Vienna, a city synonymous with shady cold war intrigue...
If you are curious what that was like, I highly recommend Orson Welles' film The Third Man, which is set in post-war Vienna. You can even visit the sewers where part of the film takes place. (I recommend it, but be aware that it isn't fancy.)
I don't quite get what they are "spying" there, as there's probably no specific information to get there. From the article the Russians are meeting German informants there, ok. Then there's the issue with SIGINT on the roofs of Russian embassy etc. Is there anything to be got that can not be collected anywhere else, specifically in Russia?
During the cold war, Austria was the on border between the Soviet bloc and the West. Historically, the Austro-Hungarian empire had a lot of territories in Central Europe, which has strong ties to Russia as well. I am guessing that some of the links are still there.
Right, having once worked there, it was obvious to me these organizations provided the perfect opportunity for contact without raising red flags. (No, that wasn't my job, my work was far too prosaic for that.)
Re comment "...has once again become the espionage capital of Europe after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and Austria’s government seems in no rush to change that."
It's obvious why not, to do so would instantly tread on the toes of these organizations and that's just not going to happen.
This is replaced by Brussels for long, with the EU and NATO headquarters there. Most of the spying is happening there nowadays. Then Washington, then Geneva.
But all the known Russian spies were not sent home, so the West is angry.
It is true that EU and NATO are important spying targets, but Vienna still has relevant targets, with many UN departments, IAEO, OPEC and being a meeting point between East and West (Visegrád etc.)
And then you have buildings like IZD Tower which are known to be almost certainly NSA spying sites.
During the Cold War, even information that we would now think of as open source intelligence, like newspaper and magazine articles, was valid SIGINT. The closer you came to the dividing line between the blocks, the more probable it was to find this kind of information (just like you may be more likely to find maritime information in a port, as compared to the a landlocked place). This naturally attracted foreign personal and international organizations, as well, which introduced another class of targets of value. Which in turn makes overall activities more likely, which also provides a certain level of noise to hide your own activities…
Politically, yes. From a military point of view, it has committed itself to neutrality - it's mostly forgotten that after the end of WW2, Austria (and Vienna) were also divided in occupation zones, similar to Germany (and Berlin) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied-occupied_Austria. This occupation was already ended in 1955, but only at the price of committing to stay neutral "forever". And it looks like they still feel bound by this commitment...
Austrian neutrality has changed a lot over the years. They're part of the EU's common foreign and security policy, part of which is "Permanent Structured Cooperation" (because the EU, as much as I love it, absolutely sucks at naming stuff). Third countries can participate in PESCO and the US, UK, Canada and Turkey have applied to join in (i.e. its very closely tied with NATO).
There are currently Austrian troops in the NATO-led KFOR force in Kosovo and as part of the EU force in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
TLDR: yeah they're "neutral" but the meaning of that word changes fairly significantly depending on the context.
I said allied with the West. Austria, as the heart of the Holy Roman Empire, is very much part of the West.
Austria's Westerness has nothing to do with the silly institutions you listed and everything to do with Her history.
But the context is spying, armies and war. So let's do NATO next and, generally, military alliances.
Austria is constitutionally obliged not to enter into alliances that compromise her neutrality. This constitutional clause was insisted upon by the Soviets (in early the 50s? Late 40s?) for them to agree for the return of Austria's sovereignty.
The other three occupying powers agreed and Austria became independent. An Austria that reneges on military neutrality technically reneges on her sovereignty.
The FT's article was clearly talking about military alliances therefore was grossly inaccurate when it deemed Austria an "western" ally. Austria is de jure, both according to national and international law, a neutral country. Her neutrality is more caked into law than Switzerland's.
The Holy Roman Empire has very little do do with what is "the west", even within Europe. Spain, Poland, Portugal the UK were not part of it and only a small part of France was. France is (in my view) clearly significantly part of "the west" than many areas formerly part of the HRE.
Malta is also constitutionally required to be neutral, and as a result did not enter the EU's PESCO. Austria takes a rather more "flexible" view of its Neutrality than Malta does, and so joined PESCO. Note that third countries can participate in PESCO, and those which have requested to join are: Canada, Norway, the USA, the UK and Turkey. This is pretty clearly not a neutral organisation. Austria's neutrality may be more baked into law than Switzerland's is, but it is clearly not as significant as Malta's.
Perhaps it depends where you're from. I was born in the UK, and I don't see the HRE as particularly influencing my view of western vs non-western countries. Especially France, Spain, Portugal and the UK seem emphatically Western to me.
