Switzerland's neutrality is enshrined in Article 185 of the Federal Constitution:
"The Federal Council shall take measures to safeguard Switzerland's external security, independence and neutrality."
In the fourth revised edition of an information brochure, the Federal Department of Defense
(DDPS) itself explains how this is to be interpreted:
" 'Neutral' comes from the Latin: 'ne uter' - neither of the two.
A power is neutral if it does not take sides in a war."
However, the DDPS contradicts itself in the same edition and grants itself a "large scope for action".
For example, the adoption of economic sanctions imposed by the UN or other international actors -
such as the EU - is compatible with neutrality.
In this case, however, Switzerland will - for better or worse - have to take sides.
It did so on February 28, 2022, when it adopted the EU's economic sanctions against Russia.
The DDPS - or was it the Department of Foreign Affairs FDFA? - must have noticed this contradiction.
On March 3, 2022 - immediately after the adoption of economic sanctions against Russia - the FDFA
published a new brochure entitled "Switzerland's Neutrality".
The previous fourth revised edition is no longer available.
In the new brochure - which comes in a completely new guise - the phrase "A power is neutral if it
does not take sides in a war" can no longer be found.
In the new brochure, the FDFA also justified the Federal Council's adoption of EU sanctions against Russia.
Russia had "massively violated elementary norms of international law".
The new brochure of March 3, 2022 also raises the question of how Switzerland can "best safeguard its interests
and at the same time contribute to security in the world".
One option would be for Switzerland to "take a clear stance for one side or the other in military conflicts abroad".
Switzerland's neutrality is being put to the test more than ever!
The newly elected Federal Councillor Martin Pfister already made it clear at the first media
conference that he wants to give neutrality a flexible form.
In June 2024, 87 scientists, diplomats and politicians published a manifesto calling for
the Federal Council to rethink Swiss neutrality.
With their definition of "goal-oriented neutrality", it would be possible to treat the
aggressor differently from the victim in a war.
Sanctions against the aggressor would be permitted, as would assistance to the attacked country.
And it would be possible to cooperate with military alliances such as NATO.
A current example of this:
In January of this year, the EU approved Switzerland's participation in the EU-US "Military Mobility" program.
In future, foreign army vehicles, material, ammunition and weapons as well as military personnel will be
allowed to cross Swiss territory without "major authorization procedures" - effectively without borders.
So this is where the announced "flexibility" of the elected Federal Councillor Pfister is heading.
In the event of a war of aggression, Switzerland should be able to take sides and support the attacked country.
But in a war, are the boundaries between aggressor and victim really always clearly black and
white, and who decides where the boundaries lie?
Whose yardstick is being used?
Is it really possible to take sides in a war without incurring war guilt?
And can supporting a war - regardless of which party and in which form - really reduce the suffering caused by a war?
History teaches us better.
First and foremost, it must be noted: "The first casualty of any war is the truth." This is often quoted.
The German historian Christian Hardinghaus sums it up as follows in his book "Kriegspropaganda und Medienmanipulation":
"There is no country in history that has not made use of propaganda in war.
When two countries are at war, both sides always engage in propaganda."
Here are some examples:
As the documentary "When America's Presidents Lie", for example, showed, US-led wars - such as in Vietnam, Kosovo, Afghanistan
or Iraq - were always wars of aggression on the one hand, and on the other hand these wars were always justified with a lie.
Why has this not yet resulted in a single sanction against the USA?
On March 20, 2003, a "coalition of the willing" under US leadership attacked Iraq.
They justified this as a necessary pre-emptive war, as Iraq would have been in possession of weapons of mass destruction.
However, no weapons of mass destruction were found and the then Secretary-General of the United Nations condemned
the Iraq war as illegal - which resulted in neither sanctions against the USA nor support for the victim.
From 24.3.-10.6.1999, around 200 NATO fighter jets dropped 28,018 explosive devices on the former Yugoslavia - including
cluster bombs - and 10-15 tons of uranium-coated munitions.
NATO justified the airstrikes with an alleged "humanitarian catastrophe".
However, according to several reports - including from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in
Europe (OSCE) - there was no humanitarian catastrophe or ethnic cleansing before the war began.
Speaking of "humanitarian catastrophe". In the following, we will take a look at the Russian-Ukrainian war.
In the current Swiss neutrality debate, the main issue is whether Switzerland should take sides
with and support the supposed victim - Ukraine.
But is the situation really so clear - Ukraine the victim and Russia the aggressor - or could
it, as in any war, also or partly be propaganda?
Swiss historian and peace researcher Daniele Ganser pointed out that the Ukraine war could
never be understood if the 2014 coup was ignored.
Ganser was referring to the unconstitutional, illegal overthrow of the government in Kiev on February 22, 2014.
The required number of votes in parliament to impeach incumbent President Viktor Yanukovych was not reached.
Previously, unknown snipers had fired deadly shots at demonstrators and police forces.
There were more than 40 fatalities.
The incumbent government of President Yanukovych and his police unit "Berkut" were immediately blamed for the massacre.
This is despite the fact that the Ukrainian police and special units - such as the "Berkut" -
did not use violence, as video recordings show.
