super dangerous place if more countries adopted Austria's reasoning.
@@Habib_Osman I agree but Austria is small country in safe place so they can do what they do
@@Habib_OsmanSpain have got countries like morroco neighbouring them and what not .
To counter that argument: in 1990 austria was also surrounded by only friendly countries and everybody thought the next years would be peacefull and there could not be a war in europe.
And then, in 1991 shots were fired at the border and one of the bloodiest wars in the recent european history started, there were austrian houses with bulet holes, austrian tanks had to be placed at the border, anti aircraft artillery dug in where i live, and the state treaty signign countries (France, UK, US and Russia as inheriter of the USSR) talked among themselved and agreed that austria was allowed to buy AA missiles for air defense.
Things change quickly some times, and the situation can look mor peacefull than it is.
It is a myth that our teachers and our population keep up, that neutrality means nobody could attack us. Neutrality only means we are not participating in fightin on either side of a conflict as long as we are not attacked first.
In the yugoslav war, it was not our neutrality that prevented the soldiers of the former yugoslavian army to cross the border. It were austrian placed at the border and the slovenes being successfull int heir fight.
Two Mig 21 crossed into autrian airspace. One ven landed on an austrian airport and the pilot "defected" after seeing that they were not in fact fighting against austria. (his own words, also the reason he did not attack austrian targets.)
The leadership of the former yugoslav army told some of their soldiers they were fighting against austria, and some that they would fight against italy knowing that some woule refuse to fight against slovenes and croats.
Austria is not so neutral! Last year it was the only country that opposed to Bulgaria and Romania to become Schengen area states. This was 100% unexpected and it was in favour of Russia. Why? Because Romania (and Bulgaria) are transit states for Ukrainian export (mainly grains) and having two more borders to pass the time of a shipment is at least double. On the other way, military support cannot be delivered in Greek port of Pireu and than fast transported to Ukraine. Now it is used the longer route from the Dutch port. So Austria is not neutral and it's longtime partnership with Russia is one of the reasons of this strange behaviour!
Thanks. I am not sure I would necessarily put this down to Russia - although you might be on to something with the port. The other country that blocked them was the Netherlands. (Then again, Schengen doesn't have as much to do with goods as it does people.) I think it was a shameful decision. But I think it has more to do with deeper Austrian fears of mass immigration and concerns that Bulgaria and Romania still didn't have a handle on this. I think this was for domestic audiences in Austria more than anything else.
@@JamesKerLindsay - thank you for your answer. I am Romanian so I can give you our perspective. Netherlands was against only to Bulgaria. Austria was against both countries. The Frontex data are clear that the migrants route is not crossing Romania. 😁 Somehow is logic if you think that we have Danube as southern border and it is really hard to illegally cross it. We have a long border with Ukraine and we had to process 2 millions of refugees (many children and people without legal papers - when a Russian bomb exploded on your house maybe is not always easy to find the passport). We have hundreds of thousands of refugees hosted in Romania (and, economically, Romania is not Austria) but we do not complain!
What is weird is that Frontex data give the route crossing Serbia and Croatia as 3 times more active than the one crossing Romania but Austria voted FOR Croatia admission in Schengen. So, forgive me but Austria's claims are BS.
With open borders with Bulgaria and Hungary we could double the Border Police on Ukraine border. The danger that arms and ammunition can be smuggled from a country at war is immense.
And we are just thinking: what could be the reason? Or, if you want, how Seneca was asking: "Cui prodest"?
Europe? No! Because doubling the Police at the external EU border would be beneficial for EU security!
Austria? No! Because economically there are many ties between Romania and Austria and free movement would be beneficial for both!
The only answer we found is: Russia! It was also a blow to the trust of Romanians in EU as a organisation, in EU unity and rule of law.
@@MihaiMarinescuJr thank you for your comment 👏
@@MihaiMarinescuJr Austria vetoed because of its own concerns with migrants (even if they are wrong), not because it's a Russian friend. Austria, unlike Hungary, sends non-lethal military aid to Ukriane (helmets and bulletproof vests) and doesn't veto EU sanctions against Russia.
in 2014 the Nato-material passed through Austria unhindered, and even recently an EU tank on it's way east got lost on one of our motorways, so this can hardly be the case.
❤❤❤
The bigger NATO gets the more less of an issue article nr. 5 becomes. I understand a country might be reluctant to join NATO because that would mean it would have to go to war whenever article nr. 5 comes in play. Of course when NATO is, and it perhaps already is from a long time, big enough, chances are article nr. 5 will never be triggered as no other country dares to attack a NATO member. Being a NATO member is almost being together neutral without being naive.
No country dares to attack a NATO country atm. Russia probably had a plan to start a military confrontation sometime in the future if the war in Ukraine would be successful. NATO membership also serves well in preserving peace inside, like in case of tensions between Greece and Turkey. Threats are thrown to the other side but they don't escalate to an actual fight.
Interesting thoughts.
