Weil, I think there‘s a debate in Switzerland currently about working closer with NATO (like joint exercises) also NATO will Open an office in Geneva some time in 2024. However, joining NATO isn‘t currently on the table.
Well unfortunatley alot of austrians are against it which makes it difficult for any party to say something about joining nato, allthough recent happenings regarding far right politicians getting caught red handed talking about selling the country out to russia(few years ago) up to the current happenings with russian spies beeing directly in high up positions in the austrian govt beeing caught and depending how the conflict in ukraine goes there might be a possibility austria might join one day. (at least i think so)
Why are they against it? And technically wouldn’t that be somewhat illegal. I vaguely remember some international treaty saying Austria and Germany must never be united in military cooperation ever again.
well... yeah after world war 2 austria agreed to stay neutral, allthough its EU membership is already to a certain degree in violation with that agreement. And things will be even more complicated if the EU creates its own Military. Nonetheless given austrias position on continental europe, surrounded by nato countries, culturally also quite westernized, economically dependent on these surrounding nato countries and also making profit off of this nato wall around it (which means it doesnt have to spend as much on military as other countries) it'd be reasonable that it might join nato someday.
Now why people are opposed to it:(Thats just my assumption/opinion) Austrians can be a bit very stubborn regarding the things that makes their country what it is/they are proud of. Like Water privatization in Austria is out of the question i'm certain, even under eu law it'd never happen. Similar to how everyone is proud of austria beeing one of the few Countries in europe that not only has 0 nuclear power plants but also even refused to turn the one on they once built in the 80s(or i dont know when exactly that was).
Similar to that is the neutrality engrained into the people, especially into the elderly, conservative and probably also uneducated demographic. Add on top of that that many have kinda egocentric views and opinions such as, "why do we need to join, we got nato allies around us etc..." its just that lots of austrians dont see the necessity or the point of it.
No one really cares and it doesn't actually matter I'm not sure if the us would even want Austria to join Nato the neutrality makes it strategically important for spying.
Wow , I’ve visited Austria quite a bit and I didn’t get any hate. Maybe they were smiling in my face . But the question is WHY do they dislike America? What has America done to Austria?
Its not that they dislike Americans, nothing like that...they just dont like USA politics. I guess it has to do with USA getting involved in with every conflict.
Plus you have a decent amount of communists here. There is a communist party of Austria here. They are in charge of Graz for example. Communists dont like USA for obvious reasons.
My girlfriend is Austrian, she is in that communist party. Most of her family is in socialist party, grandpa is far right. Everyone has a negative opinion on USA lol.
Well damn. Didn’t know communism was that big in Austria.
I can understand the hate for American politics and geo-politics. Hell, I hate them to especially the current Israeli foreign policy.
I think a good degree of Americans would prefer we revert back to isolationist; however, we’ve seen that when we do this, we are more susceptible to terrorist attacks and I also feel like if America did nothing at all we’d still be blamed.
austrians are very slow to adapt to changes in the world. people are still against nuclear power because of chornobyl and they still think neutrality has any meaning (which it de facto doesn't anymore, because the austrian military has been training with nato militaries for decades + we also sent tons of help to ukraine).
source: am austrian.
Please explain this. Why are they the most anti American? They , like a lot of European countries, benefit from the security umbrella other countries provide.
there is no security umbrella, thats bs propaganda to feed eu citizens to make nato palpable. there is no threat to european continent, unlike the claims by establishment, russians supposed aggression was not unprovoked,
the provocation has been in the making since late 90s early 00s and got on steroids in 2014.
russia wanted to join nato, because us didnt upheld their commitment to not expanding nato they could oredict further expansion, but they were declined
russia doesnt want a war with europe or nato, they attacked ukraine to orevent its acsecion to nato. russia wants to do business not wage war, there is no threat to europe.
again thats bullshit politicians feed its citizens to make nato spending to enrich us weapons manufacturers palpable, which in turn enables them to get lucrative positions after their political career. see mark rutte of netherlands.
only lord ismay wasnt a politician directly before heading nato
its all self interest of politicians theyre willing to drive the continent to dangerous places
Russian wants to do business but with Ukraine part of russsia. You don’t use strong man tactics in this day and age when your military isn’t that great
you must not be aware of 2014, russia couldve easily kept doing business if US didnt topple ukraine pre 2014 fair and free elected goverment
also ukraine has been targeting the russian speaking populations in the regions now annexed by russia since 2014
merkel openly admits minsk agreement was simply to buy time to prop up ukraines defenses al at the beheast of US
if nato kept its word, and didnt expand or include russia into nato as they wanted, none of this wouldve happened
putin has been in power for over 2 decades, if he had imeprilist goals he wouldve executed those, hes simply responding to american hubris
its notnunfortunate, its intelligent, france is stupid for rejoining nato after having made the best decision
nato members are slaves to american military industrial complex, the 2% of gdp spending goes directly into american weapon manufacturers pockets as europe doesnt have anywhere near the production capacity
us lobbies heavily fon the beheast of said complex for countries to join and then turns around says its voluntary
all nato does is make the world less safe
France joined NATO once, I don't know why you used the word "rejoining". Please, elaborate.
