Pretty Clear Explanation About Activities That Could Be Done With Easiest to Use AI Agents Today: Man and Muse

What are the easiest to use Chinese competitors for Muse that could be run locally with Mac Studio? What are their main capabilities?

 

The premier open-weight Chinese competitors to Meta’s Muse (and its offline counterpart, Muse Glimmer) are Alibaba’s Qwen family and the DeepSeek series.

 

While Muse functions as a polished consumer app with built-in "computer-use" agent capabilities, these Chinese alternatives are deployed as open-weight models. To achieve the same easy-to-use desktop agent workflow on a Mac Studio, they are paired with Mac-native software utilities.

________________________________________

The Easiest Ways to Run Them on Mac Studio

To run these models offline with zero code, you should use one of the following Mac-optimized interfaces:

•           LM Studio: The easiest, most polished GUI for Mac. It natively integrates Apple’s MLX engine, which unlocks maximum token generation speeds by directly utilizing the Mac Studio’s Unified Memory.

•           Ollama: The best tool if you prefer a lightweight, one-line terminal setup. It can easily serve as a local backend for independent desktop agent frameworks like OpenClaw or Hermes Agent.

________________________________________

Top Chinese Competitors & Main Capabilities

1. Alibaba Qwen (e.g., Qwen 3.5 / Qwen 3.8)

Alibaba’s flagship open-weight family is heavily optimized for localized agent workflows. It is often used to replace paid cloud APIs for autonomous tasks on Apple Silicon.

•           End-to-End Agentic Automation: Qwen excels at multi-step task execution, tool calling, and workflow orchestration. When paired with desktop environments, it can handle file systems, manage browser automation, and process documents completely offline.

•           Native Developer Tooling: Tools like Qwen Code provide standalone local terminal agents that understand massive codebases and automate programming tasks directly on your machine.

•           Mac Studio Optimization: Mid-to-high tier variants (like Qwen 27B or 35B configurations) run incredibly fluidly on Mac Studio hardware without spilling into slow SSD swap memory.

2. DeepSeek (e.g., DeepSeek-R1 / DeepSeek V4 Flash)

DeepSeek models focus heavily on raw intelligence, mathematical reasoning, and high token efficiency.

•           Advanced "Thinking" and Complex Reasoning: DeepSeek-R1 utilizes dedicated reasoning phases (visible live in apps like LM Studio) to handle dense logic problems before outputting answers.

•           Massive Model Scaling: If you own a high-end Mac Studio (such as an M2/M5 Ultra with 192GB to 512GB of RAM), you can locally host gargantuan Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models like DeepSeek V4 Flash (284B) using optimized third-party inference layers.

•           Offline Coding Assistance: Using community wrappers like DeepSeek Harness, you can turn the raw chatbot into an active software agent that operates locally on your device without an internet connection. ________________________________________

Capability Comparison: Muse vs. Chinese Local Alternatives

Feature          Meta Muse (Cloud App)      Local Qwen / DeepSeek (via LM Studio)

Data Custody            Cloud-based; data processes through Meta servers.    100% Private. No data ever leaves your Mac Studio.

Internet Dependency          Requires active connection to run cloud VMs.    Fully Offline once models are downloaded.

Ecosystem Versatility          Locked to Meta's proprietary models and apps. Swappable. Swap models instantly depending on your task.

System Interaction   Drives web apps via cloud-browser "Connectors".        Directly interfaces with local scripts, terminals, and file setups.

 

Let us examine the practical applications of the Muse example in greater detail: 

“So the last shall be first and the first shall be last. The race to build artificial intelligence is so frenetic that declaring any firm the winner is a sure sign it is about to be overtaken—and vice versa.

 

Meta’s AI investments had been written off by many as wasteful vanity.

 

Yet the same investors now say Muse, the firm’s new personal agent, will soon upend commerce and the world. Muse is at the top of the charts on Apple’s App Store. Meta’s share price has risen by around a third in the past month.

 

Chatbots are often compared to interns. Muse is more like an indentured secretary. Users will find the difference total:

between being read a train timetable and having tickets booked;

mulling one’s rights and filing a claim;

comparing phone tariffs and overcoming the obstacles companies erect to prevent customers switching.

Markets for goods and services can be surveyed totally and ceaselessly.

No form is too long; no claim too small.

 

Which of the Millennium mathematics problems can Muse solve? That is unclear.

 

But prod Muse in the right way and you could wake up with a cheaper car-insurance policy.

 

Might Muse agents end the world? Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s boss, has dismissed worries about AI safety, much as the White House has.

 

Though not yet the most popular AI product, Muse is surely the first populist one, designed for the everyman of Facebook Marketplace for whom privacy does not matter, existential risks are bunk and everything in the economy is either a bargain or a scam.

 

The mood in markets is similar to what it was in February. Back then, as it became clear that models could write code better than humans, the question was: what happens when everyone has the coding ability of a Silicon Valley engineer? Shares in software companies were sold indiscriminately (many have since recovered).

 

Now the question du jour is something like: what happens when everyone has the patience of a monk?

