Sky Shield and "Neutral" Austria: Just an Illusion

The claim that it is possible to act independently within the European air defence umbrella is a smokescreen.

Austria is thus to join the Sky Shield initiative. A corresponding declaration of intent has been signed. In the same breath, the Federal Chancellor and the Minister of Defense emphasize that this would of course be compatible with Austrian neutrality. But is that so?

Let's start from the beginning. Sky Shield is a European shield against military threats from the air: ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, drones. It was initiated by Germany, in response to Putin's war of aggression. 15 NATO countries signed the initiative in October 2022 at NATO headquarters in Brussels. It is thus a NATO project, not an EU one.

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 like Austria also come up against geographical limits. As a lone wolf, it would have to be able to conduct both threat detection and countermeasures exclusively from and over its own territory. This is hardly possible given Austria's topography.

But how is this compatible with neutrality? The federal government said that Austria was obliged to defend its airspace because of its neutrality. This is correct, but it does not answer the question of whether participation in Sky Shield is permissible under neutrality law.

Further, a fine distinction is made between detecting threats and countering them. Localizing the attack, it is claimed, can be done across borders. Combating the target is then Austria's sovereign decision. However, such a differentiation is out of touch with reality. Both identifying and engaging a target are military actions. Reconnaissance, identification and targeting are what make the firing of a missile possible in the first place. It is not only the person who finally presses the button who is acting militarily. Moreover, joint air defense can only be effective if the airspace is monitored according to a uniform procedure, an attack is identified and a decision is made as to which defense system is to be deployed where. 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, a declaration of intent is still unproblematic. The joint purchase of air defense systems is just as unobjectionable under neutrality law. However, it is already clear 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 are not part of EU defense policy, go beyond autonomous self-defense and are therefore prohibited under neutrality law. The federal government's 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.