In an interview Chief of the General Staff Rudolf Striedinger warns of growing cyber threats, explains the role of neutrality in the EU and talks about the future of national and air defense.
Mr. Chief of Staff, what specific security threats does Austria need to be protected from today?
The threats are wide-ranging and affect us on a daily basis. Particularly relevant is the cyber threat. We see criminal activities aimed at making money, but also state-controlled attacks, which are often difficult to clearly identify, but whose methods point to actors such as Russia or its proxies. The armed forces fends off thousands of cyber attacks every day. When major attacks occur, such as those on the Foreign Ministry a few years ago or on hospitals, a well-established crisis management system comes into effect in Austria, which effectively brings together our small but highly specialized cyber community.
What is the difference between cyber security and cyber defense?
Cybersecurity encompasses all measures to keep networks and systems secure. This affects every person and every company. How do I use my smartphone? What data do I disclose? Are company networks well protected? For the state, this means that IT infrastructure must be handled securely. Cyber defense is the military part. It is a task of national defense and deals with the defense against attacks that could impair the state’s ability to act. To this end, we operate a cyber security center with firewalls, processes and training programs. The biggest risk factor in the area of cyber security is and remains people, which is why we invest heavily in raising awareness.
What scenarios do you have in mind when you talk about threats?
My focus is on potential threats from the East, in particular Russia. Europe is at the latest with the attack on Ukraine woke up. Austria is not a frontline state like Poland or the Baltic states, so a direct conventional attack is unlikely for the time being. But our territory is strategically important. We are a transit country for troop and material movements within Europe. If someone wanted to disrupt this transit, for example by sabotaging railroads or highways, that would be a threat against which we would have to arm ourselves. The police alone are not enough, we need soldiers with the appropriate equipment and training.
„Militärs können Gesprächskanäle öffnen, die Zivilisten verschlossen bleiben”
That sounds like classic homeland security. How would you describe it in concrete terms?
Imagine hostile forces blocking transportation hubs or sabotaging infrastructure. Our task would be to prevent these attacks or to protect the infrastructure so that transportation is not disrupted. This does not only apply to physical attacks on the ground. Missiles, drones or cyber attacks could also hinder military reinforcements in Europe. That is why we need air defense capabilities, including modern fighter aircraft.
“We are released from neutrality as soon as the EU takes a unanimous Council decision to support Ukraine, for example.”
In Eastern Europe, there is some talk of a Russian attack on NATO countries in the late 2020s. How do you assess this?
The longer the war in Ukraine lasts, the later such a scenario will occur. After the end of hostilities, the arms race will continue. Russia will maintain its war economy and will build up capabilities in order to be able to compete with NATO to be able to act militarily. Some experts cite 2027 or 2028 as possible dates for an escalation (-> Interview with expert Gustav Gressel: “Russian attack on NATO is certain to come”). I think it is possible that we will see such a situation in the 2030s. Russia’s goal of restoring the Soviet Union’s former sphere of influence is clearly recognizable.
Austria is neutral. How does that fit together when you talk about NATO transit and cooperation?
Neutrality means that we do not deploy foreign troops in peacetime and do not join any defense alliances. But we are a member of the EU and the EU Treaty contains a mutual assistance clause. Namely Article 42, paragraph 7: “In the event of an armed attack on the territory of a Member State, the other Member States shall owe it assistance and support by all the means at their disposal, in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter.” This means that if an EU state is attacked, we can also provide military support, including making our territory available for troop movements. With a corresponding EU Council decision, we would no longer be neutral towards this conflict under international law. In peacetime, i.e. when we are not under attack, we have to abide by the rules. We are released from neutrality as soon as the European Union a unanimous Council decision to support Ukraine, for example. Or that a country in the European Union needs help. Then the effect of neutrality no longer applies to this measure. We are already applying NATO standards for the purpose of the interoperability of our armed forces, taking part in exercises without practising Article 5 scenarios and contributing to missions such as KFOR (Kosovo Force, note).
Could Austria stand alone in an emergency if it were attacked?
Not against a great power like Russia. But such an attack on Austria is very unlikely for the time being because it would have to pass through NATO territory. Our mission is to protect our territory as far as possible, to defend it if necessary and to make our contribution to European security in the event of a crisis.
So neutrality is here to stay?
Yes. 80 percent of the population support it. Neutrality has brought us our freedom and international credibility. For the armed forces, it means clear rules of the game in peacetime, but also the duty to be prepared in case peace breaks down.
The Austrian Armed Forces are currently being reformed with the “Reconstruction Plan 2032”. Is this realistic?
Yes, as long as the funding remains secure. The National Defence Financing Act provides for a significant continuous budget increase and with the planned two percent of GDP by 2032 in accordance with the current government programme, we can implement the modernization. However, there are two major projects that cannot be financed within this framework. A special solution is needed here. One is the so-called Long-Range Air Defense. For this there is a draft law for special funding for this, which waswhich was not passed in the last National Council. It would have been 4.4 billion euros that would have been committed. The second major issue is the successor to the Eurofighter. This is an even larger budget item that will take time, but must be decided in this legislative period. The Federal Minister is clear here: 36 new jets are to be purchased to replace the 15 Eurofighters that will still be flying until 2035. We don’t even need to start below this order of magnitude. The system is not only intended for airspace surveillance, but for comprehensive air defense in conjunction with the large Medium-Range Air Defense and Long-Range Air Defense systems. The aim is to implement on a European scale what Israel is doing on a small scale – with national authority over the deployment of weapons. The European Sky Shield project is part of this overall strategy. It is better not to be the hole in the donut in the European network.
“Extending the obligation to provide information to women would give us a health overview of the entire population in this age segment.”
Speaking of future scenarios. Finally, a digression on the issue of military service: what do you think about compulsory military service for women? And why does this issue play such a minor role in the public debate? ?
The topic is not completely invisible, but it is actually only discussed in passing. Most recently, the President of the Austrian Officers’ Association brought up the issue of compulsory military service for women. The reactions from politicians were clear, with all parties rejecting the idea. Our minister also has a clear position against it.
And how do you see this personally?
We already offer women attractive opportunities in the armed forces, but on a voluntary basis. I am not in favor of compulsory service. What I can very well imagine is an extension of compulsory service to women. This would give us a health overview of the entire population in this age segment. That would be interesting from a health policy perspective and could also be an incentive to give military service a try.
Critics argue that compulsory military service for women would be a requirement of equality. What do you think speaks against this?
Traditionally, almost all countries expect the male part of the population to take over national defense. Women are only integrated on a mandatory basis where there is insufficient volume. Israel is the classic example. In other countries, such as Denmark, compulsory military service for women also has a socio-political dimension, because equal rights are more widely implemented there. I agree with the defense minister’s assessment that Austria has not yet reached this point in society.
Does this mean that an obligation would only be conceivable in exceptional cases?
Yes, if the state decides that it demands a service from all young people, whether in the military or in civilian service, then I can also imagine an obligation for women. That would be a decision for society as a whole, not just for the military. Such a solution would also have an advantage: it would offer all young people a time buffer after their school-leaving certificate or apprenticeship before they start university or enter working life. Many men today use this time to find their bearings.
Compulsory military service for women is currently not necessary, but conceivable if society demands it?
That’s exactly how it is.
Here for further current reports on the armed forces.
