Swiss neutrality wasn’t just a policy; it was a symbol, a promise that somewhere in the world, sanity and impartiality would prevail when all else failed.
But symbols, like trust, are fragile. They don’t survive ambiguity. And in today’s world, where alliances shift, wars are broadcast in real-time, and public sentiment demands clear moral stands, neutrality is harder to uphold and easier to erode.
The outbreak of war in Ukraine in February 2022 marked a definitive moment of divergence. Despite its longstanding tradition of neutrality, Switzerland quickly aligned itself with the European Union in sanctioning Russia, freezing assets of Russian oligarchs and implementing financial restrictions. In doing so, it broke a tradition that had kept it equidistant from NATO and Eastern powers alike.
Switzerland at a Crossroads: The Gradual Erosion of Neutrality in the Shadow of Global Turmoil.
by I. Constantin
The Diplomatic Affairs
https://www.thediplomaticaffairs.com/2025/08/07/switzerland-neutrality/
For decades, Switzerland stood as the embodiment of neutrality, the diplomatic north star amid geopolitical storms. Its role as a trusted mediator, a haven for international dialogue, and a sanctuary for peace negotiations was deeply rooted in both historical precedent and popular perception.
Yet today, a growing chorus of voices is sounding the alarm: Switzerland’s famed neutrality is no longer as unwavering as it once was. From its decision to adopt EU sanctions against Russia, to the freezing of assets and growing rhetorical alignment with Western blocs, Switzerland appears to be stepping away from its carefully cultivated neutrality. What does this mean for Switzerland’s role in future peace processes? Can the country reclaim its unique position as a trusted arbiter, or has the world lost one of its few remaining honest brokers?
Switzerland’s historical commitment to neutrality over the years
The roots of Swiss neutrality stretch back to a bitter defeat: the Battle of Marignano in 1515, where the Old Swiss Confederacy lost over 10,000 men in a single day. The lesson was harsh and enduring: engagement in foreign wars came with staggering cost.
But, Swiss neutrality has never been about passive isolationism. Enshrined in international law since the Treaty of Paris in 1815 and reaffirmed during both World Wars, neutrality enabled Switzerland to act as an impartial actor, often mediating in global conflicts, hosting international institutions, and serving as the headquarters of the Red Cross.
This diplomatic posture wasn’t just symbolic. Switzerland’s balanced stance allowed it to punch far above its weight in global affairs, attracting international summits, humanitarian conferences, and negotiations ranging from the Iran nuclear deal to North Korea talks. In a fractured world, Switzerland represented equilibrium.
Let’s face it. You’ve learned about the country’s neutrality in school. Even Albert Einstein found sanctuary in Switzerland when fleeing the rise of extremism elsewhere in Europe. Swiss neutrality wasn’t just a policy; it was a symbol, a promise that somewhere in the world, sanity and impartiality would prevail when all else failed.
But symbols, like trust, are fragile. They don’t survive ambiguity. And in today’s world, where alliances shift, wars are broadcast in real-time, and public sentiment demands clear moral stands, neutrality is harder to uphold and easier to erode.
But, then came 2022…
The outbreak of war in Ukraine in February 2022 marked a definitive moment of divergence. Despite its longstanding tradition of neutrality, Switzerland quickly aligned itself with the European Union in sanctioning Russia, freezing assets of Russian oligarchs and implementing financial restrictions. In doing so, it broke a tradition that had kept it equidistant from NATO and Eastern powers alike.
Swiss President Ignazio Cassis defended the decision, stating that neutrality “does not mean indifference to violations of international law.” While morally grounded, the move was politically significant: for the first time in modern memory, Switzerland took sides in a major geopolitical conflict.
The sanctions went beyond symbolism. According to the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO), Switzerland froze billions in Russian assets and added several Russian nationals to its sanctions list. This included influential business figures previously protected by Switzerland’s discreet banking practices.
Furthermore, Switzerland’s refusal to allow the re-export of Swiss-made arms from other countries to Ukraine further complicated its position, viewed as an attempt to remain “neutral” in form while clearly participating in the West’s broader economic pressure campaign.
This apparent duality has confused allies and critics alike. For some, Switzerland’s actions reflect an overdue moral awakening. For others, they constitute a betrayal of its core identity. Western capitals, long skeptical of Swiss neutrality, applauded the move. Even, then-US President Joe Biden singled out Switzerland during his State of the Union address, lauding its participation in what he termed “financial warfare.”
Domestically, the response was mixed. Public opinion largely supported the sanctions. The moral clarity of the Ukrainian crisis, the media images of bombed-out cities and refugee caravans, stirred a collective conscience. But for many Swiss, particularly those in conservative circles, the decision felt like an erosion of something sacred.
The Swiss People’s Party condemned the sanctions as a betrayal of core values. Legal scholars and diplomats debated whether neutrality had been bent or broken. Meanwhile, Russia responded by stripping Switzerland of its traditional role as intermediary. Kremlin refused Bern’s offer to represent Ukrainian interests in Moscow, citing its participation in “illegal Western sanctions.”
Still, some argue Switzerland has not crossed the Rubicon. Ambassador Thomas Greminger, head of the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, maintains that neutrality is a legal framework, not a blanket prohibition. “Switzerland has room for policy decisions,” he said, “and imposing sanctions does not inherently violate its neutral obligations.”
