What is the future of Swiss neutrality?
After Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Moscow declared that Switzerland was no longer neutral as it had adopted Western sanctions against Russia.
In August, a commission set up by the Swiss government made proposals for the country’s future security policy – including a rapprochement with NATO. Western media wrote that Switzerland wanted to give up its neutrality.
Is Swiss neutrality misunderstood? Or has the Swiss model of neutrality now become obsolete? What do you think? We look forward to your comments.
good morning , I am Aldiego Frigato , unfortunately the world situation is really frightening
buongiorno , sono Aldiego Frigato , purtroppo la situazione mondiale , fa' veramente timore
Switzerland is not a member of the EU or NATO. It was still neutral. This manoeuvre by the EU and NATO to try to annex Ukraine triggered Russia's intervention. What's more, Mr Putin had warned that he would not accept these ticklish actions close to home. No diplomat worthy of the name, not in France and certainly not in Switzerland, has been able to negotiate anything. Once again, we see that there is a lack of people with diplomatic skills. And yet this would be far more important than sanctions. Clumsiness, non-compliance with the rules, an inability to offer messages of wisdom and hubris are the downsides of the pro-EU side.
La Suisse n'est pas dans l'UE, ni dans l'OTAN. Elle était encore neutre. Ce manège qu'ont fait l'UE et l'OTAN, pour essayer de s'annexer l'Ukraine, a déclenché l'intervention de la Russie. De plus, M. Poutine avait averti qu'il n'accepterai pas ces chatouilles proche de chez lui. Aucun diplomate, digne de ce qualificatif, ni en France, et encore moins en Suisse, n'ont été capable de négocier quoi que ce soit. On constate une fois de plus qu'il manque de personnalité douée en diplomatie. Et pourtant ce serait bien plus important que des sanctions . Les maladresses, le non respect des règles, l'incapacité de proposer des messages de sagesse , l'orgueil, sont les bémols des pro-UE.
This is historical misrepresentation: after Russia occupied Crimea and eastern Ukraine in 2014, Ukraine turned even more towards the West. What it is allowed to do as a sovereign state. Blaming the EU or Nato for the Russian invasion is factually incorrect and crude propaganda.
Apart from that, there is no lack of diplomatically gifted personalities. But rather a lack of respect for international law on the part of Russia, which has attacked its neighbouring country.
Das ist Geschichtsklitterung: Nachdem Russland bereits 2014 die Krim und die Ostukraine besetzte, wendete sich die Ukraine noch mehr dem Westen zu. Was sie als souveräner Staat machen darf. Der EU oder der Nato die Schuld für die russische Invasion zu geben ist faktisch falsch und plumpe Propaganda.
Abgesehen davon mangelt es nicht an diplomatisch begabten Persönlichkeiten. Sondern an einen Respekt vor internationalem Völkerrecht vonseiten Russlands, das sein Nachbarland angegriffen hat.
certainly the conflict is based on a NATO approach to the Russian borders, as I understand you rightly, in post-World War II agreements. the disaster is the civilians and the bombings and all these needless deaths, but perhaps the whole thing is based on even more serious interests, a climate gone mad, and an exorbitant number of people with fossil energy, the weakening of strong states, with human rights, important. it's just a pity! We needed an abpriori birth control! we already felt the changes! the planet can't hold on like this! I am saddened by the loss of human lives, as if nothing had happened! generations of missing children, civilians, and the whole monstrous ensemble, against every human right, elementary! it's frightening, it's like a repetition of shav! genocide of innocents! only sadness on my part! believe me! for children mostly! but I'm also talking about Gaza! .. in general! estimated 170 world conflicts .
sicuramente il conflitto e' basato su un avvicinsmento della Nato nei confini Rissi , come giustamente mi sembra di capire anche da lei , in accordi del dopo seconda querra mondiale . il disastro , sono i civili e i bombardamenti e tutti questi morti inutilmente , ma forse il tutto si basa su interessi ancora piu' gravi , un clims impazzito , e un numero esorbitante di persone con un energia fossile , indebolimento di stati forti , con diritti umani , importanti . e' solo un dispiacere il tutto ! ci voleva un controllo abpriori delle nascite ! gia' i cambiamenti , si percepivano ! non puo' reggere il pianeta , a questo modo ! sono amareggiato dalle perdite in vite umane , come nulla fosse ! generazioni di ragazzi dispersi , civili , e tutto un insieme mostruoso , contro ogni diritto umano , elementare ! fa' spavento , sembra un ripetere della schav ! genocidi di innocenti ! solo tristezza da parte mia ! mi creda ! per bambini per lo piu ! ma parlo anche di Gaza ! .. in generale ! stimati 170 conflitti modiali .
one should remain more neutral... e.g. not freeze the money but return it to the sender and say, for example, that money from countries that wage wars of aggression cannot be invested in Switzerland... Well, that would also be the USA...
that would be consistent, but then our financial industry would probably shrink by more than 50 %...
So that doesn't work either, so simply try to remain neutral without sanctions... but that will no longer suit many people.