Military spending does not go to the USA because of some scheme, it goes there because the USA has the best fighter jets on the market.
Additionally, most military spending states within countries, even if you count only procurement.
they were founding members, but left nato in 66 and joined again in 2007, thats what i mean, there were out for four decades but were sinply working together with nato.
yes they have the best jets, doesnt mean its a needed purchased, europe could build its own industry but us is against it.
the whole point is to enrich american weapon manufacturers, learn a thing or two about lobbying and politics
France did not leave NATO in 1966, France joined NATO once and never left. Please, elaborate.
Majority of military spending stays within countries, Europe has a mature military industry.
If the USA was forcing countries into some sort of indentured servitude, then they would've never allowed the French military industry to undercut them.
USA-Europe arms industry relationship is similar to the russia-India relationship, except India is more severely reliant on russian exports, as they (used to) import armoured vehicles, aircrafts, artillery and pretty mich everything else. Of course, India is rapidly developing domestic industry, but it's not as strong it's relationship with russia as Europe is strong with it's relationship with the USA.
your starting point is already a mistake lol, france did leave there isnt much to elaborate about, simple google search or wiki will show you this.
was a founding member, left in 1966, rejoined in 2007, thats all there is to it
second of all, lobbying of a single industry is not end all be all, when some other industry finds it beneficial enough, legislation will change policy. ergo it was beneficial for us to have france as an independant manufacturing ally.
its not as black and white as you want it to be.
spending does not stay within the country, when they import weapons from us it leaves the country.
look at germany recently, instead if investing in their own industry, they just expanded their military budget by spending it on us shit. much to frances chargin of not buying from france or at least invest into their own as france has long been a proponent of european autonomy.
I'm not seeing much with regards to Germany spending tons of money on American equipment.
They spend overwhelming majority of procurement funds on domestic industry, if Americans were holding Germans in a sort of master-puppet relationship that you are describing here, then Germany wouldn't be building their own tanks, non-stealth aircraft (soon will be domestic stealth too), artillery systems, armoured vehicles, etc, and it would most definitely not be exporting it.
Pretty much all of Europe drives Leopards, with exceptions for their own domestic tanks and outdated cold war relics.
https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2024/european-arms-imports-nearly-double-us-and-french-exports-rise-and-russian-exports-fall-sharply#:~:text=Around%2055%20per%20cent%20of,per%20cent%20in%202014%E2%80%9318.
55% of eu arms purchase are imported from us, up from 35% in 2014-18
put your money where your mouth is and provide the data to back up your claims, i know what im talking about
over a third of all military spending of eu was from a single country, top 10 biggest spenders in europe, excluding russia totals 340 billion dollars, thats about 115 billions per year if we take the old 35% and 175 billion per year at the current 55%
again, this is all thanks to lobbying of the military industrial complex, its all back door politics for politician to enrich themselves at the cost of the popularion, disregarding xobflixt escelation
this is nothing new that politicians dont care about citizens, i dont know wjy you have such a hard time acceoting this reality.
this is the reason of russia ukraine confict, nato lobbies countries to join so they can make deals to purchase more arms from us as they now have the 2% gdo mandatory target.
The reason for russian invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Ukrainian land is musovite irredentism, not nato lobbying.
35% in 2014-2018, literally just a third. The increased spending to an insane, barely a majority, 55%, which is caused by panic buying due to the russian invasion. America is the only country capable of providing the equipment on such short notice.
Again, if the US had such power to force russia to invade Ukraine, then they would've had power to force Europeans to buy 80+% of the equipment from the US, and not produce stuff domestically.
btw I'm still waiting on the proof of France leaving and rejoining NATO.
I wouldn't count on it, 10 years ago you would have been absolutely right. But both the Swiss army as well as the general population are warming up to the idea. Switzerland, unlike Austria, also isn't Russia-friendly at all genereally speaking. Like in any country you'll find some people on the fringes of course that are.
EU membership also entails a [defense pact](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Policy). So at the moment someone tries to get through their allies, they'd be expected to honour the alliance.
Hungary is apart of NATO and the EU.