Others echo this nuance. Laurent Goetschel, a political science professor at the University of Basel, argues that neutrality is not indifference. “Swiss identity is still deeply tied to neutrality,” he says. “But values matter too – especially when a sovereign state is attacked.”
But Ukraine was not the only topic Switzerland decided to take a stance on. The Swiss Parliament’s decision to ban Hezbollah on December 17, 2024, and Hamas a week earlier, has raised even more questions about the country’s sudden shift in approach to Middle Eastern conflicts, marking a clear alignment with one side of the conflict. Until recently, Switzerland had only banned al-Qaeda and ISIS, limiting itself to adopting UN-imposed sanctions on terrorist organizations. The decisions against Hezbollah and Hamas entail a ban on all activities related to either group on Swiss soil, along with legal measures against individuals associated with them. These measures also apply to financial assets and transactions.
The Paradox of Neutrality
Switzerland’s dilemma is not unique. Nowadays, countries are being asked where they stand, but, more importantly, if they are willing to stand for anything at all.
Neutrality, in this environment, can appear indistinguishable from complicity. The very qualities that once made Switzerland indispensable, discretion, distance, detachment, now risk rendering it irrelevant or mistrusted.
And yet, there is still a place for Switzerland’s historic role. The world still needs havens for dialogue. It still needs neutral terrain for back-channel diplomacy, ceasefire negotiations, humanitarian coordination, and principled de-escalation.
But to preserve that role, Switzerland must navigate a narrow path. It must prove that neutrality does not mean inaction, and that moral clarity can coexist with diplomatic impartiality. It must draw distinctions between neutrality as legal status and neutrality as abdication.
Jean-Daniel Ruch, former Swiss ambassador to Serbia, Israel, and Turkey, argues that Swiss neutrality stands at a critical juncture. Now president of the newly established Geneva Centre for Neutrality, Ruch emphasized in an interview with Geneva Solutions that the country’s long-standing foreign policy demands urgent public discourse and a shift in leadership to effectively adapt to the rapidly changing geopolitical landscape:
“The perception of our neutrality has deteriorated since the outbreak of the war in Ukraine. Most citizens were left puzzled by the abrupt change. I assumed immense external pressure was at play, but no explanation was ever offered. This eroded trust not only within Switzerland, particularly toward the Federal Council, but also internationally.”
But this has not happened. An initiative called “Preservation of Swiss Neutrality (Neutrality Initiative)”, submitted by Pro Switzerland and Swiss People’s Party (UDC/SVP) representatives, was rejected, in May this year, by The Foreign Affairs Committee of the Council of States. The initiative called for permanent, armed neutrality and a far-reaching ban on sanctions to be written into the constitution.
What the Future Demands
The war in Ukraine may not end soon, but neither will the pressures on Switzerland to pick a side. What remains to be seen is whether this moment marks a temporary departure or a permanent shift, a realignment of values, identity, and role on the world stage.
If Switzerland is to continue being the world’s trusted broker, it must reconcile the contradictions of its past with the demands of its present. It must build a neutrality that is not only respected but relevant. Because in a world increasingly at odds, the greatest power may still lie not in taking sides, but in offering a space where sides can talk.
Swiss neutrality
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_neutrality
One of the main principles of Switzerland’s foreign policy is that Switzerland is not to be involved in armed conflicts between other states. This policy is self-imposed and designed to ensure external security and promote peace.
Switzerland has the oldest policy of military neutrality in the world; it has not participated in a foreign war since its neutrality was established by the Treaty of Paris in 1815. However, the country did have a civil war in 1847.
Although the European powers (Austria, France, the United Kingdom, Portugal, Prussia, Russia, Spain and Sweden) agreed at the Congress of Vienna in May 1815 that Switzerland should be neutral, final ratification was delayed until after Napoleon Bonaparte was defeated so that some coalition forces could invade France via Swiss territory.
The country has a history of armed neutrality going back to the Reformation; it has not been in a state of war internationally since 1815 apart from the Sonderbund War (Switzerland civil war), joining the League of Nations in 1920 and did not join the United Nations until 2002. It pursues an active foreign policy and is frequently involved in peace-building processes around the world.
On February 28, 2022, Switzerland imposed economic sanctions on Russia and froze a significant amount of assets held by Russian civilians and companies as “punishment” for the invasion of Ukraine. Some described this as “a sharp deviation from the country’s traditional neutrality.” According to Swiss president Ignazio Cassis in 2022 during a World Economic Forum speech, the laws of neutrality for Switzerland are based on The Hague agreement principles which include “no participation in wars; international cooperation but no membership in any military alliance; no provision of troops or weapons to warring parties and no granting of transition rights”.
Criticism
Swiss neutrality has been questioned at times, notably regarding Switzerland’s role during World War II and the ICRC, the looted Nazi gold (and later during Operation Gladio), its economic ties to the apartheid regime in South Africa, and more recently in the Crypto AG espionage case.
Swiss aid to Ukraine after Russia’s invasion in February 2022 has led some to questioning whether Switzerland is fully neutral anymore. Some have called for changing the laws of neutrality.