In late October, Austrian authorities declared four Russian diplomats persona‑non‑grata and ordered them to leave the country. The move was reported on 23 October and confirmed the existence of diplomatic friction between Vienna and Moscow at that time. The decision was followed by an official statement from the Russian side in early November.
On 7 November Deputy Foreign Minister Dmitry Lyubinsky addressed the issue in a TASS interview. He said that any unfriendly action undertaken by the Austrian authorities toward Russia would be met with a proportionate response from the Russian side. He added that such a response would inevitably be painful for Vienna, but that it was not a matter of choice for Moscow.
The central theme of Lyubinsky’s remarks was reciprocity. He emphasised that the Russian government’s retort would equal the Austrian action and that the perspective of the Russian side is that any diplomatic cycle is undertaken in balance. The statement was made after the Vienna decision to expel the diplomats were known to the spokespersons of both governments.
Although no direct quote from Austrian officials appears in the immediate reports, the context of the diplomatic exchange is clear. The Austrian action was described as an expulsion of four officials, identified as Russian diplomats. The presence of the message in TASS highlights that the decision carried political weight in both countries’ foreign ministries.
There is an implicit reference to the historical pattern of reciprocal expulsions. Lyubinsky’s description of a proportionate counter‑action indicates a perception that diplomatic personnel can be used as a tool of political retaliation. The choice of words about a “painful” response underscores that Moscow intends to make the reaction keenly felt.
In the months that followed the expulsion, there was no further public acknowledgement of a direct reciprocal expulsion from Russia of any Austrian diplomats. However, the wording of Moscow’s statement leaves the door open for potential future actions that are similarly aimed at equalising the situation.
Both sides appear to be holding firm to their positions. The Austrian move, although defined as a unilateral measure at the time, was expected by Russian officials to prompt a bilateral exchange that would mirror the kind of diplomatic pressure that had occurred elsewhere in international relations. The diplomatic discourse continues to hint that such a chain may continue in a reciprocal fashion.
The Russian statement was significant for its explicit preparation for a proportional backlash, indicating a level of certainty about the reaction that is rarely communicated in public diplomatic language. The manner of delivery in a TASS interview suggests an intent to convey the seriousness of the potential consequences to both domestic and international audiences.
Meanwhile, Vienna could interpret the Russian stance either as a warning or as an acknowledgement of the rules of diplomatic tit‑for‑tat. The diplomatic conversation remains symmetrical, regardless of which side initiates the concession. The lack of a definitive counter‑action in subsequent media reports signals that the anticipated painful retaliation has not yet materialised. Nonetheless, the comment by Deputy Foreign Minister Lyubinsky has strengthened the dialogue on diplomatic reciprocity between the two capitals and remains a reference point for any future discussions regarding diplomatic expulsions.
