5 ms·

> 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".

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".