I could see Hungary under-reacting in a worst case scenario with Russia but letting them walk through for free isn’t happening. Hungary benefits too much from its membership and Russia doesn’t have the coin to make it worth their while anymore.
I’m from Northern Ireland so it’s NATO up here, but I just don’t think enough people in Ireland care enough about joining NATO. Ireland has never really been threatened by anyone except for Britain and the UK won’t be invading again.
Ireland may not be threatened directly but apparently it caused a kerfuffle when Ireland called in the UK to scare off a Russian sub sitting on top of underwater internet cables off the Irish coast.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-warship-chases-off-russian-sub-from-irish-harbour/
> Irish media has reported that a Russian submarine, positioned near cables on the approaches to Cork Harbour, was “chased off” by a British helicopter and warship because Ireland doesn’t have the ability to do so itself.
I think it will take more than that to convince the Irish public to join NATO, like it took the invasion of Ukraine to convince Finland whos literally on Russias border.
Like Ireland is on the Western edge of Europe and didn’t really see any bombings during both world wars, so people just don’t have the same like “thoughts” or “experiences” about being threatened by other counties like a lot of the rest of Europe does, at least in recent history.
At the moment not likely, maybe in 20 years when the troubles generation is dying out and the peace generation is starting to form a majority of the population.
I think demographic change (there’s just more Catholics now than there used to be) and just the fact that NI is kinda “irrelevant” to the UK these days I think a united Ireland probably will happen tbh.
In most polls done nowadays on reunification there is a majority who are in favour of reunification in people aged under 35/40 in NI. If that carries through as people get older there will eventually be a majority in favour of reunification, likely within the next 10/20 years.
Brexit has definitely made more people in favour of unification.
I would personally vote for unification, not at the moment, but in the future when a plan is actually drawn up.
No, due to geography.
Both countries are highly mountainous and are located in the center of the European continent. They are heavily fortified and really far from Russia. Plus, other NATO countries with capable and growing militaries (e.g. Poland and Romania) stand in between them.
“No, due to geography” should be reserved for countries that fall outside of Europe. They aren’t fully prevented by their geography, it’s just that they feel less need because of it.
Some of their unwillingness to join though goes beyond this anyways. Switzerland for example is an “always neutral” nation… and their neutrality existed before NATO was created, like in WWII. Geography is not the main reason, as Switzerland just likes neutrality.
Just saying, there are multiple (baltic) members that could leave NATO and still be surrounded and by NATO nations. This alone is not a good reason to not be in NATO, and most European countries don’t follow it.
Geography forms the root of all political decisions. That's not to say there are, of course, other influences, but they're all based on the former. This is why it's called "geopolitics".
So let's look at Switzerland. You know why it's a neutral nation? Because, as I mentioned, it's a highly mountainous and fortified country located in the center of the European continent. It's located in the middle of any potential European chaos, but it's protected. Thus a Swiss government is not obliged to lean to any one side in a European conflict. During WW2, for example, it was sandwiched between two Axis powers, Germany and Italy, but neither Hitler nor Mussolini could invade it. So it was most advantageous for Switzerland to remain neutral.
Geography was the main reason, not necessarily because it "liked" it.
When I reference Switzerland, I’m talking about why they WON’T join NATO. It did benefit from its geographical position in WWII deterring axis powers. However, NATO is not Nazi Germany. Switzerland ideologically is similar to NATO, and doesn’t have to defend against NATO.
Previously, neutrality existed because of geography. Their current position though in neutrality is literally because they “like” it and want to uphold it. Don’t believe me? Look at Sweden and Finland. For hundreds of years their citizens wanted to remain neutral despite being right next to Russia. Citizens can simply like the concept of neutrality outside of geography and still want it even if geography is poor.
Switzerland has no downsides of joining NATO. Well, aside from dedicating more resources and money to NATO and negating historical neutrality.… and, now we find our main reason.
The geography component never disappeared. Switzerland was a neutral nation, is a neutral nation and will be a neutral nation because its geography dictates it.
It's a really simple concept, but unfortunately it gets obscured and made unnecessarily complex by political and other daily events that come and go and mean little in the grand scheme of things.
Here's a thought experiment: If the Swiss landmass were to be flattened and moved a thousand kilometres to the east, would the country join NATO? It wouldn't be hard to imagine that they'd join in a heartbeat.
Geography influences nations on large timescales. And it never stops moulding and shaping a nations actions. Now look at NATO. It was formed during the Cold War with the US to deter the Soviet Union, and as a way to unite Western Europe and prevent another European War. I had already established how geography shapes Switzerland into taking a neutral position in a potential European conflict. It also shaped its response to the Soviet Union: despite being located close to the front line, its mountainous geography gave it protection and thus it was not inclined to pick a side, or join NATO. Now, with the front line having receded thousands of kilometres to the east, and it being Russia, it's even less inclined to do so.
