but there’s policies like the entire pension system that are fundamentally broken and requires more and more money each year, but enacting significant changes is something a conservative party just won’t do.

Exactly. That’s why I wrote that to me, the problem seems to be that conservative politicians/parties don’t offer the solutions we currently need. I don’t expect Merz and his party to solve the pension system problem - not because they don’t see it or they don’t understand it but because they simply don’t want to piss off their old aged voter basis. They willingly ignore a problem that gets bigger with every year and this is not even the only topic they ruin for us with this approach.

But still: to say that conservative politicians will categorically worsen the situation of the average citizen and lead to far right parties simply doesn’t hold up to the empirical history of Germany.

It improved in spite of them, not because of them. Worker organizing and direct action is the stick that forces governments to occasionally go against their capitalist overlords

While that certainly is a factor contributing to levelling the power between different entities within the country and hence ensuring overal benefit from the economic development, it seems a bit farfetched and romantisised to attribute the improvement entirely to organised workers.

Plus, more importantly, if it really were true what the commenter wrote, that conservative politicians lead to far right parties, why did it take almost 50 years of conservative rule for it to happen? We see a rise in far right parties all over the world and irrespective of them having a conservative government. Take fairly liberal countries with a strong welfare state such as Denmark or Sweden. What about the Netherlands? They are also part of the current shift towards rightwing populism, so an explanation like “must be conservatives” seems a bit too simplified to me.

Conservative politicians like Merz get into power -> the overall situation for the average citizen gets worse -> far right parties parties gain popularity

That’s a bit too simplified, tbh.

From the 76 years of Federal Republic of Germany until now, only 24 have not been under a conservative chancellor and the overall situation for the average citizen has definitely improved in those 76 years. I’d argue the problem isn’t conservative politicians per se, it is that politicians such as Merz apparently cannot offer what is needed at this moment.

It relates as France is willing to work alongside Russian interests in North Africa, if France believes it to serve their own interests.

I’d say every country is willing to work alongside every other country and wherever if it believes it to serve their own interests.

This is why Soviets and Nazis agreed to partition Poland together, this is why a few moments later the U.S. fought together with the Soviets against the Nazis. This is why Germany kept buying that cheap cheap Russian gas when their troops already paraded through the streets of Ukrainian Crimea and this is why Europe still trades with Russia despite the abhorrent war it is waging against Ukraine. So, where’s the news? Will you say the Soviets have their share of blame for the Nazi atrocities, as they cooperated with them in the beginning?

Russia wants to destabilise Europe and hence reaches out to those people that help it achieve that goal. If it wasn’t Haftar, it would be someone else.

That doesn’t matter strategically.

Why wouldn’t it?

It is not. The benefits come into effect even before the war itself.

The security benefits come into effect without/before Russia actually attacking.

Again: this isn’t about Austria fighting a war. Can you understand that?

It is about gaining security benefits before a war breaks out.

Where is the gain if Ukraine also has it?

Ukraine is in the middle of a war. Austria wants these gains before Russia sends hundreds of thousands of troops across the border and massacres villages and bombs cities. Is that really so hard to understand?

There is no other threat for Austria.

I don’t oppose that Russia is a threat to Austria. I oppose that the benefit of an Austrian NATO membership comes only in effect in case of a Russian attack on Austria. And I explained to you why.

I am not saying that Austria will be attacked by Russia, even though I kind of say it.

Don’t try to make your argument mine. It is only you that tries to narrow this on an attack on Austria in order to disprove the necessity of an Austrian membership. I told you what the actual security gains for Austria can be in NATO and those are irrespective of a Russian attack on Austria. So are we finally done with this idea?

And btw, still curious:

Will you blame Russia for its crimes?

Nobody will blaim me for Russian crimes.

Will you blame Russia for its crimes?

The usual stuff does.

And yours? Is your view on NATO or Russia shaped by propaganda?

Where do you think all of this ends?

You stated out of the blue that NATO must be pressuring Austria. No proof, no connection to the article. I consider this a try to derail and to spin.

Besides that arguments should be convincing.

You offer no arguments. You’re being disproven and your only answer is “yea, but still no”. So it’s irrelevant.

Guess what, the same will happen with Austria.

I very much hope the same won’t happen to Austria. As it is only happening to Ukraine because we desperately try to save it from Russian destruction despite all the indescribable harm it is suffering since 2022. No country wants this to happen to them, no country will take the risk. This is why Austria wants this discussion. It is beyond me how anyone cannot understand this, although I’m coming to the conclusion that this is less a “can” problem but more a “want” problem.