I therefore think that no matter how you do it, it will hardly be possible to remain truly neutral in this extremely interconnected world.
man sollte neutraler bleiben... z.B. nicht das Geld einfrieren sondern zurückweisen an den Absender und z.B. sagen, dass Gelder aus Staaten welche Anfriffs Kriege führen, nicht in der CH angeleget werden könnten... Ui das wäre dann auch die USA...
das wäre konsequent, aber dann würde unsere Finanzindustrie wohl um mehr als 50 % schrumpfen...
Also geht das auch nicht daher einfach ohne Sanktionen versuchen neutral zu bleiben... nur das wird dann auch vielen nicht mehr passen.
ich denke daher: egal wie mans macht, richtig neutral wird man wohl kaum mehr sein können in dieser extrem vernetzten Welt.
I really think in a total collapse, almost declared years and years ago! we will all pay the consequences unfortunately! it's just a pity for me, believe me!
penso veramente in un crollo totale , quasi dichiarato anni e anni fa' ! ne pagheremo tutti le conseguenze purtoppo ! e' solo un dispiacere per me , mi creda !
It is up to the Swiss People and Swiss Government to decide if the invasion of Ukraine, by its neighbour Russia was legal or not. In my opinion : Ukraine is an independent state, who has the right to take any measures to defend itself. Ukraine is fully supported by Europe as well as NATO. Even other neutral countries like Sweden and Finland have changed international policy, by joining NATO. It is in the benefit of the people of Switzerland to support the European friends, like Germany, France and Italy, in the defense of Ukraine.
No, it is a matter of international law. And here the case is clear: it is a matter of aggression as defined in the UN Charter (when one or more states use military force or other forms of coercion in violation of international law).
Nein, es ist Sache des Völkerrechts. Und da ist der Fall eindeutig: Es handelt sich um eine Aggression, wie sie in der UN-Charta definiert ist (wenn ein oder mehrere Staaten völkerrechtswidrige militärische Gewalt oder andere Arten von Zwang anwenden).
Yes, Ukraine is an independent state. It has the right to defend itself.
But it also has a duty to respect people of different ethnicity.
Not to massacre them and ban their culture, language etc. (see Donbass).
It also has a moral duty to keep geopolitical forces stable. Not to allow
to host NATO bases on its borders with Russia, threatening it. What would
the US if the Russians set up military bases in Cuba (see 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis)?
Among nuclear powers, a certain balance is needed. If this is lacking......beh! Good luck.
World War IV will be fought with rocks and clubs, as someone said!
Si, l'ucraina è uno stato indipendente. Ha il diritto di difendersi.
Ma ha anche il dovere di rispettare le popolazioni di etnia differente.
Non di massacrarle e proibire la loro cultura, lingua ecc. (vedi Donbass).
Ha anche il dovere morale di mantenere le forze geopolitiche stabili. Non permettere
di ospitare basi NATO ai suoi confini con la Russia, minacciandola. Cosa farebbero
gli USA se i russi installassero basi militari a Cuba (vedi crisi dei missili di Cuba del 1962)?
Fra le potenze nucleari ci vuole un certo equilibrio. Se questo viene a mancare......beh! Buona fortuna.
La quarta guerra mondiale la combatteremo con le pietre e i randelli, come disse qualcuno!
Who claims that there would be Nato bases in the country? That would only be the case if Ukraine were to join Nato. And why would it do that? Because it has a neighbour that has been waging war against it for 10 years, as it repeatedly argues itself.
As for the "massacre" argument: that was Russian propaganda to justify the invasion of eastern Ukraine.
Wer behauptet denn, dass es Nato-Stützpunkte im Land geben würde? Das wäre ja nur dann überhaupt der Fall, wenn die Ukraine der Nato beitreten würde. Und warum würde sie das machen? Weil sie einen Nachbar hat, der schon seit 10 Jahren gegen sie Krieg führt, wie sie selbst immer wieder argumentiert.
Zum Argument der "Massaker": Das war russische Propaganda um die Invasion in der Ostukraine zu rechtfertigen.
Wouldn't it be safer for Switzerland to maintain a reservation to a policy of neutrality with conditions (e.g. excluding countries subject to UN sanctions resolutions, such as Russia and North Korea)?
条件付きで（例えば、ロシア、北朝鮮など、国連制裁決議対象国を除く）中立政策の留保を保つ方が、スイスにとって無難なのでは？
Switzerland would do well to stick to its neutrality even more.
Submitting to the dictatorial EU organisation, as it did in the Russia/Ukraine conflict, is a big mistake.
In an international context, "neutrality" can also be described as the "impartiality" of a state. In an armed conflict, a neutral state does not provide any direct or indirect military support to conflict parties. Furthermore, the state itself does not enter the conflict as an active party.
Die Schweiz tut sich gut noch viel mehr an Ihrer Neutralität festzuhalten.
Sich dem Diktatorischen Verein EU unterwerfen, wie sie das im Russen/Ukraine Konflikt gemacht hat, sind grosse Fehler.
