11 ms·

> The list is extensive to say the least. Sometimes I wonder if the Swiss newfound love for a weirdly biased neutrality, which goes to the extent of destroying

> The list is extensive to say the least. Sometimes I wonder if the Swiss newfound love for a weirdly biased neutrality, which goes to the extent of destroying their own military gear instead of selling it to Ukraine, is rooted in appeasing certain Russians who stashed their fortunes in financial institutions such as Credit Suisse.

Swenrekcah 4y ago
> destroying their own military gear instead of selling it to Ukraine What?
- mocko 4y ago
  That sounded so nuts I had to look it up. Turns out they really are! https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2023/03/13/switzerland-to-destroy-anti-aircraft-missile-systems-that-could-be-used-in-ukraine_6019124_4.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2023/03/13/s...
  - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
    Truly a perplexing country. It's kind of easy to be neutral when you're landlocked inside NATO, I guess. No reason to even join. Neutrality didn't quite work out that way for Norway in WW2... Great cheese down there though, gotta give them that.
    - TechBro8615 4y ago
      > It's kind of easy to be neutral when you're landlocked inside NATO I guess you think that NATO is why the Swiss people added a neutrality clause to the constitution of the Swiss Confederation during the Restoration in 1815?
      - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
        Only in the bizarro world where I make laughably false statements so you can point it out to feel clever. No, the NATO part is only commenting on current events. The reason they weren't invaded during WW2 was mainly that they had a strong military in a very mountainous country with next to no strategic or material importance to Hitler. Just not worth the trouble. If Hitler saw a strategic reason to invade Switzerland he would have; he had no reservations about ignoring neutrality. I figured all this was obvious given knowledge about basic history and geography, and that it didn't need to be spelled out that I know NATO didn't exist during or before WW2
        wkat4242 4y ago
        > The reason they weren't invaded during WW2 was mainly that they had a strong military in a very mountainous country with next to no strategic or material importance to Hitler. Just not worth the trouble. If Hitler saw a strategic reason to invade Switzerland he would have; he had no reservations about ignoring neutrality. Are you sure? I was told in history class that it was because too many of Hitler's cronies stored massive amounts of money there. Which would obviously have disappeared to the allies before they could capture the whole country. I've never investigated that in detail though so perhaps this was just wrong.
        mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
        I'm not sure but that wouldn't surprise me. Either way it's still true it was quite easy for the Swiss to remain neutral since they're a pain in the ass to invade, and there was no reason to. I can definitely see them being more useful to him with their neutrality intact, but in some sense that only reinforces my point. If Switzerland had, say a bunch of oil, the equation might have changed. Norway on the other hand had no realistic hope of remaining neutral once Hitler laid his eyes on our iron ore and massive, honkin' coastal line. Whereas Sweden managed to maintain their neutrality partially by continuing to sell iron ore to Germany throughout the war as well as allowing them to move troops through them en route to Finland. And Hitler was more interested in the Soviets at that point, so Sweden would have been a distraction. Finland was also neutral originally and they ended up in all sorts of wars theoughout WW2. It seems pretty clear that neutrality in WW2 was respected by the large powers only to the extent it was convenient, and ignored otherwise. Most of the countries that remained neutral were city-states and the aforementioned countries + Spain(aligned with the axis powers though still neutral), Portugal(insulated by Spain) and Ireland(insulated by the British).
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    Britain was offered tp buy them back, and they didn't want it. Those systems are 'unsupported', they are like iphone 4 - noone produces spare parts or ammunition any more for them. Theybare basically useless
  - throwaway32627 4y ago
    This story is really stupid journalism, Switzerland is blocking re-export of useful stuff but this one is a non-story. The gear that is being destroyed is old stuff (this model (B) has been decommissioned in GB in the 90ties despite what Le monde days (they did use still model (C) which is a more modern system ) for which there are no spare parts anymore and nobody except the Swiss knows how to operate. GB has the right to get it back if they want, by contract, and neutrality doesn’t block it. They have been informed that Switzerland wants to dispose it long time ago but they didn’t ask for it back. This probably because the gear is useless given how old and broken it is and clearly the Swiss army cannot teach the Ukrainians how use it without breaking international law (specifically the Hague convention). There are probably for GB much more effective ways to help the Ukrainians than sending them garbage. Source (in French): https://www.rts.ch/info/suisse/13861370-les-systemes-de-defense-aerienne-rapier-nauraient-sans-doute-pas-pu-etre-utilises-en-ukraine.html https://www.rts.ch/info/suisse/13861370-les-systemes-de-defe...
