SWITZERLAND | Really Still Neutral?

For over two hundred years, Switzerland has stood out as the very model of a neutral country. And yet the war in Ukraine has raised very real questions about it commitment to the principle. While it has come in for criticism over its decision to prevent NATO members from re-exporting Swiss-made weapons and ammunition to Ukraine, Switzerland has full aligned itself to European Union sanction on Russia. It has also spoken openly about the need to rethink what neutrality really means in the modern era. So, is Switzerland still neutral? And, if it is, could this be about to change?
Hello and welcome! My name is James Ker-Lindsay. Here I take an informed look at International Relations with a focus on territorial conflicts, secession, independence movements and new countries. If you like what you see, please do subscribe. If you want more, including exclusive content and benefits, consider becoming a channel member. Many thanks!
SUBSCRIBE FOR FREE kzbin.info...
SUPPORT THE CHANNEL / jameskerlindsay
Switzerland is one of the most interesting countries in the world. Its origins can be traced back to 1291, when a group of communities - now known as cantons - formed a defensive alliance. In the centuries that followed they were joined by others and Switzerland became an expansionist collection of statelets. This was until France defeated it. While this has usually been seen as the start of the country’s moves towards neutrality. Its formal neutral status came in 1815, following the Napoleonic Wars. But while it has become famed for its neutrality, in recent years there have been growing signs that this is changing, Switzerland has already forged close ties to NATO. And following the start of the war in Ukraine its has aligned with the EIU and others to impose cantons on Moscow. And inside the country, there is growing support for NATO membership. This has prompted the country’s president, Ignazio Cassis, to refer to a new principle of “cooperative neutrality”.
CHAPTERS
0:00 Introduction and Titles
0:44 Neutrality in International Relations
2:13 Background to Switzerland
3:05 The Origins of Swiss Neutrality
4:38 Swiss Neutrality in Practice
5:36 Swiss Neutrality in the Modern Era
7:27 Switzerland and the Ukraine War
9:37 Reconsidering Swiss Neutrality
11:53 Is Switzerland Abandoning Neutrality?
RELATED PLAYLISTS
Current Issues and Disputes • CURRENT ISSUES AND DIS...
===============
FURTHER READING & USEFUL SOURCES
Federal Department of Foreign Affairs www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/home....
Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation
www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/19...
The Day Switzerland Became Neutral
www.swissinfo.ch/eng/congress...
A Concise History of Switzerland amzn.to/3zL1u9K
===============
MY BOOKS
Secession and State Creation: What Everyone Needs to Know amzn.to/2MPY3W2 [PRE-ORDER]
The Cyprus Problem: What Everyone Needs to Know amzn.to/2FaaBU2
Kosovo: The Path to Contested Statehood in the Balkans amzn.to/35jiBN2
The Foreign Policy of Counter-Secession amzn.to/2Qinm5t
My other books amzn.to/2MlP13u
===============
MY PROFILES & SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS
Twitter / jameskerlindsay
LinkedIn / james-ker-lindsay-b31b...
Academia.edu lse.academia.edu/JamesKerLindsay
Research Gate www.researchgate.net/profile/...
===============
EQUIPMENT& TOOL USED TO MAKE THIS VIDEO
Camera: Canon XA40 amzn.to/3CLinzy
Microphone: Røde VideoMic NTG amzn.to/2MAHBZj
Key Light: Elgato amzn.to/3D85kJx
Accent Lights: Aputure MC amzn.to/3kkoGSS
Teleprompter: Parrot 2 amzn.to/2VLcRsm
Tripod: Geekoto 79" Carbon Fibre amzn.to/2wWMNT1
Channel Analytics: TubeBuddy www.tubebuddy.com/JKL
Channel Graphics: motionvfx.sjv.io/NKB34O
===============
KEYWORDS
#Switzerland #Ukraine #Neutrality
#InternationalPolitics #CurrentAffairs #InternationalRelations
#Secession #Statehood #Independence
#InternationalLaw #InternationalHistory
DISCLAIMER: Some of the links above are affiliate links. These pay a small commission if you make a purchase. This helps to support the channel and will be at no additional cost to you.

[@davidlysaghtlegupability2924]

Really enjoyed this video, I would like to see one on Irish neutrality. As a Irish European, I always felt a bit at odds with our neutrality especially if we were attacked we expect the other 26 European MS to come to our assistance, yet we wouldn't return the favour.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks so much. I have been thinking a lot about this question too. I agree. I know Ireland has a long history of neutrality, but so do Switzerland and Sweden.

[@ivandinsmore6217]

@@JamesKerLindsay Ireland has only been neutral since the Second World War.

[@ivandinsmore6217]

Neutrality will ensure Ireland will not be attacked. Nobody has any reason to attack.

[@markquinn6259]

@@ivandinsmore6217 tell that to the gaelic football fans ;)

[@clavichord]

The issue of Irish reunification would need to be solved first, irrespective of a wish for the people of Ireland to join NATO or not.... The northern Irish conflict is a conflict with an existing NATO member no less.... There are a number of other historical issues why the Republic of Ireland developed a tradition of neutrality, Medling in the affairs of other countries and imposing your will on them militarily or economically, is regarded as a form of colonialism, especially in the eyes of some of the more Republican Irish. Sinn Féin is very much in favour of strengthening Irish neutrality, and they are now one of the largest political parties in all parts Ireland. Regarding Ireland being invaded, most Republican Irish still regard parts of Ireland as being invaded by a NATO member. Both Boris Johnson, the Conservative and Unionist party, and Labour under Keir Starmer, have unequivocally stated that they are firmly against Northern Ireland leaving the United Kingdom, and Sinn Féin, likely the next ruling party in Ireland, is firmly for Irish unification. This is definately an issue that needs to be resolved if the Republic of Ireland is to become a member of NATO in the future and the chance of that happening any time soon seems remote.

[@rpgbb]

I wouldn’t say Japan is neutral. Yes, they have a “Pacifist” constitution but they are under American protection with a security treaty. Same for Singapore, they play a double game of working with China and the West but that doesn’t make them neutral

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. Yes, I know what you mean. I didn’t really have the chance to go into this, but neutrality comes in all sorts of forms. Japan sits at one end of things. It takes clear positions on issues. But is banned from using force to settle disputes. It is often included in lists of neutral states, although it’s neutrality is rather different than others in traditional terms. Although, that said, is it any different from Austria or Ireland these days? Very few countries really sit in the fence now.

[@jmolofsson]

@@JamesKerLindsay in *_this_* context, it is fully understandable to use at most one sentence on other countries. Indeed, a video on the different shapes of neutrality and/or un-aligned status could be very valuable. Japan and India are important not to overlook. If one does, any discussion becomes painfully Eurocentric. Austria and Switzerland are very good countries to use for an English-speaking audience, as other countries' neutrality declarations (e. g. Norway's) were negatively assessed in the Anglophone world, and some such feelings linger on. With regard to Swedish neutrality, it's good to point out that it was domestically controversial at two points after 1814, in 1864 when neutrality prevailed, and in November/December 1939, when neutrality was deemed politically impossible, resulting in non-combatant status. In 1995, when the neutrality doctrine was ditched, this was uncontroversial.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

@@jmolofsson Thanks. Points well taken. Someone else raised the neutrality vs non-alignment question. This is something that has interested me for many years. I hope to come back to it.

[@neutralitystudies]

This is a typical Wikipedia mistake, which lists Japan as a neutral but it is clearly utterly not, since it‘s in a very tight security alliance with the US. It‘s confusing pacifism with neutrality which are two very different concepts.

[@charleskristiansson1296]

Under 'American protection' - what does that mean?

[@paulwarren4947]

Thank you for taking the time to record this video for us. I've subscribed to your channel as I find it very informative and so far, I've found it impartial. The issues you talk about are laid out in a clear and easy-to-follow manner. Thanks for that!

