{"id":479,"date":"2025-12-20T07:57:39","date_gmt":"2025-12-20T06:57:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/souverainete-suisse.ch\/?p=479"},"modified":"2025-12-20T21:45:31","modified_gmt":"2025-12-20T20:45:31","slug":"sabotaged-neutrality-weakened-army-when-time-prepares-the-alignment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/test.souverainete-suisse.ch\/en\/2025\/12\/sabotaged-neutrality-weakened-army-when-time-prepares-the-alignment\/","title":{"rendered":"Eutrality sabotaged, army weakened: Le Temps relays Euro-integrationist propaganda"},"content":{"rendered":"

When a former diplomat explains that there is \u00abnothing to debate\u00bb, it is because debate is precisely what must be prevented. Under the guise of strategic lucidity and security analysis, certain columns in Le Temps do not describe a threat: they manufacture it. They do not defend Switzerland: they prepare for its alignment. Behind a technocratic vocabulary - \u00abinteroperability\u00bb, \u00abresilience\u00bb, \u00abcooperation\u00bb - lies a clear political project: to make armed neutrality impracticable, then obsolete, in order to place Switzerland under foreign strategic tutelage without a popular vote. This text is not an opinion. It is an ideological operation.<\/em><\/p>\n

Beyond the security analysis, an ideological operation<\/h3>\n

Under the guise of strategic lucidity, Fran\u00e7ois Nordmann's column in Le Temps<\/em> is less about analysis than it is about psychological preparation<\/strong>. The text accompanies - and justifies - a historic change of direction: the abandonment of Swiss armed neutrality in favour of an de facto integration into NATO's security architecture<\/strong>, without popular debate and without a democratic mandate.<\/p>\n

It's all there: dramatisation of the threat, prior disqualification of opponents, naturalisation of major political choices, and above all erasing the responsibility of elites<\/strong> in the deliberate weakening of the Swiss army.<\/p>\n

A threat presented as obvious... never discussed<\/h3>\n

The columnist asserts that \u00abthe picture is based on facts\u00bb and that it would be pointless to debate it. This is precisely where the democratic problem begins.<\/p>\n

Car there is no direct military threat to Switzerland<\/strong>, Switzerland is not a member of NATO, is not involved in the war in Ukraine and is not a strategic target. Switzerland is not a member of NATO, is not involved in the war in Ukraine, and is not a strategic target. Yet the rhetoric adopted is that of a country already engaged, already targeted, already threatened - exactly the rhetoric used in Alliance member states.<\/p>\n

This importing the NATO narrative<\/strong> is not neutral: it transforms a political hypothesis into a security inevitability.<\/p>\n

The circular argument: disarm, then claim impotence<\/h3>\n

The core of the reasoning is perfectly circular:<\/p>\n

\u00abThe advocates of hard-line neutrality cannot deny that we are not in a position to defend the neutrality they advocate due to a lack of armaments.\u00bb<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

What the author carefully omits to say is why<\/strong> Switzerland is no longer in a position to defend its neutrality.<\/p>\n

The facts are well known:<\/p>\n