- favaq 4y ago
  The American Hawk looks with disbelief at someone who wants less war, not more.
  - simplotek 4y ago
    You don't have less war by stopping victims from defending themselves. You just get to improve the odds that the attacker is successful.
    - listenallyall 4y ago
      You have "less war" when one side dominates and the other surrenders quickly. Two evenly-matched sides can continue fighting for decades.
      - yadaeno 4y ago
        That worked with Poland in 1939 until Hitler decided to continue and attack the rest of Europe.
        listenallyall 4y ago
        Look, I'm not trying to discuss strategy or glory or good vs evil, just the concept of "less war." WWII was 6 years. US involvement in more recent conflicts like Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iraq was a lot longer. Meanwhile various civil and border wars have gone on beyond a decade.
  - Swenrekcah 4y ago
    I was merely surprised by this, but the position that one has to want war in order to want to support Ukrainian defence in this unprovoked war of aggression is at best naive. Also I’m not American, why would you think so?
    - ummonk 4y ago
      Damming water to Crimea and shelling civilians in Donbas for 8 years is hardly “unprovoked”. It might not be sufficient justification for such a deadly and destructive invasion but it’s certainly provocation.
- omgomgomgomg 4y ago
  Well, neutrality goes both ways, does it not? If the world supports Ukraine, but Switzerland refuses to support them, no matter who the opponent is, then that is neutrality. Knowing the Swiss system very well, it would surprise me if there have been nefarious intents and ideas behind this. Do not underestimate their cleverness. Small country, suddenly rich with no worthwhile exports, all the big corps incorporated there because they feel the rule of law is given and functional and the money safe and the institutions work. Small country, if you go from the centre of zurich, you will see one corporation after the other for a 30 mile radius, shoulder to shoulder. Its a remarkable amount of the liveable territory. Really, do not underestimate their greed and cleverness.
  - unmole 4y ago
    > with no worthwhile exports The confidence with which people spout easily disproven nonsense is incredible: https://oec.world/en/profile/country/che https://oec.world/en/profile/country/che
  - ur-whale 4y ago
    Agree with you on neutrality, stability, solid rule of low, low to nonexistent corruption and working institutions being a magnet to attract foreign investment. Also agree with the Swiss being very clever, motivation being making money. Completely disagree with you on no worthwhile exports. As a matter of fact, Switzerland is one of very few European country that has managed to not only preserve but even grow their native manufacturing in the last 20 years instead of moving everything to China.
    - omgomgomgomg 4y ago
      You are slightly misinformed, if I may point that out. They moves to eastern europe whatever they could. This started over 20 years ago.
  - bakuninsbart 4y ago
    > If the world supports Ukraine, but Switzerland refuses to support them, no matter who the opponent is, then that is neutrality. "The world" is a hard over-statement. Europe excluding Belarus and Russia itself, but including Switzerland introduced real sanctions Russia, as well as the US, Canada, Australia, NZ, Japan and ROC, while BRICS, close to half the global population, can be considered actively cooperating with Russia. > Small country, suddenly rich with no worthwhile exports, all the big corps incorporated there because they feel the rule of law is given and functional and the money safe and the institutions work. Swiss manufacturing is very highly regarded globally, and some of the largest chemical, pharmaceutical and food/drink companies in the world are Swiss. "Greed and cleverness" is a weird way to phrase "hard work and intelligence".
lobochrome 4y ago
_newfound_
pjc50 4y ago
> newfound love for a weirdly biased neutrality Switzerland has always been aggressively neutral to the extent of annoying the rest of Europe, not just during WW2 but all the way back to the Hundred Years War.
- simplotek 4y ago
  > Switzerland has always been aggressively neutral (...) No, I don't buy it. This time around they went to the extent of refusing to sell ammo for their own weapons arguing they'd be used in a war. They are outright destroying their arms industry by arguing that they cannot even be used by their owners to defend themselves. This goes way deeper than this neutrality scapegoate.
  - holgerschurig 4y ago