[@elektra2740]

Sehr interessant. Vielen Dank Herr Professor

[@zverroboi]

Switzerlands neutrality is born out of historic experience, that relying on weak (potential) allies can easily put the country in existential danger. That's the survival part of neutrality. The other is political. Switzerland practices the most direct democracy in the world. Citizens vote 4 times a year (and elect on a national level every 4 years). That's why the state has to preserve a high degree of political independence towards the rest of the world. Alliance would put our foreign and security policy beyond the influence of the citizens. But Switzerland sticks to a conscription base Militia army in order to prevent the government to do foreign politics at the expense of soldiers life. The problem is not Swiss neutrality, but the ongoing power politics of the big powers, including those in the west.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. I really appreciate the comment. It really helps to make sense of the debate in the country. Viewed from outside, the attachment to neutrality seems anachronistic. But from the perspective you laid out it seems a little less so. That said, it still seems as though people are caught up in a mindset that belongs to a different era. When every other European and Western state is in alignment on most things, then it seems odd to retain such a strong desire to have the right to be different as a general policy. Indeed, even from a practical point of view, it doesn’t perhaps make a lot of sense. Even in the EU, foreign policy remains a national competence. Every member retains its sovereign right to do its own thing. Switzerland could do the same. Broadly align with the West, but be different on specific issues if it really wanted to (although it seems hard to think what this might be). I get the sense that the current political leadership see this. But I also accept that ideas of sovereignty and national identity are often deeply rooted. Brexit is obviously a good example!

[@zverroboi]

@@JamesKerLindsay Thank you for your video and your effort to lay out the historic origins of Switzerlands neutrality. Within the country (I am a Swiss citizen, historian and officer in the Militia btw) it is an undecided issue since the end of the cold war. Traditionally neutrality until the end of the cold war clearly served the primary goal of independence (prioritized over prosperity and international influence). Since then, all the political forces opting for Switzerlands membership in the UN, EU, Nato try their best to downplay the importance of independence. Neutrality is therefore in essence a substitute-debate whether Switzerland should give up its independence and direct democracy in order to gain foreign security guarantees and (even) closer economical interdependence with Europe. Many are not sure, whether EU and Nato will still exist in 10,15 years and are therefore not willing to trade political independence for closer ties with those institutions.

[@user-cx9nc4pj8w]

I think you could still let other people give Swiss weapons to Ukraine and support Ukraine militarily without compromising your democracy or independence. Joining NATO and the EU isn't necessary to stand with the West against Russia and I hope Switzerland can see that.

[@mrcazzovic7960]

@@user-cx9nc4pj8w That would be RIDICOULUS Swiss dosent give his Tanks and Weapons to other Countrys that they can send them to Ukraine thats like u to it yourself.

[@mrcazzovic7960]

@@zverroboi Ich hab eine Frage ich leb im Aargau findish du geut das Schwiz Russland Sanktioniert weil minere Meinig noch chöne mir dene au grd Rückwirkend US UK Sanktioniere weil sie ohni UN Mandat Irak Agriffe Hend oder Frankrich für Syrie Krieg Sanktioniere oder Dütschland für Serbie bombardierig weil wenn mir sho mache chöne mir grd richtig mache

[@Xandalfo]

As a swiss I really appreciate the brief and objective overview about the origins of swiss neutrality! It seems indeed to be a possible paradigm-shift, switzerland, although technically neutral, is closely integrated and dependent on the EU. This relation will definitely remain a key question for the comming years.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you so much. I was really keen to hear from someone Swiss. How do people feel about this? What do you think?

[@mandrakespydar3834]

Diese Regierung hat die Bundesverfassung mehrmals verletzt.

[@Crafty_Spirit]

@@JamesKerLindsay I too am Swiss and what can I say, I think right-wing politicians but not only them educated us Swiss as to equate neutrality with sovereignity and independence, and the lack of differentiation ties in with the emotional value of the n-concept; which is ironic in origins, as n was dictated by foreign powers. I think our foreign policy barely differs from any other democratic state of small size, but some quirks that come with n and how it seems to trigger people on a basic level ('free-riders, cowards, cynical but smart decision') means for me that we should give up the term and continue mostly the same way. However, Switzerland should definitely deliver weapons to Ukraine. We should heed the desire of the Ukrainians to fight for their country.

[@spdfatomicstructure]

Would joining the EU in an official capacity, like what Austria did in 1995, help? Switzerland is after all a member of the EU in all but name, taking part in key initiatives like the Single Market and Schengen

[@marcosteiner3619]

​@@spdfatomicstructure Joining the EU is an even more controversial topic :D - The EU is as centralized as can be and Switzerland is as decentralized as it can be. People here will just not accept descisions that seem to be too far away from their lives. Also not gonna lie, Switzerland often votes with the wallet and if the costs outweigh the benefits chances are bad for what you want to achieve.

[@1234canadianguy]

Great video as always Professor Ker-Lindsay! I'll send this video to a friend who lives in Zurich and a master's student at the University of Basel in European Global Studies. :)

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks so much Robert. I would be really interested to hear what they think. :-)

[@handsomegeorgianbankrobber3779]

I recently discovered this channel, very informative and neutral commenting on a wide range of geopolitical issues.

[@filipepinto641]

James, just wanted to mention that your channel is great!

[@Leiwanderer]

I'm really surprised the Swiss (33%) are more in favour of NATO membership than Austrians (14%). I genuinely wonder why.

[@EdMcF1]

Austria's dark and relatively recent past.

[@Leiwanderer]

@@EdMcF1 I personally think this was too long ago to make that much of a difference today, but it's possible.

[@selcovoilucian8253]

Austria is forbidden to unite with Germany and joining military alliances

[@ericklajara8641]

Because Austria has been the cause or indirect cause of every major European War since the 30 years war.

[@Leiwanderer]

@@ericklajara8641 But so has almost every other European country (especially DE, FR and UK), yet most of them are NATO members today. I don't think this is a good explanation.

[@ephraimbrener9143]

Thank you for yet again exceptional video. Personally I believe in taking sides. Neutrality is an impossible concept. It is easier when the conflict is far away, it's harder when it's in your neighborhood.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks Ephraim. I agree. I have always thought of myself as non-aligned rather then neutral. I don’t like to sit out of disputes. Instead, I like to approach issues with an open mind and weigh up the evidence before being willing to call it as I see it.

[@UnknownUnknownUnknown3]

Which side did Switzerland take in the Yugoslav crisis/invasion in Yugoslavia?

[@terryvarta9306]

It's been a while since i have seen your informative videos. thanks.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Welcome back! :-)

[@sirrodneyffing1]

Superbly presented and highly informative. These videos are an excellent example of why, like many others, I have increasing turned away MSM TV pundits for news and information. Thank you.

[@bilic8094]

During this conflict in Ukraine some countries seem to take a some what neutral stand from EU Hungary to countries like Turkey and Serbia and some politicans like Milanovic in Croatia so it's surprising Switzerland went a bit further considering they were the symbol of neutrality.

[@marcusaetius9309]

Indeed, personally I was quite disappointed with the Swiss on this. I always considered them better than most of Europe. I guess everything changes eventually…😔

[@Ghfvhvfg]

@@marcusaetius9309me to swiss btw. I think. There plain wrong casis cals selenky his friend

[@louisemason4406]

I've only just found this channel but now subscribed. A short update might be helpful given very recent events re: arms to Ukraine

[@JamesKerLindsay]

The war in Ukraine is certainly changing international relations. One of the most interesting - and yet little noticed - effects has been on Switzerland. So, can we think of Switzerland as still being neutral? And even if we can, do you think this is changing? Could we even see it join NATO? After all, it already has extremely close ties to the alliance and internal support does seem to be growing. Thoughts and comments below.

[@ems7623]

Their official line will change at a glacial pace - as ever with Switzerland. They can afford not to take any risks, as long as other nations make the bold moves needed to defend the continent.

[@shreedhargoyal277]

I really don't think that the Swiss people and Constitution are going to sway towards one- sided West easily. This is the same country that barely joined the United Nations. I do think that however the global sympathy for the Ukrainian people is sort of pushing neutral nations to signal cold attitudes towards Russia and it's barbaric invasion. This sentiment is far more stronger in Europe both due to shared concerns and bravery of common Ukrainians and some Russians protesting their own President... Definitely, Switzerland would not want to be seen even as a moderator of Russian invasion, due to which it is backing economic sanctions rather than militaristic support.

[@enricogattone432]

Your introductory comment seems not to be pinned

[@fb150185]

Love this channel, such informative videos and showing different aspects of international relations issues and asking tough questions. Personally, I think the concept of Swiss neutrality is out of touch and actually is more a label than a reality. As mentioned it made sense in the past. But over the past 70 years of rather peaceful cohabitation in Europe, "neutrality" doesn't seem to aplly the way it did and it's unclear what it means today. It's a great question you ask and I believe it's partially answered by Swiss close relation with NATO and the EU. Not to say that having close relations with a neighbor makes you "pick their side", it's actually common sense to avoid conflict at your doorstep but the difference is that I don't see (as far as I know) that level (or even lower ones) of coorperation with other aliances or "not as western" societies. It's an interesting debate and question Swiss people have and to continue building the kind of country they want in a globalized world.