 

The state will struggle with its newly agentic citizenry. When the cost of identifying and claiming all the rights and benefits rich countries offer their people falls, governments will end up spending more. That is an acute problem for courts, which are already flooded by AI-written filings. The rule of law demands that citizens can enforce their rights, but also that courts remain open, and judges human. Troublingly, most solutions to this trilemma involve more money or fewer rights.

 

Companies will suffer in proportion to the profits they receive from ignorance and inertia.

Economists have long speculated about why money sits in bank accounts when it could earn far more interest in a money-market fund.

Or why insurance customers allow their loyalty to be punished with higher rates, and don’t simply switch.

 It is often said that the West suffers from a compensation culture, but plenty of compensation goes unclaimed.

In Europe only around half of potential compensation for delayed and cancelled flights is actually paid out—often with the help of firms that take their own cut from afflicted customers.

 

When consumers let agents loose on their behalf, firms that rely on subscriptions are less secure; it costs little to test Muse by attempting to cancel an unwanted gym membership or newsletter subscription.

 

 So are businesses that depend on being able to distinguish humans from computers. A qualification earned online must now be worth less. Most would find the idea of flirting with a robot intolerable. Once agents get chatting on dating apps, those apps will be reduced to elaborate matching systems between singletons’ online personas.

 

States and firms could attempt to reimpose frictions with their own technology. Imagine agents keeping other agents on hold, ignoring and chasing each other in increasingly aggressive email correspondence. (Ironically, such defences will make the internet even more unbearable for humans.) Shopify, an online-commerce platform, has welcomed Muse agents. Amazon has banned them. If the AI bulls are to be believed, that will soon be costly, since agents will be responsible for a meaningful share of commerce, and because they will be harder to identify: “tick the box to prove your humanity” becomes “click the yellow bikes” becomes “upload a photo with today’s newspaper”.

 

Unburdened of administrative work, consumers might ask a more fundamental question of their new agents: what is the relationship between Man and Muse? Opinions about the homo-agentic bond will differ. The user of an agent is likely to consider her new assistant an ordinary tech product, for which she does not bear total responsibility. To the world, of course, the agent and its manager will be quite indistinguishable. Model-makers surely think much of the responsibility lies with the user.

 

Free agents and free will

 

Consider three scenarios. John instructs his agent to write funny posts online, and it proceeds to libel someone; Susan tells her agent to negotiate the sale of some goods but, being prone to exaggeration, it misrepresents them; chatting with his agent, Paul orders a kite for his young son, who then receives, and cuts himself with, a knife. Careless people operating careless models, you say. But the concepts normally used to apportion blame are stretched by the nature of AI. What does it mean to say that harms caused by something as general and mystical as AI are foreseeable? If the model-maker is blamed, does it matter that its code was written by agents, plausibly designed by another lab?

 

The tension between autonomy and responsibility is among the most fundamental questions in AI. Mostly this has been discussed in the abstract, in terms of the existential risks and AI consciousness. Now a million agentic citizens let loose on the economy will find out for themselves. If they don’t like the result, they know how to appeal.” [A]

 

A. Man and Muse. The Economist; London Vol. 460, Iss. 9518,  (Sep 26, 2026): 64.

Ar tikrai dar nesame Kinija? Kas per Flock? (Rimuojasi su mėgstamiausiu amerikiečių keiksmažodžiu: “What the F…?”)

“Susirūpinimas dėl „Kiniją primenančios stebėjimo valstybės“ kyla dėl spartaus dirbtinio intelekto valdomų automatinių numerių ženklų skaitytuvų (ALPR), kuriuos gamina privati bendrovė „Flock Safety“ (paprastai vadinamų „Flock“ kameromis), plitimo visoje šalyje.

 

Flock tinklų mastas ir galimybės

• Jungtinėse Valstijose įrengta maždaug 130 000 „Flock“ kamerų, kurios veikia visur – nuo vietinių parduotuvių vitrinų ir rajonų iki pagrindinių greitkelių.

• Kiekviena matoma motorinė transporto priemonė yra sekama ir įrašoma, fiksuojant numerių ženklus, transporto priemonės markę, modelį, spalvą ir lipdukus ant buferio, taip pat asmenų vaizdus.

• Pažangios dirbtinio intelekto integracijos leidžia teisėsaugos institucijoms ieškoti filmuotos medžiagos naudojant aprašomąsias žodžių eilutes, pvz., „baltaodis vyras, mėlyni marškiniai“, o ne tik tradicinius numerių ženklų vaizdus.

 

Susirūpinimas dėl privatumo ir pilietinių laisvių

• Prieiga be orderio: užfiksuoti duomenys patenka į centralizuotą duomenų bazę, kurioje samdančios teisėsaugos institucijos gali ieškoti be orderio.

• Piktnaudžiavimas ir piktnaudžiavimas: Žiniasklaidos tyrimų metu buvo užfiksuoti atvejai, kai teisėsaugos pareigūnai naudojo įrankį buvusioms merginoms persekioti, taip pat neteisėtai, pavyzdžiui, įmonės vadovas peržiūrėjo vaizdo įrašus vaikų gimnastikos centre demonstracijos metu.

