Austria is a clown show compared to Nato anyway. 23k troops, 15 planes and 58 tanks, and several horses. They rely on their location nested deep behind other countries that are members of NATO for their defense. Freeloaders.
this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2025
84 points (97.7% liked)
World News
37472 readers
387 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
easy to be neutral when you are surrounded by only NATO countries haha
"look at me, im austria, and i didnt got fucked last time russia invaded europe, im gonna stay out of this"
Your comment contains several historical inaccuracies and simplifications:
-
Modern Austria as a state did not exist during the Napoleonic Wars, when Russia participated in anti-French coalitions. The Austrian Empire was then an active participant in the events.
-
During World War II, Austria was annexed by Nazi Germany in 1938 (the Anschluss) and effectively became part of the German state until 1945.
-
The term "Russia invaded Europe" is an oversimplification. The Russian Empire and the USSR participated in pan-European conflicts, but usually as part of coalitions and with specific political goals.
A more accurate historical position could reflect:
- Neutral status of Austria after 1955
- Austria's participation in pan-European institutions
- The complex history of relations between the Russian/Soviet state and European countries
I recommend avoiding simplistic interpretations of complex historical processes and interstate relations.
Also the Russian feudal empire is hardly similar to the current Russian capitalist state, which had an 70-year socialist state sandwiched in between.
sehr gut
Let it be clear that "neutrality" just means helping to maintain the settler-colony entity occupying Palestine and capitulating to their Western siblings no-problem while not saying much publicly about the U.S. State Department list of definitely-ontologically-bad-countries-and-resistance-groups list.
Yes, this too applies to Switzerland, Andorra, Ireland, Lichtenstein, Malta, Monaco and so on.
~~Australia just classified Iran as terrorists because Israel told them to.~~
i thought this was about Austria lol. Also "[Euroanglo-Zionazi] told them to" is just code for US telling them to do so. The attack was obviously a psyop that allowed headlines like "Why Iran Hit Australia" and "Revelations Iran was behind antisemitic attacks show IRGC tentacles have reached Australia" to churn out. Clear as day consent manufacturing to justify yet another imminent bombing campaign on Iran.
My bad I'm misreading the comment chain
lol np
Good for them.
I feel like EU countries who are neutral are going to run into issues when the EU creates a union military.
Wow there’s some weird pro-Russian aggression people in this comment section.
.ml is known for this tbf I wont draw the ire of the mods here but many .ml users think that the Russian federation is analogous to the USSR in the ""fight against imperialism""
I suppose if you have no idea why, you might say the first thing that pops into your head, and I’ve learned that this is the first thing that pops into most people’s heads. But to say we’re “pro-Russian” is to exaggerate, and to say we’re confusing it with the USSR is just ridiculous. Previously.
many .ml users think that the Russian federation is analogous to the USSR
Well this is just a straight up lie, but a lot of bad faith people love to repeat it
I think that's pretty misleading. But anyways, if you want your social media to just parrot western talking points why not stay on reddit?
Hey, I’m anti violence regardless of who is the perpetrator. I hate it when Russia invades a country and starts a war. I hate it when Israel invades a country and starts a war. And yes, I also very much hate it when the US invades a country and starts a war. I don’t care which country starts and whether it’s eastern or western or capitalist or communist. I just hate violence.
I hate it when Russia invades a country and starts a war.
NATO Chief Admits NATO Expansion Was Key to Russian Invasion of Ukraine
So? What’s your point? I still hate when ANYONE invades a country and starts a war. Someone not signing a treaty is in my eyes nowhere near grounds enough to start a war. Heck, if Russia wanted to be closer to Ukraine so bad they could have asked them if they want to join BRICS. It’s the voluntary bit that is important to me.
The article addresses this:
Putin made one last attempt at diplomacy at the end of 2021, tabling a draft U.S.-NATO Security Agreement to forestall war. The core of the draft agreement was an end of NATO enlargement and removal of U.S. missiles near Russia. Russia’s security concerns were valid and the basis for negotiations. Yet Biden flatly rejected negotiations out of a combination of arrogance, hawkishness, and profound miscalculation. NATO maintained its position that NATO would not negotiate with Russia regarding NATO enlargement, that in effect, NATO enlargement was none of Russia’s business.
The continuing U.S. obsession with NATO enlargement is profoundly irresponsible and hypocritical. The U.S. would object—by means of war, if needed—to being encircled by Russian or Chinese military bases in the Western Hemisphere, a point the U.S. has made since the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. Yet the U.S. is blind and deaf to the legitimate security concerns of other countries.
So, yes, Putin went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to Russia’s border. Ukraine is being destroyed by U.S. arrogance, proving again Henry Kissinger’s adage that to be America’s enemy is dangerous, while to be its friend is fatal. The Ukraine War will end when the U.S. acknowledges a simple truth: NATO enlargement to Ukraine means perpetual war and Ukraine’s destruction. Ukraine’s neutrality could have avoided the war, and remains the key to peace.
As someone who claims to hate violence and war, you should pay special attention to the last sentence there. The war didn't even need to happen in the first place and could have been avoided entirely if Ukraine had remained neutral. BRICS is not a military alliance, NATO definitely is. Furthermore, not long after the war started, a peace agreement between the two warring parties was deliberately sabotaged by Western powers. The West wanted to keep the war going:
How Britain Sabotaged Ukraine Peace
On April 16th, Foreign Affairs published an investigation, documenting in forensic detail how in May 2022 Kiev was a signature away from a peace deal with Russia “that would have ended the war and provided Ukraine with multilateral security guarantees,” which was scuppered by Western powers.
So if I read that right Britain is blamed for Ukraine not signing the deal because they said they’d still keep on supporting Ukraine if they continue the war? Seems like the influence of Britain is very much overstated here. You sent a link to an article that has a single other article as its source. From that source article I bring you this:
Still, the claim that the West forced Ukraine to back out of the talks with Russia is baseless. It suggests that Kyiv had no say in the matter. True, the West's offers of support must have strengthened Zelensky's resolve, and the lack of Western enthusiasm does seem to have dampened his interest in diplomacy. Ultimately, however, in his discussions with Western leaders, Zelensky did not prioritize the pursuit of diplomacy with Russia to end the war.
As far as I can find the list of Russia’s demands were far from reasonable at the time. Here are a few of them:
- Making Russian equal to Ukrainian as joint official languages;
- Giving Russia and China absolute power to decide how Ukraine is to deal with any future armed conflict in Ukraine;
- Repealing a law Ukraine passed in 2014 that makes it illegal to use Swastikas and Soviet symbols and makes it illegal to deny the holocaust;
- Strong limits on Ukraine military size and abilities. PDF by the Institute of War nonprofit research group - this information is also corroborated by the original foreign affairs source your article is summarizing, this is just a neater list to read through.
Meanwhile Russia made no concessions regarding giving back any of the land they were illegally occupying. Given the above I understand why the deal wasn’t signed at the time. I suspect all that signing that would have done is lead to a revolution in Ukraine to topple the government that signed away their county. I don’t think signing that would have avoided further bloodshed.
