When a former diplomat explains that there is «nothing to debate», 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 - «interoperability», «resilience», «cooperation» - 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.
Beyond the security analysis, an ideological operation
Under the guise of strategic lucidity, François Nordmann's column in Le Temps is less about analysis than it is about psychological preparation. 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, without popular debate and without a democratic mandate.
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 in the deliberate weakening of the Swiss army.
A threat presented as obvious... never discussed
The columnist asserts that «the picture is based on facts» and that it would be pointless to debate it. This is precisely where the democratic problem begins.
Car there is no direct military threat to Switzerland, 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.
This importing the NATO narrative is not neutral: it transforms a political hypothesis into a security inevitability.
The circular argument: disarm, then claim impotence
The core of the reasoning is perfectly circular:
«The 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.»
What the author carefully omits to say is why Switzerland is no longer in a position to defend its neutrality.
The facts are well known:
- military budgets compressed for over 30 years,
- abandoning territorial defence in favour of «cooperation» missions,
- gradual dismantling of our autonomous industrial and logistics capacity,
- increasing dependence on NATO standards, systems and supply chains.
⮕ The army has not been weakened by neutrality, but to make neutrality impractical, then politically disqualifiable.
Interoperability’: the keyword of subordination
The term comes back like a mantra: interoperability.
This technical word conceals a simple political reality:
⮕ what is interoperable depends on who sets the standards.
Interoperability with NATO means :
- technological dependence,
- doctrinal dependence,
- strategic dependence,
- and eventually, compulsory political alignment.
That's not cooperation.
This is a integration without a vote, exactly what Swiss democracy is supposed to prevent.
«Resilience of public opinion»: a disturbing admission
One of the most revealing passages concerns the «resilience» of public opinion in the face of disinformation.
Translation :
⮕ the problem isn't the threat, it's the people who doubt it.
When a State begins to consider its citizens as a variable to be «prepared», «sensitised» or «corrected», we no longer speak of national security, but of cognitive consent management.
As Walter Lippmann, the theorist of modern propaganda, wrote:
«The manufacture of consent has become a conscious art».»
Armed neutrality: a constitutional principle, not an option
Neutrality is neither a slogan nor a moral posture.
It is a a strategic choice rooted in history, law and Switzerland's vital interests.
Article 2 of the Federal Constitution is clear:
«The Confederation protects the freedom and rights of the people and safeguards the independence of the country.»
Subordinating Switzerland's security to foreign military alliances - especially without a vote -. violates the very spirit of popular sovereignty.
What Le Temps never says
François Nordmann never asks the real questions:
- Why should Switzerland adopt the security vision of foreign military blocs?
- Who benefits economically and politically from this integration?
- Why were the people never consulted about this paradigm shift?
- Why is any criticism immediately dismissed as naive or irresponsible?
Silence on these points is not an oversight.
This is a editorial line.
Conclusion - Neutrality cannot be abandoned, it must be defended
Switzerland is not weak because it is neutral.
It is weakened when you organise to give up.
What is at stake today is not simply a reform of security policy, but a strategic regime change, It was carried out without a popular mandate, supported by a media-political elite convinced that the people should follow, not decide.
Armed neutrality is not outdated.
⮕ It is precisely because it is an obstacle to alignment that we are trying to make it impossible.
And when the columnists explain that there's «nothing to debate», it's because there really is, everything remains to be defended.
We analyse what the media keep quiet. What Berne negotiates, we dissect. Join our HQ on Telegram now: https://t.me/swisssovereignty