Comments by "seneca983" (@seneca983) on "Putin's Forcing Switzerland to Take a Side - TLDR News" video.

  1. Banking secrecy is hardly a requirement for neutrality.
    1
  2.  @hissukka6619  You can also define "capital" as the city that functions as the seat of the government (whether it's officially called that or not). By that criterion Bern is the capital of Switzerland (and the capital of the Netherlands is the Hague, not Amsterdam).
    1
  3. I think it would be even better if the Vatican joined NATO.
    1
  4. Banking secrecy is hardly a requirement for neutrality.
    1
  5.  @nirutivan9811  I don't think so. He used the wording "through its territory" [emphasis mine]. That wouldn't make sense if "it" in that sentence referred to a convention.
    1
  6.  @nirutivan9811  "That also doesn‘t make sense" Yeah, because he should've said "Bern" instead of "Geneva". "I understand it that he meant the convention and the „it“ referred to Switzerland, which (in my opinion) makes the most sense." That wouldn't make sense as a sentence structure at all because then "it" would be referring to something that wasn't mentioned which is not how that word functions. Also, the Geneva Convention doesn't place the kind of restrictions mentioned here. What IMHO makes most sense is that "it" was referring to the Swiss government with the capital being used to refer to it except that he made a mistake and said "Geneva" when he should've said "Bern".
    1
  7.  @nirutivan9811  I forgot that you mentioned the Hague convention but that doesn't change my argument. The sentence structure doesn't make sense with reference to any treaty in that place and I don't think the Hague convention would prevent arms shipments in any case. "He says „from or through it“. From or through the Swiss Government doesn‘t make a lot of sense either." He doesn't (quite) say that. He says "from or through its territory" which does make sense as a reference to a country's government (but not to a treaty). "In my opinion it makes the most sense that the „it“ is referring to the country of Switzerland (even if it wasn‘t mentioned before)." This is basically the same as what I said. Capitals are generally used to refer to countries' and their governments in the context of political decisions. In this case then "Geneva" was clearly meant as a reference to Switzerland and its government, not any convention. Using "it" to refer to something that hasn't been mentioned makes zero sense because "it" refers to things mentioned previously. (Well, it does have some other uses such as a formal subject but that doesn't apply here.)
    1
  8. I'd hope that they'd join the EU though I think they likely won't, at least not any time soon. (As for NATO, there is no need to join it at all since they're already surrounded by it.)
    1
  9. 1:28 The Congress of Vienna had already started before the 100 days and Waterloo.
    1
  10. That's just economic cooperation. That alone doesn't make then not neutral.
    1
  11.  @nonyabisness6306  Generally "neutral" is understood to mean that they're not militarily aligned. The EU is primarily not a military alliance. It's not a requirement to not adhere to certain regulations to qualify as neutral.
    1
  12.  @nonyabisness6306  How distant would they have to be to count as neutral? Would they need to cease all cross-border trade (except with Liechtenstein) to be neutral? If not, do they purposefully need to have different regulations from the EU?
    1
  13.  @nonyabisness6306  I don't understand what you mean. A military alliance could also be equal but it wouldn't be neutral.
    1
  14.  @nonyabisness6306  "But if you take 2 NATO countries and a third non-aligned...well no neutrality there." This is a very confusing sentence and I don't understand what you're saying. You seem to say that "non-aligned" implies there's "no neutrality". "Who do you think they are closer to, Russia or the EU? a quick look at their agreements makes it very clear they are firmly on the EU side." Trade agreements don't necessarily mean that they'd be on the EU's side so they alone don't make them non-neutral. A decision to participate in e.g. sanctions might make then non-neutral but that's a different thing from agreements making them non-neutral.
    1
  15.  @nonyabisness6306  "If there was a dispute for which you'd want arbitration, you would never in a million years accept an arbiter who has strong economic ties with the other partyr....because that makes them biases i.e. not neutral." That definition of "neutral" is so strict that almost no country can ever fulfill it. E.g. Belgium at least used to be neutral by the virtue of the Treaty of London. However, due to their geographic location they still had strong economic ties to France and the Netherlands so apparently they never were neutral to begin with. Who can be neutral by your definition? I guess a remote island nation or a self-isolating nation like North Korea if they are also actually self-sufficient. Other than that, no one be neutral and the term is largely useless. In practice, people don't use the term "neutral" this strictly. Generally countries can still be neutral despite economic ties if they're not militarily aligned. E.g. even the EU members Austria and Ireland are generally considered neutral (and previously also Sweden and Finland but probably not anymore due to their NATO applications).
    1
  16.  @nonyabisness6306  "So, would Russia agree that Switzerland is neutral? No, they wouldn't." I'd say if Switzerland had refrained from sanctioning Russia then Russia likely would have considered them neutral despite their integration with the EU. Of course, Switzerland did participate in sanctions so that does probably mar the neutrality in Russia's eyes but it's specifically this decision and not the earlier agreements with the EU.
    1
  17. "theyre at war" They're not at war. No declaration of war has been made and they're not participating in hostilities.
    1