Europe's War Mentality Goes CRAZY: Switzerland Proofs It | Alberto Togni

Europe today is exhibiting what could best be described as a collective war psychosis: every diplomatic friction, every unexplained incident, every economic pressure is refracted through a single lens that sees Moscow’s hand behind it. That mentality is reshaping debates across the continent — and it has now landed squarely in Switzerland, where a constitutional referendum on a stricter definition of neutrality has exposed fault lines that run across the left and the right, between sovereignty and alignment, and between fear-driven security narratives and a more cautious commitment to mediation. The conversation around this referendum reveals not only how propaganda and political convenience shape public discourse, but also how arguments for neutrality can come from surprising quarters — including a committed member of the Swiss Communist Party, who frames neutrality as both pragmatic and emancipatory. ## Why a communist supports neutrality It is striking to hear a Communist Party council member place neutrality at the center of a left-wing political program. The argument is not sentimental: it is material and strategic. Neutrality, in this view, is a means of defending sovereignty, preserving workers’ lives, and protecting domestic rights against the corrosive expansion of militarized alliances. The logic is straightforward. If Switzerland commits to no military alliances and refuses unilateral sanctions, it reduces the likelihood that its armed forces — drawn largely from conscripts from working-class backgrounds — will be sent abroad to fight in wars that serve geopolitical competition rather than domestic needs. Beyond troop deployments, neutrality functions as a buffer against broader social erosion. War mentality entails more than battlefield casualty counts: it corrodes civil liberties, narrows political debate, and normalizes the suspension of labor and social protections in the name of security. From this vantage point, neutrality is not isolationism but a policy that preserves political space for social democracy, labor rights, and non-aligned diplomacy. The Communist view articulated in the conversation insists neutrality be written into constitutional law precisely to secure these protections from incremental erosion by external pressure or internal realignment toward blocs that are structurally hostile to independent social policy. ## Switzerland and Europe’s war mentality Switzerland does not sit apart from continental trends. The discussion makes clear that the same panic that moves capitals in Berlin, Paris, and Brussels — the instinct to view ambiguous incidents as hostile acts and to treat geopolitical rivals as existential enemies — is seeping into Swiss politics. That contagion is not merely rhetorical; it creates a political environment in which policies are calibrated less by sober assessments of threat than by the need to demonstrate alignment with a perceived collective front. This has predictable consequences: calls for closer cooperation with NATO, normative alignment with EU sanctions, and the rhetorical framing of neutrality as tantamount to complicity. A worrying pattern recurs in the conversation: the construction of hypothetical threats in service of policy ends. Hypotheses of invasion or sabotage are amplified, sometimes without disclosure of underlying evidence, to justify moves away from neutrality. The paradox is that moves toward formal military alliances or closer security cooperation often generate the very insecurities they promise to remedy. Examples from other European countries are invoked to make this point: states that moved closer to NATO have seen increased military posturing along their borders. The Swiss debate therefore becomes a mirror of a Europe-wide process: the more states accept militarized alignment as the primary instrument of security, the more they contribute to an atmosphere where confrontation seems inevitable. ## Media propaganda and public opinion The conversation highlights media’s central role in shaping this anxious landscape. Narratives are not simply reported; they are manufactured by the selection of frames and the repetition of motifs. Character assassinations and symbolic imagery — from caricatures to scare-graphics — are used to collapse complex policy debates into facile moral binaries: pro-Putin versus anti-Putin, friend versus threat. That binary serves elites who prefer to cut off debate before it begins. It’s also a remarkably effective political technology: by turning sovereignty questions into personal loyalty tests, opponents can avoid engaging with the substance of proposals. There is a long game here. The erosion of neutrality did not happen overnight; it evolved through incremental normalizations — a permission to overfly, a partnership agreement, the tacit acceptance of extraterritorial sanctions — each change framed as a limited, reasonable accommodation. Over decades, such