[@benyendle2584]

How can Switzerland be an arms manufacturer and block arms being sent somewhere where they will be used as intended?

[@g1u2y345]

Why is the US as well as the EU so silent on Turkey's refusal to sanction Russia? Turkey is a NATO member and actively supports Russia financially as well as politically (Finland, Sweden). You'd think this would be talked about a bit more.

[@TheLocalLt]

Turkey has a lot of friends in Washington, and has for many years, they’ve spend a lot of money over the years connecting their defense industry to America’s. Thus there is little desire in Washington to antagonize Turkey with public criticism, and it’s only done if Turkey does something really egregious such as buying S400s from Russia, which resulted in quietly announced sanctions. That said, I’m sure a deal is being worked out behind the scenes for Turkey and Finland/Sweden to come to terms, America is not going to let Erdogan torpedo this extremely important deal with Finland and Sweden, they will let him have his fun but at the end of the day Finland and Sweden will join NATO.

[@nathanngumi8467]

Very comprehensive arguments!

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you very much indeed. :-)

[@JordiVilanova]

Although not the case of Switzerland, it would be useful to contrast neutrality vs. non-alignment in the intro, where you come very close to the latter when you define the former.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks so much. Excellent suggestion. I actually thought of this in the original script. The difference between the two ideas has fascinated me for over twenty years for a rather interesting reason to do with my PhD. However, it took things off on a tangent. (One thing you realise when doing videos like this is that you need to really keep focused. There are so many interesting avenues to explore. It can rapidly become confusing if you’re not careful.) But I will try to come back to this in another video.

[@AnonymousAlcoholic772]

Good video but it’s very hard to avoid the observation that its very easy to be neutral when you are surrounded on all sides by countries that de facto protect you from any possible invasion.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. Exactly! This is very many argue that it is essentially free-riding. It gets the de facto protection of NATO, but doesn’t pay a penny towards it.

[@andrewsarantakes639]

Switzerland should be the world leader in neutrality. Their historic neutrality should be admired because it is the strongest demonstration of their independence & sovereignty, as well as a demonstration of their choice not to be entangled in petty politics of international relations.

[@iskanderaga-ali3353]

"petty politics of international relations"

[@banicata]

Being neutral in the face of injustice is immoral

[@pslogge]

Well said Andrew. If two countries get crazy and want to fight because of greed, unresolved issues, nationalist delusions, etc, why the others should bother taking parts? Now, does reality confirm that war between two countries is an issue of two countries? Of course not, usually, if not always, it is a war between blocks of countries. Abandoning the idea of neutrality means we are adding players in a future conflict and we are accentuating the paranoid element contained in the concept of security.

[@jmolofsson]

@@banicata this time it is easy to say In many other wars, it isn't. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were harder to judge, just to give two examples.

[@user-cx9nc4pj8w]

@@jmolofsson But Switzerland can stand with Ukraine and criticize the US at the same time, and joining NATO, or the EU would not stop that.

[@TheNapkuchen]

I don't have anything of value to add but this was an interestig video so I leave this one for the algorythm.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. Always appreciated! :-)

[@ayyyyylmao]

As a Swiss person myself I am obviously biast on this topic but I'd argue you fundamentally misunderstood Swiss neutrality. We are neutral and pacifistic only to avoid war and preserve self determination. Neutrality has proven to be the best tool to do so. It does however not mean that we are neutral on any and all issues. We don't tell other countries what to do but that does not mean that we're just a doormat. If international law is being broken in europe no less, that is not something we can just ignore as it could become very dangerous for us in the future. We follow the principal of armed neutrality and that does not just apply to weapons themselves. As for why we don't join Nato: I don't care what the political circumstances are, I am not going to die in a war on foreign soil. I am never ever going to accept an order to go and die in Poland or Lithuania or any soil that is not my home. I respect Americans for being able to do that but we won't ever become that.

[@theskepticalwhaler4946]

My country, Singapore, is neutral and enjoyed really good relations with Russia before the conflict. However, we've chosen to impose sanctions on Russia of our own accord recently too. Neutrality for us (and other nations really) has never been about ideology but security and Singapore's security has always been tied to the principles of sovereignty and international rule of law. It sets a bad precedent for us when larger superpowers are going around annexing territory from their neighbours and invading without just cause, because of this, Singapore has chosen to oppose Russia on this matter not because of poor ties but due to principles.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks so much. Really great to hear a view from SE Asia on this. That’s a really interesting approach. But it makes a lot of sense. I just wish that more people cheering Russia on would take a step back and realise what Moscow is doing. Putin us upending the entire basis of international law. Of course, many will point out that the West has done the same. I certainly don’t deny that it has done its part. But as I showed in another video, the invasion of Ukraine contravenes every major principle of sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity in the modern international system. When countries like Switzerland and Singapore call Russia out, then it’s time to take notice.

[@arsic094]

Singapore has chosen to do so because of ties to US.

[@spdfatomicstructure]

@@arsic094 that's only part of it - we do have ties with the PRC and even North Korea too - but the real reason would be more of the fact that a small country like Singapore has always depended on strong international relations and adherence to international law to survive. We are, after all, a single city, not that much bigger than Sydney and Melbourne, about as big as Berlin and half the size of London and Paris, in an entire region of 680 million people - more than the entire EU in fact - so we need to do just about everything to safeguard the very things that have guaranteed our independence and sovereignty

[@theskepticalwhaler4946]

@@arsic094 hardly the case really, Singapore also has ties to Russia. The main reason as I mentioned is that as a small city-state, the principles of national sovereignty and international rule of law is crucial to the independence of Singapore. Simply put, if Russia is allowed to take territory from Ukraine without consequences, what stops another nation from doing the same to Singapore?

[@hkchan1339]

There is also a US base in SG that shows where Singapore stands if chips are down. Russia and PRC is just good business , USA is where security lies

[@peterkops6431]

Thanks Prof! 👍🏻👍🏻

[@user-uv1qp3sd2x]

IT's a pleasure listen and watch this video from him. Congratulations.😅🌍🌎🌏🇪🇺🇺🇲🇯🇵🇦🇺🇲🇽

[@brianfoley4328]

That was a Graduate level course in under fifteen minutes...Thank You

[@MasaKoshi]

Great video!!

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you! :-)

[@NMJZ]

Thanks for making this video Professor! Informative and concise as always! For me, watching this video did in fact shed some light on what "neutrality" actually meant for Switzerland. Now that I think about it, as early as WW2, the whole "neutral" label has always been a rather complicated interpretation of a countries' relationship with another. Taking into account what our world is like today, I am left wondering if there is any real meaning in a country remaining "neutral". It seems to me that we can no longer go around pretending that situations that are developing so far away from where we are simply do not affect us. The world is a much, much smaller and connected place now, and I think it's wiser to accept that instead of ignoring any potential problems until they arrive on one's doorstep.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. I completely agree. I think the idea of neutrality has become outdated, especially in a European context. It really belonged to a different era. But with the EU, countries are expected to take a position on issues. They is also an expectation of mutual defence. And, as the Swiss President said, you can't be neutral on matters of international law. In this regard, neutrality really seems to be a legacy issue; a formal position that countries just sort of accept without really thinking about what it means. The more I think about it, the more I also wonder whether in the case of Ireland, Austria and Malta it is actually about free riding. Everyone else has pledged - or in the case on Sweden and Finland intends to pledge - support each other and contribute to the defence fund through NATO, but they sit outside. I have had many say that they don't feel threatened. For instance, Ireland sits at the very western edge of Europe. But this completely neglects the solidarity argument. They may feel fine, but what about their friends and partners in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania? What about them? (In the case of Ireland, it expects to have EU partners support on Brexit issues, as it should, but then won't reciprocate on issues that really worry the Baltic states.) Really, it just seems to be unjustifiable in the modern world.

[@thetruckerchannel6896]

Thank you for your commentary.

[@DavidMFChapman]

Wow I learned so much about Switzerland in this video!

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. To be honest, I learned a lot researching it! Swiss history and it’s neutrality is far more interesting and complex than most people realise.

