Really, a news like this is solid. I do not think so. Again, this topic of support or against any country was not my original attention when I made this post.

Did I ask anything about this war, or any topic about supporting or against any country? I made this post to discuss and understand the reasons that Switzerland pose sanctions, without any political bias.

Then why bring this topic that China is with Russian and mention I am from China. Did I ask you that?

What your point is? You basically quote a political gossip.
And relevant to what? Did I mention I support any country in this war? The post was just to understand what Swiss people think to pose sanctions. You intentionally bring this topic which is just because I am from China.

If you really want to support Ukarine, go there. Do not just type using your keyboard.

Whether you believe the news being solid or not is a matter of opinion. However, on this particular occasion the western intelligence services have been surprisingly open and equally on target.

The reason people are asking what is the involvement of China is simple. China seems to have been privy to Putin's plans and this begs the question why was China notified? What is the quid pro quo? The elephant in the room is, of course, Taiwan.

Switzerland have never shaken off their history with Nazi gold during WW2. They probably did not want to go down a similar path and be seen as taking in all the Russian money during this war.

Right so you just had this random thought that had noting to do with the current situation..... time to ignore this.

…really? And what do you suggest I do there?

I support Switzerland and its foreign policy with regard to this invasion and unprovoked war in Ukraine, for me that’s enough.

In your first post you mentioned ‘your country‘ and ‘my friends in my own country’… regarding neutrality and “How that will impact people's faith to put their money in Swiss bank in the future?” … like I politely asked, being Chinese (your country!), isn’t it then a little hypocritical to ask this question as it might even be the case that Russia might NOT have invaded Ukraine if the Chinese had opposed it? And you wouldn’t need to worry about putting your money in Swiss Banks.

Though anyway, unlike dictatorships we in Europe can mostly trust our news.

Ah, and you still haven’t answered that burning question… (and you seem to have not got to grips with your spelling of Ukraine - it’s not Ukarine, just to clear that up)…

Yeah, right.

Depends very much on the definition of "neutrality" and its status under international law.

What I find interesting is how people bang on about how awful Switzerland was during WW2 (and I know they weren't exactly a shining light), but Austria - nope. Not a word. Because they were with the bad guys.


The current conflict makes Switzerland less safe. If sanctions can help the conflict come to an end, then sanctions make Switzerland more safe. From that it's an easy jump to "Switzerland should support sanctions". Since enacting sanctions has no affect on neutrality, why would Switzerland not do this?

The intelligence concerning WMD in Iraq wasn't exactly on spot.

The West's response to Ukraine, in my view, makes it very clear to China that an invasion of Taiwan might attract a similar response. I don't see how being notified in advance makes a difference. There is no quid pro quo - which indicates that China was NOT notified.

__________________
Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

I explained the definition, under international law (The Hague convention) in my last post:

Commercial transactions are allowed with a belligerent country except those items used in warfare such as guns and ammunition.

Are you saying that you have your own definition?

You never gave an answer to my hypothetical question.


We're actually discussing Neutrality - Austria were actually part of the Axis powers along with Germany and others (some who seemed to switch sides depending on who was winning).

Switzerland declared themselves neutral.

That's what this discussion is about - not the moral side of things.


I never wrote that Switzerland shouldn't enact sanctions. In fact I wrote the opposite and applauded the fact that they did.

Certainly: not favoring one side over the other.

If we go by your definition, the US was not at all neutral prior to joining the war officially. Nor Sweden, etc.

Tom

I disagree but right now, considering the state of war in Ukraine, China should state their position and help negotiate peace with Russia…in my view if they don’t then they do not deserve to be trading partners either.

Some interesting news about the mother of Putins children, living in Ticin it seems…

[QUOTE=ILikeEScooter;3396214]How offensive you are!
Really? Secretly? Then how do you know? Were you there? I would prefer talking to someone who can think independently and critically, instead of just quoting some political gossips.