accretions change expectations and make more dramatic shifts seem ordinary. Yet the conversation also suggests cracks in the propaganda edifice. Alternative media and grassroots networks are making arguments that challenge the dominant script, even if a sizable portion of the population responds by withdrawing rather than mobilizing. That resignation is itself a political problem: apathy or defeatism cedes the field to those who would accelerate alignment. ## Sanctions, solidarity, and neutrality Sanctions occupy a peculiar moral and legal space in the neutrality debate. The Swiss referendum explicitly targets unilateral sanctions — those adopted by a coalition of states outside the United Nations framework — arguing that participation in such measures undermines a state’s neutral status. The reasoning is that sanctions are a form of coercion that aligns a supposedly neutral state with one side in a conflict, with consequences for commerce, diplomatic standing, and domestic social welfare. The counterargument, which anchors much of the “pro-sanctions” pressure, appeals to moral solidarity with victims of aggression. But solidarity is complicated: it can be both principled and instrumentalized. When sanctions are deployed as a geopolitical tool by a dominant bloc, their humanitarian calculus often becomes secondary to strategic containment. A neutral policy, by contrast, seeks alternative mechanisms of solidarity: humanitarian aid, mediation, and legal avenues through international institutions. For advocates of the neutrality initiative, refusing unilateral sanctions is not an abdication of values; it is a claim that those values must be pursued without turning the country into an instrument of another power’s coercive strategy. This framing turns the typical left-right alignment on its head. Left-leaning parties that reflexively endorse sanctions as moral punishment can, in effect, be making a geopolitical choice that undermines international law’s avenues for collective, UN-based action. The conversation points out that if neutral states abandon neutral postures in favor of bloc-driven sanctions, they lose leverage as mediators and become participants in escalatory dynamics. ## A neutral Switzerland in a multipolar world The global context matters. The discussion situates Switzerland’s referendum within the broader shift from a unipolar to a multipolar world, where competition between major powers is redefining diplomatic space. In such a system, non-aligned states can play an outsized role as intermediaries, conveners, and hosts for negotiation — precisely because they are not institutionally tied to any one bloc. Writing neutrality into the constitution strengthens the country’s claim to that role, preserves its economic and diplomatic flexibility, and insulates domestic policy from the swings of alliance politics. The multipolar moment also exposes the limits of a security paradigm predicated on alignment. When power becomes diffuse, the calculus of safety through alliance b

Europe's War Mentality Goes CRAZY: Switzerland Proofs It | Alberto Togni Europe is in a collective War Psychosis where every single problem looks like part of a Putin-induced "hybrid war". Even Switzerland is not save of these processes. Alberto Togni, a member of the Council of the Swiss Communist Party, discusses why he supports Switzerland’s neutrality initiative. He argues for non-alignment, mediation, opposition to NATO membership and unilateral sanctions, and links neutrality to sovereignty, workers’ rights, economic diversification, and Switzerland’s potential role in a multipolar world. Alberto's Page: Alberto Togni: https://noue-nonato.ch Our Links: Neutrality Studies substack: https://pascallottaz.substack.com Merch: https://neutralitystudies.com /shop Donation: https://neutralitystudies.com/donate Timestamps: 00:00:00 Introducing the neutrality initiative 00:01:25 Why a communist supports neutrality 00:05:45 The “pro-Putin” campaign framing 00:10:40 Switzerland and Europe’s war mentality 00:14:35 Does NATO cooperation bring security? 00:19:14 Media propaganda and public opinion 00:23:10 A Marxist case for neutrality 00:30:30 Sanctions, solidarity, and neutrality 00:34:12 Referendum prospects and campaign efforts 00:39:22 A neutral Switzerland in a multipolar world 00:42:01 How to follow Alberto Togni #Pascal Welcome back to Neutrality Studies, today again with my friend and colleague Alberto Togni, a member of the Council of the Swiss Communist Party. Alberto, welcome back. #Alberto Togni Thank you, Pascal. It's great to speak with you again, and thanks for having me back on your channel. #Pascal I'm very glad that you're here because you're actually also the initiator and one of the presidents of something that's very important to me, of a group that says no to the EU and no to NATO and yes to the neutrality initiative that Switzerland will vote on on the 27th of September. So in about, what is that, in about three and a half weeks from