[@ems7623]

Neutrality, in Switzerland's case is rather a technicality isn't it? Their geopolitical interests are rather firmly entrenched in the stability of the entire European community and the global financial markets which are still centered heavily in Western cities like New York and London. As with Austria, they can afford to pretend to be more neutral than they really are because of their size, location, mountains (hard to invade) and the exertions of the EU and NATO on behalf of their interests.

[@falsevacuum4667]

At least Austria is an EU state. With Sweden joining Nato, Austria is nothing but a free rider and has no excuse anymore.

[@jmolofsson]

@@falsevacuum4667 sort of! But as a rule, most neutral countries pay quite a lot for their own defense. Whether Aistria formally is a member of NATO is less important as long as they educate their own defence forces and pay for their armory.

[@TheSwedishHistorian]

Austria is interesting and probably a good indication of how Switzerland would be like inside of the EU to some degree

[@dansplain2393]

James talking through facts about a country’s geography and economy is my shipping forecast.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Haha! Not quite sure how to take that. Informative, but soothing or soporific!? :-)

[@dansplain2393]

@@JamesKerLindsay The first two!

[@JamesKerLindsay]

@@dansplain2393 Glad to hear it! Thanks so much for the support. 🙂

[@kw2142]

Great video as always

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks a lot! :-)

[@kw2142]

@@JamesKerLindsay btw on another topic, have u thought of doing a video on potential Georgia membership of EU? could be interesting, I saw the other day there were huge pro EU protests in Tbilisi.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

@@kw2142 Thanks. Great suggestion. But there are a couple of other Georgia issues I want to tackle (and are long overdue). I’m hoping to cover one of them in the next few weeks.

[@rogerdarthwell5393]

Switzerland is a very fascinating country, particularly in terms of TV.....you can watch channels from Austria, Germany, Italy, France and even the UK (because the satellite footprint of these channels can be received in a very small part of Swiss territory and because of their broadcasting law it can be available throughout the country)

[@arrore]

Great information as always. It would be interesting how the Swiss handle issues at SC.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. Yes. It will be very interesting to see, especially as they will be expected to actually lay out positions.

[@arrore]

​@@JamesKerLindsay I wish that in a future video you could talk about how Albania is handling its role at the SC compared to other countries (maybe comparing it to Switzerland). Because I see Albania too involved, holding a firm position on SC issues.

[@fb150185]

Love this channel, such informative videos and showing different aspects of international relations issues and asking tough questions. Personally, I think the concept of Swiss neutrality is out of touch and actually is more a label than a reality. As mentioned it made sense in the past. But over the past 70 years of rather peaceful cohabitation in Europe, "neutrality" doesn't seem to aplly the way it did and it's unclear what it means today. It's a great question you ask and I believe it's partially answered by Swiss close relation with NATO and the EU. Not to say that having close relations with a neighbor makes you "pick their side", it's actually common sense to avoid conflict at your doorstep but the difference is that I don't see (as far as I know) that level (or even lower ones) of coorperation with other aliances or "not as western" societies. It's an interesting debate and question Swiss people have and to continue building the kind of country they want in a globalized world.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. I completely agree. In fact, I’d probably live up with those who say it’s has become more of a convenient way not to have to take positions on questions than a really meaningful policy position. And it seems clear that more and more people in Switzerland seem to accept this. Of course there will be the hardline traditionalists, the isolationist nativists and the well-meaning pacifists (there’s actually quite a strong campaign to limit or stop arms manufacturing) who will disagree. But more and more ordinary people seem to see that the idea means very little in the contemporary era.

[@user-uv1qp3sd2x]

Switzerland is an important country, it has a powerful economy. They support from USA, Canada, European Union, Japan, Australia, and others.🇨🇦🇪🇺🌏🌎🌍🇺🇲🇯🇵🇦🇺

[@micheleleimbacher5867]

The decision to go along with sanctions was due to pressure from Europe and the US and the fact that Ignazio stands firm on the side of Zelensky. Switzerland is a small country and its wealth is deeply intrenched with relations with the West. I am Swiss and many Swiss are very disappointed that Switzerland is going along with the sanctions because it cannot act as a mediator between Russia and Ukraine. I think that this video is somewhat biased because Ignazio does not reflect the opinion of the people. Zelensky's propaganda campaign is distasteful and the only way for Ukraine to come out of this war is through dialogue, which the West does not want because the true country profitting off of weapons sales is the US and Nato countries are dumping all their old weaponry in Ukraine at a snails pace, just enough to keep the war going. The Ukrainians are not trained on new technology and do not have the time to learn.. They are losing about 1,000 men per day and it is sickening that the US/UK feel that they can pressure Switzerland and the EU weaker countries to go along with their every whim until they tire of the war or winter comes and they need Russian gas to heat their houses.

[@jamaicansunitedforchange5745]

As a Jamaican In Switzerland, I agree.

[@leonardotheuseless4188]

Many people here fell like they didnt get a say in this and some are pretty mad about it blaming certain politicians for taking decisions the swiss people should take.

[@TheLocalLt]

Thanks for the video professor, I think it’s a fascinating topic! Armed Swiss neutrality I think continued to make a lot of sense throughout the Cold War. Since then, it has become more advantageous for them to join, since the frontlines of European power blocs has shifted east. That said, personally I think Switzerland likes to keep its options open just in case it somehow ever ends up on the frontlines again, and if necessary can work with fellow neutral Alpine countries Leichtenstein and Austria (who don’t have the luxury of joining an alliance) to at least enforce an armed bloc of neutrality in the Alps. Because of that, I think Switzerland will likely strengthen cooperation with NATO but I just can’t see them actually joining an alliance. However as you point out, Sweden was in very similar position and decided to dramatically change course, seemingly anything can happen in geopolitics today. It will be very interesting to see how it this turns out, thank you again for the video

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks so much. I think my view is that if ever there was a situation in which Switzerland and Austria end up on the front line, their neutrality in the fact of an existential threat to the West is going to be pointless. They will be at threat too. This is the basis of the free-rider argument that many raise. They are all part and parcel of the West, of Europe. They know it. They accept it. But they won’t put their hard in the pocket to play a full part in defending their partners. But it will be interesting to see how the debate evolves. In many ways, the greater conundrum is Austria. A third of Swiss now support joining NATO. Apparently only 13% of Austrians do!?

[@marcosteiner3619]

@@JamesKerLindsay Well I think our perspective is just different. We basically just want to do our thing and others should do their thing. Also the army is a conscript army and my personal interest in enforcing any order or interest of the government within switzerland is already very limited. I personally think that western governments do a great job in downplaying the actual stupidity of war and exaggarate the heroism and morality of it. Also I have a hard time believing that I or my government is in the possession of the single and correct truth and it seems to be mainly that or national interests what you will shoot people for in the end isn't it? So yeah obviously my heart's not in it :D I would only pick a side out of existential necessity and not because of moral reasons. The free rider arguments of course do have some truth at their core and that should be adressed with some sort of compensation. But that's just my perspective and I do see the validity of other perspectives too of course. :)

[@TheLocalLt]

@@JamesKerLindsay I’m not so sure about that, a mountainous country armed to the teeth is no desirable conquest, especially when they can afford to buy off any potential occupier. Austria though seems like almost a non-story, as it’s perpetually neutral by constitution, which was insisted on by the Soviet Union as a condition of Austria’s independence from the zones of occupation in 1955. Because of this, even if public support was there for alignment, it would entail the full process of amending the constitution (I will fully admit I’m not sure how hard this is in Austrian law, but I’d imagine it’s likely extremely difficult as it is in most countries)

[@thomasjohnson2862]

Interesting. I assume this is largely the same reason Switzerland isn’t an EU member too, although it also cooperated on a few levels too, such as being members of Schengen

[@oof5020]

The reason Switzerland isn't an EU member is because they fear loosing their highly valued soveregnity and independence.

[@aaronjones8905]

The best argument I can think of for the consistency of the Swiss position is that Neutrality is composed of 3 parts: 1. Refusing international entanglements which could require involvement in a war. 2. Decreasing relations with nations which instigate wars. 3. Ensuring the security of your state so that your neutrality will be respected. This definition would permit the Swiss to condemn Russian aggression, prevent them from supporting a Ukrainian victory, and allow them to align themselves with organizations which promote peaceful coexistence.