 

• Imigracijos kontrolė: JAV Imigracijos ir muitinės kontrolės tarnyba (ICE) pasinaudojo duomenų baze per vietos teisėsaugos kanalus imigracijos stebėjimui, nepaisant to, kad įmonės neigė sudariusios tiesioginę sutartį su ICE.

• Spragų išnaudojimas: Kritikai ir tokios grupės kaip Amerikos pilietinių laisvių sąjunga (ACLU) atkreipia dėmesį, kad programinės įrangos apsaugos priemonės, skirtos blokuoti neteisėtas arba jautrias paieškas (pvz., reprodukcinės sveikatos priežiūros duomenis), gali būti lengvai apeinamos, policijai įvedant bendrinius terminus, tokius kaip „tyrimas“, į laukelį „Prieštaravimas ir priežiūra“.

 

• Buvę Pentagono pareigūnai ir privatumo gynėjai perspėjo, kad nekontroliuojamas šių įrankių mastas atspindi ankstyvuosius slidžius užsienio masinio stebėjimo modelių šlaitus.

 

• Vieši protestai, bendruomenės pasipriešinimas ir valstybės veiksmai, pavyzdžiui, Teksaso gubernatoriaus Abbotto sprendimas nutraukti valstybės finansavimą tokioms kameroms, kol laukiama peržiūros, labai išaugo.

•           Po to sekė Kongreso dėmesys ir patikrinimai, nors „Flock“ bei kitų stebėjimo technologijų įmonių vadovai neseniai atsisakė kvietimų dalyvauti Senato Teisėsaugos komiteto pakomitečio posėdyje, kurį sušaukė senatorius Joshas Hawley. 

 

"Amerikiečiams nepatinka, kai jie yra stebimi. Panašu, kad tai nepatinka ir stebėjimo technologijas kuriančių įmonių vadovams. Didėjant susirūpinimui dėl privatumo, Misūrio valstijos respublikonų senatorius Joshas Hawley pakvietė keletą tokių įmonių atstovų rugsėjo 23 d. paliudyti pakomitečiui apie savo produktus. Visi jie atsisakė.

 

Šis kvietimas pasirodė po kelis mėnesius trukusios kritikos bangos, nukreiptos prieš „Flock Safety“ – didžiausią JAV automatinio valstybinių numerių nuskaitymo (ALPR) sistemų operatorę.

 

„Flock“ kameros naudoja dirbtinį intelektą (DI) transporto priemonėms sekti, taip padėdamos policijai atlikti tyrimus. Tačiau pareigūnai jomis ir piktnaudžiavo.

 

Pasak visuomenės nuomonės tyrimų bendrovės „YouGov“, amerikiečių, nepritariančių ALPR sistemų naudojimui savo bendruomenėse, dalis per mažiau nei metus išaugo nuo 33 iki 46 proc. Abiejų partijų įstatymų leidėjai svarsto teisės aktus, kuriais būtų ribojamas šių technologijų naudojimas.

 

ALPR sistemos nėra naujiena: vietos valdžios institucijos jas jau seniai naudoja rinkliavoms surinkti ir eismo taisyklėms užtikrinti. Pastaruoju metu kairiųjų pažiūrų aktyvistai protestavo prieš tai, kad šias sistemas naudoja federalinės imigracijos tarnybos. Savo ruožtu Donaldas Trumpas teigia palankiai vertinantis „Flock“, nes ši įmonė padeda teisėsaugai. Visgi pasipiktinimas greitai išaugo ir tapo panašus į tą, kuris kilo dėl duomenų centrų. Tiek ALPR sistemos, tiek duomenų centrai sparčiai išplito ir tapo nerimo dėl dirbtinio intelekto simboliais.

 

„Flock“, parduodanti kameras daug pigiau nei konkurentai, visoje šalyje yra įrengusi daugiau nei 120 000 kamerų; kiekviena jų sugeneruoja milijonus vaizdų. Sistemos savininkai gali dalytis šiais duomenimis su netoliese esančiais policijos skyriais ir bendra „Flock“ nacionaline duomenų baze, taip leisdami pareigūnams ieškoti informacijos skirtinguose miestuose ar valstijose. DI gali išskirti ir kitas transporto priemonės charakteristikas, pavyzdžiui, spalvą, todėl paieška neapsiriboja vien valstybiniais numeriais.

 

Policija teigia, kad tai padeda išaiškinti tokius nusikaltimus kaip vagystės ar žmonių pagrobimai. „Flock“ tvirtina, kad pernai prisidėjo tiriant 10 000 dingusių asmenų atvejų. Tačiau jos ALPR tinklas „gerokai viršija tai, kaip žmonės anksčiau suprato šias priemones“, – teigia Melissa Owen iš Nacionalinės baudžiamųjų bylų advokatų asociacijos.