Neutralität" kann man im internationalen Kontext auch als "Unparteilichkeit" eines Staates bezeichnen. In einem bewaffneten Konflikt leistet ein neutraler Staat keine direkte oder indirekte militärische Unterstützung an Konfliktparteien. Außerdem tritt der Staat selbst nicht als aktive Partei in den Konflikt ein.
What makes you think that the EU is a "dictatorial organisation"? And what makes you think that Switzerland has "submitted"?
Neutrality does not mean impartiality either. Switzerland always takes sides - it is guided by the applicable rules of international law. And if these are clearly broken, as in the case of an invasion of another country, then Switzerland has to say so.
Moreover: Yes, the law of neutrality prohibits the supply of weapons to warring parties.
Wie kommen Sie darauf, dass die EU ein "diktatorischer Verein" ist? Und wie kommen Sie darauf, dass sich die Schweiz "unterworfen" hat?¨
Neutralität bedeutet auch nicht Unparteilichkeit. Die Schweiz ergreift immer Partei - sie orientiert sich entlang den geltenden völkerrechtlichen Regeln. Und wenn diese klar gebrochen werden, so wie bei einem Einmarsch in ein anderes Land, dann hat die Schweiz das auch so zu benennen.
Überdies: Ja, das Neutralitätsrecht verbietet es, Waffen an Kriegsparteien zu liefern.
If Sweden decides to design our own next-generation fighter aircraft to succeed Gripen-E I *really* hope we keep buying autocannons from Mauser rather than the Swiss Oerlikons we had on the Viggen-system.
Or for that matter any other systems with export restrictions for the aircraft.
I'm sorry, but as a country you've now clearly shown that you are not a partner willing to make compromise on order to support the security of your buyers.
This development (Swiss arms manufacturers excluded from procurements) has been anticipated for quite a while in Sweden. For almost all Swedes (a recent survey stated that 97 % of Swedes support helping Ukraine with whatever means necessary) those who hinder Ukraine's abilities to defend themselves are seen as not trust-worthy or even as traitors to democracy.
As recently as today the Swedish foreign minister said to the UN assembly in NYC that "Sweden’s steadfast support for Ukraine’s efforts to restore its sovereignty and territorial integrity will continue for as long as it takes".
Me and my colleagues in the Swedish Armed Forces (I'm a part-time Leopard 2 driver) and other acquaintances with interests in security policy have come to the conclusion that Switzerland is a country that cannot be relied on, since Switzerland blocks democratic countries from helping each other.
The Swiss arms industry should panic, because the purchases from democratic countries will almost certainly disappear in the coming years.
What Swiss neutrality? Switzerland hasn't been neutral for years and one of the clearest indications of this in recent times was the debacle called the Ukraine Peace Summit. This event not only revealed the Swiss lack of neutrality, the country actually held a peace summit without the other IMPORTANT participant in attendance...!!! The excuse "they weren't invited because they wouldn't come anyway" was farcical at best. This took Switzerland's so-called neutrality down quite a few notches along with a decline in intelligence. What's important for Switzerland to understand is that it's their previous neutrality stance that has kept the country safe and afloat. Now that Swiss neutrality has been ruined the country is fair game for all the devastation and troubles headed to and destroying the west.
This may disappoint them, but apart from Russia, there is practically no state that regards Switzerland as non-neutral.
And what problems are you talking about that the West will face?
Das wird sie vielleicht enttäuschen, aber: Ausser Russland gibt es praktisch keinen Staat, der die Schweiz als nicht neutral betrachtet.
Und von welchen Problemen sprechen Sie, die auf den Westen zukommen?
Hatred towards us in the West (including Switzerland, which is no longer neutral)
has grown in the world, desires for vengeance and revenge are smouldering in many hotbeds and
world peace is now really at risk. Just ask yourself why.
The West is not the way! We are a small minority on the planet.
Europe, not counting North America, consumes more than 20% of the world's resources.
Where do you think they go to plunder them, causing unrest, blackmail and wars?
Why does NATO have an interest in destabilising and then 'balkanising' Russia?
They are even kicking us out of Africa. Why?
Switzerland must remain neutral and when possible offer its mediation. Only a 100% neutral country can mediate between the conflicting parties.
L’odio verso noi occidentali (tra le quali anche la Svizzera, ormai non più neutrale)
è cresciuto nel mondo, i desideri di vendetta e di rivalsa covano in molti focolai e
la pace mondiale è oggi messa davvero a rischio. Provate a chiedervi perchè.
L'occidente non è il modo! Siamo una piccola minoranza sul pianeta.
L'europa, senza contare il nord america, consuma più del 20% delle risorse mondiali.
Dove pensate che vadano a depredarle, causando disordini, ricatti e guerre?
Per quale motivo la NATO ha interesse a destabilizzare per poi "balcanizzare" la Russia?
Ci stanno cacciando persino dall' Africa. Perchè?
La Svizzera deve rimanere neutrale e quando possibile offrire la propria mediazione. Solo un paese al 100% neutrale può mediare tra le parti in conflitto.
This is the old myth of the "collective West" that wants to destabilise Russia. It's cheap propaganda that has no basis in reality.