Legally, spying in Austria is only illegal when Austria itself is concerned. (Technically, there is no damage done to the public good in espionage against a third party. As Austria is technically/officially without allies, there are also no intermediate interests to defend, justifying a universal law against this. However, there may be reason to update this with regard to EU membership. Mind that this is also a legacy of when Austria had been a much-needed link between the East and the West, in the Cold War, and even before this. But as it is now, the need for or the worth of such a role is perceived increasingly less.)
Regarding "allied", it's complicated: EU membership is sort of an association, Austria is member of P4P, and there were certain grey projects in the past, which involved cooperation (and also circumvented parliamentary oversight), Austria is very probably participating in Skyshield, but technically Austria is not part of any block. However, for Austria, there had never been any doubt that it was aligned to Western values and strategies.
It's actually a two-fold problem, e.g., the military intelligence service refuses to report on any cooperations with the NSA to parliament, which is expected to have oversight.
Geopolitically it makes a ton of sense. Austria is part of the EU while it is not part of NATO. It's basically a buffer state between eastern and western EU.
Given the amount of posturing on both sides, the actual shooting war in Ukraine and the nuclear arsenals involved, it seems like a public service to facilitate both sides actually knowing what the other side actually thinks and what their actual red lines are.
I don't think I am, am I? Sorry if I am missing your point. I am just saying you want to know whether they're actually irrational or just pretending (which is often rational). And when Putin says "X is a red line" you want to KNOW whether he means it or not. And it's likely a good thing for him to know the same about Biden.
Good in this context is defined as avoiding nuclear war. Whether it means winning a particular point in Ukraine or not... Sorry Ukraine.
I would make a counterargument and say the "big stuff" (ie Nuclear War) is pretty well known by all sides. For the "big stuff" everyone from world leaders to regular folks who just pay attention to the news know because it gets brought up practically every day in the context of the war.
Well that depends right? I don't think anyone WANTS a nuclear exchange.
But we're escalating pretty rapidly. A year ago we were "no lethal aid", now we're giving Ukraine F 16s. If Putin said "do that and I'll blow them the fuck up on the way over", who he be serious or not? If he tried would we retaliate and how? If a conventional missile strike fails will he hit it with an ICBM (much harder to intercept)? If so, we will not know whether it is nuclear armed until it hits. So do we (nuclear) strike back or just take the first hit? And if we hit back is Russia's early warning system smart enough to tell whether we're using a nuke? And all of this assumes 1000s of individual soldiers who we rely on to man these systems, report information and make no mistakes will be 100% on it...
And these are all rational actions by rational actors none of whom actually wants a nuclear exchange right?
And if someone on either side is NOT rational. Then there is even more need to know what it actually happening right?
It would be nice to have answers to all of these questions without having to try them out and see...
This is 100% false. A year ago, in July of 2022, Ukraine was already getting a lot of lethal aid. They started getting a lot of it pretty much by the beginning, when it was clear that Ukraine did not fold instanly in three days.
Before 2017, as far back as 2015, when the "little green men" started showing up. Non-trivial -- but nowhere near as much as now -- amounts of ammo and other supplies.
Look at Putin's actions and you can see plenty of aggression when people cross a given red line. The invasions of both Ukraine and Georgia were well advertised before they happened.
And even if this were not true, do you really want to bet the future of humanity on it? Presumably you will lead the march east yourself as Putin is all talk?
He was claiming red lines about 30 times during the last war, the lines were crossed and absolutely nothing happened. Again and again. Putin does not have actual red lines. He attacks when he thinks you are weak and does not attack when he thinks you are strong.
Before latest full scale invasion of Ukraine happened, Putin claimed that there will be no invasion and it is just evil Americans lying about his plans.
And during previous invasions, be claimed he is not invading at all, it was all supposed to be rebels. And annexation of Crimea had zero to do with any red lines too.
> Presumably you will lead the march east yourself as Putin is all talk?
I am not military leader nor politician. I can not possibly lead the march to anywhere.
The parent comment could be the beginning of an interesting discussion on cold war dynamics. Wouldn't you rather engage with that and gain something from the discussion, than take a cheap shot at the author for a quick giggle?
Mail us your CV if you want to work in this industry in Austria or the close central European area and 1) you are not squeamish, 2) you hold no strong political or national views and 3) you either enjoy this kind of work or can keep negative personal feelings about this kind of work hidden (=tasks at work are more important that your ethics or morals -> no Snowden wannabes).