    > No, I don't buy it. Well, we can read it up. The "hundred years war" date is of course wrong, they have neutrality since 1814/1815. If you cannot read german, use google-translate or DeepL: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutralit%C3%A4t_der_Schweiz https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutralit%C3%A4t_der_Schweiz > This time around they went to the extent of refusing to sell ammo for their own weapons arguing they'd be used in a war. Well, even Germany did this before 24st February 2022, and it never was neutral. In the case of Switzerland, the neutrality is in their constitution. Neither the government nor the parliament can change it. It needs a public vote of the ca. 6 million people large electorate. Germany had it much easier, the "don't export to crisis regions" wasn't in constitution. And, truth be told, it was never followed through 100% (e.g. why would one export military ships to Saudi-Arabia, which is in war with Yemen?). > They are outright destroying their arms industry Yes, they do it. For me, this sounds that they like their neutrality more than money --- however, people usually assume more sinister motives. Like that Switzerland is somehow getting black money from russian Oligarchs. To me, this sounds entirely implausible --- or if it happens, than in a similar scale as in EU countries. First, as said, the neutrality is in the hands of the electorate. Russian Oligarchs cannot smear 6 million people. Second, it is well known that Switzerland implemented all 9 sanction packets of the EU. They even seized russian assets, about 8 billion EUR. That is more than can be said of some EU countries! So, if they still do business with Oligarchs, then only because these Oligarchs aren't in one of the 9 lists of sanctioned entities the EU created. In that case, we should blame both Switzerland and the EU. Apropos "swiss liking neutrality": i read that in May 2022 there was a representative poll. It turned out that 85% of the swiss liked the neutrality and don't want it to change.
mr_00ff00 4y ago
I think you are thinking too specifically. Neutrality is to appease all the rich that have stashed their fortunes. If most of the world condemned the US or China for an aggressive act, I would expect them to act the same. If they take a side, they lose the fortunes of more than just Russians. Anyone who is controversial and has money in Switzerland will realize it’s no longer safe in the event the world exposes their bad deeds.
- simplotek 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - reissbaker 4y ago
    During the Holocaust, the Swiss "neutrality" included wholesale theft of Jewish depositors bank accounts — which they finally admitted to in the 1990s but still refused to pay any of it back to the survivors until an American lawsuit forced them to — so color me unsurprised.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - omgomgomgomg 4y ago
      Not just that, they also rejected jews right at their borders beginng for asylum. And that guy Meili who exposed the scandal was ostracised and forever remained unemployable. He was not a banker either, he was a security guy in a bank. Lets not forget that the italian fascists and the nazis safely parked their looted money in switzerland. Switzerland was used as a corridor by Italy and Nazi Germany to transports "goods". Its a little known fact that the allies bombarded switzerland towards the end of ww2, a bit of a reminder for product weapons to the axis of evil as a neutral state.
      - xkcd1963 4y ago
        Schaffhausen was officially a mistake. Also please provide links to your claims
skybrian 4y ago
It seems like a lot of it would be due to adverse selection, and that's not something new. Lots of people don't need Swiss bank accounts. What are the characteristics of people who do? Being Swiss is a good reason to want a Swiss bank account. Rich foreigners might be a little suspicious? It's somewhat similar to who really needs cryptocurrency, except you don't get the enthusiasts or small accounts, either. Maybe look at who unmoderated "free speech" forums become popular with. Or who needs to use Tor.
holgerschurig 4y ago
Well, if you wonder, I can help you. What you think might be plausible on first sight, but really isn't. * the neutrality isn't "newfound", they have it since the Vienna Congress 1814/1815 * back then the big powers of Europe feared that Switzerland will join one of their opponents, so it was dictated to Switzerland originally * but later, when Switzerland saw how the countries surrounding them got demolished again and again in each war, they actually adopted it. It is now in their constitution, article 185. * Switzerland is a direct democracy. The constitution cannot be changed by the government. And not even by the parliament. Only a public vote of all the electorate can change it. * the swiss electorate is about 6 million people large * the swiss banking sector only employs about 89'000 people So, what can we learn from this? Your postulation is, in all likelihood, wrong. Why would normal people, like Carpenters, Farmers, Teachers, Nurses vote for neutrality to "appease certain Russians" ? They have no benefit from this. Also, Switzerland isn't the only (current) neutral country in Europe. We have Austria, Ireland and some smaller ones, like Liechtenstein. We used to have also Portugal, Sweden or Belgium there --- is any of these current or previously neutral countries linked with money laundering? I don't think so. Therefore we can even dismiss that somehow money laundering is linked to neutrality. If anything, then something else in the swiss law system is responsible: their banking secret laws. One can still open an anonymous "number account" at swiss banks. It's not cheap, but that is just one more reason why it attracts tax evaders and criminals. And finally, that today Switzerland is specially linked to Oligarchs needs a proof. Why? Simply because Switzerland implemented all of the nine sanction packets of the EU. Despite not being in the EU. So Switzerland, like any other EU country, sanctions the Russian state, certain russian companies, certain russian individuals. Including some people one would classify as "Oligarch". All of them? Probably not. But then again ... this would be a problem of the EU, by not adding them to the sanction lists yet.
