Part 4: The False Dichotomy of "Ukraine or Belarus" and the Case for Swiss Neutrality in Georgia
Putin; The Last American - The Global Power Dynamics of Georgia in the Context of the Russia-Ukraine War (4/4)
If you've been following Georgia's geopolitical discussions lately, you've probably heard this oversimplified choice: Georgia must either follow Ukraine's pro-Western path or accept Belarus's pro-Russian stance. But here's the thing – this is a false dichotomy that ignores a fascinating alternative that's been working for centuries in the heart of Europe.
The False Choice Georgia's Being Asked to Make
Let's break down this supposed "choice":
The Ukraine path? That means pursuing aggressive Western integration and NATO membership – potentially triggering Russian military intervention. We've seen how that's playing out.
The Belarus model? That means essentially becoming a Russian satellite state, giving up real independence and democratic aspirations. Not exactly appealing, right?
But here's what everyone's missing: there's a third way that's been working remarkably well for one country right in the middle of Europe – Switzerland.
The Swiss Alternative: More Than Just Chocolate and Banks
Switzerland's neutrality isn't just about staying out of conflicts – it's about actively maintaining independence while building prosperity1. Think about it: Switzerland has managed to:
Stay independent through two World Wars
Become one of the world's wealthiest nations
Maintain strong ties with everyone from the EU to Russia
Keep its military independence while avoiding conflicts2
And they've done this while being completely surrounded by major powers. Sounds familiar?
Why This Could Work for Georgia
You might be thinking, "Sure, but Switzerland wasn’t dealing with a Russia at its borders." Fair point. But here's why the Swiss model could actually work even better for Georgia:
Location, Location, Location
Georgia sits at the crossroads of Europe and Asia. This isn't just a challenge – it's an opportunity. Georgia could become:
A neutral banking hub for the region
A trusted meeting ground for international business
A key link in the new Silk Road trading routes
Economic Advantages
Remember how Switzerland turned neutrality into economic gold? Georgia could:
Build a strong financial sector serving both Eastern and Western clients
Develop its ports as neutral trading hubs
Expand its already growing tourism industry
Become a regional center for digital finance
Making It Work: The Practical Steps
This isn't just a nice theory – there are concrete steps Georgia could take (and has been taking):
Start Small
Focus on economic ties with both East and West
Build up banking and financial services
Develop transportation infrastructure
Build Trust Gradually
Establish Georgia as a neutral meeting ground
Host international conferences
Develop reputation for diplomatic neutrality
Strengthen Independence
Modernize defensive military capabilities
Build strong cyber-defense
Develop emergency response systems
But What About the Real Challenges?
Let's be real – Georgia faces some tough challenges:
Existing conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia
Russian military presence
Internal political divisions
But here's the thing: the Swiss model actually offers better tools for handling these challenges than either the Ukraine or Belarus approach. Switzerland has built its strength through neutrality and independence rather than aligning with big powers. It purposely promoted its emphasis on strong democratic institutions, internal development, and balanced diplomacy.
For Georgia, this could mean investing in its own capabilities, uniting its political landscape, and avoiding the trap of choosing sides in regional rivalries. By focusing on self-reliance and balance, Georgia could tackle its challenges without compromising its independence.
Looking Forward
The choice between becoming "another Ukraine" or "another Belarus" is a false one. Georgia has the potential to chart its own course – one that maintains independence while building prosperity.
Instead of being forced to choose between 2 risky paths, Georgia can maintain its independence by prioritizing sovereignty and pursuing policies that serve its national interests. Strengthening the economy through diverse trade partnerships, local industry growth, and reducing reliance on any single foreign power can provide a stable foundation for the country’s future.
At the same time, Georgia can preserve cultural ties with both East and West, embracing its role as a bridge between Europe and Asia. By fostering cultural exchanges, celebrating its heritage, and leveraging its strategic geography, Georgia can develop a unique position in the region and play a key role in diplomacy and commerce.
What's Next?
The Swiss model isn't a dramatic departure from Georgia's current path – it's a framework for strengthening and formalizing what Georgia has already been doing. By acknowledging and building on its 15-year track record of practical neutrality, Georgia can move toward a more secure and prosperous future.
Goetschel, Laurent (2011) "Neutrals as brokers of peacebuilding ideas?" Cooperation and Conflict, 46(3), pp. 312-333.
"Armed Neutrality in Action: The Case of Switzerland" by Efraim Karsh, published in the Journal of Peace Research (1988)
Response: Jacob’s Ledger – A Masterclass in Pretentious Misinformation
Jacob, after slogging through all four parts of this pseudo-intellectual trainwreck, it’s painfully clear that writing and geopolitical analysis are not your strong suits.
Instead of offering genuine insight, you’ve managed to:
1. Butcher historical context to fit your forced narratives.
2. Gloss over Russian aggression with misplaced “realism.”
3. Treat geopolitical survival like an abstract thought experiment instead of the life-or-death reality it is.
4. Deliver the worst take yet – that Georgia should aspire to be the Switzerland of the Caucasus.
Since you clearly love long-winded, meandering nonsense, let me condense reality for you and spell out why this entire series is embarrassing.