[@susanmaddison5947]

The 1st breach in its neutral abstention from joining anything was when Switzerland joined the Marshall Plan, OEEC. and OECD. Switzerland thus helped create the united Euro-Atlantic order that, as you rightly say, now surrounds it, replacing the former balance of powers between which it felt a need to be neutral. You elaborate nicely the later gradual stages of Switzerland's drawing the logical conclusions from this.

[@lotuslotus718]

Excellent history lesson

[@nirutivan9811]

Great video! What I think went a bit forgotten in this video are the internal reasons for the Swiss Neutrality. As mentioned Switzerland is a country with four national languages, three of them are shared with neighbouring countries, one is only spoken by 0.5% of the population. It’s not based on one common ethnic, cultural or linguistic background. In German you sometimes hear the term “Willensnation” (Nation by will) to describe the concept of Switzerland. Countries that can’t rely on a common language or similar things to create a unity among the people do need other unifying factors, they need to develope common cultural aspects among the different groups of people in the country and in the case of Switzerland neutrality has turned into one of them. Neutrality has become a huge part of the national identity in Switzerland. This doesn’t mean, that Switzerland has to stay neutral for ever, it’s great that now (cause of the Russian Invasion) also in Switzerland discussions about the future of neutrality are being held, but it explains in my opinion why Neutrality still has an important role in Switzerland, even if it’s probably not really needed anymore.

[@sidepieceseason1414]

Thanks!

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you so much! I am so incredibly sorry that I didn't reply sooner. You must think I am very rude. My sincerest apologies. I tend to use the KZbin app during the day and this doesn't highlight Super Thanks. (A terrible omission by KZbin.) That really was very kind of you. And truly appreciated.

[@sidepieceseason1414]

@@JamesKerLindsay No worries sir. This was very informative.

[@Meckload]

Related to this subject, I think a historical and political perspective on buffer states could make for an interesting video topic as well. The idea of a buffer state is the origin of neutrality in Switzerland and Austria (in both countries it was externally imposed), it affected Sweden’s and Finland‘s thinking on military alignment, and there are some who think neutrality should also have been imposed on Ukraine to avoid the current conflict (which makes the topic timely). I’m sure there are great non-European examples as well and that there are many interesting political dynamics to unravel ;)

[@eddiedaly2551]

Very interesting. Going forward I would love to see a video on what the positions of ex-Soviet Countries are now - especially the "Stans" with the ongoing war in Ukraine and Putin's "Peter the Great" comments.

[@natewunderman4597]

Posting here as a former Gastarbeiter in Schweiz; the video omitted to mention a very important factor: Christoph Blocher & his political creation, the Swiss People's Party. Part and parcel of their political brand is for them to be the stalwarts of 'traditional Swiss values' including neutrality. Though they are the largest party in the country, almost every other political party goes against them to varying degrees. In fact, if one looks at which Swiss political actors want the country to remain strictly neutral, they have an 'SVP' beside their name more than likely.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. You are absolutely right. I sort of hinted at this in my comment about the UN referendum. But it still remains strong and it carries some very disturbing undertones and even overtones!

[@oof5020]

@@JamesKerLindsay Do you talk about the SVP in the last sentence? If so, I wonder what you mean by disturbing under- and overtones.

[@shaybs]

Moral 1. How is it immoral not to intervene in the conflict and explicitly support Ukraine? If that is immoral then what about all these other wars and conflicts? Was Switzerland "morally" obligated to support Iraq, Chechnya or Georgian occupied territories, Syria and Libya? 2. Switzerland is "free riding NATO". Good for them. Countries are meant to do what is in their interest. I applaud countries that manage to stay out of conflicts and build great societies, i.e. Singapore, Canada and even China followed a similar model until the US-China tensions over Taiwan started. 3. Neutrality isn't serving anything because it's unlikely to get attacked by its neighbours. True, for now. Will that be true 100, 200 or 500 years from now? I don't think so. I'm vehemently against the war in Ukraine. I'm not saying it's justified. I'm just playing devils advocate. Also I'm looking at it from a Pakistani lens. Pakistan is suffering from a lot of corruption and a lot of problems. I really want Pakistan to stay out of geopolitics and work on geoeconomics and increasing the standard of living of our population. I truly believe staying out of conflict, encouraging countries to de-escalate tensions and trying to end wars is the best possible thing Pakistan can do for itself. I hold a similar view for Switzerland because I believe it's in its interest.

[@user-cx9nc4pj8w]

I think the difference is that Switzerland is rich and Pakistan is not. Developing countries have more important things to worry about than the morality of their international relationships. Switzerland can afford to help Ukraine without neglecting it's citizens. As for neutrality in the future, I think that it is extremely unlikely that Switzerland will be under threat, especially if it is proactive in ensuring the current implausibility of war in Europe remains, and this might be easier from inside the EU/NATO.

[@user-cx9nc4pj8w]

I think you meant to type de escalate as well

[@shaybs]

@@user-cx9nc4pj8w The US went from the wealthiest country on the planet to the most indebted country due to wars and mismanagement. When you get involved your focus as a nation gets diverted. You start discussing the war, how to do X, Y, Z. The wars in the Muslim World have added $6 trillion to US debt and it's only increasing and may end up reaching $10 trillion. While China invested in manufacturing, AI, 5G, 6G, quantum computing, miniature satellite technology, hyper sonics, blockchain, green technology, etcetera. It's as clear as day that China is gonna overtake the US and become the largest economy this decade. China's GDP has reached almost $20 trillion (end 2022). The US is expected to enter recession and not grow much or even reduce over the next few years and China could overtake the US by 2024. That's partially because of all the wars the US is involved in. How is that in America's interest? Wars are bad for almost everyone involved. It should be the policy of last resort at all costs. Completely in self defence or in a situation where it's completely unavoidable, imo. There are always unintended second and third order consequences which politicians and think tanks do not account for which at times lead to a big downward spiral.

[@shaybs]

@@user-cx9nc4pj8w As for not being under the threat of war. I simply don't agree at all. There have been alliances and peace for decades, centuries and ultimately those periods end. That's historical fact. Based on that I believe that peace in Europe forever is a false assumption. It can stay for decades and maybe even a few centuries but eventually the EU will break up.

[@EdMcF1]

Are we going to see in international relations, a new Swiss roll?

[@EdMcF1]

Basically, the bulk of the Swiss political class can't bear not being part of the European political class with all those opportunities that come with it. They are trying to drag the people along with them, and the Ukraine war has helped the political class and people find common ground.

[@bouffon1]

As it stands at present, Berset can make decisions without consulting the Swiss. That would be completely contrary to the spirit of Swiss democracy.

[@darklink7679]

We voted 2 times on this subject...

[@pingu6028]

Not sure about the 2and part. News on the war in Ukraine is basically copy pasted from other western nations and the people are not happy about it (despite leaning mostly towards the Ukraine cuz Russia attacked). In the end nothing will change.

[@Pavlos_Charalambous]

it feels like everything that we used to take as granted since the end of ww2 nowadays is challenged..

[@VivekKosuru]

It's like S Jaishankar said, Europe has to change its mindset, Europe's problems are not world problems

[@louiseperriard]

Great video :) The (now not so new) position of Switzerland is called by a lot of scholars "active neutrality" which basically means that in the event of violations of the Geneva Conventions, it is the duty of the depositary state to denounce them. As a swiss, I think that Switzerland never lost its neutrality when it took over the santions against Russia. Switzerland actually has sanctions against a lot of states and entities right now: Soudan, Myanmar, Libya, Irak etc. The ground for Russia is the following: It violated Inernational law, especiallly via the act of agression. There's no need to be neutral regarding a violation of the law :)

[@alystero8838]

So why didn't switzerland sanction US when it invaded Iraq? Switzerland is no neutral country lol.. cut the crap!

[@christopheoberrauch784]

It is a good video. Nevertheless, I take the liberty of expressing a different point of view. Unfortunately, without seeking absolution from the people, my government has decided to overturn our longstanding and successful policy. It would be exactly our strength to offer the conflicting parties a place where peace could be discussed, unfortunately we can no longer do this. Already only that the Federal President tries to redefine neutrality must be a warning to us as citizens. The following is written in our constitution: "Permanent neutrality is a principle of Swiss foreign policy. It contributes to peace and security in Europe and beyond its borders. It serves to safeguard the independence of our country and the inviolability of its territory. In accordance with the law of neutrality, Switzerland does not participate in wars between other states."