- selimthegrim 4y ago
  Also Finland and Sweden until recently
- jwhitlark 4y ago
  Swiss neutrality goes back much farther that that, IIRC. Early 1500's. Different political organizations back then, of course, but the Swiss have been doing the neutrality thing for half a millennium, and through much worse situations, I don't see why they'd stop now.
duxup 4y ago
“Neutrality” sounds simple, but I think it turns out to be nearly impossible.
99_00 4y ago
The country is 1/3 German, 1/3 french, 1/3 Italian. Given European history their options are neutrality or extream internal strife. You are overusing your Ukraine conflict lens when viewing the world.
- xkcd1963 4y ago
  more like 3/6 German, 2/6 French and 1/6 Italian
  - _5uxp 4y ago
    No, more like 75% Swiss and %25 foreign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Switzerland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Switzerland One of the highest in EEA.
    - xkcd1963 4y ago
      There are very very few Swiss people that don't have some sort of former foreigners in their family in Switzerland
xwolfi 4y ago
No it's a deep sense of betrayal from last time they picked a side.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
Anyone trying to spin a geopolitical explanation for Credit Suisse’s malaise is lost. Switzerland has many banks. They’re doing fine. Credit Suisse is not because it’s the poster child of bank mismanagement.
omgomgomgomg 4y ago
The neutrality always was based on cowardice amd completelly fake. They probably did not give away their military gear because the price or conditions they have envisioned were not right. Make no mistake, Switzerland is right up there in the top 5 as far corrupt government and institutions go, they just have the better suits, camouflage and clandestinity. Sure, life is good in Switzerland for most, the system is one of the best as far median income and level of wealth goes, but that did not fall from the sky. This country had to ration food until not too recently, and before that, Russia had to save them from Napoleon.
- lkrubner 4y ago
  They have a system of referendums that should remind everyone of why Plato and Aristotle of the dangers of the tyranny of the majority. An especially awful example has been Switzerland's treatment of women. In 1958 the men voted on the idea of giving women the vote, and they voted against it. Another referendum was held in 1971, at which point women finally got the vote. Of the Western nations that were nominally democratic, Switzerland was the last to give women the vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_Switzerland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_Switzerl...
  - omgomgomgomg 4y ago
    It a grotesque way, the mob rule issue can be defended these days by the argument that the opposing parties will always water down referendum decisions. It is ironic, but good.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    As of 1971 women could vote in federal elections. They could also vote in about half the cantons' elections (the Swiss version of states). About half because 1971 started with 36% of cantons, it rose to 52% of with the same election that made women able to vote nationwide, it was 60% of cantons when the first vote with women was held. It wasn't until 1990 that women could vote in every canton.
    - 4y ago
modriano 4y ago
Switzerland's doctrine of neutrality is not newfound, rather it's a strategy they've built into their geography over centuries. They're nestled between mountains, so it would be pretty difficult for any other nation to attack them, but up until 1945, Europe was home to very frequent wars of conquest, which were devastating to property and people. Switzerland's strategy was to lean into their natural defenses by building hundreds of thousands of bunkers [0] in the mountains and signalling "Hey, we aren't looking to attack you, but if you invade, watch out for our extremely well fortified defenses. By the way, would you care to keep your valuables in our vaults? Lots of pillagers out there in the rest of Europe." (but seriously, skim through the video. Switzerland's defenses are wild and beautiful.) [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bPIaHg11mI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bPIaHg11mI
more_corn 4y ago
Newfound love for neutrality? The Swiss? You’re joking right?
csomar 4y ago
No. They helped African militaries too. They would have helped American criminals and oligarchs but the US forced them not to (FATCA).
abc03 4y ago
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes. Please don't post shallow dismissals Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity. and more
TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
Their President literally said "Swiss weapons must not be used in wars." Certainly a novel take for an arms dealing country.

