Drug cartel money, strong ties to the Russian oligarchy, forex manipulation, corrupt dealings with African governments, destruction of records, tax fraud.
The list is extensive to say the least.
Sometimes I wonder if the Swiss newfound love for a weirdly biased neutrality, which goes to the extent of destroying their own military gear instead of selling it to Ukraine, is rooted in appeasing certain Russians who stashed their fortunes in financial institutions such as Credit Suisse.
What?
It's kind of easy to be neutral when you're landlocked inside NATO, I guess. No reason to even join. Neutrality didn't quite work out that way for Norway in WW2...
Great cheese down there though, gotta give them that.
I guess you think that NATO is why the Swiss people added a neutrality clause to the constitution of the Swiss Confederation during the Restoration in 1815?
No, the NATO part is only commenting on current events.
The reason they weren't invaded during WW2 was mainly that they had a strong military in a very mountainous country with next to no strategic or material importance to Hitler. Just not worth the trouble. If Hitler saw a strategic reason to invade Switzerland he would have; he had no reservations about ignoring neutrality.
I figured all this was obvious given knowledge about basic history and geography, and that it didn't need to be spelled out that I know NATO didn't exist during or before WW2
Are you sure? I was told in history class that it was because too many of Hitler's cronies stored massive amounts of money there. Which would obviously have disappeared to the allies before they could capture the whole country.
I've never investigated that in detail though so perhaps this was just wrong.
Either way it's still true it was quite easy for the Swiss to remain neutral since they're a pain in the ass to invade, and there was no reason to. I can definitely see them being more useful to him with their neutrality intact, but in some sense that only reinforces my point. If Switzerland had, say a bunch of oil, the equation might have changed.
Norway on the other hand had no realistic hope of remaining neutral once Hitler laid his eyes on our iron ore and massive, honkin' coastal line.
Whereas Sweden managed to maintain their neutrality partially by continuing to sell iron ore to Germany throughout the war as well as allowing them to move troops through them en route to Finland. And Hitler was more interested in the Soviets at that point, so Sweden would have been a distraction.
Finland was also neutral originally and they ended up in all sorts of wars theoughout WW2.
It seems pretty clear that neutrality in WW2 was respected by the large powers only to the extent it was convenient, and ignored otherwise. Most of the countries that remained neutral were city-states and the aforementioned countries + Spain(aligned with the axis powers though still neutral), Portugal(insulated by Spain) and Ireland(insulated by the British).
Those systems are 'unsupported', they are like iphone 4 - noone produces spare parts or ammunition any more for them. Theybare basically useless
Source (in French): https://www.rts.ch/info/suisse/13861370-les-systemes-de-defe...
Also I’m not American, why would you think so?
If the world supports Ukraine, but Switzerland refuses to support them, no matter who the opponent is, then that is neutrality.
Knowing the Swiss system very well, it would surprise me if there have been nefarious intents and ideas behind this.
Do not underestimate their cleverness.
Small country, suddenly rich with no worthwhile exports, all the big corps incorporated there because they feel the rule of law is given and functional and the money safe and the institutions work.
Small country, if you go from the centre of zurich, you will see one corporation after the other for a 30 mile radius, shoulder to shoulder. Its a remarkable amount of the liveable territory.
Really, do not underestimate their greed and cleverness.
The confidence with which people spout easily disproven nonsense is incredible: https://oec.world/en/profile/country/che
Also agree with the Swiss being very clever, motivation being making money.
Completely disagree with you on no worthwhile exports.
As a matter of fact, Switzerland is one of very few European country that has managed to not only preserve but even grow their native manufacturing in the last 20 years instead of moving everything to China.
They moves to eastern europe whatever they could. This started over 20 years ago.
"The world" is a hard over-statement. Europe excluding Belarus and Russia itself, but including Switzerland introduced real sanctions Russia, as well as the US, Canada, Australia, NZ, Japan and ROC, while BRICS, close to half the global population, can be considered actively cooperating with Russia.