 

Pareigūnams nereikia teismo leidimo norint patikrinti valstybinius numerius, o valstijų įstatymai skiriasi priklausomai nuo to, kaip fiksuojamos paieškos, kiek laiko saugomi duomenys ir ar vaizdo įrašai gali būti siunčiama į kitas valstijas.

 

Nustatyta atvejų, kai pareigūnai sekė buvusius partnerius ar sutuoktinius. Dėl programinės įrangos klaidų buvo stabdomi niekuo dėti vairuotojai. Situaciją dar labiau paaštrino skaidrumo stoka. Skaitmeninių teisių gynimo organizacija „Electronic Frontier Foundation“ (EFF) išanalizavo paieškos įrašus ir aptiko, kad pareigūnai, tikrindami valstybinius numerius, nurodydavo absurdiškas priežastis, pavyzdžiui, „LOL“ ar „sexy“ (liet. „seksualus“).

 

(Vėliau „Flock“ įdiegė išskleidžiamąjį kategorijų meniu.) EFF yra viena iš kelių organizacijos, padavusios miestus į teismą dėl tariamai atliekamų tūkstančių nereikalingų paieškų. Bendrovė teigia sugriežtinusi reikalavimus paieškoms jos duomenų bazėje.

 

Vis dėlto kilęs pasipiktinimas persikėlė ir į kadencijos vidurio rinkimų kampaniją. Sethas Bodnaras, nepriklausomas kandidatas į Senatą iš Montanos, neseniai nusifilmavo šautuvu šaudantis į kamerą. Ši reakcija duoda ir konkretesnių rezultatų. Gregas Abbottas, siekiantis būti perrinktas Teksaso gubernatoriumi, sustabdė valstijos finansavimą „Flock“ bendrovei. Rugpjūtį ir rugsėjį daugiau nei 250 miestų, miestelių ir mokyklų nutraukė sutartis su „Flock“ – tokius duomenis pateikia stebėseną vykdanti organizacija „Secure Justice“, kovojanti prieš masinį sekimą. Palyginimui: per tą patį dviejų mėnesių laikotarpį praėjusiais metais tokių atvejų buvo vos penki.“ [1]

 

1. What the Flock? The Economist; London Vol. 460, Iss. 9518,  (Sep 26, 2026): 34.

Are You Sure We Are Not China Yet? What the Flock?

Concerns over a "China-like surveillance state" stem from the rapid nationwide expansion of artificial intelligence-powered automated license plate readers (ALPRs) made by private company Flock Safety (commonly referred to as Flock cameras).

The Scale and Capabilities of Flock Networks

•           There are roughly 130,000 Flock cameras installed across the United States, operating everywhere from local store fronts and neighborhoods to major highways.

•           Every motor vehicle that comes into view is tracked and recorded, capturing license plate numbers, vehicle make, model, color, and bumper stickers, alongside images of individuals.

•           Advanced AI integrations let law enforcement search footage using descriptive strings of words—such as "Caucasian man, blue shirt"—rather than just traditional license plate images.

Privacy and Civil Liberty Concerns

•           Warrantless Access: Captured data flows into a centralized database that contracting law enforcement agencies can search without a warrant.

•           Misuse and Abuses: Investigations by media outlets have documented instances of law enforcement officers using the tool to stalk ex-girlfriends, alongside unauthorized use like a company executive accessing footage inside a children's gymnastics center for a demonstration.

•           Immigration Enforcement: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has leveraged the database via local law enforcement channels for immigration tracking, despite company denials of a direct contract with ICE.

•           Loophole Exploits: Critics and groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) point out that software guardrails designed to block unauthorized or sensitive searches (such as reproductive healthcare data) can be easily bypassed by police typing generic terms like "investigation" into the prompt reason field.

Backlash and Oversight

•           Former Pentagon officials and privacy advocates have warned that the unchecked scale of these tools mirrors the early slippery slopes of foreign mass-surveillance models.

•           Public protests, community pushback, and state actions—such as Texas Governor Abbott pulling state funding from such cameras pending review—have grown significantly.

•           Congressional scrutiny has followed, though executives from Flock and fellow surveillance tech firms recently declined invitations to appear before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing called by Senator Josh Hawley.

 

”AMERICANS DO NOT like to be watched. Neither, it seems, do the bosses of companies that make surveillance technology. Josh Hawley, a Republican senator from Missouri, invited several of them to testify to a subcommittee about their products on September 23rd, amid mounting privacy concerns. All declined.

 

His request follows months of backlash against Flock Safety, America’s largest operator of automatic licence-plate readers (ALPRs).

 

Flock’s cameras use AI to track vehicles, aiding police investigations. But officers have also misused them.

 

The share of Americans opposed to ALPRs in their community has risen from 33% to 46% in under a year, according to YouGov, a pollster. Lawmakers from both parties are mulling bills to limit the technology.

 

ALPRs are not new: local governments have long used them to collect tolls and enforce traffic laws. More recently, activists on the left protested against their use by federal immigration authorities. Donald Trump, on the other hand, says he likes Flock because it helps law enforcement. Yet the uproar has escalated quickly, echoing the outcry over data centres. ALPRs and data centres have both scaled up quickly and become symbols of anxiety about AI.

