A country famous for neutrality just accused the United States of violating international law... and quietly started shutting the door on military cooperation.
had some great observations As usual, Fred some great points here,, but having lived in Switzerland, I have a slightly different unfortunately negative impression of Switzerland.
Neutrality has served as a tool to protect Swiss interests rather than a purely moral commitment to peace.
Swiss neutrality is essentially pragmatic. It allows Switzerland to remain deeply connected to global economic systems while maintaining political independence and military autonomy.
The reputation of neutrality therefore becomes a strategic asset in international relations.
Another great column Fred, yesterday it was Italy calling this war out, today it is Switzerland. Do you think that under any circumstances Trump will try to pull other countries into his war using NATO Rule 5?
I don't think it applies in this case, and I bet that it was never contemplated at the time the rule was created that one of NATO's members would be the aggressor country.
Article 5 only applies when a NATO member is attacked, not when it launches military action itself.
So legally it’s hard to see how it could be invoked here.
And you’re also right about something else...
the treaty was written in 1949 with the assumption that the threat would come from outside the alliance, not from one of its members acting as the aggressor.
That’s why the current situation is creating so much tension inside NATO.
If the United States had attacked one of the NATO members, then that member could call on article 5 against the US. But it's a sticky wicket if he calls upon that article when he started war, but probably doesn't remember that he started it.
It is so important that these quiet shifts are reported. Explaining them helps people realize the importance of minor shifts. Hopefully this will stress the importance of policy over drama. Cracks in the foundation are eventually profoundly altering.
It's a good analysis, but I disagree on something basic. The fracture between the USA and it's former European allies is not really a ‘quiet shift’. Prime ministers all over the major European countries (Spain, France, Germany, Italy, UK and others) have stood up in front of their parliaments and the press to say ‘we do not join the war in Iran’, period.
Not shouting or making a show about things, doesn't equate to ‘being quiet’. It's supposed to be standard operating procedure
Gary, there’s definitely a pragmatic side to Swiss neutrality.
It protects Swiss sovereignty and their role in global finance at the same time.
But that’s also why moments like this are interesting...
Switzerland usually guards that neutrality very carefully, so when it makes a legal statement publicly, it tends to signal that something serious crossed a line.
had some great observations As usual, Fred some great points here,, but having lived in Switzerland, I have a slightly different unfortunately negative impression of Switzerland.
Neutrality has served as a tool to protect Swiss interests rather than a purely moral commitment to peace.
Swiss neutrality is essentially pragmatic. It allows Switzerland to remain deeply connected to global economic systems while maintaining political independence and military autonomy.
The reputation of neutrality therefore becomes a strategic asset in international relations.
Roberta, I think you’ve nailed an important point.
Swiss neutrality has always been practical rather than purely philosophical.
It protects their independence while allowing them to operate comfortably inside global finance and diplomacy.
That’s actually why I pay attention when Switzerland speaks up... they tend to guard that reputation very carefully.
Another great column Fred, yesterday it was Italy calling this war out, today it is Switzerland. Do you think that under any circumstances Trump will try to pull other countries into his war using NATO Rule 5?
I don't think it applies in this case, and I bet that it was never contemplated at the time the rule was created that one of NATO's members would be the aggressor country.
Frank, you’re thinking about it the right way.
Article 5 only applies when a NATO member is attacked, not when it launches military action itself.
So legally it’s hard to see how it could be invoked here.
And you’re also right about something else...
the treaty was written in 1949 with the assumption that the threat would come from outside the alliance, not from one of its members acting as the aggressor.
That’s why the current situation is creating so much tension inside NATO.
If the United States had attacked one of the NATO members, then that member could call on article 5 against the US. But it's a sticky wicket if he calls upon that article when he started war, but probably doesn't remember that he started it.
Gail, that’s the sticky wicket right there.
Article 5 is triggered when a NATO country is attacked.
If a member launches a war and then asks everyone else to join in afterward… the legal ground gets pretty shaky very quickly.
It is so important that these quiet shifts are reported. Explaining them helps people realize the importance of minor shifts. Hopefully this will stress the importance of policy over drama. Cracks in the foundation are eventually profoundly altering.
Zoe, you nailed it.
Most geopolitical change doesn’t happen with fireworks... it happens through quiet policy decisions and diplomatic positioning like this.
Those small shifts are the cracks that eventually move the whole structure.
Good one Fred! Thank you!☺️
What a shock…
Trump acts like a grade school bully to our allies…
Imposes whimsical tariffs and threatens their sovereignty…
And now he expects those countries to run and join…
His catastrophic failure of a war in the Middle East…
Trump is a man who never understood friendship…
He never understood the value of Allies…
He never understood the value of a peaceful world community…
His lack of humanity is tragic…
And it has made our Allies question their partnership with the US…
Trump casually and tragically threw away our biggest asset…
Our Alliances were our strength…
Now we are the bully on the block…
And nobody likes a bully…
And more and more…
Nobody likes America…
Yup… we’re the hottest country…
Nobody will touch us…
Pasqualino, alliances run on trust.
For decades the assumption inside NATO was simple... the US leads and the rest of the alliance aligns.
What we’re seeing now is that assumption being questioned.
When countries start restricting bases, airspace, or participation, it signals that the diplomatic ground underneath the alliance is shifting.
That’s the part I find most significant.
It's a good analysis, but I disagree on something basic. The fracture between the USA and it's former European allies is not really a ‘quiet shift’. Prime ministers all over the major European countries (Spain, France, Germany, Italy, UK and others) have stood up in front of their parliaments and the press to say ‘we do not join the war in Iran’, period.
Not shouting or making a show about things, doesn't equate to ‘being quiet’. It's supposed to be standard operating procedure
Daniela, good observation.
The political statements are actually very clear and public, as you say.
What I find interesting is the policy machinery underneath those statements... countries quietly tightening operational limits and legal positions.
That’s usually where long-term shifts in alliances show up first.
Great article‼️
Swiss Neutrality is not a moral badge, it is a very pragmatic approach built on the treasures in Swiss vaults.
Gary, there’s definitely a pragmatic side to Swiss neutrality.
It protects Swiss sovereignty and their role in global finance at the same time.
But that’s also why moments like this are interesting...
Switzerland usually guards that neutrality very carefully, so when it makes a legal statement publicly, it tends to signal that something serious crossed a line.
Always appreciate your messages & opinions Fred, also, the candor that is often needed :)
Thank you!