Sky Shield: A Missed Opportunity

The claim that Austria can act neutrally under Sky Shield is nothing more than a smokescreen.

Austria is thus to join the European Sky Shield Initiative. A declaration of intent to this effect was recently signed. In the same breath, the Federal Chancellor and the Minister of Defense emphasize that such an accession would of course be compatible with Austrian neutrality. But is that so?

Let's start from the beginning. Sky Shield is a European protective shield against military threats from the air: ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, drones. In response to Putin's war of aggression, Germany initiated Sky Shield, a European air defense system with which European states jointly set up a protective umbrella. The initiative was signed by 15 NATO states in October 2022 at headquarters in Brussels. It is therefore a NATO project, not one of the EU.

Expensive air defense

There is no disputing the usefulness of joint air defense. Modern air defense systems that can cover the entire range of possible threats are very expensive. Small states also reach their geographical limits. As a security maverick, one would have to be able to both detect the threat and fight it exclusively from and over one's own territory. This is hardly possible given Austria's topography.

In short, effective air defense is neither budgetary nor practical for Austria to manage on its own. But how is Sky Shield compatible with Austrian neutrality? The federal government argued that Austria's neutrality obliges it to defend its airspace. This is correct, but it does not answer the question of whether participation in Sky Shield is permissible under neutrality law. Furthermore, a distinction is made between detecting threats and combating them. Localizing the attack, it is claimed, can be done across borders. Combating the target is then Austria's sovereign decision.

Neutrality as a smokescreen

However, such a differentiation is out of touch with reality. Both identifying and engaging a target are military actions. Reconnaissance, identification and target engagement are what make the firing of a missile possible in the first place.

Moreover, joint air defense can only be effective if a uniform procedure is used to monitor the airspace, identify an attack and finally decide which defense system is to be used. There is no room for national unilateral action by a "neutral" country. The idea that Austria could have its own independent command within Sky Shield is an illusion.

Admittedly, the signing of a memorandum of understanding is still unproblematic. The joint purchase of air defense systems is just as unobjectionable under neutrality law.

It is already clear, however, that Sky Shield will not remain a purchasing pool. As soon as the joint air defense system is operationally implemented, Austria would be obliged to take military measures that go beyond autonomous self-defense and are therefore prohibited under neutrality law. The claim that Austria can act neutrally within the framework of Sky Shield is nothing more than a smokescreen. And it is once again a missed opportunity to have an honest debate about the security policy necessary in the 21st century.