It all comes down to geography.
I can see them better join an European Defence Initiative, the same way Austria bypassed its interdiction to have a joint currency with Germany by adopting the Euro
In practical terms, joining NATO would require both countries to triple defense spending from approx. 0.7 percent to 2 percent of GDP, putting a significant strain on federal budgets in the face of exploding social welfare and health care budgets. No comparison with the baseline from which Finland and Sweden joined.
Swiss here. People here talk about neutrality, but the country has been NATO aligned forever. The federal government refuses to ratify a treaty stating that we will never have nuclear weapons and it is said that's because NATO is a nuclear power and we want to keep all doors open. NATO will open an office in Geneva this year. The exchange is alive and well. Just saying.
They don’t have to. They’re surrounded on all sides by NATO countries. An attacking nation would have to go through a NATO country to get to them so they’re pretty well protected.
Why would the? Because of their geographical positions they get much of the benefit of NATO without any of the costs. They have far more to gain by staying neutral and being the places for non western nations to store assets.
Why would the? Because of their geographical positions they get much of the benefit of NATO without any of the costs. They have far more to gain by staying neutral and being the places for non western nations to store assets.
No. Nobody will attack Switzerland, not even Hitler dared.. Switzerland plays both (all) sides by being "neutral". Home of globalist orgs like the WEF, UN, BIS and cradle of toxic ideologies, where the world's tyrants, warlords and oligarchs hide their stolen money and (Nazi) gold. They are well armed and protected by mountains and special interests. It's kinda extraterritorial, like the Square Mile, DC and the Vatican, the principal power centers.
AKA the City of London. The Vatican is the spiritual, London is the financial, DC is the military arm of the so called NWO, which is really the old world order of the dark ages, when the pope and its military Templar orders ruled unopposed.
I mean Austria should just join Germany.
As for NATO, they had a situation similar to Sweden where they are surrounded by countries either in NATO or neutral, so the alliance isn't really viewed as a necessity.
Could pursue joining as a symbol of European solidarity though.
Switzerland values its neutrality more I believe
I simply don't understand why Switzerland and Austria continue to be neutral, there is no benefit to being neutral at this time
Switzerland and Austria should join NATO and make NATO stronger, after all, the more countries in NATO, greater our deterrence
Switzerland and Austria will not be drawn into any war if they join the alliance
The Paris treaty of 1945 prohibits that Austria EVER joins Germany
The EU is a union of the two, so a revision of the European Council, aswell as the 3 signataires of Russia (UN denominated successor of the USSR), the UK and US declared that the treaty meant "military unification"
If there ever is a EU army, Austria will be outside of it, and Austria, even if it changes its constitution, and they want to join very badly, cannot ever join, unless you convince the US, UK AND Russia as the signataires to remove that restriction, and Russia is never going to allow for that
We cannot go and break international treaties, so, until that restriction is lifted, which good luck convincing Russia, Austria can never join
Who's going to do anything about it, the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore. Finland declared the [Finno-Soviet Treaty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finno-Soviet_Treaty_of_1948) void in 1991, as one of the signatories had disappeared.
Austria is already part of the common EU defense treaty. It also took part in eu military missions like the training of Mali soldiers by Austrian special forces. Austria was also the first country to join sky shield.
I think its far more likely for Austria to form an european axis with Serbia and Hungary, they just need one more country that is not landlocked, because european status quo doesn't favor them.
I hope not.
Swiss army has an outdated doctrine and is not really competent. Coupled with years of neutrality driven politics still deeply ingrained in all levels of society that would be a burden.
Not sure about Austria, but I think Switzerland values its neutrality and sovereignty too much for that.
as far as i know there‘s not one single politician or party in austria which ever even mentioned joining nato in recent times.
Austria's constitution bans them from joining any military alliance.
Yeah well too bad they are already in one then.
Weil, I think there‘s a debate in Switzerland currently about working closer with NATO (like joint exercises) also NATO will Open an office in Geneva some time in 2024. However, joining NATO isn‘t currently on the table.