Also, you do not need to show off that you know I am from China. I guess this is not difficult to guess if you read my previous posts. I think where I come from is not relevant to our discussion, unless you are a racist.[/QUOTE]

I fail to see your logic: you question Swiss neutrality in the context of an international conflict but then you feel offensive that somebody questions chinese involvement in the very same international conflict? And call this person racist? You expect to have the right to question anything, anybody without receiving the same questioning? Interesting. You will find that many people around feels equal when exchanging opinions with others, and if you come to live and work in countries that promote debate and freedom (and cross fingers that it remains the same long long time, well...there is always room for improvement but thats another topic) you won t find much sympathy if you expect unequal communication set ups - let alone in a public forum.

__________________
Sometimes you gotta say WTF?! It gives you freedom.

What makes you think the actions of Switzerland are not aligned precisely to make the right people trust the Swiss banking system? After all, Russian economy was comparable in size to Brazil before the Ruble crashed last week. After the crash,it's about the size of Mexico and it will keep going down for a while. Russian customers became a hot potato and in the future not a major source of revenue.

I'd say the Swiss banking system is protecting it's ability to keep doing business around the world, at the expense of sacrificing some high-visibility customers (only 343 Russians in the EU sanctions list).

So, the choices were lose a bit or lose everything, what would you have chosen?

It's not popularity contest. There are more concrete consequences if the EU puts CH in the same bucket as Iran, Syria and NK: list of high-risk of financial crime countries https://www.theguardian.com/news/202...it-suisse-leak

This link explains neutrality very well especially the first paragraph: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/what-pu...rland/47402202

Switzerland remains militarily neutral

The comments from The New York Times, Russia Today and the Swiss People’s Party are misleading: even after the government’s decision, Switzerland remains militarily neutral. International law lays down only a few duties for a neutral state. It cannot support any party with soldiers or arms. It cannot make its territory available to a warring party. And it cannot join any military alliance. All that remains the case.

The Swiss position therefore differs markedly from that of Sweden, which is (so far) also neutral. But now Sweden is even sending weapons to Ukraine and flirting with the idea of joining NATO. Neither is an option for Switzerland at present.

So what did you think of the Nato leaders secretly negotiating with the US before the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq? Sorry, but your point is absolute bullshit - secretly discussing each others opinions before taking actions is exactly what diplomacy is supposed to be. I also find it totally acceptable to ask, because yes, Switzerland did change their attitude in this war compared to previous conflicts. And I find it more than understandable that many people, especially from other cultures, question it.

Long story short: Russia is a military giant but an economic dwarf - their economy is pretty much only energy and raw materials... the GDP is something in the ballpark of Switzerland and the Netherlands combined. Economic sanctions can have a strong effect much harder and faster than a military conflict would. So thats what the US and EU agreed on. In this very situation did the Swiss decide - against their traditions - to take a side. Because it was really obvious that taking this side is the better and safer option - otherwise Switzerland would risk facing economic santions themselves which would hurt much more than the little business they do with Russia.

To be clear: this strategy is well measured both from the Swiss and Nato side but very specific to the Ukrainian situation and especially towards the situation of Russia.

Taiwan + CIPS...


Interesting how no-one wanted to adopt CIPS before, and now, suddenly, it's a world player... CIPS alone (if it works are globalizing the Yuan) would be sufficient to motivate the war...

Nonsense.

First of all Sweden is not a neutral country, as a member of the EU, under article 42.7 of the EU, Sweden is committed to military assistance of all member states. And as an EU member it is assigned to their Nordic Battlegroup. Now if you think that is how a neutral country behaves then you obviously have a different concept of neutrality to everyone else.

As for Switzerland, you can’t be half neutral no matter how you try to split hairs. Our enemies, in this case Russia/Putin, will not consider us neutral and they ultimately are the ones who decide.

A retired UK general put it very simply a couple of days ago - between NATO and the EU treaties, if a Russia boot touches EU or NATO soil everybody is in.

__________________
"There is no passion to be found playing small - in settling for a life that is less than the one you are capable of living." - Nelson Mandela

Where did I say I agreed with what the US did in Afghanistan and Iraq? It was also wrong although those invasions weren‘t expansionism in that sense which were intended to wipe out areas in order to occupy and colonise them at the expense of civilian life.

The U.S. was neutral up to the point that it started it's lease-lend policy - and specifically when it started supplying military materials to the U.K. and Commonwealth. That was 1941.