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. All disagreement politely expressed is more than welcome. Encouraged even! :-) I hear this point about being a mediator. But as I said, I think this argument is overplayed. It only really affects Russia. No one else really cares. NATO member Norway does a brilliant job in this regard. Beyond that, I just don’t see how it makes much difference in real terms any longer. Switzerland is part of the West fir all practical purposes. Neutrality is now just about saying that it won’t come to the defence of its European neighbours if they were to be attacked. I just don’t see how or why this would seem to be justified in the contemporary international environment. The adherence to neutrality just cobra across as a tradition. Some are worth keeping. Some are worth ditching. All are worth questioning from time to time. :-)

[@christopheoberrauch784]

@@JamesKerLindsay I understand your arguments very well and can also follow them. Nevertheless, it would need the majority of the people and the majority of the cantons to change the constitution. A government cannot and must not change the constitution without a vote. At least this is true in Switzerland. It would have been logical to first ask the sovereign before decisions are made over the heads of the people. By the way, there was this discussion already once after the first world war, then in the second world war the neutrality at least did not harm us. Even if we did not do everything right in the Second World War, I am infinitely grateful to my grandparents for what they did for us.

[@MH-mi6mk]

Very good job of illustrating the Swiss dilemma. You did not stress that Swiss Neutrality is only as valid as the rest of the world accepts it. Relying with our neutrality on a world order governed by international law it is in our best interest that aggressive invasions do not prevail - otherwise Switzerland could find itself in an Ukrainian-type of position one day.

[@mitchjervis8453]

I believe Swizerland should remain neutral(of course I am not Swiss and the decision is up to it's people and politicians), but in a world of superpowers confrontations, neutral countries are necessary to facilitate negotiations(like the Helsinki Summit of 1975 or the various Geneva and Vienna summits between Soviet and American leaders) and also provide buffers(Austria between WP Hungary and NATO West Germany), reducing the risk of militarized borders(like the Inner German Border of the Cold War or the DMZ today).

[@falsevacuum4667]

As mentioned in the video, it has been proven via Norway that Nato membership does not preclude one from acting as a neutral arbiter of negotiations between powers. Additionally, Switzerland serves no purpose as a buffer. It is quite literally at the heart of the European Union. It is time to admit that Switzerland is part of the West and they need to contribute to its security.

[@user-cx9nc4pj8w]

What superpower confrontations? the only superpowers today are well away from Europe(China and America). Russia does not deserve negotiation due to it's immorality and weakness. Switzerland is at the heart of Europe, surrounded on all sides by the EU and NATO. There is no point in it being a buffer.

[@tomascinnsealeach9979]

I believe there's an important difference between economic neutrality and military neutrality, the retaliation for an economic sanction is usually just the same in kind, whereas the retaliation for a military action could result in the casualties of your countrymen, which usually isn't too popular with said countrymen, that's why I don't see it as contradictory.

[@newpakaas]

Thanks for this very clear point of analysis. I really appreciate your videos. I live in Switzerland since 12 years, and I think that, socially speaking, there's a mistake to talk about neutrality here. People act like your problems where just yours, but don't attempt to the monster interrelation between Switzerland and the EU, just like "I need you but I don't care about you". The Swiss neutrality, in foreign affairs, is just like it. But as you said, it's must be changed, and will be changed. International community push strongly to finish this position, because it's counterproductive if you think in terms of amount of economy. Sanctions against Russia where imposed, and Switzerland advices their Russian clients more than one week before implementing it. So they moved the money. At the end, the sanctioned accounts where a minimal part of all the Russians actives in Swiss banks. Neutrality = convenience.

[@itsnowjoke1381]

There is a generational divide on this issue within Switzerland those over 60 o the whole very upset with the less than neutral stance taken on the Russian Ukraine war I think Switzerland should leave the Un and have as little to do with NATO as possible It should pivot back to a truely neutral position that stood it in good stead for so long the world needs a totally neutral country such as Switzerland as a facilitator of dialogue between enemies it’s position on the UN is of little value

[@EricZucchini]

hey James, when you say a country is the xth largest of the United Nations it doesn't convey much information to me about it's size. One idea would be for you to put it in terms of a well known country around it. Like, in the case of Switzerland, you could say it has 1/x the size of France. Population density is also something that's always interesting to know about a country. Love your vids, keep going!

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks a lot. I used to do that. The trouble is that it is rather relative. Most people might get the meaning if you say that something is the size of France or Russia, but I found that saying that a country was around the same size as Kuwait or Botswana didn’t mean much to anyone beyond the Gulf or Southern Africa. :-) I guess I just list its size in the UN to just give some sort of relative rank that means the same wherever someone is watching. If you say it’s in the top 20 of UN members you know it is big. If it’s in the bottom 50, it’s pretty small!

[@EricZucchini]

​@@JamesKerLindsay well, I guess that's a challenge with a global audience. But then again you could pick just one famous country and then we'd all soon know the size of the every country in Frances!

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Well, there is that! :-)

[@jacobzaranyika9334]

Ok. Thank you 🙏 then.

[@animalshorts4377]

I quote: “How does Switzerland justify these seemingly contradictory positions?” I think it is worth mentioning what Switzerland thinks of itself in respect to neutrality. This is citied from the EDA (link is below): “Neutrality Permanent neutrality is a principle of Swiss foreign policy. It is a generating source of peace and stability in Europe and beyond. It ensures the country’s independence and the inviolability of its territory. According to the law of neutrality, Switzerland must not participate in a war between states. Neutrality in the Federal Constitution The Federal Constitution provides that the Federal Council and the Federal Assembly must take measures to safeguard Switzerland’s neutrality. As the Constitution’s authors intended, neutrality is not designated as a purpose of the Federation or as a foreign policy principle. It is represented as a means to an end. The law of neutrality The law of neutrality which was codified in The Hague Conventions of 18 October 1907 and is part of international customary law, defines the rights and obligations of a neutral state. The most important of these rights is the inviolability of a neutral state’s territory. The main obligations are as follows: refrain from engaging in war ensure its own defence ensure equal treatment for belligerent states in respect of the exportation of war material not supply mercenary troops to belligerent states not allow belligerent states to use its territory The law of neutrality applies to international conflicts but not to internal conflicts, which the majority of conflicts currently represent. The law of neutrality does not apply to a military operation authorized by the United Nations (UN) Security Council, for the latter is acting under a mandate from the community of states in order to re-establish peace and international security. Nor does the law on neutrality prevent neutral states from supporting such operations. Policy of neutrality The policy of neutrality is not governed by law. It is a combination of all the measures a neutral state takes of its own accord to ensure the clarity and credibility of its permanent neutrality. The implementation of the neutral policy is determined according to the international context of the moment. Switzerland attributes its neutrality to its humanitarian and peaceful inclination, in keeping with its tradition of providing good offices and humanitarian aid. Switzerland manages its neutrality according to the needs of international solidarity, and places it at the service of peace and prosperity.” www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/fdfa/foreign-policy/international-law/neutrality.html Therefore, it is, from a Swiss point of view, totally legitimate to “ensure equal treatment for belligerent states in respect of the exportation of war material”, as they do not send weapons to Russia now. It is not immoral. “Swiss weapons often end up in war zones or in the hands of authoritarian regimes”. Yes, this is true, but not at all the same thing or even remotely comparable. Those weapons have not been sold to countries at war with each other during the selling process or got there by quite dubious means. The sanctions do not contradict this view of neutrality. I’d even argue that not sanctioning Russia would put Switzerland in a less neutral position, as there is a lot of Russian money in Switzerland which would be used to finance the war, but that is just my opinion. This is also nothing new (I quote from the link below, a brochure from the EDA): “In 1920 Switzerland joined the League of Nations. As a neutral country, it was exempt from participating in League of Nations military sanctions, but was prepared to share in economic sanctions.” www.eda.admin.ch/dam/eda/en/documents/publications/SchweizerischeAussenpolitik/neutralitaet-schweiz_EN.pdf In this same brochure page ten there is a very nice summary of recent polling. 96% of Swiss citizens want Switzerland to maintain its neutrality. And 57% think “Switzerland should take a clear stand for one side or the other in political conflicts abroad but remain neutral in military conflicts.” (differential neutrality). Being neutral is very difficult. In the imaginary scenario where Switzerland would not have imposed the same sanctions as the EU, I think the international media coverage of Switzerland would have been much worse. Switzerland is tiny in size, has basically no natural resources and could theoretically just barely produce enough food for itself. A tough position to be in. Being neutral has proven to be a very effective means of maintain peace in Switzerland and won’t be given up any time soon. The definition of being neutral also changed during the last 200 years and is still changing today. Implying Switzerland not being neutral any more on this basis is difficult. All the points mentioned by EDA are being followed strictly and the Swiss people really want to stay neutral.