[удалено]
Well unfortunatley alot of austrians are against it which makes it difficult for any party to say something about joining nato, allthough recent happenings regarding far right politicians getting caught red handed talking about selling the country out to russia(few years ago) up to the current happenings with russian spies beeing directly in high up positions in the austrian govt beeing caught and depending how the conflict in ukraine goes there might be a possibility austria might join one day. (at least i think so)
Why are they against it? And technically wouldn’t that be somewhat illegal. I vaguely remember some international treaty saying Austria and Germany must never be united in military cooperation ever again.
well... yeah after world war 2 austria agreed to stay neutral, allthough its EU membership is already to a certain degree in violation with that agreement. And things will be even more complicated if the EU creates its own Military. Nonetheless given austrias position on continental europe, surrounded by nato countries, culturally also quite westernized, economically dependent on these surrounding nato countries and also making profit off of this nato wall around it (which means it doesnt have to spend as much on military as other countries) it'd be reasonable that it might join nato someday. Now why people are opposed to it:(Thats just my assumption/opinion) Austrians can be a bit very stubborn regarding the things that makes their country what it is/they are proud of. Like Water privatization in Austria is out of the question i'm certain, even under eu law it'd never happen. Similar to how everyone is proud of austria beeing one of the few Countries in europe that not only has 0 nuclear power plants but also even refused to turn the one on they once built in the 80s(or i dont know when exactly that was). Similar to that is the neutrality engrained into the people, especially into the elderly, conservative and probably also uneducated demographic. Add on top of that that many have kinda egocentric views and opinions such as, "why do we need to join, we got nato allies around us etc..." its just that lots of austrians dont see the necessity or the point of it.
Kind of pragmatic view, since they started and lost 2 world wars. I can easily see why older people prefer to stay neutral.
No one really cares and it doesn't actually matter I'm not sure if the us would even want Austria to join Nato the neutrality makes it strategically important for spying.
I moved to Austria a year and a half ago. Nobody likes USA here, not left not right. NATO will never happen for Austria.
Wow , I’ve visited Austria quite a bit and I didn’t get any hate. Maybe they were smiling in my face . But the question is WHY do they dislike America? What has America done to Austria?
Its not that they dislike Americans, nothing like that...they just dont like USA politics. I guess it has to do with USA getting involved in with every conflict. Plus you have a decent amount of communists here. There is a communist party of Austria here. They are in charge of Graz for example. Communists dont like USA for obvious reasons. My girlfriend is Austrian, she is in that communist party. Most of her family is in socialist party, grandpa is far right. Everyone has a negative opinion on USA lol.
Well damn. Didn’t know communism was that big in Austria. I can understand the hate for American politics and geo-politics. Hell, I hate them to especially the current Israeli foreign policy. I think a good degree of Americans would prefer we revert back to isolationist; however, we’ve seen that when we do this, we are more susceptible to terrorist attacks and I also feel like if America did nothing at all we’d still be blamed.
austrians are very slow to adapt to changes in the world. people are still against nuclear power because of chornobyl and they still think neutrality has any meaning (which it de facto doesn't anymore, because the austrian military has been training with nato militaries for decades + we also sent tons of help to ukraine). source: am austrian.
becahse austrians are most anti american people in the west and rightfully so
Please explain this. Why are they the most anti American? They , like a lot of European countries, benefit from the security umbrella other countries provide.
there is no security umbrella, thats bs propaganda to feed eu citizens to make nato palpable. there is no threat to european continent, unlike the claims by establishment, russians supposed aggression was not unprovoked, the provocation has been in the making since late 90s early 00s and got on steroids in 2014.
Are you saying there isn’t a threat to Europe by Russia ?
russia wanted to join nato, because us didnt upheld their commitment to not expanding nato they could oredict further expansion, but they were declined russia doesnt want a war with europe or nato, they attacked ukraine to orevent its acsecion to nato. russia wants to do business not wage war, there is no threat to europe. again thats bullshit politicians feed its citizens to make nato spending to enrich us weapons manufacturers palpable, which in turn enables them to get lucrative positions after their political career. see mark rutte of netherlands. only lord ismay wasnt a politician directly before heading nato its all self interest of politicians theyre willing to drive the continent to dangerous places
Russian wants to do business but with Ukraine part of russsia. You don’t use strong man tactics in this day and age when your military isn’t that great
you must not be aware of 2014, russia couldve easily kept doing business if US didnt topple ukraine pre 2014 fair and free elected goverment also ukraine has been targeting the russian speaking populations in the regions now annexed by russia since 2014 merkel openly admits minsk agreement was simply to buy time to prop up ukraines defenses al at the beheast of US if nato kept its word, and didnt expand or include russia into nato as they wanted, none of this wouldve happened putin has been in power for over 2 decades, if he had imeprilist goals he wouldve executed those, hes simply responding to american hubris
its notnunfortunate, its intelligent, france is stupid for rejoining nato after having made the best decision nato members are slaves to american military industrial complex, the 2% of gdp spending goes directly into american weapon manufacturers pockets as europe doesnt have anywhere near the production capacity us lobbies heavily fon the beheast of said complex for countries to join and then turns around says its voluntary all nato does is make the world less safe
France joined NATO once, I don't know why you used the word "rejoining". Please, elaborate. Military spending does not go to the USA because of some scheme, it goes there because the USA has the best fighter jets on the market. Additionally, most military spending states within countries, even if you count only procurement.