It’s not really accurate to say that Sweden has open the debate. The decision was rushed through, without a serious public debate or internal debate in the parties that changed their position on NATO, and did not even wait for the election six months later. Sweden did not factor the risk and benefited with applying for membership and is now stuck in a precarious middle-ground thanks to Nato-member Turkey and to a lesser degree Hungary.
I think that group think on the topic of Russia-Ukraine is one of the greatest dangers that the world faces today, and in that sense I'm very grateful to Austria for remaining neutral. The idea that Austria has decided to "not help Ukraine" assumes that sending weapons to Ukraine is "helping Ukraine." It really isn't. A diplomatic solution or a Korean-style "frozen conflict" is the only possible outcome of this war, and the sooner that we get to that point the better it will be for Ukraine and the world. Sending weapons to Ukraine is just prolonging a terrible war in which tens of thousands of people are getting killed and Ukraine's infrastructure is getting destroyed.
As Austrian I would say, Neutrality became a mythologized identity symbol, like the second ammendment for the US, or the Autobahn without speed limits for the Germans. It got less to do with security (Austrian military is heavily underfunded!) or geopolitics, but very much with psychology.
As an Austrian citizen I find our position emberrasing as it simply neglects reality in favour of folklore. Neutrality won't protect us from anything and we are relying on being surrounded by NATO countries while investing nothing into our own security.
Thanks a lot Thomas. It is so interesting to read through the comments. The difference in views from Austrians is fascinating.
Annnnd the most important thing Austria has some historical responsibility not only Germany and its scientifically proven, they were more perpetrators than victims.
I have this superstition that whoever makes alliance with Austria is destined to lose.
Spain paid dearly for its Austrian obligation.
Poland was obliterated despite its alliance with Austria.
The French monarchy was abolished that one time they commited to an alliance with their Austrian rivals.
The Ottomans were obliterated with them that one time they put aside their differences.
Nazi Germany reunited with Austria, and they lost WWII.
Sooo I am against Austria taking side with Ukraine due to my belief that they will lose if that happens.
@@jpor7259 Yes, true: we lost all battles - except perhaps the one in Italy, I forgot the name of, the one Radetzky won, but we lost the Italian territory, so this war was lost, too. We're better at organizing wedding parties than wars. - Perhaps Biden can get an invitation to even it out.
Hitler was born austrian too !
I suspect that both Sweden and especially Finland are regretting their hasty jumping upon the NATO train.
Both countries have greatly benefited from their neutrality by not having to spend much on their military. NATO membership requires members to spend at least 2% GDP on military, which double or triple expenditures.
Now they will have the enmity of Russia and have become targets in a WW3 exchange of missiles.
But Finland already spent more than 2% to defence even before applying to NATO.
The last time I was in Austria, I bought some souvenirs in Vienna airport, I got some Mozart Balls. I also tried to buy some Hitler Balls, but they only had one.
If they should break their neutrality then when they should also ignore the part in the treaty that forbids them from unifying with Germany.
This is a fascinating topic! I was aware (I think) that Switzerland was having an internal debate about neutrality over Ukraine. How odd that Austria is being more determined to be neutral than Switzerland!
I think Austria played a really important role during the cold war, providing neutral ground for diplomats (and spy novel settings). With the iron curtain down, remaining neutral doesn't make sense in the same way. And I'm not surprised to hear there are allegations that Russian elites are pressing for advantage here
Thanks for once again exposing me to an issue I had totally missed!
Thanks a lot Fredo. It is really interesting to see how the Austrians are far more reserved about having a discussion about neutrality than the Swiss. I certainly think they should rethink it. To be honest, I have a lot of sympathy for the freeloading argument. It does seem very unfair to sit back and rely on others to provide security. If every state did that then we would simply be left with a think line of states holding back any threats.
@@JamesKerLindsay I can understand why the states to Austria's East would really resent this, especially considering the historic connection. If I was Slovakia, with a border with Ukraine, I'd be pretty cheesed off!
Independent Austria insults me they should join Germany as a federal state. I think even Bundeswehr and Bundesheer have created joint combat groups.
hmmm… Austria 🇦🇹 surrounded by NATO countries. Any invader would have to invoke NATO art 5 before reaching Austria’s borders. So Austria is safe. It can maintain low defence spending while free riding on NATO’s security umbrella. Win-win for Austria! ✌🏻
Yes, I tackle the issue of freeloading. Not very honourable, to be honest. And where would European security be if every country not bordered with Russia took that position?
@@JamesKerLindsay Thanks for your reply. Yes, I agree with you that’s not a very principled course of action. Just putting myself in Austria’s shoes. Seeing so many in the western alliance not living up to the 2% GDP defence spending pledge over the years & instead relying on Uncle Sam, I’d imagine Austria’s thinking would be likewise
But it can be a double-edged knife for Austria. Surrounded by NATO countries can mean they can't defend themselves if any of those have issue with Austria.