> Small country, suddenly rich with no worthwhile exports, all the big corps incorporated there because they feel the rule of law is given and functional and the money safe and the institutions work.
Swiss manufacturing is very highly regarded globally, and some of the largest chemical, pharmaceutical and food/drink companies in the world are Swiss. "Greed and cleverness" is a weird way to phrase "hard work and intelligence".
They are incorporated there because of tax rates and such.
Switzerland has always been aggressively neutral to the extent of annoying the rest of Europe, not just during WW2 but all the way back to the Hundred Years War.
No, I don't buy it. This time around they went to the extent of refusing to sell ammo for their own weapons arguing they'd be used in a war.
They are outright destroying their arms industry by arguing that they cannot even be used by their owners to defend themselves.
This goes way deeper than this neutrality scapegoate.
Well, we can read it up. The "hundred years war" date is of course wrong, they have neutrality since 1814/1815. If you cannot read german, use google-translate or DeepL: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutralit%C3%A4t_der_Schweiz
> This time around they went to the extent of refusing to sell ammo for their own weapons arguing they'd be used in a war.
Well, even Germany did this before 24st February 2022, and it never was neutral.
In the case of Switzerland, the neutrality is in their constitution. Neither the government nor the parliament can change it. It needs a public vote of the ca. 6 million people large electorate. Germany had it much easier, the "don't export to crisis regions" wasn't in constitution. And, truth be told, it was never followed through 100% (e.g. why would one export military ships to Saudi-Arabia, which is in war with Yemen?).
> They are outright destroying their arms industry
Yes, they do it. For me, this sounds that they like their neutrality more than money --- however, people usually assume more sinister motives. Like that Switzerland is somehow getting black money from russian Oligarchs.
To me, this sounds entirely implausible --- or if it happens, than in a similar scale as in EU countries. First, as said, the neutrality is in the hands of the electorate. Russian Oligarchs cannot smear 6 million people. Second, it is well known that Switzerland implemented all 9 sanction packets of the EU. They even seized russian assets, about 8 billion EUR. That is more than can be said of some EU countries!
So, if they still do business with Oligarchs, then only because these Oligarchs aren't in one of the 9 lists of sanctioned entities the EU created. In that case, we should blame both Switzerland and the EU.
Apropos "swiss liking neutrality": i read that in May 2022 there was a representative poll. It turned out that 85% of the swiss liked the neutrality and don't want it to change.
As we leave the post-Cold War era into a more uncertain and conflict prone[1] future, it's entirely unsurprising they'd retreat. Or perhaps another way of looking at it is that it's been awhile since Swiss neutrality was truly tested, and perhaps people had assumed more of a change than there really was.
[1] As between major powers and also, at least regarding immigration and trade, within the West. Conflict never really dissipated much across the rest of the world.
Switzerland - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland founded 1291
If they take a side, they lose the fortunes of more than just Russians. Anyone who is controversial and has money in Switzerland will realize it’s no longer safe in the event the world exposes their bad deeds.
How did you get to this conclusion?
* Switzerland has neutrality since the Vienna Congress 1814/1815, more than 200 years
* they weren't really rich back then
* instead, big powers of Europe feared that Switzerland will join one of their opponents, so it was dictated to Switzerland originally
* later, when Switzerland saw how the countries surrounding them got demolished again and again in each war, they actually adopted it. It is now in their constitution, article 185.
* the consitution can only be changed by the electorate of Switzerland (about 6 mio people), not the government or the parliament
So why would these 6 million people add / keep neutrality "to appease the rich" ? Not all swiss people are rich. In the southern french parts the risk to sink into poverty is even higher than in some parts of Germany!
Maybe a not-so-swiss centric view can shed more light on your (wrong) hypothesis:
In Europe Switzerland isn't the only (current) neutral country. We have Austria, Ireland and some smaller ones, like Liechtenstein. We used to have also Portugal, Sweden or Belgium in the neutral camp. Are they all known to "appease the rich" ? I doubt. Except if your idea of not appeasing rich people is having a government form like Soviet Russia, GDR, or Yugoslavia.