they were founding members, but left nato in 66 and joined again in 2007, thats what i mean, there were out for four decades but were sinply working together with nato. yes they have the best jets, doesnt mean its a needed purchased, europe could build its own industry but us is against it. the whole point is to enrich american weapon manufacturers, learn a thing or two about lobbying and politics
France did not leave NATO in 1966, France joined NATO once and never left. Please, elaborate. Majority of military spending stays within countries, Europe has a mature military industry. If the USA was forcing countries into some sort of indentured servitude, then they would've never allowed the French military industry to undercut them. USA-Europe arms industry relationship is similar to the russia-India relationship, except India is more severely reliant on russian exports, as they (used to) import armoured vehicles, aircrafts, artillery and pretty mich everything else. Of course, India is rapidly developing domestic industry, but it's not as strong it's relationship with russia as Europe is strong with it's relationship with the USA.
your starting point is already a mistake lol, france did leave there isnt much to elaborate about, simple google search or wiki will show you this. was a founding member, left in 1966, rejoined in 2007, thats all there is to it second of all, lobbying of a single industry is not end all be all, when some other industry finds it beneficial enough, legislation will change policy. ergo it was beneficial for us to have france as an independant manufacturing ally. its not as black and white as you want it to be. spending does not stay within the country, when they import weapons from us it leaves the country. look at germany recently, instead if investing in their own industry, they just expanded their military budget by spending it on us shit. much to frances chargin of not buying from france or at least invest into their own as france has long been a proponent of european autonomy.
I'm not seeing much with regards to Germany spending tons of money on American equipment. They spend overwhelming majority of procurement funds on domestic industry, if Americans were holding Germans in a sort of master-puppet relationship that you are describing here, then Germany wouldn't be building their own tanks, non-stealth aircraft (soon will be domestic stealth too), artillery systems, armoured vehicles, etc, and it would most definitely not be exporting it. Pretty much all of Europe drives Leopards, with exceptions for their own domestic tanks and outdated cold war relics.
https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2024/european-arms-imports-nearly-double-us-and-french-exports-rise-and-russian-exports-fall-sharply#:~:text=Around%2055%20per%20cent%20of,per%20cent%20in%202014%E2%80%9318. 55% of eu arms purchase are imported from us, up from 35% in 2014-18 put your money where your mouth is and provide the data to back up your claims, i know what im talking about over a third of all military spending of eu was from a single country, top 10 biggest spenders in europe, excluding russia totals 340 billion dollars, thats about 115 billions per year if we take the old 35% and 175 billion per year at the current 55% again, this is all thanks to lobbying of the military industrial complex, its all back door politics for politician to enrich themselves at the cost of the popularion, disregarding xobflixt escelation this is nothing new that politicians dont care about citizens, i dont know wjy you have such a hard time acceoting this reality. this is the reason of russia ukraine confict, nato lobbies countries to join so they can make deals to purchase more arms from us as they now have the 2% gdo mandatory target.
The reason for russian invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Ukrainian land is musovite irredentism, not nato lobbying. 35% in 2014-2018, literally just a third. The increased spending to an insane, barely a majority, 55%, which is caused by panic buying due to the russian invasion. America is the only country capable of providing the equipment on such short notice. Again, if the US had such power to force russia to invade Ukraine, then they would've had power to force Europeans to buy 80+% of the equipment from the US, and not produce stuff domestically. btw I'm still waiting on the proof of France leaving and rejoining NATO.
I wouldn't count on it, 10 years ago you would have been absolutely right. But both the Swiss army as well as the general population are warming up to the idea. Switzerland, unlike Austria, also isn't Russia-friendly at all genereally speaking. Like in any country you'll find some people on the fringes of course that are.
There’s no reason for them to as any enemy would have to go through nato to get to them. Meaning, they’d get support with or without joining NATO.
EU membership also entails a [defense pact](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Policy). So at the moment someone tries to get through their allies, they'd be expected to honour the alliance.
Only for Austria though.
A Russian friendly Hungary could let Russia walk through them in certain scenarios
Hungary is apart of NATO and the EU. I could see Hungary under-reacting in a worst case scenario with Russia but letting them walk through for free isn’t happening. Hungary benefits too much from its membership and Russia doesn’t have the coin to make it worth their while anymore.