Swenrekcah 4y ago

> destroying their own military gear instead of selling it to Ukraine What?

mocko 4y ago
That sounded so nuts I had to look it up. Turns out they really are! https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2023/03/13/switzerland-to-destroy-anti-aircraft-missile-systems-that-could-be-used-in-ukraine_6019124_4.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2023/03/13/s...
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
  Truly a perplexing country. It's kind of easy to be neutral when you're landlocked inside NATO, I guess. No reason to even join. Neutrality didn't quite work out that way for Norway in WW2... Great cheese down there though, gotta give them that.
  - TechBro8615 4y ago
    > It's kind of easy to be neutral when you're landlocked inside NATO I guess you think that NATO is why the Swiss people added a neutrality clause to the constitution of the Swiss Confederation during the Restoration in 1815?
    - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
      Only in the bizarro world where I make laughably false statements so you can point it out to feel clever. No, the NATO part is only commenting on current events. The reason they weren't invaded during WW2 was mainly that they had a strong military in a very mountainous country with next to no strategic or material importance to Hitler. Just not worth the trouble. If Hitler saw a strategic reason to invade Switzerland he would have; he had no reservations about ignoring neutrality. I figured all this was obvious given knowledge about basic history and geography, and that it didn't need to be spelled out that I know NATO didn't exist during or before WW2
      - wkat4242 4y ago
        > The reason they weren't invaded during WW2 was mainly that they had a strong military in a very mountainous country with next to no strategic or material importance to Hitler. Just not worth the trouble. If Hitler saw a strategic reason to invade Switzerland he would have; he had no reservations about ignoring neutrality. Are you sure? I was told in history class that it was because too many of Hitler's cronies stored massive amounts of money there. Which would obviously have disappeared to the allies before they could capture the whole country. I've never investigated that in detail though so perhaps this was just wrong.
        mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
        I'm not sure but that wouldn't surprise me. Either way it's still true it was quite easy for the Swiss to remain neutral since they're a pain in the ass to invade, and there was no reason to. I can definitely see them being more useful to him with their neutrality intact, but in some sense that only reinforces my point. If Switzerland had, say a bunch of oil, the equation might have changed. Norway on the other hand had no realistic hope of remaining neutral once Hitler laid his eyes on our iron ore and massive, honkin' coastal line. Whereas Sweden managed to maintain their neutrality partially by continuing to sell iron ore to Germany throughout the war as well as allowing them to move troops through them en route to Finland. And Hitler was more interested in the Soviets at that point, so Sweden would have been a distraction. Finland was also neutral originally and they ended up in all sorts of wars theoughout WW2. It seems pretty clear that neutrality in WW2 was respected by the large powers only to the extent it was convenient, and ignored otherwise. Most of the countries that remained neutral were city-states and the aforementioned countries + Spain(aligned with the axis powers though still neutral), Portugal(insulated by Spain) and Ireland(insulated by the British).
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  Britain was offered tp buy them back, and they didn't want it. Those systems are 'unsupported', they are like iphone 4 - noone produces spare parts or ammunition any more for them. Theybare basically useless
- throwaway32627 4y ago