I’m not implying that is where Swiss neutrality comes from, more making a counter point that IF they are staying neutral (currently) to protect fortunes then it’s not just to protect Russians.
I wasn’t making a statement about its history. Banking in Switzerland I realize is fairly recent. I am not even saying that’s definitely what they are currently doing.
It's been some correlation between "neutrality" and "money" for centuries. They go hand in hand.
Sometimes it's really hard to tell the effect from the cause.
Also, it's easy to imagine "Neutrality brings us moneys! Let's stick with it.". Not saying if it's 100% true, of course.
You state still this falsehoods after I pointed out that
* other swiss pecularities (e.g. their banking laws about anonymous number accounts) might be more to blame
* other european neutral countries didn't exhibit any correlation between neutrality and money?
If you talk about correlation, then you need to take in the full data set. You speak general about neutrality, so take in ALL neutral countries. Malta, Ireland, Austria, Liechtenstein. And maybe even neutral microstates like Vatican.
Only THEN can you come to a conclusion. But not by only focusing on one single country, and extrapolating your observation to all of neutrality.
Wasn't it you that stated the hypothesis "neutrality is to appease the rich"?
Can't you see that I tried to refute this hypothesis? But maybe you have arguments to back this hypothesis?
Pharmaceuticals exports are highlight of Swiss exports, but as only 25% of the GDP is attributed to industry[0], this can't be a significant part of the economy.
Now how much of the 74% of the service revenue is banking is up for grabs, as tourism for instance is also a potentially big part. But even if it was only half of that, it would still be bigger that the pharma I guess ? (except if patents and/or IP was also counted as "services" ? but would it be that big either way ?)
[0] https://www.eda.admin.ch/aboutswitzerland/en/home/wirtschaft...
It very much did indeed.
And probably a lesson the rest of the world should finally learn.
1 - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-07/swiss-arm...
I don't know exactly, maybe you tell me?
If it were because of Neutrality, then surely Ireland, Austria, Malta must have become equally rich. But ... they aren't. So certainly other factors than just neutrality contribute to it.
You might want to look at some recent GDP growth charts for at least Ireland and Malta ;-)
Like, Austria was in both World Wars; the Swiss weren't.
The sanest political system in the world, where power is only ever reluctantly relinquished to the higher authorities (individual -> city -> state -> federation), unlike - say - the US, where the power that still remains in the hands of local govts is nothing but a joke.
[1] https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_1457_20...
[2] https://www.worldscientific.com/pressroom/2022-05-25-01
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Winsemius
[4] https://thekopi.co/2019/09/02/albert-winsemius/
So, not sure your point carries much weight.
And just to drive home the point why citing unbiased sources is important: According to the early fascists they were a movement lobbying for democracy and women's rights, among other positive sounding demands. That was right on their manifesto in big letters. It didn't quite turn out that way, and in fact looking back with the power of hindsight people like Mussolini had questionable motives from the start.
Singapore is primarily characterized by... none of those things???
> So, not sure your point carries much weight.
It's not "my point", it's reality on the ground.
The neutrality is used for propagating "you and your money are safe here", which is true at first glance. They are ready to take it from you as soon your seat gets a bit too hot for your liking.
The 1814 neutrality was granted after Napoleon invaded the confederation and made it a republic, only to be saved by Russia, no less, so a different solution had to be found.
They were dirt poor back then.
No country was afraid of Switzerland doing anything, they had no military might whatsoever, the current militia model was introduced in fear of a Nazi invasion.
Your statement about constitional changes is vastly incorrect, omitting many things, see here https://www.parlament.ch/de/%C3%BCber-das-parlament/parlamen...
There is no poverty is switzerland, even the worst off are better off than us citizens on food stamps. The treasury returns so much money to the cantons, they could build a socialst utopia if they wanted, so long the economy as a whole is fine. They already have such a thing on a federal level, its just not called guaranteed minimum income. Its been in place for a while. This all is before corporate and income taxes and vat.