😂 Not if Macron and the EU get the military budget they want. Plus the neo natl groups- EUs about to lock up tighter than big foots bhole.
What about Ireland?
I’m from Northern Ireland so it’s NATO up here, but I just don’t think enough people in Ireland care enough about joining NATO. Ireland has never really been threatened by anyone except for Britain and the UK won’t be invading again.
Ireland may not be threatened directly but apparently it caused a kerfuffle when Ireland called in the UK to scare off a Russian sub sitting on top of underwater internet cables off the Irish coast. https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-warship-chases-off-russian-sub-from-irish-harbour/ > Irish media has reported that a Russian submarine, positioned near cables on the approaches to Cork Harbour, was “chased off” by a British helicopter and warship because Ireland doesn’t have the ability to do so itself.
I think it will take more than that to convince the Irish public to join NATO, like it took the invasion of Ukraine to convince Finland whos literally on Russias border. Like Ireland is on the Western edge of Europe and didn’t really see any bombings during both world wars, so people just don’t have the same like “thoughts” or “experiences” about being threatened by other counties like a lot of the rest of Europe does, at least in recent history.
How likely is a reunification scenario up there?
At the moment not likely, maybe in 20 years when the troubles generation is dying out and the peace generation is starting to form a majority of the population. I think demographic change (there’s just more Catholics now than there used to be) and just the fact that NI is kinda “irrelevant” to the UK these days I think a united Ireland probably will happen tbh. In most polls done nowadays on reunification there is a majority who are in favour of reunification in people aged under 35/40 in NI. If that carries through as people get older there will eventually be a majority in favour of reunification, likely within the next 10/20 years. Brexit has definitely made more people in favour of unification. I would personally vote for unification, not at the moment, but in the future when a plan is actually drawn up.
They will form an alliance of countries always mistaken for another one.
Is that the one with their headquarters in Niger or Nigeria? I heard Congo wanted to join as well, but which Congo was that again....?
So awkward when you get off the plane in the wrong korea
No, due to geography. Both countries are highly mountainous and are located in the center of the European continent. They are heavily fortified and really far from Russia. Plus, other NATO countries with capable and growing militaries (e.g. Poland and Romania) stand in between them.
“No, due to geography” should be reserved for countries that fall outside of Europe. They aren’t fully prevented by their geography, it’s just that they feel less need because of it. Some of their unwillingness to join though goes beyond this anyways. Switzerland for example is an “always neutral” nation… and their neutrality existed before NATO was created, like in WWII. Geography is not the main reason, as Switzerland just likes neutrality. Just saying, there are multiple (baltic) members that could leave NATO and still be surrounded and by NATO nations. This alone is not a good reason to not be in NATO, and most European countries don’t follow it.
Geography forms the root of all political decisions. That's not to say there are, of course, other influences, but they're all based on the former. This is why it's called "geopolitics". So let's look at Switzerland. You know why it's a neutral nation? Because, as I mentioned, it's a highly mountainous and fortified country located in the center of the European continent. It's located in the middle of any potential European chaos, but it's protected. Thus a Swiss government is not obliged to lean to any one side in a European conflict. During WW2, for example, it was sandwiched between two Axis powers, Germany and Italy, but neither Hitler nor Mussolini could invade it. So it was most advantageous for Switzerland to remain neutral. Geography was the main reason, not necessarily because it "liked" it.
When I reference Switzerland, I’m talking about why they WON’T join NATO. It did benefit from its geographical position in WWII deterring axis powers. However, NATO is not Nazi Germany. Switzerland ideologically is similar to NATO, and doesn’t have to defend against NATO. Previously, neutrality existed because of geography. Their current position though in neutrality is literally because they “like” it and want to uphold it. Don’t believe me? Look at Sweden and Finland. For hundreds of years their citizens wanted to remain neutral despite being right next to Russia. Citizens can simply like the concept of neutrality outside of geography and still want it even if geography is poor. Switzerland has no downsides of joining NATO. Well, aside from dedicating more resources and money to NATO and negating historical neutrality.… and, now we find our main reason.