  This story is really stupid journalism, Switzerland is blocking re-export of useful stuff but this one is a non-story. The gear that is being destroyed is old stuff (this model (B) has been decommissioned in GB in the 90ties despite what Le monde days (they did use still model (C) which is a more modern system ) for which there are no spare parts anymore and nobody except the Swiss knows how to operate. GB has the right to get it back if they want, by contract, and neutrality doesn’t block it. They have been informed that Switzerland wants to dispose it long time ago but they didn’t ask for it back. This probably because the gear is useless given how old and broken it is and clearly the Swiss army cannot teach the Ukrainians how use it without breaking international law (specifically the Hague convention). There are probably for GB much more effective ways to help the Ukrainians than sending them garbage. Source (in French): https://www.rts.ch/info/suisse/13861370-les-systemes-de-defense-aerienne-rapier-nauraient-sans-doute-pas-pu-etre-utilises-en-ukraine.html https://www.rts.ch/info/suisse/13861370-les-systemes-de-defe...
favaq 4y ago
The American Hawk looks with disbelief at someone who wants less war, not more.
- simplotek 4y ago
  You don't have less war by stopping victims from defending themselves. You just get to improve the odds that the attacker is successful.
  - listenallyall 4y ago
    You have "less war" when one side dominates and the other surrenders quickly. Two evenly-matched sides can continue fighting for decades.
    - yadaeno 4y ago
      That worked with Poland in 1939 until Hitler decided to continue and attack the rest of Europe.
      - listenallyall 4y ago
        Look, I'm not trying to discuss strategy or glory or good vs evil, just the concept of "less war." WWII was 6 years. US involvement in more recent conflicts like Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iraq was a lot longer. Meanwhile various civil and border wars have gone on beyond a decade.
- Swenrekcah 4y ago
  I was merely surprised by this, but the position that one has to want war in order to want to support Ukrainian defence in this unprovoked war of aggression is at best naive. Also I’m not American, why would you think so?
  - ummonk 4y ago
    Damming water to Crimea and shelling civilians in Donbas for 8 years is hardly “unprovoked”. It might not be sufficient justification for such a deadly and destructive invasion but it’s certainly provocation.
omgomgomgomg 4y ago
Well, neutrality goes both ways, does it not? If the world supports Ukraine, but Switzerland refuses to support them, no matter who the opponent is, then that is neutrality. Knowing the Swiss system very well, it would surprise me if there have been nefarious intents and ideas behind this. Do not underestimate their cleverness. Small country, suddenly rich with no worthwhile exports, all the big corps incorporated there because they feel the rule of law is given and functional and the money safe and the institutions work. Small country, if you go from the centre of zurich, you will see one corporation after the other for a 30 mile radius, shoulder to shoulder. Its a remarkable amount of the liveable territory. Really, do not underestimate their greed and cleverness.
- unmole 4y ago
  > with no worthwhile exports The confidence with which people spout easily disproven nonsense is incredible: https://oec.world/en/profile/country/che https://oec.world/en/profile/country/che
- ur-whale 4y ago
  Agree with you on neutrality, stability, solid rule of low, low to nonexistent corruption and working institutions being a magnet to attract foreign investment. Also agree with the Swiss being very clever, motivation being making money. Completely disagree with you on no worthwhile exports. As a matter of fact, Switzerland is one of very few European country that has managed to not only preserve but even grow their native manufacturing in the last 20 years instead of moving everything to China.
  - omgomgomgomg 4y ago
    You are slightly misinformed, if I may point that out. They moves to eastern europe whatever they could. This started over 20 years ago.
- bakuninsbart 4y ago
  > If the world supports Ukraine, but Switzerland refuses to support them, no matter who the opponent is, then that is neutrality. "The world" is a hard over-statement. Europe excluding Belarus and Russia itself, but including Switzerland introduced real sanctions Russia, as well as the US, Canada, Australia, NZ, Japan and ROC, while BRICS, close to half the global population, can be considered actively cooperating with Russia. > Small country, suddenly rich with no worthwhile exports, all the big corps incorporated there because they feel the rule of law is given and functional and the money safe and the institutions work. Swiss manufacturing is very highly regarded globally, and some of the largest chemical, pharmaceutical and food/drink companies in the world are Swiss. "Greed and cleverness" is a weird way to phrase "hard work and intelligence".