 

Flock, which sells cameras much cheaper than its competitors’, boasts more than 120,000 across the country, each generating millions of images. Owners can share this data with nearby police departments and Flock’s nationwide database, allowing officers to search different cities or states. AI can extract other details about a vehicle, such as its colour, broadening searches beyond licence plates.

 

Police say this helps them solve crimes such as theft or abductions. Flock claims to have aided 10,000 missing-person cases last year. But its network of ALPRs “goes far beyond what people previously understood the tools to be”, argues Melissa Owen of the National Association of Criminal Defence Lawyers.

 

Cops do not need warrants to look up plates, and state laws vary on how officers log searches, how long data can be stored and whether footage can be sent to other states.

 

Officers have been caught stalking ex-partners and tracking spouses. Software errors have led to innocent drivers being stopped. A lack of transparency has added to the furore. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a digital-rights group, analysed search logs and found officers entering nonsensical reasons for looking up plates, including “LOL” and “sexy”.

 

(Flock has since added a drop-down menu of categories.) The EFF is one of several organisations suing cities for allegedly running thousands of unnecessary searches. The company says it has tightened requirements for searching its database.

 

However, the uproar has spilled into the midterms. Seth Bodnar, an independent running for the Senate in Montana, recently filmed himself shooting a camera with a shotgun. The backlash is producing more substantive results, too. Greg Abbott, running to be re-elected as Texas’s governor, has paused state funding for Flock. Over 250 cities, towns and schools ended their contracts with Flock in August and September, according to a tracker by Secure Justice, an anti-surveillance group. In the same two months last year it was five.” [1]

 

1. What the Flock? The Economist; London Vol. 460, Iss. 9518,  (Sep 26, 2026): 34.

Swiss Neutrality Is Now Merely a Fig Leaf

“After the end of World War II, the Swiss economy found itself in a favorable position: its factories remained intact, and there was a high demand for Swiss machinery across Europe.

However, as trade with the Eastern Bloc intensified, the US threatened to cut Switzerland off from raw materials and the US high-tech market if companies failed to comply with export restrictions regarding the USSR. Bern was forced to yield.”

 

Today, however, stagnant, US-dependent banks are being replaced by fintech and crypto firms; meanwhile, the US has outsourced high-tech manufacturing and the production of critical raw materials—such as rare earth elements—to China, effectively eliminating that specific problem for the Swiss.

 

On the other hand, mid-sized powers like Iran can—thanks to swarms of cheap, precision missiles and drones—inflict serious damage on major powers like the US. Great powers cannot tolerate the existence of states with ambiguous or hostile stances within their chosen spheres of influence. The case of Iran demonstrates that distance is no longer a factor. Consequently, mid-sized states are left with only two options: absolute neutrality combined with utility to both warring sides—the path Switzerland is currently pursuing—or the loss of state control and assets, as seen in present-day Venezuela. There is no third way. All other states of being for such nations are merely transitional periods. If Switzerland succeeds in defeating—via referendum—the warmongers who are violating the Constitution and the law, it will pave the way for prosperity among many neutral, mid-sized states.

The insight presented here analyzes geopolitical transformations—from the onset of the Cold War to the shifts in the technological and military balance seen today. We observe how the nature of leverage has changed and why, for mid-sized states, maintaining neutrality has become a matter not only of diplomacy but of existential survival.

Here are several key aspects that complement and expand upon the thesis regarding the "absence of a third way":

1. Switzerland’s historical precedent and current dilemma

After World War II, Switzerland had to navigate a delicate path by signing the 1951 Hotz-Linder Agreement, under which it secretly agreed to limit strategic exports to the Eastern Bloc to avoid US sanctions.

Today, the situation is repeating itself on a new level. Discussions in Switzerland regarding the definition of neutrality (particularly following the decision to support sanctions against Russia and debates over arms re-exports) reveal an internal rift:

•           Traditional (absolute) neutrality: Referendum initiatives—such as those organized by the Swiss People's Party (SVP)—seek to constitutionally enshrine a strict form of neutrality that prohibits participation in any sanctions other than those imposed by the UN Security Council.

•           Active (cooperative) neutrality: A segment of the political elite argues that complete isolation is no longer feasible in today’s world and that financial and technological security necessitates integration with the West.

2. Technological decentralization: Crypto versus US sanctions

The observation regarding the evolution of the banking system is crucial. Traditional Swiss banking secrecy was partially dismantled following US pressure between 2008 and 2013 (via FATCA and "lex USA"). However, Zug’s "Crypto Valley" and the fintech sector have created a new, decentralized ecosystem. In a world where the US uses the dollar as a tool for sanctions (the "weaponization of the dollar"), alternative financial technologies enable mid-sized nations to maintain economic autonomy. 3. Military asymmetry and the era of "cheap drones"

Examples involving Iran and the Houthis in Yemen, or conflicts in Ukraine, confirm our premise: military power has become asymmetric. Cheap, mass-produced technologies (kamikaze drones, precision short-range missiles) have eliminated the protection once afforded by geographic distance. Major powers (the US, China) can no longer fully shield their spheres of influence from "cheap destruction."