[@willleahy6958]

"No money? No Swiss." They used to provide the toughest mercenaries in Europe. You could also note a breach of Swiss neutrality by the provision of men from the Catholic cantons for the vicious Vatican Swiss Guard!

[@varalderfreyr8438]

Security isn't the same as belligerance, a guard force is more like police, the Papal State once had an army seperate from the Guard, who were bodygards rather than soldiers.

[@neutralitystudies]

One more thing: if you read the Hague Conventions you will find that weapons exports to belligerents is explicitly allowed to neutral countries under Article 7 of the V Convention of 1907. BUT the article also says that these implements of war would have to be made available equally to all parties…. Would you really like Switzerland to send weapons to Kiev and Moscow? Would that help the situation? I‘m quite glad the Swiss don‘t do that.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. But this is actually more of an argument for ditching neutrality than keeping it. Russia has a huge arms industry. Ukraine doesn’t. In the name of neutrality, Switzerland is allowing a country that it has openly acknowledged as the victim, to suffer more at the hands of a better armed aggressor. Really, it isn’t a good look. Indeed, I’d go as far as to say that it’s totally unjustifiable.

[@neutralitystudies]

@@JamesKerLindsay Well, that is the point about neutrality and frankly also about International Law. There are certain points that you just don't cross, never mind how strong and compelling the moral argument. I could tell from the way you spun the video that you are not a big fan of neutrality. You are doing a good job at explaining some aspects of Swiss neutrality but what your argument (here and in the video) boils often down to is the moral issue of Just War Theory: Not supporting the just side of a war is equivalent of committing an injustice yourself-or in your words a "bad look" (especially if one politically accepts the justness of Ukraine's defense). That argument is always a death blow to neutrality, for every single war, because it leaves no room to be neutral. "You are either with us or with the terrorists". However, in that case I ask should Switzerland have sent weapons to Iraq back in 2003 when Iraq was illegally attacked and invaded by the US? Or how about sending weapons to Gaddafi once NATO grossly overstepped its UN mandate and started bombing Libyan military positions illegally? Should they have sent weapons to Serbia when NATO bombed Belgrade without a UN mandate? Or which side should they prop up in the war in Yemen? Which side should they have supported in the Vietnam War? The point about war is that there is so much uncertainty and so many lies going on that actions to restrain warfare itself are in my view morally justified. Not sending implements of war at least makes sure that you don't accidentally prop up the wrong side, or cause collateral damage down the line by prolonging the fighting.

[@ReaperCH90]

Very interesting to see what the outside thinks.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. It would be interesting to hear what the perspective is over there now.

[@ReaperCH90]

@@JamesKerLindsay I think there is a debate brewing. The concept of neutrality already changed a lot since the first WW. Btw what I always dislike is that people point out the economic cooperation in part with Nazi Germany (while forgetting the part about being completely surrounded by them after 1940), but never the cooperation with the allies. But anyway, what I wanted to write is that the concept is evolving from a more classic "we keep out of European dynastic wars over landdisputes" to a "Can and should we stay uninvolved when one side is clearly in the wrong?". For now the answer evolved to a "No, but we can help the right cause by heing militarily neutral the most by talking to both sides". I think there is a lot of debates. While the concept of being independent and neutral is something a large majority agrees on, more cooperation with the EU and Nato will for sure happen. In my opinion, we should end that stupid new weapon export law and just demand that Swiss weapons shall be used as a tool of defense, and therefore can be sold to any county which is according to our government under attack. But there is one more: The highest power, the last word in Swiss politics, does not have the parlament, the executive or the courts, it is the citizenry. This makes it basically impossible to join the EU without giving up these rights to Brussel. Since independence and direct democracy are highly valued by Swiss people, I think the only way to guarantee them is to stay neutral in some way, whatever this means. While this might look anachronistic to a member of NATO now, we do not know what the future brings. The UK left the EU, why shouldn't something like this happen to other countries qnd NATO. What if the next Donald Trump makes the USA leave and go back to 19th century isolationism? What if NATO/ EU countries, our "partners", do the same as Putin and start unjust wars, like Iraq? I have more trust in the survivability of the Swiss Confederation than the EU or NATO. The Swiss Confederation left and outlived the Holy Roman Empire, the Habsburg Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Russian and Sowjet Empire and the British and French empires. These 19th century empires all seemed to be there to stay forever (except the Ottomans) in 1900, and 50 years later none of them existed anymore or were in the process of dissolution. Staying neutral enables you to react to a similar process, without antagonizing the new construct that follows after the old Empire falls by being aligned with what was before. Now that was a bit longer than I thought I would write, but your answer inspired to me to have a deep think on this Sunday, so well done, professor!

[@lololo6345]

Does the business of arms trading impact the neutrality stance? I feel like it's regular business

[@ernestogomez2708]

What National interests are they refering to? For the United States "American interests" has always been a vague hand waving to start wars.

[@maginot2u]

I would appreciate an answer to a question about Switzerland that has intrigued me for decades. Why was Switzerland never invaded and occupied by Nazi Germany? Sure it was neutral but so were Norway, Denmark. Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. But these were all invaded and occupied by Nazi Germany. I would appreciate an answer backed by some facts. Thank you.

[@Tzkaar]

several reasons: 1. switzerland played along with the Nazis, by selling them stuff and offer services like transporting weapons and troops through switzerland, which saved the nazis a lot of time. 2. Switzerland was building lots of fake defense positions in plain view (they looked real and some of them were even maned with puppets) and told everyone how big and strong the swiss-army was, which did lead to the german generals thinking that it simply isn't worth it to attack switzerland. it would not have been worth it either way, switzerland works because of its infrastucture and this infrastructure would have been completly demolished by the swissarmy to slow down an invasion. invade a mountain country when all important bridges, tunnels and railroads, that make it easy to move around, are rigged to explode... 3. Hitler allready had plans to invade Switzerland, because he wanted to rule from there after taking over europe. but because he knew attacking switzerland would cost to much time and ressources that were needed in other places, he was planing to do that after he won the war.

[@maginot2u]

@@Tzkaar Thanks for the information. I did read a few weeks ago that the Swiss bought significant amounts of gold from the Nazis, paying them in Swiss francs. So as you say,, Switzerland was an important trading partner with Germany during all of WW2.

[@Tzkaar]

@@maginot2u but probably the worst thing switzerland has done in ww2, was selling the components for the gas used in the KZ's. people say they didn't know what the Germans were doing with the stuff, but if a country at war orders tons of stuff out of which you could make a deadly poison... they are probably making exactly that.

[@glenngilbert7389]

Succinct and clear as usual

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thank you very much indeed! Have a great weekend. :-)

[@joeyjojojrshabadoo7462]

Switzerland was on it's own when neutral and surrounded by the Axis so hard for Europe to shame them for it now. Especially when they're not even meeting their NATO defence requirements.

[@Joe-bv8tw]

This is unfortunate. Its better to take both sides of an argument with the West. The people shouldn't have backed the referendum to join the UN. The swiss arms industry should deal with who they do business with.

[@jackiepie7423]

the Fact that Geneva has been the second home of the UN while Switzerland remained out goes to shaow you how creepy the swiss are, and i haven't even mentioned John Calvin, yet.

[@WalterBurton]

👍👍👍

[@cowboyCWOLF]

Wouldn’t remaining neutral still be a defensive benefit to the nation? What’s different now ? Why is Ukraine so decisive, compared to other situations?

[@master1941]

WWII the Swiss watched 80 million people die and no santions. What a turn of events

[@liljackass6998]

In thesame breath. Israel condemns Russia for the war in Ukraine. But also declines countries that have bought Israeli weaponry for them to send it to Ukraine - though in Israel's case, it is not due to neutrality, rather an agreement between Israel and Russia to not step on each others toe's.