Incidentally, it is also not true that only neutral states can mediate: Norway, for example, is a Nato member and is active in many conflicts, as is Turkey.
And whether world peace is in danger or not depends on those who want to wage war, don't you think?
Das ist die alte Mär vom "kollektiven Westen", der Russland destabilisieren will. Das ist billige Propaganda, die keine Basis in der Realität hat.
Im übrigen stimmt es auch nicht, dass nur neutrale Staaten vermitteln können: Norwegen beispielsweise ist Nato-Mitglied und in vielen Konflikten tätig, die Türkei ebenso.
Und ob der Weltfrieden in Gefahr ist oder nicht, hängt von denjenigen ab, die Krieg führen möchten, meinen Sie nicht?
@Marvis....why haven't you posted my last comment to you but you post everyone else's..??? Serious question....
Giannis....let's drop the propaganda. I think everyone uses it, especially us westerners, we are masters of it.
On our poor earth we have at least three (nuclear) superpowers, which have to maintain a certain balance between them. If one of them gets out of balance, that's the end.
Now, go and research how many American and European bases exist around the world (not always well liked, even by their hosts).
After that, you will tell me who are the most agressive.
As for mediation, it can only be exercised if a state is completely neutral, to be credible.
If you needed a lawyer for a dispute, you would not hire one who is biased, or would you?
Giannis....lasciamo perdere la propaganda. Penso che tutti ne fanno uso, specialmente noi occidentali, ne siamo maestri.
Sulla nostra povera terra abbiamo almeno tre superpotenze (nucleari), le quali devono mantenere un certo equilibrio fra di loro. Se una di queste sgarra, è la fine.
Ora, vai a ricercare quante basi americane e europee esistono in tutto il mondo (non sempre ben viste, neanche da chi le ospita).
Dopodiche, mi dirai chi sono i più agressivi.
Per quanto riguarda la mediazione può essere esercitata solo se uno stato è completamente neutrale, per essere credibile.
Se tu avessi bisogno di un avvocato per una disputa, non ne assumeresti uno che è di parte, o no?
I mean, that a mediator should be neutral in order to be credible.
You are right when you write that 'it is not true that only neutral states can mediate'. but it is equally true that they are not always credible.
Switzerland was ideal for this task. It was much sought after. Not any more.
Voglio dire, che un mediatore dovrebbe essere neutrale, per essere credibile.
Hai ragione quando scrivi che "non è vero che solo gli stati neutrali possono mediare" , ma è altrettanto vero che non sompre sono credibili..
La Svizzera era ideale per questo compito. Era molto ambita. Ora non più.
Hello PropD, the debates are moderated, we look at each comment individually before we approve it. If it does not comply with our netiquette, it will not be published. Here is the netiquette (in English): https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/about-us/terms-of-use/44141966
Hallo PropD, die Debatten werden moderiert, wir schauen uns jeden Kommentar einzeln an, bevor wir ihn freischalten. Wenn er nicht unserer Netiquette entspricht, wird er nicht veröffentlicht. Hier die Netiquette (auf Englisch): https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/about-us/terms-of-use/44141966
Yes, the doctrine of nuclear balance. If the theory were true, peace would reign on this earth because nobody would dare to start a war. Doesn't really work, does it?
And you're still wrong about mediation. See comment above.
Ja, die Doktrin vom nuklearen Gleichgewicht. Wenn die Theorie stimmen würde, würde auf dieser Erde Frieden herrschen, weil sich niemand getrauen würde, einen Krieg anzuzetteln. Funktioniert nicht so richtig, nicht wahr?
Und zur Mediation sind Sie immer noch falsch. Siehe Kommentar oben.
In fact, it does not work. It causes the West's aggression.
The West is betting that Russia and China will never use the atom bomb. Here, they are dead wrong!
You still haven't answered my question: 'go and research how many American and European bases exist around the world (not always well liked, not even by their hosts)'.
Giannis, you are right about mediation. I am of the opinion that a neutral state is better....
Infatti, non funziona. Causa l' aggressività dell' occidente.
L' occidente scommette che Russia e Cina non useranno mai l' atomica. Quì , si sbagliano di grosso!
Non hai risposto ancora alla mia domanda: "vai a ricercare quante basi americane e europee esistono in tutto il mondo (non sempre ben viste, neanche da chi le ospita)".
Giannis, hai ragione per quanto riguarda la mediazione. Io sono dell' opinione che uno stato neutrale sia meglio..
I'll make you a counter-proposal. Why don't you see how many bases there are? Obviously the criterion that the hosts don't want them must also be met - I can't judge that. But you don't seem to have any reservations.
Ich mache Ihnen einen Gegenvorschlag. Schauen doch Sie nach, wieviele Basen es gibt. Offenbar muss auch das Kriterium erfüllt sein, dass die Gastgeber sie nicht haben wollen - das kann ich nicht beurteilen. Sie scheinen aber keine Berührungsängste zu haben.
Please Giannis, don't start with counter-proposals, be honest.
Answer these simple questions:
- how many NATO (US) military bases are installed abroad?
- how many RUSSIAN military bases are installed abroad?