lobochrome 4y ago

_newfound_

pjc50 4y ago

> newfound love for a weirdly biased neutrality Switzerland has always been aggressively neutral to the extent of annoying the rest of Europe, not just during WW2 but all the way back to the Hundred Years War.

simplotek 4y ago
> Switzerland has always been aggressively neutral (...) No, I don't buy it. This time around they went to the extent of refusing to sell ammo for their own weapons arguing they'd be used in a war. They are outright destroying their arms industry by arguing that they cannot even be used by their owners to defend themselves. This goes way deeper than this neutrality scapegoate.
- holgerschurig 4y ago
  > No, I don't buy it. Well, we can read it up. The "hundred years war" date is of course wrong, they have neutrality since 1814/1815. If you cannot read german, use google-translate or DeepL: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutralit%C3%A4t_der_Schweiz https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutralit%C3%A4t_der_Schweiz > This time around they went to the extent of refusing to sell ammo for their own weapons arguing they'd be used in a war. Well, even Germany did this before 24st February 2022, and it never was neutral. In the case of Switzerland, the neutrality is in their constitution. Neither the government nor the parliament can change it. It needs a public vote of the ca. 6 million people large electorate. Germany had it much easier, the "don't export to crisis regions" wasn't in constitution. And, truth be told, it was never followed through 100% (e.g. why would one export military ships to Saudi-Arabia, which is in war with Yemen?). > They are outright destroying their arms industry Yes, they do it. For me, this sounds that they like their neutrality more than money --- however, people usually assume more sinister motives. Like that Switzerland is somehow getting black money from russian Oligarchs. To me, this sounds entirely implausible --- or if it happens, than in a similar scale as in EU countries. First, as said, the neutrality is in the hands of the electorate. Russian Oligarchs cannot smear 6 million people. Second, it is well known that Switzerland implemented all 9 sanction packets of the EU. They even seized russian assets, about 8 billion EUR. That is more than can be said of some EU countries! So, if they still do business with Oligarchs, then only because these Oligarchs aren't in one of the 9 lists of sanctioned entities the EU created. In that case, we should blame both Switzerland and the EU. Apropos "swiss liking neutrality": i read that in May 2022 there was a representative poll. It turned out that 85% of the swiss liked the neutrality and don't want it to change.

mr_00ff00 4y ago

I think you are thinking too specifically. Neutrality is to appease all the rich that have stashed their fortunes. If most of the world condemned the US or China for an aggressive act, I would expect them to act the same. If they take a side, they lose the fortunes of more than just Russians. Anyone who is controversial and has money in Switzerland will realize it’s no longer safe in the event the world exposes their bad deeds.

simplotek 4y ago
[flagged]
- reissbaker 4y ago
  During the Holocaust, the Swiss "neutrality" included wholesale theft of Jewish depositors bank accounts — which they finally admitted to in the 1990s but still refused to pay any of it back to the survivors until an American lawsuit forced them to — so color me unsurprised.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - omgomgomgomg 4y ago
    Not just that, they also rejected jews right at their borders beginng for asylum. And that guy Meili who exposed the scandal was ostracised and forever remained unemployable. He was not a banker either, he was a security guy in a bank. Lets not forget that the italian fascists and the nazis safely parked their looted money in switzerland. Switzerland was used as a corridor by Italy and Nazi Germany to transports "goods". Its a little known fact that the allies bombarded switzerland towards the end of ww2, a bit of a reminder for product weapons to the axis of evil as a neutral state.
    - xkcd1963 4y ago
      Schaffhausen was officially a mistake. Also please provide links to your claims

skybrian 4y ago

It seems like a lot of it would be due to adverse selection, and that's not something new. Lots of people don't need Swiss bank accounts. What are the characteristics of people who do? Being Swiss is a good reason to want a Swiss bank account. Rich foreigners might be a little suspicious? It's somewhat similar to who really needs cryptocurrency, except you don't get the enthusiasts or small accounts, either. Maybe look at who unmoderated "free speech" forums become popular with. Or who needs to use Tor.

holgerschurig 4y ago

Well, if you wonder, I can help you. What you think might be plausible on first sight, but really isn't. * the neutrality isn't "newfound", they have it since the Vienna Congress 1814/1815 * back then the big powers of Europe feared that Switzerland will join one of their opponents, so it was dictated to Switzerland originally * but later, when Switzerland saw how the countries surrounding them got demolished again and again in each war, they actually adopted it. It is now in their constitution, article 185. * Switzerland is a direct democracy. The constitution cannot be changed by the government. And not even by the parliament. Only a public vote of all the electorate can change it. * the swiss electorate is about 6 million people large * the swiss banking sector only employs about 89'000 people So, what can we learn from this? Your postulation is, in all likelihood, wrong. Why would normal people, like Carpenters, Farmers, Teachers, Nurses vote for neutrality to "appease certain Russians" ? They have no benefit from this. Also, Switzerland isn't the only (current) neutral country in Europe. We have Austria, Ireland and some smaller ones, like Liechtenstein. We used to have also Portugal, Sweden or Belgium there --- is any of these current or previously neutral countries linked with money laundering? I don't think so. Therefore we can even dismiss that somehow money laundering is linked to neutrality. If anything, then something else in the swiss law system is responsible: their banking secret laws. One can still open an anonymous "number account" at swiss banks. It's not cheap, but that is just one more reason why it attracts tax evaders and criminals. And finally, that today Switzerland is specially linked to Oligarchs needs a proof. Why? Simply because Switzerland implemented all of the nine sanction packets of the EU. Despite not being in the EU. So Switzerland, like any other EU country, sanctions the Russian state, certain russian companies, certain russian individuals. Including some people one would classify as "Oligarch". All of them? Probably not. But then again ... this would be a problem of the EU, by not adding them to the sanction lists yet.

