Dear Editor, this morning, while I was reading the interview with the leader of CasaPound, Di Stefano, my attention fell on these few lines: "We would like a serious service (NdR) with perhaps periodic references on a Swiss model". Now, a premise imposes itself: "the Swiss model" is the prototype of the "Israeli model": the citizen in arms who is ready to defend the homeland, with some significant differences due to the fact that the IDF has often had the need to project itself offensively towards the surrounding theaters, while the Suisse Armée is not really equipped to carry out - albeit limited - attack actions: to the defense and the security of the territory only with the XXI Army reform were added "subsidiary uses for the prevention and management of existential dangers in collaboration with national and international civil claims and to offer contributions for international support to peace and crisis management in collaboration with other states or international organizations "1.
Now, who knows the defense model of the Confederation, usually quotes a comment so used as to no longer have paternity: "Switzerland does not have an army: Switzerland is an army", which can only be explained with a single figure: despite being just ninety-ninth among the nations by population, our neighbor is ranked thirty-eighth in the world ranking for active military personnel. In times long ago, during the Cold War, when the Swiss Armed Forces faced an enemy who was always dressed in red, Switzerland was placed only behind the USSR and Turkey by reserve. Di Stefano refers to this, demonstrating at least a good culture of defense models. But his reasoning goes further: he makes a series of considerations that, consciously or not, lead to an obligatory and surprising conclusion. Allow me to summarize the interesting interview in five points:
- NATO is no longer interesting for the purposes of protecting our strategic interests in a collective framework ("We deem it an anachronistic organization that no longer safeguards national interests");
- As a result, you can leave NATO and engage in relationships with other third parties for national defense and security: regulating relations with Russia independently is not a blasphemy ("We should therefore be able to reason freely with a partner who is not only potentially military but also energy ");
- We could intervene with force in the theaters around Italy, not least Libya ("We should intervene with a real peace mission, helping them rebuild a sovereign country");
- The model of the citizen in arms is to be considered functional to the new strategic framework ("We would like a serious service, with periodic calls");
- The acquisition of nuclear tactical armament is to be evaluated as the last step ("We can aspire technologically to a similar result").
Am I wrong or there is a country that does not belong to NATO, which manages its political relations with Putin's Russia "on an equal footing" (also treating it as a first-rate energy partner), which does not skimp on military interventions in its own Region, which has adopted the Swiss model with singular success and which, last but not least, has equipped itself with the nuclear weapon, without waving it to the rooftops? On the other hand, this country has a solid "monetary sovereignty: a central bank, budget sovereignty, the ability to print paper money ... (exports) advanced weapon systems everywhere". Yes, CasaPound's model is Israel, not Switzerland. Precisely, "a sovereign nation, free and in charge of its own destiny": Di Stefano's words echo those of Ben Gurion: "It is a natural right (of every nation) to be masters of our destiny on the soil of one's own sovereign state"2.
Best regards,
David Rossi
1 For more information on Army XXI: https://www.parlament.ch/centers/documents/it/armee-21-factsheet-i.pdf.
2 Claude Klein, The History of the Jews.
(photo: IDF)