This creates a paradox: major powers perceive a greater threat from mid-sized independent players; consequently, the pressure on these states to either choose a side or maintain a strict, mutually beneficial neutrality continues to intensify.

4. A reality of two choices: the Swiss vs. Venezuelan scenarios

If a state is not large enough to dictate terms itself, the two paths we have identified become highly probable:

Scenario                     Characteristics                                                   Consequence

Absolute neutrality (The Swiss path)        Utility to all parties, stable legal system, diplomatic platform, technological/financial hub. Prosperity and sovereignty.

Choosing a side / Confrontation (The Venezuelan path)           Nationalization of assets, entry into a single bloc's sphere of influence, isolation from international markets, sanctions. Loss of control over resources, economic decline. Transitional period

Many states (e.g., the Persian Gulf countries, Singapore, or some Southeast Asian nations) are currently undergoing the transitional period we mentioned. They are attempting to trade with China, secure US security guarantees, and employ neutral rhetoric without real neutrality. However, as the technological Cold War intensifies (semiconductors, artificial intelligence, rare earth elements), the room for straddling the fence is shrinking.

If Swiss citizens succeed in defending a strict model of neutrality via referendum, it will set a precedent and serve as a blueprint for other mid-sized nations seeking to remain sovereign in a multipolar world. No one in Lithuania grasps this yet:

 

“On Sunday, the Swiss people will once again head to the polls to make their voices heard. In the country’s modern history (since 1848), this will mark the 332nd federal voting weekend. One of the questions concerns the country’s geopolitical stance; the outcome will determine whether Switzerland risks becoming an isolated enclave in Europe or becoming part of the Western security system.

 

On food and security

 

The questions may sound unusual to a Lithuanian ear: ‘Do you support the “Preserve Swiss Neutrality” initiative?’; ‘Do you support the “For Secure Nutrition – Strengthening Sustainable Local Production, More Plant-Based Products, and Clean Water” initiative?’” In this country, the results of a nationwide plebiscite take effect immediately; consequently, every such vote reflects public sentiment and serves as the culmination of long, consistent deliberations.

 

It is easy to see that, in these complex times, the question regarding nutrition is overshadowed by a second issue: Swiss neutrality.

 

The concept of neutrality is enshrined in the Swiss Constitution, yet the document does not specify how it should be implemented in practice. Precisely this—a concrete definition—is what proponents of the "Preserve Swiss Neutrality" citizens' initiative are seeking. According to the referendum's initiators, neutrality shields Switzerland from being drawn into foreign conflicts. Opponents, however, speak of self-deception and point to other nations that would benefit more from such Swiss restrictions than Switzerland itself.

 

Heated public debate on the subject has raged since April 2024, when the requisite number of signatures to trigger the referendum was submitted. Initially, the initiative enjoyed strong support; August polls showed that more than half of politically neutral citizens favored the proposal to tighten neutrality rules, but a decisive shift occurred in September.

 

The camp opposing the initiative grew significantly over the course of a few weeks. Following the lead of the French-speaking cantons—where isolationist sentiment is always weakest—the German-speaking regions also came on board. Only the Italian-speaking canton of Ticino wavered on the eve of the vote; due to its geographic location and the specific nature of its border region, local residents are more receptive to ideas regarding the protection of sovereignty and strict neutrality.

 

Recent polls show that 34% of respondents support the initiative for absolute neutrality, while 63% do not wish to amend the Constitution.

 

The driving force behind the idea

 

The leading figure (and financier—having contributed nearly 4 million francs to the campaign, according to Swiss financial oversight authorities) of the movement to enshrine absolute neutrality is 85-year-old Christoph Blocher.

 

A Swiss national who amassed a fortune worth billions in the chemical and plastics industries, he handed over the management of the Ems-Chemie group to his children upon entering politics. After becoming interested in politics in the 1970s, he emerged as a symbol of the conservative Swiss People's Party (SVP), transforming what had previously been a relatively moderate, farmer-backed party into the most influential right-wing force in the country. Blocher served in parliament and headed the Department of Justice and Police (a ministerial role). His political career was marked by open conflicts and a disregard for the principles of collegiality.

 

Swiss isolationism—a long-standing tradition. This is a favorite area of ​​Blocher’s politics. He achieved a major victory back in 1986 when his fellow citizens rejected the country's accession to the United Nations (UN) in a referendum. A different outcome occurred only in the 21st century: in 2002, after Blocher’s campaign failed, the country's citizens voted in favor of UN membership. It was a campaign initiated by him in 1992 that persuaded the Swiss to reject membership in the European Economic Area.

 

In Blocher’s view, Switzerland’s decision to join Western sanctions against Russia following the events in Ukraine was a mistake. He argued that this decision effectively made his country a party to the conflict. Consequently, as early as the autumn of 2022, Blocher began advocating for a neutrality initiative.

