“Austria also has to choose”

He didn’t announced that – he did it. He rehabilitates the worst aggressor that we have had in Europe in the past few decades. He not only rehabilates him, he stands on his side: And the resulting step for Europe means that we can no longer trust our American ex-allies. We can no longer rely on them.

And of course the “Article 5”, i.e. the alliance loyalty of the United States within NATO, is also provided with a huge question mark.

What does that mean for Europe now?

That we can no longer rely on American help in the event of an attack. This means that President Trump is willing to sacrifice Ukraine and to have President Selenskij made a head shorter.

But this also means for Europe that we now have to develop our own deterrent defense ability very quickly in order to prepare ourselves against a possible attack by Russia.

What does it mean when Trump sacrifices Ukraine?

This means that we then live in a jungle in which the right of the stronger prevails. This means that Ukraine Russia is accused of eating. That the Russians will of course try not only to keep the occupied areas, but also to implement what they wanted to do since the beginning of the war, namely demonstrated and eliminated the Ukrainian government.

We also speak of an immediate risk for the rest of the still free Ukraine. We talk that people who live in the occupied areas are fixed in a totalitarian form. We talk about the fact that a lot, a lot of people in the still free Ukraine would set off to leave their homeland.

Although I believe that a large part of the Ukrainians will not give up and continue to fight. There will be a part that do not want to arise. And others will say: we cannot change it; We are looking for our salvation in Austria or in Switzerland or in Germany.

How could Europe still prevent that?

When Europeans are not just talking about what they have been doing for three or four years, but rather militarily support Ukraine and make it clear that they do not avoid their politically.

What do you think of President Trump’s proposal to send a European peace force to Ukraine after a ceasefire?

It is completely stupid because he knows exactly that President Putin has in no way say goodbye to his strategic goals. Putin wants to continue to destroy Ukraine, destabilize Europe, divide NATO and the EU. He has no interest in an armistice at all.

And should he actually want to go into any form, it would only be a break that gives him the opportunity to reorganize his military and economic capacities. President Trump has now given him a blank check.

Trump said he will not deduct the US troops from Europe. She calms that?

In no way. It is part of Trump’s strategy to keep us completely confused with confusing messages.

What should Europe or European NATO do to deal with this new situation now?

We will have to stand up again. And it depends on who will be part of this group. There will be states, such as Hungary or Slovakia, which have already decided for themselves that they would actually prefer to live in Mr. Putin’s area.

But I also think of neutral states such as Austria and Switzerland. You will no longer be able to stand on the fence and watch the debacle and disaster. An Austria also has to decide whether it wants to stick to a regular order or whether it wants to live in a jungle in the future: it’s not just about Germany and France and others. We as Europeans are all affected. We are all in the same boat.

Does there have to be a European army or is a European part of NATO?

We need armed forces who are capable of defense. The European Union has refused to give its own military leadership structures for decades. Apart from the fact that we have many states on the European side who have difficulty difficulties with their armed forces.

But we have nuclear groups like that of the so -called Joint Expeditionary Force, it has been there for ten years. This is a NATO subcontractor, led by the British, in which the Scandinavians have joined for years, the Netherlands, the Balties. This is a group that has its own management structures of military ways. This is a nucleus that you might build on.

Do you think a kind of nuclear protective shield for Europe is essential?

France has invited to think about how the French and the British nuclear forces could be used for a common, European umbrella. But the proposal was not taken up.

However, we need a nuclear component for credible military deterrence against Russia. We are not entirely toothless. We have 1.9 million people in uniform on the European side. We have two nuclear powers on our side. We have very strong European countries such as Poland, such as Finland and how Sweden on our side, which have also really invested in their military defense ability.

In this really dramatic situation, I wish that you stay cool and factual, but no longer stays on the intellectual level, where you say: Oh, that’s a wake -up call. No, this is a political earthquake, and this must also be reacted to in such a form.

In Austria there is also a discussion about Sky Shield: is it necessary, or would it be just a drop on the hot stone in terms of Europe’s defense?

We have a spectrum of necessary military skills, which includes hundreds of skills. And at the top of the list is also the question of a European common air defense shade. But this is a twentieth or thirtieth of the pots that we have to focus on.