now—we are speaking on September the 3rd. And, you know, this is going to be a large public referendum, right? For anyone out there, the Swiss, we're all going to vote whether we want to say yes to writing a rather strict definition of Swiss neutrality into our constitution. -- 1 of 13 -- The constitution currently mentions the word, doesn't define it, and we want to change that. Alberto, can you tell us a little bit about your arguments here that you wrote down and why it is that you, as a communist, are supporting this neutrality initiative? Because inside Switzerland, the talk is that this is a right-wing conspiracy of the right-wing party that wants to just use this for business. You know, it's just for business with Vladimir Putin. That's all they say all day long. But you seem to disagree. #Alberto Togni Yeah, since day one, they call it the Putin initiative just to avoid discussing it. As you know, we as a Communist Party, we have been in favor of neutrality from the very beginning. Actually, we collaborated with the Swiss People's Party, which is the right-wing party that promotes this initiative. We collaborated with them in collecting the signatures to go to vote. And the reason is actually very, very simple. If we just look at the text we are going to vote on, there are some very clear points. First of all, Switzerland cannot join NATO. Switzerland cannot take part in military conflicts. Switzerland cannot join unilateral sanctions, so sanctions like the ones imposed by the European Union, not United Nations sanctions. And Switzerland has to use its neutrality as a tool for mediation. So I think that all these things should be part of the DNA of anyone who considers themselves a left- wing person today. Unfortunately, we have seen that this doesn't really seem to be the case, but I'm sure we'll get into that later. But if we also look beyond the text itself, these demands are not the only things that we agree on in principle. For us, they are also very urgent because today the international situation is extremely serious. You know, you talk about that every day on your channel. We have major conflicts breaking out very quickly, and these conflicts could escalate very quickly. We have the European Union getting involved in a dangerous arms race. And then if we look at the medium term, we also have the United States, which will do everything it can to stop China's growth and to stop what is being called the multipolar world. At the same time, we have the constant stream of propaganda telling us day after day that Russia is going around Europe, carrying out sabotage and trying to influence our political process. So for us, it's obvious that we are living in one of those moments in history where, if something gets out of control, it could cause a chain reaction that could lead us to a collective disaster. So defending neutrality for a communist is not an idealistic position. It's a very concrete choice. It means preserving the country's autonomy. It means avoiding integration into military alliances like NATO, which want war. And so basically, it prevents our conscripts, who are the working class, the working people, from being sent to fight abroad and die. So it's a very clear and simple no-to-war initiative. #Pascal Yeah, the other side is framing this now constantly, constantly, as just being an initiative that is supposed to help two men, two men. It's brought it down to two men. One, our right-wing leader of the People's Party, Mr. Blocher, and the second one, Vladimir Putin. The other side, my party—I'm -- 2 of 13 -- still a paying member of the Social Democrats—my party calls this a pro-Putin initiative. This is going to help Putin. It's going to make the war better. It's going to make everything better for Putin. They do it for Putin. Putin is everywhere. Actually, all the places, like on Twitter, you barely find an argument that doesn't contain the word Putin, right? Can you explain to yourself how it is that the other side is reducing everything to Russia? And what are you doing at the moment in order to actually, you know, kind of get back to the core of what this is about, the principle that we don't get involved in foreign wars? #Alberto Togni Yeah, the debate, it's very crazy. You can't say anything, because if you say that you don't want Switzerland to join NATO, they accuse you of serving Putin's interests. If you talk that you don't want war, they say that you are a pro-Putin person. But for me, the reason from a part of the elite, it's very simple. They simply cannot tell you that they are against Switzerland joining NATO because that's exactly their plan. That's exactly what they want. They cannot tell you that the European Union is putting pressure on our government to adopt European Union sanctions. They cannot tell you that neutrality needs to be dismantled so that one day we can join NATO or the European Union. So instead, they have to destroy the debate before it even starts with this kind of