selimthegrim 4y ago
Also Finland and Sweden until recently
jwhitlark 4y ago
Swiss neutrality goes back much farther that that, IIRC. Early 1500's. Different political organizations back then, of course, but the Swiss have been doing the neutrality thing for half a millennium, and through much worse situations, I don't see why they'd stop now.

duxup 4y ago

“Neutrality” sounds simple, but I think it turns out to be nearly impossible.

99_00 4y ago

The country is 1/3 German, 1/3 french, 1/3 Italian. Given European history their options are neutrality or extream internal strife. You are overusing your Ukraine conflict lens when viewing the world.

xkcd1963 4y ago
more like 3/6 German, 2/6 French and 1/6 Italian
- _5uxp 4y ago
  No, more like 75% Swiss and %25 foreign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Switzerland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Switzerland One of the highest in EEA.
  - xkcd1963 4y ago
    There are very very few Swiss people that don't have some sort of former foreigners in their family in Switzerland

xwolfi 4y ago

No it's a deep sense of betrayal from last time they picked a side.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

Anyone trying to spin a geopolitical explanation for Credit Suisse’s malaise is lost. Switzerland has many banks. They’re doing fine. Credit Suisse is not because it’s the poster child of bank mismanagement.

omgomgomgomg 4y ago

The neutrality always was based on cowardice amd completelly fake. They probably did not give away their military gear because the price or conditions they have envisioned were not right. Make no mistake, Switzerland is right up there in the top 5 as far corrupt government and institutions go, they just have the better suits, camouflage and clandestinity. Sure, life is good in Switzerland for most, the system is one of the best as far median income and level of wealth goes, but that did not fall from the sky. This country had to ration food until not too recently, and before that, Russia had to save them from Napoleon.

lkrubner 4y ago
They have a system of referendums that should remind everyone of why Plato and Aristotle of the dangers of the tyranny of the majority. An especially awful example has been Switzerland's treatment of women. In 1958 the men voted on the idea of giving women the vote, and they voted against it. Another referendum was held in 1971, at which point women finally got the vote. Of the Western nations that were nominally democratic, Switzerland was the last to give women the vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_Switzerland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_Switzerl...
- omgomgomgomg 4y ago
  It a grotesque way, the mob rule issue can be defended these days by the argument that the opposing parties will always water down referendum decisions. It is ironic, but good.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  As of 1971 women could vote in federal elections. They could also vote in about half the cantons' elections (the Swiss version of states). About half because 1971 started with 36% of cantons, it rose to 52% of with the same election that made women able to vote nationwide, it was 60% of cantons when the first vote with women was held. It wasn't until 1990 that women could vote in every canton.
  - 4y ago

modriano 4y ago

Switzerland's doctrine of neutrality is not newfound, rather it's a strategy they've built into their geography over centuries. They're nestled between mountains, so it would be pretty difficult for any other nation to attack them, but up until 1945, Europe was home to very frequent wars of conquest, which were devastating to property and people. Switzerland's strategy was to lean into their natural defenses by building hundreds of thousands of bunkers [0] in the mountains and signalling "Hey, we aren't looking to attack you, but if you invade, watch out for our extremely well fortified defenses. By the way, would you care to keep your valuables in our vaults? Lots of pillagers out there in the rest of Europe." (but seriously, skim through the video. Switzerland's defenses are wild and beautiful.) [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bPIaHg11mI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bPIaHg11mI

more_corn 4y ago

Newfound love for neutrality? The Swiss? You’re joking right?

csomar 4y ago

No. They helped African militaries too. They would have helped American criminals and oligarchs but the US forced them not to (FATCA).

abc03 4y ago

Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes. Please don't post shallow dismissals Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity. and more

TheOtherHobbes 4y ago

Their President literally said "Swiss weapons must not be used in wars." Certainly a novel take for an arms dealing country.