 

Business dealings raise suspicions

 

Journalists believe they have also uncovered a pragmatic reason behind such rhetoric. Ems-Chemie, a chemical industry giant owned by the Blocher family (and currently led by the politician’s daughter), did not withdraw from Russia after 2022.

 

According to media reports, Ems-Chemie’s Russian subsidiary, Eftec—which operates plants in Yelabuga and Nizhny Novgorod—supplies specific anti-corrosion materials and adhesives to Russian automakers. Prior to 2022, the company had collaborated with Western corporations. After the EU and Switzerland tightened restrictions on the export of plastics and PVC to Russia, customs documents show that Eftec began importing these materials from China.

 

Ems-Chemie’s official position is that its business in Russia accounts for less than 1% of the group's total turnover. However, media reports point to growth in turnover in Russia as recorded in financial statements. According to the publication *Republik*, the Swiss company supplies unique products to Kamaz, UAZ, GAZ, and AvtoVAZ—Russian companies that manufacture weaponry and military hardware or support Russians deploying to the war in Ukraine. Although these Russian enterprises appear on EU and Swiss sanctions lists, journalists report that they were still listed as partners on Eftec’s official website as recently as June of this year.

 

A sanctioned company on the client list, high turnover despite the war, and a tender from a Russian military vehicle manufacturer specifying the exact type of products Eftec supplies—according to *Republik*, none of this constitutes definitive proof that Ems-Chemie’s Russian subsidiaries are fulfilling orders for the Russian military-industrial complex. Yet, these are clear indicators.

 

Representatives of Ems-Chemie reject these allegations; management states that they do not want their factories to be nationalized should they withdraw from Russia. Since the automotive adhesives and anti-corrosion coatings produced are not classified as dual-use goods, the company maintains that these activities do not technically violate the restrictions imposed by Bern.

 

Swiss journalists point out that on February 28, 2022, the Swiss government backed EU sanctions against Russia. Subsequently, Bern aligned itself with almost every new sanctions package. Only in 2024 the Swiss parliament—where the SVP holds the most influence—did not support the EU decision adopted in June to ban indirect transactions (i.e., those conducted via subsidiaries or third-party companies). The argument was that Switzerland can only enforce compliance with sanctions within its own territory. This stance by Bern benefited international commodities groups headquartered in Switzerland but with divisions in countries where sanctions against Russia do not apply. It is likely that this very exemption also benefits the two Eftec companies operating in Russia, *Republik* reports.

 

In February of this year, Switzerland adopted another EU sanction against Russia: a ban on participating in the activities of companies headquartered in the Alabuga Special Economic Zone. Almost all companies in this zone, located in the city of Yelabuga, manufacture weapons, ammunition, and other military products for the Russian army. As *The Kyiv Independent* reports, one of the Eftec companies is located in the immediate vicinity. Formally, such proximity does not violate EU sanctions. However, it is known that Russia has granted tax incentives to both the Eftec plant in Yelabuga and the companies operating within the Alabuga Special Economic Zone. Swiss commentators note with irony that when the prospect of neutrality is discussed, the most unlikely alliances suddenly become possible. Both camps are displaying a flexibility comparable to the flexibility Switzerland itself has historically shown in situations involving neutrality.

 

The first to declare support for Christoph Blocher’s initiative were the Swiss Communists and the Party of Labour—a gathering of diverse left-wing utopians. Later, an opposing "No" committee emerged, comprising representatives from all major parties except the SVP.

 

**A Proposal for Complete Detachment**

 

Swiss neutrality has been enshrined in the Federal Constitution since 1848 and is defined by international law (under the 1907 Hague Convention, a neutral state cannot participate in hostilities or allow its territory to be used by warring parties). However, the Constitution does not specify how this neutrality should be implemented in practice. The initiators of the referendum aim to clearly define neutrality within the Constitution.

 

The proposal seeks to enshrine comprehensive neutrality in the country's fundamental law: Switzerland would be barred from joining military or defensive alliances, and cooperation with such alliances would be permitted only in the event of a direct attack or in preparation for one. Switzerland could not participate in military conflicts involving third countries or impose sanctions on warring states, other than those adopted by the UN Security Council.

 

**Room to Adapt to Reality**

 

In the view of the national parliament, the current legal framework allows Switzerland to maintain its neutrality while defending national interests in light of changing circumstances.

 

"The beauty of Swiss neutrality lies in the fact that we must constantly redefine it," C. Wermuth stated at a meeting of the parliamentary Foreign Policy Committee, according to the *NZZ*.

 

Switzerland currently has the discretion to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether to adopt sanctions imposed by other states or international organizations. The government evaluates foreign policy, economic, and legal criteria when making such decisions.

 

For instance, during the Kosovo War, Switzerland supported certain EU sanctions but did not join the oil embargo imposed on Yugoslavia.

 

Opponents argue that by further defining neutrality, Switzerland would forfeit its foreign policy autonomy and confine itself within a rigid straitjacket of neutrality.