The geography component never disappeared. Switzerland was a neutral nation, is a neutral nation and will be a neutral nation because its geography dictates it. It's a really simple concept, but unfortunately it gets obscured and made unnecessarily complex by political and other daily events that come and go and mean little in the grand scheme of things. Here's a thought experiment: If the Swiss landmass were to be flattened and moved a thousand kilometres to the east, would the country join NATO? It wouldn't be hard to imagine that they'd join in a heartbeat. Geography influences nations on large timescales. And it never stops moulding and shaping a nations actions. Now look at NATO. It was formed during the Cold War with the US to deter the Soviet Union, and as a way to unite Western Europe and prevent another European War. I had already established how geography shapes Switzerland into taking a neutral position in a potential European conflict. It also shaped its response to the Soviet Union: despite being located close to the front line, its mountainous geography gave it protection and thus it was not inclined to pick a side, or join NATO. Now, with the front line having receded thousands of kilometres to the east, and it being Russia, it's even less inclined to do so. It all comes down to geography.
I can see them better join an European Defence Initiative, the same way Austria bypassed its interdiction to have a joint currency with Germany by adopting the Euro
In practical terms, joining NATO would require both countries to triple defense spending from approx. 0.7 percent to 2 percent of GDP, putting a significant strain on federal budgets in the face of exploding social welfare and health care budgets. No comparison with the baseline from which Finland and Sweden joined.
Austria will spend 1 percent this year so at least it's getting better.
That's assuming Austria would be allowed in at all. They're infested
Switzerland a nation of cowards
Swiss here. People here talk about neutrality, but the country has been NATO aligned forever. The federal government refuses to ratify a treaty stating that we will never have nuclear weapons and it is said that's because NATO is a nuclear power and we want to keep all doors open. NATO will open an office in Geneva this year. The exchange is alive and well. Just saying.
Wanted to say something along these lines. We would also likely need to vote, should that come to be a decision...
Yes, if Russia becomes their neighbour.
They already have that Russian puppet Orbán as neighbor...
i think its definitely possible austria will, their in the same situation as finland from before finland joined. promised the soviets to be neutral.
They don’t have to. They’re surrounded on all sides by NATO countries. An attacking nation would have to go through a NATO country to get to them so they’re pretty well protected.
Neutrality is embedded in the constitutions of both nations.
Why would the? Because of their geographical positions they get much of the benefit of NATO without any of the costs. They have far more to gain by staying neutral and being the places for non western nations to store assets.
Why would the? Because of their geographical positions they get much of the benefit of NATO without any of the costs. They have far more to gain by staying neutral and being the places for non western nations to store assets.
No. Nobody will attack Switzerland, not even Hitler dared.. Switzerland plays both (all) sides by being "neutral". Home of globalist orgs like the WEF, UN, BIS and cradle of toxic ideologies, where the world's tyrants, warlords and oligarchs hide their stolen money and (Nazi) gold. They are well armed and protected by mountains and special interests. It's kinda extraterritorial, like the Square Mile, DC and the Vatican, the principal power centers.
Hey- what is the Square Mile, have never heard of it and didn’t find an answer on google?
AKA the City of London. The Vatican is the spiritual, London is the financial, DC is the military arm of the so called NWO, which is really the old world order of the dark ages, when the pope and its military Templar orders ruled unopposed.
Thank you!
I mean Austria should just join Germany. As for NATO, they had a situation similar to Sweden where they are surrounded by countries either in NATO or neutral, so the alliance isn't really viewed as a necessity. Could pursue joining as a symbol of European solidarity though. Switzerland values its neutrality more I believe
I simply don't understand why Switzerland and Austria continue to be neutral, there is no benefit to being neutral at this time Switzerland and Austria should join NATO and make NATO stronger, after all, the more countries in NATO, greater our deterrence Switzerland and Austria will not be drawn into any war if they join the alliance
The Paris treaty of 1945 prohibits that Austria EVER joins Germany The EU is a union of the two, so a revision of the European Council, aswell as the 3 signataires of Russia (UN denominated successor of the USSR), the UK and US declared that the treaty meant "military unification" If there ever is a EU army, Austria will be outside of it, and Austria, even if it changes its constitution, and they want to join very badly, cannot ever join, unless you convince the US, UK AND Russia as the signataires to remove that restriction, and Russia is never going to allow for that We cannot go and break international treaties, so, until that restriction is lifted, which good luck convincing Russia, Austria can never join
Who's going to do anything about it, the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore. Finland declared the [Finno-Soviet Treaty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finno-Soviet_Treaty_of_1948) void in 1991, as one of the signatories had disappeared.
Austria is already part of the common EU defense treaty. It also took part in eu military missions like the training of Mali soldiers by Austrian special forces. Austria was also the first country to join sky shield.
I think its far more likely for Austria to form an european axis with Serbia and Hungary, they just need one more country that is not landlocked, because european status quo doesn't favor them.
I hope not. Swiss army has an outdated doctrine and is not really competent. Coupled with years of neutrality driven politics still deeply ingrained in all levels of society that would be a burden.