The hosts are not always happy to host them!
Western bases in Africa are packing up.
The American base in Okinawa is no longer well liked by the population.
NATO bases in Italy are increasingly contested by the population.
Etc. etc,
And now try to mark them on the world map. You will be amazed!
All this gives much food for thought.
Per favore Giannis, Non cominciare con le controproposte, sii onesto.
Rispondi a queste semplici domande:
- quante basi militari NATO (USA) sono installate all' estero?
- quante basi militari RUSSE sono installate all' estero?
I padroni di casa non sempre sono felici di ospitarle!
Le basi occidentali in Africa, stanno facendo i bagagli.
La base americana ad Okinawa non è più ben vista dalla popolazione.
Le basi NATO in Italia sempre più contestate dalla popolazione.
Ecc. ecc,
E adesso prova a segnarle sul mappamondo. Ne rimarrai stupito!
Tutto questo da molto da riflettere.
Big shock that Germany and the Netherlands no longer view Switzerland as a reliable weapons supplier! Who really cares? Let Switzerland remain with its idealistic vision of neutrality. But let it be prepared to give up their arms and munitions export business. Also, Switzerland should be prepared to defend itself without the support of NATO or the EU if a greater European war should break out.
The world has changed dramatically for all but those that cannot see over the Alps.
@rparace....Swiss safety does not depend upon NATO or EU. It depends upon Switzerland being "neutral" and not making themselves a target for either side. The world has changed dramatically because the west is losing control and can no longer be hegemonic on the rest of the world. And this is a good thing. For instance, up and coming countries need more choices and opportunities to progress and one of the main reasons is because they have been deceived and mistreated by western institutions.
This is what the left in Switzerland is demanding: that the defence industry is scaled back and arms sales are stopped wherever possible. However, this will not happen as it is not currently capable of winning a majority. On the other hand, a rapprochement with NATO and the EU is acceptable to the majority, but only in the sense of selective cooperation - accession is not currently under discussion.
Das verlangt die Linke in der Schweiz: Dass die Rüstungsindustrie runtergefahren wird und die Waffenverkäufe möglichst eingestellt werden. Das wird aber nicht geschehen, da es im Moment nicht mehrheitsfähig ist. Mehrheitsfähig ist hingegen eine Annäherung an Nato und EU, jedoch nur im Sinnen einer punktuellen Zusammenarbeit - ein Beitritt ist zurzeit keine Diskussion.
There is a misunderstanding: states do not make themselves "vulnerable". An aggressor attacks because he has decided to do so. The responsibility for a military attack cannot be shared, it always lies with the aggressor. Everything else is propaganda.
Da gibt es ein Missverständnis: Staaten machen sich nicht "angreifbar". Ein Aggressor greift an, weil er sich dazu entschlossen hat. Die Verantwortung für einen kriegerischen Angriff kann man nicht teilen, sie liegt immer bei Angreifer. Alles andere ist Propaganda.
Germany did the right thing, you can't eat your cake and have it.
Yes, neutrality is often misunderstood.
ja die Neutralität wird oft missverstanden.
Unfortunately, Switzerland is no longer neutral. It is moving ever closer to Nato, an aggressive military alliance which, under the rule of the USA, has carried out hundreds of attacks, wars and acts of terrorism against other states since it was founded. The USA, an extremely indebted country, has imposed sanctions against a quarter of all states in violation of international law - this is only possible because the dollar is the reserve currency in international payments - and is also forcing Switzerland and other states to submit to these sanctions, which are damaging to the economy. The Russians have apparently been coming for 107 years and are now waging cyber warfare against us poor Westerners - in reality, it is the US corporations such as Google and Meta that know everything about us and share their knowledge with the US government without restraint. It's time for us Swiss to reclaim our neutrality!
Leider ist die Schweiz nicht mehr neutral. Sie nähert sich immer weiter der Nato an, einem aggressiven Militärbündnis, das unter der Herrschaft der USA seit seiner Gründung hunderte von Ueberfällen, Kriegen und Terrorakten gegen andere Staaten verübt hat. Der Staat USA, ein extrem verschuldetes Land, hat gegen ein Viertel aller Staaten völkerrechtswidrige Sanktionen verhängt - das ist nur möglich, weil der Dollar die Leitwährung im internationalen Zahlungsverkehr ist - und zwingen auch die Schweiz und andere Staaten, sich diesen die Wirtschaft schädigenden Sanktionen unterzuordnen. Der Russe kommt offenbar seit 107 Jahren und verübt jetzt den Cyberkrieg gegen uns arme Westler - in Wahrheit sind es die US-Konzerne wie Google und Meta, die alles über uns wissen und ihr Wissen hemmungslos mit der US-Regierung teilen. Es ist Zeit, dass wir Schweizer unsere Neutralität zurückerobern!
Why do you believe that Switzerland is no longer neutral? The law on neutrality is very clearly defined and Switzerland abides by it.
Wieso glauben Sie denn, dass die Schweiz nicht mehr neutral sei? Das Neutralitätsrecht ist sehr klar definiert, daran hält sich die Schweiz.