[@Svartasvanen18]

I'd contend that Sweden has not been neutral since WW2. There's always been a veneer of neutrality but the Soviets knew we were with the west, the west knew we were with the west but the average swede even to this day is generally oblivious to the significant cooperation we've had, with the US in particular. For decades we handed intelligence materiel to the US that we'd gathered in the Baltic (some pilots gave their lives gathering signals or taking photos as they got shot down or crashed). Sweden joining NATO is far, far less abrupt than it's often portrayed both in Sweden and abroad; I like to compare it to getting married after an awkwardly long engagement.

[@MatrWe]

To say that Switzerland is a neutral country is to say that a man who quit smoking successfully and quit again and again

[@neutralitystudies]

Dear Sir, you have to differentiate between legal and political neutrality. If you confuse the two you won‘t understand the current swiss position. It‘s actually a very similar position to the 1930s when Switzerland was a member of the League of nations and defined its stance as „differential neutrality“ in which the country decided to carry out economic sanctions while reserving the right to not tag along with military measures which would infringe on the law of neutrality.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

It seems I have to learn the subtle art of Swiss sophistry! :-)

[@neutralitystudies]

@@JamesKerLindsay Thank you for the reply. But not kidding. That‘s the position, and it‘s quite old. If you are interested, there‘s a video interview I did with the former Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey on my channel (about a year back). She is a huge supporter of Swiss Neutrality AND she‘s the one responsible for Switzerland‘s application to the UN security council. The two things go together quite well as long as u keep political and legal neutrality separate. Switzerland subscribes to the second one, not the first one (which I personally think is wrong, would be better to treat both the same, but that‘s mot what‘s going on). Really explains what seems like a contradiction.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

@@neutralitystudies Thanks so much. And apologies for the flippant remark! (Although I still can’t say I really see the distinctions in the modern world.) I just took a look at your channel. It looks great. (And I obviously subscribed!). There are some fascinating interviews. I’ll really look forward to watching them.

[@neutralitystudies]

@@JamesKerLindsay Thanks for that! I appreciate the exchange. Would be happy to collaborate in a critical maner in the future. Your channel has fantastic discussions!

[@daveh893]

Great video. If Switzerland considers NATO membership, they had better check with Erdogan first, lest Turkey vetoes them along with the Swedes and Finns.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Indeed. I’m sure Erdogan will find some reason to put himself at the centre of attention and bargain for something or other. 😬

[@Rara-pf2oq]

@@JamesKerLindsay so Turkish concerns are not important?

[@JamesKerLindsay]

@@Rara-pf2oq They are. But Turkey has gone about this in a really unacceptable way. We are in the midst of a major crisis and one gets the sense that Erdogan’s just wants to grandstand. And it is hardly as if Erdogan has behaved as a reliable and trustworthy ally over the years. Many see Hamas as a terrorist grouping, and yet he welcomes them.

[@PresureGroupincorp.lando9776]

Switzerland sold helmets 🪖 to the Soviets if I recall correctly

[@pbubalo]

All countries should be neutral. This war in Ukraine is a US manufactured war and no one should be taking a side, especially the side of NATO/US which has been promoting and instigating war

[@JamesKerLindsay]

But if all countries are neutral surely this will allow the more powerful countries to dominate the smaller ones? The reason we have alliances is to allow for mutual defence. And Ukraine is not a US manufactured war. Russia did not have to invade. It chose to do so, in violation of Ukraine's sovereign right to choose its own path.

[@pbubalo]

@@JamesKerLindsay Thanks for your response... That's true, we live in an in perfect world... I stand corrected. But with regards to the conflict in Ukraine, I do believe a country like Switzerland needs to stick with its principles of neutrality. What its doing now is a disingenuous balancing act. It seems clear Switzerland has picked a side and dropped its principles.

[@anirudhparthasarathy3387]

Good evening! As you pointed out, neutrality is a very interesting concept in international relations - though the extent is questionable, both in case of Switzerland and Suèden during the second world war. It is fascinating to note that the neutrality which made sense in the Congress of Vienna no longer makes sense and I personally think Switerland is being opportunistic (as they have been for a lot of other topics in matters of European cooperation). What could be the potential consequences should Germany or any other Nato Member state break the clause and send arms to Ukraine ?

[@petekdemircioglu]

Yes because now neutrality Ends up being loss on the democratic side and gain on the authoritarian side.

[@michaelmazowiecki9195]

Swiss enforcement of EU and other sanctions is only superficial: well over 95% of Russian assets have NOT been frozen. The Swiss are surrounded by Nato member states which provide the geographic security zone which benefits Swiss security, not its stated neutrality.

[@michaelmazowiecki9195]

@@Wisteria__Lane most Russian corporations, both State and private ones use their Swiss subsidiaries and Swiss banks for the bulk of commodity sales and receipts. Examples include Gazprom, Rosnieft, Rusal and so on. These have not been sanctioned in Switzerland.

[@michaelmazowiecki9195]

@@Wisteria__Lane actually they have. But then Switzerland neither in the EU nor in Nato

[@michaelmazowiecki9195]

@@SMILYSUNFLOWER no such thing as an honest Russian oligarch. Swiss law is blind to how and where dirty money is generated as long as it is not inside Switzerland. Thus Swiss banks held Nazi deposits of currencies, gold etc despite the fact that they were stolen from various countries , nationalities, ethnicities and religious groups. Currently the same takes place with Russian monies as well as other dictatorships. Switzerland washes those monies much like the City of London "laundromat".

[@SirBlade666]

Neutrality only works when it's respected by the other nations. I expect Switzerland has unofficially told that a repeat of ww2 where they profited of both sides will not be allowed and they chose the more lucrative side,

[@skeeterhoney]

What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

[@angelina6543]

Switzerland was never neutral

[@paramahansayogananda6719]

There’s a mistake in the title: can Ukraine end neutrality. I think you meant Switzerland.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks. I thought it was clear. But I see how it could be misinterpreted. :-)

[@noldo3837]

But how about Swtzerland still serving as a prime reseller of metals and other resources from Russia?

[@richlisola1]

Switzerland 🇨🇭 was forced to bend the knee, on the banking with Russia, because it’s already in hot water with some major players internationally-But it should keep up its neutrality when it can. And arming Ukraine is a bridge too far.

[@RaviShankar-et3xc]

James, you forgot to mention the big guy India. With historical non alignment and shrewd foreign policies you can never put India in one basket. If you open all three boxes of USA+, Russia+ and Neutral, you can find India in all three. That's the biggest less appreciated achievement of India in all these years. This was displayed marvellously by India's Foreign affairs minister Jai Shankar in his latest string of statements where he bashed Europe for its double standards.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

Thanks Ravi. India is indeed a fascinating case. But I would perhaps note that non-alignment is rather different from neutrality. Many people confuse the two. (As I once did as a PhD student and was put straight on this by my supervisor in a way that has in fact shaped my thinking on understanding international relations ever since!) I hope to cover this is another video.

[@RaviShankar-et3xc]

@@JamesKerLindsay As always, looking forward to hear more from you and a big thanks for your crystal clear, on point, fact based views on every topic.

[@jamesdean1143]

First, their banking was neutered. And now their neutrality.

[@div5293]

I think being able to choose to be neutral as a European country is easier than as a non-white majority country. As PoC our countries are forced to be a part of conflicts we have nothing to do with. In that sense neutrality must be looked at objectively and not just in principle. A rich European country choosing to stay neutral cannot be compared with a developing country withstanding global pressure to protect the interests of its citizens.

[@FOLIPE]

Most things in the world aren't clear cut. I think there's a place for the concept and practice of neutrality, but of course it's impossible to be 100% neutral because things are always entangled in interests. If we look at things from a wider angle, there surely are no neutral countries in Europe, they are all currently actively upholding or attacking EU-supported US world hegemony

[@bagheera2057]

Switzerland's neutrality is only a historic term. It's just convenient to tell other countries we're not taking part in a conflict because of our neutrality. In fact there is a law behind it which forbids switzerland to export war materials (which even includes safety vests for children or helmets). Any idea how long it takes to change a law in a direct democracy? And if you think it's done there is even a possibility of a referendum. Switzerland isn't neutral it just follows it's law.

[@saarinmaki]

Very informative to learn that while one European democracy is fighting for survival another European country in the middle of Europe decline to contribute with arms and ammunition against the aggressor and occupant. Sad to hear that Switzerland unlike other European countries does not support democracy against fascism. After learning this lost all respect for Switzerland.