Say what you want, but soviet russia and yugoslavia and such, exepct for the communist elite did not give an iota about appeasing the rich. Not saying it was the best way, but they stood their ground until they sank. Switzerland will sell out 1000 times any day before that happens.
Swiss mercenaries were famous and feared enough to be regularly employed by the French royalty and also the Pope.
Okay. But ... isn't "me and my money" not save in Malta? Or in Ireland? Or in Austria? Or used to be it unsave in Belgium, Portugal, Sweden? All mentioned countries are (or were) neutral.
> Your statement about constitional changes is vastly incorrect,
I stand corrected.
> There is no poverty is switzerland
Here you are vastly incorrect: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/society/poverty-in-switzerland-...
They have things like "Tafel" like in Germany, they have students that pay lots for their flats but have little income, they have homeless people ... the idea that there is no poverty, or no risk-of-poverty doesn't make sense, even when you don't know reports like the one I posted.
Oh, and not everyone can drive to Italy or Germany to enjoy 50% cheaper prices for groceries.
> even the worst off are better off than us citizens on food stamps
One doesn't exclude the other. You can be poor, and still be better off compared to some dysfunctional state.
[0]https://medium.com/@weeklydoseofhistory/the-burgundian-wars-...
I don't know about the validity, but I love how Germany (as one of the richest countries in the world), is used in this comparison.
Many people regularly oppose this, as being inexact.
Maybe this is correct ... but: the mean income level also influences prices, e.g. for flats or groceries. Swiss prices here are exceptional. What costs 1 EUR in Germany costs 2 swiss francs there. And francs and euro are more-or-less on parity, if you exchange them. Droves of Swiss people drive to Germany (or Italy) to buy groceries. But: some people don't have a car. They can't do that.
I saw a map of Switzerland with different colors on how high the risk of poverty is estimated in which region, and clearly the french speaking parts around Genevre had a worse risk assessment than e.g. the italian or german speaking parts. You couldn't really see the Röstigraben, but you could still see a stark difference.
I think it’s much older than that, though. The Swiss confederacy had been trying to be neutral since the 16th-17th centuries.
Also Austria does have some significant pro-Russian tendencies for some reason..
Austria is a lot smaller and easy to influence.
It's also not in NATO, and there is strong public sentiment to stay out of NATO -- which means there is a vacuum Russia can enter in ways that it cannot with full-on NATO members.
Neutrality though made it a good place for exchange and safe-keeping. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gold
These days, I don't think Switzerland really fears an invasion, but it's true that the financial incentives have taken over. At the level of the population, the neutrality culture runs deep, and as Switzerland is one of the richest countries in the world, there's really no reason for the average Swiss to be upset about it.
But knock out the UK or the Soviets, lower the pressure, and there is little doubt the Nazis would have made a go of it eventually.
Being Swiss is a good reason to want a Swiss bank account. Rich foreigners might be a little suspicious?
It's somewhat similar to who really needs cryptocurrency, except you don't get the enthusiasts or small accounts, either.
Maybe look at who unmoderated "free speech" forums become popular with. Or who needs to use Tor.
* the neutrality isn't "newfound", they have it since the Vienna Congress 1814/1815
* back then the big powers of Europe feared that Switzerland will join one of their opponents, so it was dictated to Switzerland originally
* but later, when Switzerland saw how the countries surrounding them got demolished again and again in each war, they actually adopted it. It is now in their constitution, article 185.
* Switzerland is a direct democracy. The constitution cannot be changed by the government. And not even by the parliament. Only a public vote of all the electorate can change it.
* the swiss electorate is about 6 million people large
* the swiss banking sector only employs about 89'000 people
So, what can we learn from this? Your postulation is, in all likelihood, wrong. Why would normal people, like Carpenters, Farmers, Teachers, Nurses vote for neutrality to "appease certain Russians" ? They have no benefit from this.