---
Part 1: Putin – The "Last American"? No, Just the Latest Imperialist
Your first piece starts with a ridiculous premise—that Putin is somehow playing by America’s Cold War rulebook.
Let’s make this simple:
The Monroe Doctrine was about stopping external colonization.
Russia’s doctrine is about actively erasing nations.
America builds alliances; Russia dismantles sovereignty.
There is no moral, strategic, or doctrinal equivalence between a U.S. protecting its hemisphere from European imperialism and Russia invading neighbors to expand its empire. Trying to spin this as “Putin is just playing by American rules” is a desperate reach that only works on people too lazy to read history properly.
Putin isn’t a “last American”—he’s just another Russian dictator obsessed with domination.
---
Part 2: The Foreign Agents Law – An Excuse for Russian Influence, Not “Transparency”
In classic Russian apologist fashion, you argue that Georgia’s Foreign Agents Law is just “like FARA in the U.S.” and that Western opposition is hypocrisy.
That’s bullshit.
FARA is about monitoring foreign lobbying in politics—not crushing NGOs and opposition media.
Georgia’s law mirrors Russia’s crackdown on dissent—it’s designed to silence civil society, not ensure transparency.
If transparency was the goal, why doesn’t this law target Russian-funded disinformation and influence groups?
You try so hard to pretend that Georgia is just being “bullied” by the West, but the reality is:
Georgians don’t want Russian-style repression.
Protests erupted because the people see through the lie.
Claiming “everyone does this” is lazy propaganda.
You either don’t understand what’s happening in Georgia, or you do—and you’re choosing to mislead. Either way, this argument is pathetic.
---
Part 3: Trump’s Return – A Delusional Case for Appeasement
Here, you embrace the worst brand of geopolitical “realism”—the one that confuses pragmatism with cowardice.
You celebrate Trump’s “deal-making” as if it made the world safer. It didn’t.
You pretend NATO skepticism will make allies stronger. It won’t.
You suggest Georgia could somehow “play the game” better under Trump. As if Trump even knows where Georgia is.
You paint Trump’s transactional foreign policy as a return to “realism”, but in reality, it left allies weaker, emboldened Russia, and encouraged bad actors.
Your love for “pragmatic” policy sounds great in theory—except when the reality of Russian tanks rolling across borders makes your arguments sound like appeasement.
---
Part 4: The Swiss Model – Your Most Delusional Argument Yet
This is where your fantasy writing reaches its peak. Georgia as “the Switzerland of the Caucasus” is so laughably detached from reality that I almost feel bad for you.
You pretend neutrality is an option while ignoring:
Switzerland’s neutrality works because no one threatens its sovereignty.
Georgia has already been invaded by Russia—neutrality doesn’t protect you when your neighbor sees you as unfinished business.
Every country that tried “neutrality” near Russia (Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, Finland pre-NATO) has either been invaded or forced to abandon the illusion.
Georgia isn’t some abstract case study—it’s a country that has:
Lost territory to Russian occupation.
Fought off Russian military aggression.
Proven time and time again that neutrality is meaningless when your neighbor doesn’t respect sovereignty.
Even Finland, after decades of neutrality, finally realized that the Swiss model doesn’t work when Russia is your neighbor—which is why they ran to NATO the second Putin invaded Ukraine.
If you actually understood Georgia, you’d know this isn’t an intellectual game—it’s a fight for survival. But you don’t. You write about it like some armchair theorist who thinks neutrality is just a policy choice rather than a death sentence.
---
Georgia Deserves Better Than Your Nonsense
Unlike you, I actually know Georgia.
Maybe it’s because I visit often enough to know what I’m talking about. Maybe it’s because I actually care about the people who live there.
Unlike you, I don’t treat Georgia’s security as a fun academic debate—I respect the fact that real lives are at stake.
Your argument isn’t pragmatic—it’s cowardly.
Your writing isn’t insightful—it’s embarrassing.
And your continued attempts to act like some misunderstood intellectual heavyweight are laughable.
---
Final Thought: Jacob, This Isn’t for You—Shut It Down
Across all four parts, you’ve done nothing but:
Regurgitate weak historical comparisons to make false equivalencies.
Push outdated appeasement rhetoric disguised as “pragmatism.”
Pretend neutrality is a strategy rather than an invitation for Russia to tighten its grip.
Embarrass yourself with a total lack of understanding about Georgia’s realities.
Jacob, this isn’t your field.
Your arguments are a joke to anyone who actually knows what they’re talking about.
You don’t have a sharp mind for geopolitics—you just have a thesaurus, a Substack, and an inflated ego.
Pack it up. Writing isn’t for you. Stick to whatever else you do, because this?
This is just an absolute embarrassment.