It matters little whether Russia or another country still considers Switzerland neutral or not. What matters is whether a country such as Switzerland can side 100 per cent with one side without trying to understand the reasons of the other side and, above all, whether it is not always preferable to envisage solutions (concretely: compromises) to promote the peaceful coexistence of different population groups, also safeguarding their inalienable identity characteristics (e.g. language, culture, religion, education, etc.) by means of appropriate laws.
Poco importa se la Russia o altro Paese considera la Svizzera ancora o non più neutrale. Ciò che importa è se un Paese come la Svizzera può schierarsi al 100 per 100 con una parte senza cercare di comprendere le ragioni dell'altra parte e, soprattutto, se non sia comunque sempre preferibile prospettare soluzioni (concretamente: compromessi) per favorire la convivenza pacifica di gruppi di popolazione diversi, salvaguardandone anche con leggi adeguate, le caratteristiche identitarie irrinunciabili (per es. lingua, cultura, religione, educazione, ecc.).
Here's an example of neutrality, looking only at actions and not rhetoric: India is neutral vis-a-vis the Ukraine conflict. Switzerland is not as it is clearly taking part in imposing sanctions etc.
Maintaining neutrality allows Switzerland to push for a negotiated peace. Surely this is more important than a belligerent war promoting attitude.
This is why in troubled times like these, its even more important for Switzerland to maintain FULL neutrality. No exceptions. We need peace makers, not war makers.
Well said!
I fully agree.
Ben detto!
Concordo in pieno.
Switzerland has always imposed sanctions, that has never been a problem with the law of neutrality. And it's a joke to talk about instigating war when sanctions are imposed. The sanctions are a reaction to an actual war that one side has actually started.
Die Schweiz hat schon immer Sanktionen verhängt, das war noch nie ein Problem mit dem Neutralitätsrecht. Und es ist ein Witz, von Kriegsstifter zu sprechen, wenn Sanktionen erhoben werden. Die Sanktionen sind eine Reaktion auf einen effektiven Krieg, den eine Seite konkret begonnen hat.
SOME GOOD REASONS NOT TO APPROACH NATO AND MAINTAIN OUR PRECIOUS NEUTRALITY!
The Atlantic alliance has repeatedly violated the international law they were supposed to defend. To pander to their own interests and projects of hegemony.
Not endorsing them means working on a real peace process.
Here are some illegal wars unleashed by NATO:
- the illegal war against Iran (1953)
- the illegal war against Egypt (1956)
- the illegal war against Cuba (1961)
- the illegal war against Vietnam (1964)
- the illegal war against Nicaragua (1981)
- the illegal war against Serbia (1999)
- the illegal war against Iraq (2003)
- the illegal war against Ukraine (2014)
- the illegal war against Palestine (2023)
ALCUNI BUONI MOTIVI PER NON AVVICINARCI ALLA NATO E MANTENERE LA NOSTRA PREZIOSA NEUTRALITÀ!
L'alleanza atlantica ha violato ripetutamente il diritto internazionale che avrebbero dovuto difendere. Per assecondare i propri interessi e progetti d'egemonia.
Non avallarli, significa lavorare ad un reale processo di pace.
Ecco alcune guerre illegali scatenate dalla NATO:
- la guerra illegale contro l’Iran (1953)
- la guerra illegale contro l’Egitto (1956)
- la guerra illegale contro Cuba (1961)
- la guerra illegale contro il Vietnam (1964)
- la guerra illegale contro il Nicaragua (1981)
- la guerra illegale contro la Serbia (1999)
- la guerra illegale contro l’Iraq (2003)
- la guerra illegale contro l’Ucraina (2014)
- la guerra illegale contro la Palestina (2023)
These wars are supposed to be the fault of NATO? It takes a lot of imagination to come to such a conclusion.
Diese Kriege sollen auf das Konto der Nato gehen? Da braucht es aber viel Fantasie, um zu einem solchen Schluss zu kommen.
Imagination? Not really.
For seventy years, it has been the NATO countries that have often started illegal wars.
Call it what you like, NATO, Atlantic alliance, army of the willing...you decide.
The organisation is the same at the helm of the hegemon.
Immaginazione? Non direi.
Da settant’anni sono stati i paesi della Nato ad avviare spesso guerre illegali.
Chiamla come ti pare, NATO, alleanza atlantica, esercito dei volentarosi...decidi tu.
L'organizzazione è la stessa al comando dell'egemone.
But, but, that must be censored immediately.
aber, aber, das muss sofort zensuriert werden.
oh well
ach so
Censored!!!?
Freedom of speech and to express one's opinions, have you heard of it?
The editorial team did not censor me simply because what I wrote is easily conprovable.
Have a nice day
Censurato!!?
Liberta di parola e di esprimere le proprie opinioni, ne ha sentito parlare?
La redazione non mi ha censurato semplicemente perche quello che ho scritto è facilmente conprovabile.
Buona giornata
According to this logic, practically everything that has happened since the Second World War can simply be attributed to "the West".