If Nato commits crimes, Germany will be responsible, like we are after WW2.

Somehow, I have the feeling you don’t see it as clear when it comes to Russia’s crimes.

For Russia, I have to find their motivation because the propaganda I receive paints them as irrational monsters.

How does finding any “motivation” change your view on them waging a war of aggression? What is there to explain? What to excuse? Does it somehow alleviate them from their responsibility for their crimes?

Also, I have very strong doubts that the propaganda you receive paints Russia as the monsters.

Then better don’t go back to my initial comment. The entire point is the wrong justification…

You said: “The offence is that the media in general uses the Russian aggression to justify the reduction of civil rights.” This is neither topic of this article nor of your initial comment. Stop moving the goalposts.

Nothing substantial.

Your personal assessment is irrelevant to the actual substantiality.

Ukraine is not part of Nato and already receives the information.

Ukraine is receiving this data, because it is actively attacked and we won’t just stand there and let that happen. Also, given the circumstances, Ukraine is as embedded into NATO as possible and would love to be in NATO any minute. But I guess you’re of course strongly opposed to this as well.

I take no direct offence

You find excuses/explanations for Russia’s actions (war) but don’t accept excuses/explanations for Austria’s actions (NATO). Strange, isn’t it?

The offence is that the media in general uses the Russian aggression to justify the reduction of civil rights.

Which is neither case nor topic here.

In this case there is no direct benefit so that the empty argument becomes visible.

I gave you a clear example for a benefit, hence this point is invalid.

You take more offense in Austria considering NATO than in Russia waging war.

Thanks for this honesty. You choose to be generous towards Russia that currently is busy destroying it’s neighbouring country by military force, yet seem to be very upset about Austria wanting to discuss a possible future within NATO. How unmasking! :D

You try to tell me that the war Russia is waging, which forced them to switch to war economy, which forced them to mobilise, which forced them to recruit foreign fighters and weapons from countries such as North Korea or Iran, which has them deploy several hundred thousand soldiers and which has them experienced a six-figure sum of losses, is “comparatively small”?

Do you really?

Don’t you think it is logical to despise Russia for what it is doing, namely waging a war of aggression to annex a neighboring country and expand its borders in a scale we haven’t seen here since Nazi Germany decided that its neighbouring countries should no longer exist?

Nothing, because Austria doesn’t join Nato to reduce the Russian threat

Austria doesn’t join NATO. One of Austria’s leading politicians is suggesting having an open discussion about reconsidering NATO membership. That this is because of the Russian aggression and lust for war is something as blatantly obvious as can get. Of course, to acknowledge this would mean acknowledging the Russian fault in this and apparently, this isn’t an option for people that don’t want to adapt their world views to changing realities.

It’s nice that Nato membership allows participation but that doesn’t change the security situation for Austria.

It literally does. It allows Austria access to an aspect of defense they do not have otherwise. So of course it improves the security situation for Austria.

Despising Russia comes easy. That’s why I want logical arguments that don’t rely on existing emotions.

If you don’t think it is logical to despise Russia for what it is doing, namely waging a war of aggression to annex a neighboring country and expand its borders in a scale we haven’t seen here since Nazi Germany decided that its neighbouring countries should no longer exist, what’s there left to say?

You don’t seem to understand how the multinational AWACS component works. The planes are operated and manned by the nations participating in it. They don’t just get passed on some data, they actually collect it. So it looks like this, where a German soldier is working next to two Norwegians aboard one of these planes.

since they most likely also receive the maps from article 42 cooperation.

Article 42 governs the mutual defence in case of an attack on one of the member states. It doesn’t govern any sort of military cooperation in times of peace. NATO does.

This doesn’t look like reason enough to join Nato

Of course it doesn’t to you. But then again, let’s be real: what ever will? You entered this discussion with an opinion already set in stone and nothing I or anyone else will say will realistically convince you otherwise. You have more excuses, show more understanding, for Russia’s war against Ukraine than for Austria thinking about discussing entering NATO, so what’s there left to say here?

You for example (!) get access to reconnaissance or logistics capabilities that you otherwise, especially as a smaller nation, wouldn’t get.

Take NATOs AWACS fleet. It enables countries such as the Netherlands, Poland, Denmark but even Germany to have access to AWACS capabilities which they don’t have on their own. Austria has no such thing at all.