Its all fun and games for us Austrians until Orban decides to go full Belarus in the event if Russia conquers all of Ukraine and suddenly there are Russian invaders all over Austria.
@@JamesKerLindsay Austria is not very honourable as of lately. So I don't think they'll budge.
In a region of many states, it is necessary to have some neutral states, thus can offer themselves as venues for conflict resolution. Countries like Switzerland and Austria, with cool mountain air, a tradition of culture, good manners, and hospitality, has chosen this destiny as an "above the fray", noble calling. Why would try to break this noble tradition to achieve "total hegemony" ?
Neutrality is also a way to avoid splitting up a hasty, ill-formed state (as in the case of Ukraine) where ethnic distribution and next state attachments necessitate neutrality to preserve harmony. If one ethnic group gets intolerant, oppresses another (eg Ukrainian v ethinic Russians) to the point of language, cultural suppression by law, and genocide (allegedly) in order to say join the West or the East, the country is split and you have separatist movements and civil war. Neutrality is therefore a pragmatic necessity to void violence for such countries unless you can engineer a peaceful internationally recognised separation via referendum.
Neutrality also a necessary condition for mediation. In the recent diplomatic break through between Iran and Saudi, China was able to mediate by being neutral to the conflict and trusted by both sides. The US could never have done it because it was on the side of Saudi and in many ways a party to many of the Shiite-Sunni conflicts in the region. The last straw was when it (US) lost the trust of the Saudi ruling class. So neutrality has a very high value in a world of troubles.
Morally yes, of course Austria should join with others for the common-good; but, like the Republic of Ireland, it is insulated from any real risk by its neighbours. So it can sit in self-righteous neutrality, knowing it will never need to do anything to defend itself, protected by others all around.
well, as an austrian and after speaking this topic with my colleagues in the office we all came to the conclusion that we had some good reasons to be neutral and we stay neutral this time.. ask next time guys.. good luck at the frontline 👋🏻 and let us know if you need some neutrality ground to negotiate.. br ✌🏻
As an Austrians I say: in a way we helped create the modern state of Ukraine, Ivan Franko and most of the early proponents of Ukrainian statehood all studies in Vienna and the former Austrian part of Ukraine is the cradle of Ukrainian independence. We certainly did not gave Galicia and Bukovina independence to let somebody else than the Ukrainians themselves have it.
P.S.: on our national holiday we celebrate the retreat of the last Russian occupying soldiers on 26th October 1955. The day when the last Russian soldier leaves Ukraine will also be their new national holiday, something we can very much relate to.
Mm re Austria she is indeed effectively surrounded on all sides by NATO members. But, remember that Russian naval ops were done south west of Ireland last year and the small Irish defence forces could little except watch. So re Ireland there is one slight difference to Austria's situation: she could be invaded, say, from the west, by a hostile state (eg via Galway or Limerick).
To quote Rush, "if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice."
Given the relatively recent history of Austria, can anyone really blame them for wanting to remain neutral? They were on the wrong side of both world wars. For any country, that would be extremely traumatic.
Good point.
They have an intelligent leadership
Ireland, Switzerland, and Austria became neutral-states during periods of inter-European, internecine warfare. These European wars that spanned centuries have come to an end since NATO. Since the European situation has changed, so ought the policy of neutrality in these countries change.
Ending neutrality will increase European unity, since it will be seen that these countries are joining in the common cause, and that they're contributing their fair share, however big or small, to the defence of the continent.
P.S. in Austria's case in particular, it became neutral to defy potential future German annexation and expansionism. If Austria renounces neutrality and joins NATO, what reason would Germany ever have to annex Austria? They would remain separate allied states, working for European peace and security.
Wouldn’t be the Austrian neutrality model an example for Ukraine, Baltic countries and other former Warsaw Pact countries? They could still had joined the EU, NATO defence initiatives but without Russia going totally amok.
I know it’s too late since the end of the Cold World, the U.S. has pursuit a disastrous foreign policy. In this sense, I think John Mearsheimer is right
Moldova has neutrality in it's Constitution. This didn't help Moldova when the Russian army occupied part of it's territory.
I guess you do not understand what Russia is! All it's neighbours want to feel safe and the only way is to be part of NATO. I do not understand why what Russia want is so important and what Baltic States, Poland, Romania, Czech, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria and so on is not important at all!
A peaceful Russia has nothing to fear from NATO! But Russia knows it cannot be peaceful!
@@MihaiMarinescuJr I guess neutrality in the constitution is not enough then, a treaty is needed with Russia and NATO.
Definitely I don’t want a strong Russia but I think a weak Russia is worse like it happened back in the 1990s. We need a strong Russia against China, that’s the real global threat because Chinese view the world as an extermination conflict. What’s going in Xinjiang is not the first genocide happening in China.
I wish I knew the solution but again, being Russophobic is not the way. The West must be careful not to be taken for a ride by vengeful Poland, Baltic Countries, even Ukraine
Austra Stay Neutral!