Try a thought experiment: apply this to the Soviet Union and Russia. Wherever there was a conflict and there was Soviet/Russian influence. Wouldn't you suddenly come to the conclusion that this side was responsible for everything?
Nach dieser Logik kann einfach praktisch alles "dem Westen" zugeschlagen werden, was seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg passiert ist.
Versuchen Sie ein Gedankenexperiment: Übertragen Sie das auf die Sowjetunion und Russland. Überall wo es einen Konflikt gab und es einen sowjetischen/russischen Einfluss gab. Würden Sie da nicht plötzlich zum Schluss kommen, dass diese Seite für alles verantwortlich sei?
The Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Where World War III came close.
The Soviet Union wanted to place nuclear missiles on the island in response to the
placement of US nuclear weapons in Europe. Tensions only unravelled when the Soviets withdrew.
Here Switzerland, being neutral, played an important mediating role.
Unfortunately, today Switzerland has foolishly lost its neutrality in the Ukrainian-Russian context. Too bad, it could have done a lot.
In my opinion, Russia has no interest in invading other nations except for its own survival. It is a huge nation, it has everything it needs, huge natural resources. It is 100 per cent self-sufficient.
I cannot say the same about the West, where resources are scarce.
Responsible for everything no, but for a lot yes.
La crisi dei missili di Cuba nel 1962. Dove si sfiorò la terza guerra mondiale.
L'unione sovietica volle posizionare dei missile nucleari sull' isaola in risposta al
posizionamento di armi nucleari USA in europa. Le tensioni si dipanarono solo grazie al ritiro dei sovietici.
Qui la Svizzera, essendo neutrale,gioco un ruolo importante di mediazione.
Purtroppo, oggi la Svizzera ha perso stupidamente la sua neutralita nel contesto ucraino - russo. Peccato, avrebbe potuto fare molto.
Secondo me la Russia non ha nessun interesse di invadere altre nazioni se non per la propria sopravvivenza. È una nazione immensa, ha tutto quello di cui ha bisogno, risorse naturali enormi. Ê al 100% autosufficiente.
Non posso dire altrettanto dell'occidente, dove le risorse sono scarse.
Responsabile di tutto no ma di molto si.
So the invasion of Ukraine is a way for Russia to ensure its own survival?
Dann ist der Einmarsch in die Ukraine für Russland ein Weg, um das eigene Überleben zu sichern?
Keep our neutrality at all costs!!!
Garder notre neutralité coûte que coûte!!!
Of course!
Mr Mavris, this concludes my intervention. Thank you for the opportunity.
Certamente.!
Signor Mavris, quì chiudo il mio intervento. Grazie per l' opportunità.
They are in the mud. There is no such thing as neutrality any more
Estan el el barro. Ya no existe la neutralidad
Mr Mavris. I have noticed that some of my comments have not yet been published. Would you be so kind as to explain why?
Thank you
Signor Mavris. Ho constatato che alcuni miei commenti non sono ancora stati pubblicati. Sarebbe così gentile da spiegarmi per quale motivo?
La ringrazio
Hello Mirk, we check all posts to make sure they respect our netiquette. This can sometimes take a little longer.
Here you can find our netiquette (in Italian): https://www.swissinfo.ch/ita/parliamo-di-noi/condizioni-di-utilizzo/44141626
Guten Tag Mirk, wir prüfen alle Beiträge, ob sie unsere Netiquette respektieren. Das kann manchmal etwas länger dauern.
Hier finden Sie unsere Netiquette (auf Italienisch): https://www.swissinfo.ch/ita/parliamo-di-noi/condizioni-di-utilizzo/44141626
Hi Giannis
I understand. I am glad that on this forum I could express my opinion without being blocked. Thank you.
In many other forums you only get blocked if your thoughts deviate from the 'Mainstream'.
Ciao Giannis
Capisco. Sono contento che su questo forum ho potuto esprimere la mia opinione senza essere bloccato. Grazie.
In molti altri forum si viene bloccati solo se il nostro pensiero discosta dal "Mainstream".
I believe that Switzerland's approach to neutrality should be based on pragmatism and rational thinking. The key issue is not who is applying external pressure, but whether neutrality serves Switzerland's national interests in the current context. External pressure should always take a backseat to what is best for the country. Switzerland has shown time and again that its neutrality is not a sign of weakness, but rather backed by a strong defense policy. Its military approach is justified, as it protects the country's sovereignty. Switzerland has every right to choose its own path and maintain its neutrality, regardless of how that is perceived on the international stage.
I also don't think neutrality is outdated. It's a flexible tool that Switzerland can adjust to changing external circumstances while still holding on to its core values and strategic interests. As a foreign resident with permanent status, I chose this country to live and work in because of its collective values, including neutrality. Of course, natural changes are inevitable, but artificial shifts in the existing order are becoming increasingly aggressive, and Switzerland is more and more being drawn into this 'woke madness.'
Neutrality is a word that is used when it suits you. But history has clearly shown that this was not the case. An ideology that was instilled in the bourgeoisie but was done the other way round in the background. There is enough evidence.