We are looking for anything from butlers, private cooks over ex-military to computer scientists, software engineers and mathematicians. Training on the job and good benefits are part of the deal, a deep background check and absolute confidentiality are essential for survival.
It’s also a running joke that entire political parties can be considered fronts of the CIA. The German Greens are a particularly unsubtle example but there are others.
The spookery in Europe didn’t end in 1990, quite the opposite, but only one side’s actions are being made issue of these days.
I'm not familiar with this notion (or much of German's political scene). Can you elaborate why the Greens are known fronts for the CIA there? (as in, what are giveaways?)
The way they immediately threw away their pacifism in favour of US-led interventionism when the Cold War ended. Unsurprisingly, it was also them screaming for military support for Ukraine instead of pushing for talks. Scholz at least feigned reluctance for a while.
The deindustrialization of Germany they are spearheading.
Remember, in the words of its first Secretary General, the purpose of NATO (and US posture towards Europe in general) is “to keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” That has not substantially changed. A hypothetical alliance between Germany and Russia is a nightmare for them and they would (and in fact do) go to great lengths to prevent it.
And where is the alleged connection to the CIA there?
The quote you pulled from the first(!) Secretary General of NATO is from 80 years ago. At the time it was said, 80 years ago was 1870, shortly after the American Civil War, just to give some perspective.
> Unsurprisingly, it was also them screaming for military support for Ukraine instead of pushing for talks.
Maaaan, that is just in the interest of Germany and generally any Western country. It was also the only moral and ethical position. One does not need to be paid by CIA to see this invasion and genocide for what they are.
If you think it through, the only reasons this “I’m a pacifist but” dime store morality can be entertained at all is because of the idea that Ukraine is winning, and because Western audiences (and to an extent even Ukrainian) have largely been isolated from the true costs of this war (to both sides; and also to Western economies and arsenals).
Ukraine is winning
I do not intend to litigate this again right now; we’re going to find out, most likely within a year, probably less.
Should Ukraine in fact lose, I hope you will remember then that a generous deal was on the table (no loss of territory except obviously Crimea), and so hundreds of thousands will have died (and in fact have already) for much less than nothing.
> If you think it through, the only reasons this “I’m a pacifist but” dime store morality can be entertained at all is because of the idea that Ukraine is winning, and because Western audiences (and to an extent even Ukrainian) have largely been isolated from the true costs of this war (to both sides; and also to Western economies and arsenals).
So your telling me if your family was in the occupied parts of Ukraine, being tortured by the Russians, raped, etc you’d be happy to hand over that territory to the Russians and just let it all go?.
> Should Ukraine in fact lose, I hope you will remember then that a generous deal was on the table (no loss of territory except obviously Crimea), and so hundreds of thousands will have died (and in fact have already) for much less than nothing.
Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians haven’t died yet so you’ll have to wait a bit longer for that to come true im afraid.
Atrocity propaganda is great for eliminating opposition at home. It doesn’t win you a war, though. And it bears repeating: the thing about wars is you actually have to win them.
The curious thing is that historically it’s always the good guys that have won, so I’m certain the Russians will not only prevail militarily but also in the moral dimension.
> Atrocity propaganda is great for eliminating opposition at home. It doesn’t win you a war, though. And it bears repeating: the thing about wars is you actually have to win them.
That’s not an answer to the question, then again I don’t think you’ll ever answer it.
> The curious thing is that historically it’s always the good guys that have won, so I’m certain the Russians will not only prevail militarily but also in the moral dimension.
Considering that Russia is doing similar things in Ukraine that they did in the first Chechen war, which they lost both on the battlefield and morally with their filtration torture camps.
This bodes well for Ukraine.
If you think the country that is raping and torturing children, committing genocide, committing crimes against humanity and razing entire cities to the ground is moral then you have a very different definition of moral than most people.
Conveniently ignoring the fact that they are on their 12th wave of mobilization, and that most of these men are not at all volunteering. The regime is literally abducting men from the streets and their homes. Men are in hiding from press gangs. Because it is the Ukrainian regime’s and the West’s fight not theirs.
Also, I’ve never called for Ukrainians to lay down their arms—those that actually want to fight.
wood-chipper
Foaming at the mouth. Back in the real world, this war is notable for its uniquely low ratio of civilian victims.
And if you think Russia had or has the goal of eliminating the Ukrainian people, reason and debate cannot reach you anymore. Many millions of Ukrainians have fled to Russia over the last nine years, and prosper—guess they’re next?
If it was your fight you would not be fighting me on HN.
The How does it affect you? meme. I’m part of the West and the West is at war with Russia and that does in fact affect me. And who knows where this could end.