 

Admittedly, Bern does not enjoy absolute freedom of action even now; decisions it makes that breach absolute neutrality are often the result of external pressure rather than domestic initiative. However, according to Swiss Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis, by failing to impose sanctions on another country, Switzerland would find itself on the fringes of the Western bloc.

 

In his words, neutrality means non-interference in military actions—something Switzerland has never done. "Neutrality alone does not protect us. It is a tool that helps preserve independence, security, and prosperity—and that is precisely how we must apply it," the minister told the *NZZ*.

 

Lessons from History

 

Opponents of the initiative dispel the myth that neutrality offers protection, pointing to General Henri Guisan, who did not succumb to this illusion during World War II. Had the German army attacked Switzerland, he had secretly planned to join forces with France.

 

At the outbreak of the war, the army was in poor condition: it lacked anti-tank and anti-aircraft defenses, and possessed only a few tanks intended for reconnaissance. When the Nazis occupied Paris, Switzerland was suddenly left isolated, and the country was gripped by shock. "We are at a turning point," the general declared. The issue was no longer neutrality, "but Switzerland's independence."

 

To save the country, the general initiated a retreat into the Alpine fortress system—a last-ditch effort to at least partially ensure the state's survival. The consequences of this strategy would have been dire: only the army could have taken shelter in the fortifications, leaving the inhabitants of the Central Plateau and the cities completely unprotected in the event of a German attack. Commentators reflecting on history suggest that H. Guisan would hardly have committed to such a radical concept had he blindly believed in the magical power of neutrality.

 

As early as 1939, H. Guisan heard Adolf Hitler promise to respect the neutrality of neighboring countries; yet, by May 1940, the German army had occupied the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg—nations that held such status. International law had become worthless, and consequently, so had the concept of neutrality based upon it.

 

There is a view that Switzerland was saved not by neutrality, but by A. Hitler’s calculations: a reluctance to engage in a militarily costly venture or walk into a Swiss trap set amidst difficult terrain, combined with a desire to maintain a neutral financial partner.

 

Too weak to stay on the sidelines?

 

Beyond moral arguments, there are pragmatic ones. Only a strong country can maintain neutrality. The national media quotes Heinz Theiler, a Liberal MP representing the canton of Schwyz: without the support of other nations, Switzerland would be unable to repel a missile attack today. If Ch. Blocher’s initiative were adopted, the country could only seek assistance once an attack became imminent—by which point it would already be too late. What would be the quality of joint defense operations if the Swiss military were prohibited from training with allies during peacetime?

 

Under a policy of absolute neutrality, Switzerland would be required to halt joint military exercises with NATO nations. These exercises are important not only for exchanging combat experience but also for practical reasons: the mountainous country simply lacks training grounds suited to a variety of scenarios.

 

Under international law, a neutral state is obliged to defend itself, yet Switzerland has consistently reduced the size of its military since 1995. Today, the force is one-eighth the size it was during the Cold War, comprising only 100,000 active-duty and reserve troops. According to the *NZZ*, in the event of a real crisis, only a third of them could be fully equipped.

 

National borders pose no obstacle to drones and cruise missiles, yet Switzerland has almost no means of defending against such weapons. Absolute neutrality would prevent the country from purchasing new air defense systems—such as the Patriot or F-35 fighter jets—from abroad.

 

Bern lacks adequate early-warning intelligence capabilities; the country’s radars cannot monitor airspace far beyond its own borders. To address this gap, Switzerland recently joined the European Sky Shield Initiative and is negotiating with neighboring states and US air forces stationed in Europe regarding the exchange of radar data.

 

Amending the Constitution along the lines of the Blocher model would deprive Switzerland of this possibility.

 

Strict neutrality would deal a final blow to the country’s defense industry, which—according to the *NZZ*—is already struggling. Other European nations had begun to shun Swiss military hardware, fearing that if NATO’s Article 5 were invoked, Switzerland would block the use of weaponry manufactured in the country or made using Swiss components.

 

Trapped by fear

 

A common argument among proponents of absolute neutrality is that it is profitable for Switzerland. However, researchers at the Zurich University of Applied Sciences’ Center for Geopolitics and Competitiveness state that this is not the case. They analyzed Swiss trade with the USSR during the Cold War (1945–1991).

 

Following the end of World War II, the Swiss economy found itself in an advantageous position: its factories remained intact, and there was a high demand across Europe for Swiss machinery. However, as trade with the Eastern Bloc intensified, the US threatened to cut Switzerland off from US markets for raw materials and high-tech goods if companies failed to comply with restrictions on exports to the USSR. Bern was forced to yield.

 

In 1951, Switzerland gave its verbal assent to the so-called Hotz-Linder Agreement; without making a public announcement, it joined the embargo on strategically important military goods and periodically reported to the US on exports to the East.

 

Fearing it might anger Washington again, Bern demonstrated compliance in advance. For instance, while France supported its exporters wishing to trade civilian goods with the USSR, the Swiss government—seeking to shield the state and its banks from political risk—refused to subsidize exports.”