Neutralität ein Wort das benützt wird wenn es einem gefällt. Die Geschichte zeigte aber nachvollziehbar dass es nicht so war wie gesagt wurde. Eine Ideologie das den bürgerlichen eingeflößt wurde aber im Hintergrund andersrum getan wurde. Beweise gibt es genug.
Can you be more specific?
Können Sie etwas konkreter werden?
I am sorry to tell you that no one is spared, when this erupts they will want to be on another planet. Nothing has been done to avoid all this confrontation. God bless us all
Lamento decirles que no se salva nadie, cuando esto estalle querrán estar en otro planeta. No se ha hecho nada por evitar todo esta confrontación. Dios nos bendiga
When what exactly breaks out?
Wenn was genau ausbricht?
But who said neutrality is obsolete? Neutrality is more relevant and necessary than ever.
But hasn't history taught us anything so far?
To venture into wars provoked mostly by us westerners is shameful.
If people would take the trouble to inform themselves better from more sources and possibly
not from the usual official sources, they would open their eyes!
Switzerland must remain 200% NEUTRAL.
Ma chi ha detto che la neutralità è obsoleta?? La neutralità è più che mai attuale e necessaria.
Ma la storia non ci ha insegnato niente fino a desso?
Avventurarsi in guerre provocate per lo più da noi occidentali è da vergognarsi.
Se le persone si dessero la briga di informarsi meglio da più fonti e possibilmente
non legate alle solite fonti ufficiali aprirebbero gli occhi!!
La Svizzera deve rimanere al 200% NEUTRALE.
What are the wars that were provoked "above all by us Westerners"?
And do you see any signs that Switzerland will give up its neutrality?
Welche sind denn die Kriege, die "vor allem von uns Westlern" provoziert wurden?
Und sehen Sie Zeichen, dass die Schweiz ihre Neutralität aufgeben wird?
Nato's illegal wars that ignored the UN ban:
- the illegal war against Iran (1953)
- the illegal war against Egypt (1956)
- the illegal war against Cuba (1961)
- the illegal war against Vietnam (1964)
- the illegal war against Nicaragua (1981)
- the illegal war against Serbia (1999)
- the illegal war against Iraq (2003)
- the illegal war against Ukraine (2014)
- the illegal war against Palestine (2023)
It is all documented. For intellectual honesty we should all inform ourselves better!!!!!
It is the West that is most often on the side of international lawlessness.
Illegal wars to expand the dominance of the American empire.
The majority of people in Switzerland, in my opinion, think that annexing NATO gives greater security. Nothing could be more false. It will only lead us to participate in illegal wars, with all the harmful consequences.
Le guerre illegali della Nato che hanno ignorato il divieto Onu:
- la guerra illegale contro l’Iran (1953)
- la guerra illegale contro l’Egitto (1956)
- la guerra illegale contro Cuba (1961)
- la guerra illegale contro il Vietnam (1964)
- la guerra illegale contro il Nicaragua (1981)-
- la guerra illegale contro la Serbia (1999)
- la guerra illegale contro l’Iraq (2003)
- la guerra illegale contro l’Ucraina (2014)
- la guerra illegale contro la Palestina (2023)
È tutto documentato. Per onestà intellettuale tutti dovremmo informarci meglio!!!!!
Ê l’Occidente a essere il più delle volte dalla parte dell’illegalità internazionale.
Guerre illegali per ampliare il predominio dell’impero americano.
La maggioranza delle persone in Svizzera, a mio parere, pensa che annettersi alla Nato dia una maggiore sicurezza. Niente di più falso. Ci porterà solo a partecipare a guerre illegali, con tutte le conseguenze nefaste.
Of course, and financing the largest amount of capital from that position. It is not very serious to want to stay outside when they are the financiers of the conflicts.
Por supuesto y financiando la mayor cantidad de capitales desde esa posición. Que poco serio querer quedarse afuera cuando son los financistas de los conflictos
You want to save yourself it seems. Please don't keep dreaming of neutrality. We are all accomplices
Te queres salvar solo parece. No hay que seguir soñando con neutralidad por favor. Somos todos complices
If you read it like that, you might think that the "West" is fighting the most illegal wars. Do you mean, then, that everyone else is mainly fighting legitimate wars? If so, can you elaborate a little?
Wenn man das so liest, könnte man meinen, der "Westen" übe die meisten illegalen Kriege aus. Dann meinen Sie wohl, dass alle anderen vor allem legitime Kriege ausüben? Falls ja, können Sie ein wenig darauf eingehen?
What do the others have to do with it? Let us, the exporters of democracy and civilisation, start by not starting wars. As written above, at least 13 conflicts have ignored the UN ban.
There are currently more than 50 conflicts.
Cosa centrano gli altri? Cominciamo noi, esportatori di democrazia e civiltà a non scatenare guerre. Come già scritto sopra, almeno 13 conflitti hanno ignorano il divieto Onu.
Attualmente sono più di una cinquantina i conflitti.
Wars are fundamentally illegal under international law.
Kriege sind grundsätzlich völkerrechtswidrig.
Totally agree!
Daccordissimo!
200% Yes
Oui à 200%
Join the conversation!