The fact that the West is gleefully pouring oil into a fire that has already consumed hundreds of thousands; yes, that affects me.
Without Western “help” this would have been over within weeks, a few months at most. Suffering would have ended a long time ago. The regime might or might not have been replaced. For the vast majority of Ukrainians life would have resumed its normal course.
And if you think Russia had or has the goal of eliminating the Ukrainian people, reason and debate cannot reach you anymore.
О боже, нет. Not all of them. Just those few thousand or soon the "kill or capture" lists that were carefully prepared before the invasion. Along with anyone who refused to dig trenches, or to answer in Russian when spoken to, or otherwise showed anything less than the highest respect for the liberating forces during the special operation.
Or who were stupid and treacherous enough to have hid in that theater basement in Mariupol. When they should have been out in the streets, protesting against their Nazi occupiers. And welcoming their liberators with bread and salt.
The rest were meant for eternal subjugation: annexed to the Motherland and forcibly Russified, if they lived in predominantly Russian-speaking regions (and most likely a few buffer regions for good measure, and Kyiv itself). Those living in the Western regions would have to contend with living either in an outright vassal state, and/or one with limited sovereignty -- i.e. Finlandization but with much stronger "security guarantees" to Moscow.
What was scheduled for elimination was the very idea of Ukraine, and within the liberated regions, any expression of the vulgar, degenerate "Little Russian" language (is it even a langauge?) and culture (if we can even call it that), beyond a highly marginalized "kitchen" status.
Per all the things the current Tsar and his helpers have been saying, in the years leading up to the invasion. And of course what is currently happening in the liberated regions, as we speak.
Suffering would have ended a long time ago.
Suffering for the so-called victim would have ended long ago - if she would just lay back and yield to her suitor's perfectly natural and understandable wishes.
For the vast majority of Ukrainians life would have resumed its normal course.
Indeed - she might as well just relax, sit back - and enjoy the ride.
Absurdly strained metaphor that betrays a profound ignorance of matters of state and war in general and of the current geopolitical situation in particular.
Let me repeat once more: I have not called on Ukrainians to lay down their arms, however counterproductive their fight may be. I also understand the hard feelings.
But that’s not what’s at issue here. The situation we find ourselves in is the West fighting a proxy war against Russia. It was very much not the intention of Russia to get into such a fight, they made that clear. But the West smelled blood in the water and here we are. And I don’t expect perfect justice but we will pay for that.
In terms of materiel, the original Ukrainian armed forces are all but gone. The second, post-Soviet army they got is also mostly gone. The third and final army of Western gear is getting ground up good right now[0]. 20% in a month and that’s just what they are admitting.
There will be no fourth iteration. Either the West does the formerly unthinkable and drops the “proxy”, or, more likely, Ukrainians will find out what all those who once considered themselves friends of the US eventually found out: “He didn’t love me. I got used.”
As a consequence, after 17 months of bitter fighting, there is indeed a good chance that Ukraine (at least as we know it) will cease to exist.
I have not called on Ukrainians to lay down their arms.
Right - it would be impolitic to say this directly.
What you are doing instead is (effectively) calling for the cessation of all military aid. Which would inevitably force the Ukrainians to do just that, shortly enough thereafter.
And saying stuff elsewhere like "it certainly would have been the prudent thing to do for them", referring to the prospect of their capitulating in the early stages of the war.
So at the end of the day - this is precisely the outcome you're lobbying for.
It was very much not the intention of Russia to get into such a fight, they made that clear.
One would have to be absolutely deluded to believe this.
Which would inevitably force the Ukrainians to do that, at some point.
Of course. Welcome to the real world.
Without Western help this would have happened within weeks or months and would have spared so many. The terms would have certainly disappointed Russian (but also Ukrainian) nationalists. No “Regathering of the Russian lands”, not even close. In typical Putin fashion, the terms would have been fairly generous and conservative and satisfied few.
There probably was another chance for a relatively advantageous settlement in autumn 2022. “Position of strength”, at least politically. But then you got greedy.
Well, here we are. Wunderkätze got put down unceremoniously. Have a plan B?
One would have to be absolutely deluded to believe this.
Come on, you’re not even trying. Your side spent the better part of 2022 making fun of Putin’s “impotent bluff”. It’s either-or.
It is just not true that historically good guys always won. And looking at Russian history, they quite rarely won in the moral dimension. Even their past victories are rarely in the "morally good ones won" category.
Past Russian victories involve massacres, genocides, engineered famines and even staggering amount of own victims to the meat grinders of various kind.
