The world is changing, and a laissez-faire approach to defence is no longer appropriate; resources are needed. But let's not put the cart before the horse!

For at least twenty years, every major army project has been a fiasco: the purchase of fighter jets marred by delays, cost overruns and a lack of technical mastery; the failure of digitalisation projects including the operational platform; drones that only work in summer, etc. Furthermore, Ruag has such dysfunctions that it risks being placed under supervision.

Increased funding will only strengthen our security if the army has the necessary skills to use it. Mr Pfister should focus on this task rather than on tax projects; it will then be up to Parliament to assess the results of his work and allocate budgets accordingly.

In today's precarious situation, it is important to make the army operational in terms of both personnel and equipment. If our democracy continues to wobble forward, we will have to see, in an emergency, to whom and to what extent we are at their mercy. I miss a task force that corresponds to the threat level. It works with bank bailouts too, even though we certainly have more time. For example, we live in an era where drones are the thing and we are still fiddling about with half-hearted projects. Of course, it is an option to go further diplomatically, and that includes deals. As a small country, we know from history that inconveniences are part of it. The gentle, ideal goals, yes. By all means. But when the fire risk is high, what's needed is not endless discussions about fire protection, but action. Taxes could certainly be higher in areas where those who could pay high levies could pay more, unless they can help as internationally connected "oligarchs" (and not run away).