Also, Switzerland isn't the only (current) neutral country in Europe. We have Austria, Ireland and some smaller ones, like Liechtenstein. We used to have also Portugal, Sweden or Belgium there --- is any of these current or previously neutral countries linked with money laundering? I don't think so. Therefore we can even dismiss that somehow money laundering is linked to neutrality.
If anything, then something else in the swiss law system is responsible: their banking secret laws. One can still open an anonymous "number account" at swiss banks. It's not cheap, but that is just one more reason why it attracts tax evaders and criminals.
And finally, that today Switzerland is specially linked to Oligarchs needs a proof. Why? Simply because Switzerland implemented all of the nine sanction packets of the EU. Despite not being in the EU. So Switzerland, like any other EU country, sanctions the Russian state, certain russian companies, certain russian individuals. Including some people one would classify as "Oligarch". All of them? Probably not. But then again ... this would be a problem of the EU, by not adding them to the sanction lists yet.
Given European history their options are neutrality or extream internal strife.
You are overusing your Ukraine conflict lens when viewing the world.
One of the highest in EEA.
They probably did not give away their military gear because the price or conditions they have envisioned were not right.
Make no mistake, Switzerland is right up there in the top 5 as far corrupt government and institutions go, they just have the better suits, camouflage and clandestinity.
Sure, life is good in Switzerland for most, the system is one of the best as far median income and level of wealth goes, but that did not fall from the sky.
This country had to ration food until not too recently, and before that, Russia had to save them from Napoleon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_Switzerl...
About half because 1971 started with 36% of cantons, it rose to 52% of with the same election that made women able to vote nationwide, it was 60% of cantons when the first vote with women was held. It wasn't until 1990 that women could vote in every canton.
Cantons have vastly more autonomy than any us state, on any matter. The US system does not even come close. I am not sure which one has more pros/cons, though.
That reads pretty much verbatim like the enumerated powers in the US Constitution. And the idea of the federal government forcing states/cantons to abide by "letting people vote" is a common thread as well.
The major difference I see is that cantons (unlike states) can enter into agreements with each other or foreign countries without federal approval.
But I never lived in Switzerland! I'm probably missing something?
(but seriously, skim through the video. Switzerland's defenses are wild and beautiful.)
Certainly a novel take for an arms dealing country.
How do I know this - I work for one of those, not (and never) CS. Since I started ours is rather spot clean from what I can see (but IT is very far from those who make similar decisions), what I see is regulatory downfall from their fuckups 15-30 years ago. Some of it was outright amoral criminal behavior, but most was due to bad processes and way too much incompetence in ie KYC checks. Too much focus on current cash flow, way too few questions about where the money came from. That's thing of the past in regulated markets (but then you have the whole universe of tax havens, some also in US or conveniently around)
Of course CS is in a tax haven, and their dirty laundry generally seems much fresher and much more deliberate than negligent. E.g attempting to help cover up assets of Russian oligarchs under sanctions after the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
And the Credit Suisse leaks last year revealed just how much dirty money flows through the bank still to this day.
People willing to take part in criminal activities are almost definitionally less risk averse. You're risking fines, loss of reputation, prison, unemployability, destitution.
Not then surprising that those same people would be more willing to take undue financial risk, all the while maybe closing an eye to some red flags.
HSBC is just as evil, and is doing well enough that they just acquired the UK branch of SVB
https://www.icij.org/investigations/fincen-files/hsbc-moved-...
Acquisitions != health
Another (usual) reason is when a company lacks clear avenues for growth so they are looking to buy some growtg
I was just confirming the notion that they're a very shady bank. I'm not qualified to say whether the shadyness is the primary cause of their downfall, but it doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility to me.
And sure, anyone can reduce any view down to a laughable caricature. Good job, I guess.
Sounds like HSBC
They need to protect their laundering clients.
HSBC is an extension of the UK laundering fraud arm of Yee Olde Kingdom.
Expect much fuckery afoot.
Edit: Somehow managed to write "nationstate" instead of "city-state"
My type of impulse buy