The true cost of Russian occupation is torture, massacres, rapes, stealing of property including whole factories and what not. It is oppression, language suppression and literal genocide. It is children taken away from parents to be Russified and abused.
> I hope you will remember then that a generous deal was on the table (no loss of territory except obviously Crimea
This is a lie. There was no nice believable deal.
In the first place, Russia did not had to start yet another war after lying about them not wanting it, but here we are.
> If that’s what you’ve let yourself be convinced is the present then, boy, are you not going to enjoy the future.
The only one who's convinced themselves is you, you've convinced yourself that the Russians are saints who only do good and not the imperialistic, genocidal invaders that they are in reality.
I dunno about the history of Austrian political parties, but this is very much true in Japan. The CIA constructed, financed, and ran intelligence operations for the ruling LDP party:
It’s covered at a greater extent in Tim Weiner’s Legacy of Ashes. Also, I find suspect the claim that you can be a CIA front organization for decades and then magically stop. This wasn’t even the full extent of the CIA’s meddling in Japanese politics. They also established control over their media through right-wing media magnates like Shoriki Matsutaro. This is documented in the CIA’s own archives.
If you read the article, it seems to be the huge amount of Russian spying that is causing the issue. So much so that western countries don't like sharing intelligence with Austria.
As far as "Anglos", Americans are barely even mentioned in the article.
This is a bit of a spin, though. There are huge concerns regarding non-disclosed NSA cooperations, circumventing parliamentary oversight, as well, e.g., on the side of the Neos cited in the article. (This is actually the major vector.) Concerns regarding sharing of intelligence, on the other hand, originated from the participation of the FPÖ (the right-wing freedom party with established links to Putin's Russia party) in the last coalition and their strong influence on the security apparatus (including a few scandals). Also, a minister from the conservative side of that coalition had invited Putin privately to their wedding, who actually came, with presents in hand…
As it is now, with the FPÖ leading in polls in the leeway of COVID and maybe heading the next government, this article may also be understood as a call to arms.
(PS: If you don't know about the local situation or domestic politics, please, still refrain from down-voting, just because.)
It has entered common usage in the late 2010s as a disparaging term for British people. It's definitely not on the level of the n-word, but it's roughly on par with calling Germans "krauts", Scots "jocks", Italians "dagos" etc. So it's not like the very worst thing in the world, but it's pretty rude and it's certainly not something you should make a habit of.
If it was wanted to refer to the English, who are closest to the ones 'running' the Economist and FT (lol), then one should say English.
Let's switch it over to talk about Russians, but replace for them the word Slav, which is also a real word. To say, "Slavs trying to undermine the EU with their backroom corruption and espionage, long standing tradition." would be 1) weird 2) pretty racist and 3) the word Slav would sound like a slur.
It means Brits + Americans (and occasionally other anglophone countries too), no reason to overthink it. To be fair, I should have added the NYTimes to that list because it very much belongs to it.
I understand you :) Now I'm overthinking, What's in a name? Maybe whether it's 'slurrish' has to do with the assumed tone of voice it was written in. On the one hand, it's a great word, exactly as you said, on the other, I've heard Russian propagandists use it and really _mean_ it in an ugly way. Anyways, it's not important and I feel I've over stayed my welcome.
Anglos are the people in the anglosphere. The term is often used as shorthand for "US+UK interests". It's useful because of the frequency in which those interests and actions align.
The example of the word "German" is amusing because it's kind of coincidental. There used to be more "German countries", and if unification in the 19th century had gone differently, we might still have use of a term for the collective actions of those countries. See for example the Austro-Prussian War, also known as "the German War."
I honestly don’t know your point anymore. Whether “German” or “Anglo” are equivalent terms makes no difference to the question of whether “Anglo” is a supposedly a slur. As an Anglo, I don’t find it to be a slur and I’m bothered by the fact that people are making such a mountain out of a molehill. The original usage didn’t offend anyone except those seeking out to be offended. Get off your high horse.
Edit: The original poster was obviously criticizing American and British intelligence services. Derailing that criticism with such unimportant linguistic complaints does a disservice to those discussing things that actually matter. Using the term “Anglos” simply isn’t a big deal.
You argue that Anglo is as much slur as Germans and then you claim it does not matter whether they are equivalent? I was not the one who brought up these words.
Original poster had zero actual criticism, just attempted to insinuate that Germans could not possibly be against Russia if they are not paid by CIA. That comment was meant to make you feel certain way without putting in argument.
As such, the specific word choices absolutely deserve being picked apart.