nonsense argument. What is really worrying me... Let me just show you one... #Pascal You know, for our audience, just to understand the level of insanity that Switzerland is currently in. I mean, this is the kind of stuff that circulates not only on Twitter; it also circulates in our newspapers. Stuff like little Helvetia on a meadow getting a dove of peace from Vladimir Putin, who's holding a knife behind his back, right? And this is now the common—this is kind of the mainstream discussion today, posted by a local politician in Switzerland, not on the national but on the local level, Mr. Mark Schinzel, and others. I mean, tons and tons of these things, right? And sorry, just for illustration. #Alberto Togni The fact is that if a liberal person, which is an Atlanticist person, makes that kind of speech, for me, it's stupid, but it's still okay. It's normal. But for me, the worrying part is that it's the left that is on the front line pushing these pro-Putin arguments. They have, as a left party, the opportunity to introduce a ban on joining NATO, for example. For them, the problem is that the initiative comes from the right side, which is pretty funny because they are the ones that are governing the country every day with the right. And part of the right, the Swiss People's Party, supports this initiative, okay. But pretty much all the rest of the right parties of Switzerland, together with the army, together with the bank sector, together with the business associations, and so on and so on, they are standing on their side. So these arguments, it's really, really nonsense. They just copy and paste the propaganda of the Atlantic media, like the NZZ and so on. -- 3 of 13 -- #Pascal Yeah, and, you know, we also, I mean, in our mainstream media, the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, the NZZ, our version of the New York Times—or, well, the NZZ is downstream of the New York Times, right? I mean, the Germans get it from the New York Times, and then the Swiss get it from the Germans. So it's like—but it's the same kind of mentality. They usually carry around nine articles against this initiative, and every once in a while there's one kind of little fluff piece that is a little bit more positive about it. But overall, the transatlantic opinion is very, very clear, right? This must be sunk. This must be prevented, that Switzerland actually writes its economic neutrality back into its constitution. #Alberto Togni Yeah, I read the voting guide published by the Socialist Party section in the canton where I live, Ticino, the Italian part of Switzerland. And in just a few lines of text, they use the word Putin 15 times. And they also use a lot of synonyms like war criminal, oligarch, and blah, blah, blah. The word NATO doesn't appear anywhere in the document. The word mediation doesn't appear. The word neutrality doesn't appear. Putin that, Putin this, Putin blah, blah, blah, blah. For me, the fact is clear. The leadership of the Swiss Socialist Party, not the basic members, but the leadership, is completely aligned with the political position of the European Union, which I think they want to join in the future. And directly or indirectly, they will make it easier for Switzerland to move closer to the European Union and NATO. And that's a serious problem. And it's very sad for our left-wing people like me to see that. #Pascal Do you also perceive it as a kind of, you know, a very European moment of Switzerland, right? Not in the sense that everybody wants to join, but that Switzerland actually is going through the exact same mental process as the rest of Europe is, which is everything is reduced and targeted toward Russia. And everything is interpreted as part of Russia. I mean, right now, as we speak, you know, the Germans and the EU actually have, again, this mass hysteria moment because four weeks ago, a drone was found at Leipzig Airport. It didn't explode. No damage was done. There was just an unidentified drone. And now, four weeks later, we have a mass hysteria that this was apparently a hybrid attack by the Russians. It must be clear: the proof given is none, is that people say it was Russia. There's no proof. I mean, actually, the German authorities say, "We cannot share any intelligence because that is classified," right? So you need to trust us. Trust us. We're telling you so. And the whole of Europe right now, the EU, everybody is chiming in. It's like, "Yes, yes, this must be Russia. This was a hybrid attack. We now need to double down." And that kind of mentality is actually also playing out within our -- 4 of 13 -- Swiss context, where we then worry about referendums and so on. But it's the same kind of mentality of the idea that we must join forces to destroy Russia. That just seems to be a European thing right now. #Alberto Togni Yeah, the fact is that we are in the middle of Europe, and Europe now is the continent that is pushing more towards this hysteria, hysterical position about Russia and all of that. T