According to Ganser, this coup was the root of the war in Ukraine.
However, the eastern, majority Russian-speaking regions of Donetsk and Lugansk did not recognize the bloody coup
in Kiev and proclaimed independent "people's republics".
The new Kiev government then sent troops against the eastern regions, which led to civil war.
Attacks by Ukrainian troops on the population in Donbass increased dramatically from mid-February
2022 - i.e. even before the Russian troops invaded.
The OSCE's neutral observers counted up to 1,400 explosions per day from February 17, 2022.
100,000 civilians are said to have been evacuated to the interior or to Russia for protection.
Residents of the Crimean peninsula who returned to Crimea after the coup were also cruelly
harassed and abused by murderous Maidan supporters.
This was demonstrated in the documentary "Crimea - the way home" on the basis of various witness statements.
According to the Ukrainian Interior Ministry, seven people from the eight buses that returned were killed.
As a result, the Crimeans began to form defense units and planned an official vote on Crimea's continued affiliation
on March 16, 2014 - in accordance with the right to self-determination enshrined in international law.
This was the only way to prevent further bloodshed.
According to the official final result, 96.77 percent of voters were in favor of joining Russia.
A comparison between the secession of Crimea and the declaration of independence of Kosovo shows that a case of
war or annexation can be judged with double standards.
Kosovo was placed under the administrative jurisdiction of the United Nations after the war in 1999
and proclaimed its independence on February 27, 2008.
As a result of the war, the second largest US military base in Europe - Camp Bondsteel - was established in
Kosovo with thousands of soldiers on an area of 386 hectares.
By maintaining a military presence in a strategically important region, the USA secured control over potential pipeline
routes and the commercial exploitation of natural resources.
Nobody spoke of an "annexation" and nobody imposed sanctions against the USA.
However, Russia, which sent troops to Crimea on February 21, 2014 to protect the inhabitants and secure
its naval base in Sevastopol, was subject to sanctions.
One thing is clear, every warring party uses propaganda and uses its narrative in its favor.
Who can put their hand in the fire that one of the warring parties is not complicit in a war?
Switzerland is therefore well advised to keep its hands out and not take sides.
As Kla.TV has proven in several programs and history shows, wars and party seizure can hardly be justified.
The US- and NATO-led wars in particular have caused untold suffering with hundreds of thousands of victims and devastating
long-term effects - from Iraq to Libya, from Yugoslavia to Syria.
It should also be noted that wars are often instrumentalized by a third power in order to advance its plans for world domination.
In this way, the population is kept under constant "tension" and "uncertainty" through wars and/or war rhetoric.
This plays into the hands of governments and the arms industry to deprive people of their civil
rights and freedoms or otherwise make a profit.
You can find out more in the NATO documentary.
At this point it should be briefly noted:
Delivering weapons to a warring party - even if they are intended for the supposed victim party, such as Ukraine
- only plays into the hands of the warmongers and builders of a world domination government.
These are the people who sit in the upper echelons of the arms companies.
Arms deliveries drive the war economy, prolong wars and prevent peace negotiations.
It is always the people who suffer, as they are forced to send their sons - and more recently daughters - to the front.
Arms deliveries help to bleed the people to the last man.
The Swiss are committed to preserving Swiss neutrality and preventing war guilt
With this background, that wars can hardly be justified and are instrumentalized, more and more Swiss are committed
to preserving Swiss neutrality and preventing war guilt.
Here are three examples:
1st Frye Schwyzer - i.e. Free Swiss of the Canton of Schwyz - file objection to weapons production hall in Unteriberg
Excerpts from the media release issued by the "Interessengemeinschaft Frye Schwyzer" on March 16, 2025:
"In war zones, weapons cause enormous suffering and many innocent deaths.
Only a few profit from the war, for example in the form of arms supplies.
The German company Rheinmetall supplies active warring parties.
It now wants to expand the manufacture of war material in Unteriberg and set up a production hall. (...)
Switzerland had a long-standing tradition of neutrality and an important mediating role.
Now the war is closer than it has been for a long time.
The War Material Act was originally introduced to protect Swiss neutrality and prevent arms exports to war zones.
It is a scandal that arms exports are now also being approved for war zones.
Their share of the end product must only be less than 50%.
This means that up to 50% of the value of a weapon may be exported from Switzerland to belligerent countries.
- This value can be easily controlled with appropriate transfer prices within the Group.
The Federal Council places financial interests above neutrality when it comes to arms exports.
The gun lobby has done a good job here.
While mankind looks at the ruins, Rheinmetall is celebrating record profits. (...)
The objection is intended to ensure that the requests and safety concerns of the worried population are taken seriously (...)
The activities of the Rheinmetall Group are ethically unacceptable, jeopardize the security of the
people of Schwyz and violate the Swiss constitution.
War is not destiny. War is a decision. It is time to make a different one.
"The Frye Schwyzer community of interest"
2nd Federal popular initiative "Safeguarding Swiss neutrality (neutrality initiative)"
On April 11, 2024, the neutrality initiative was submitted with almost 130,000 valid signatures.
On November 27, 2024, the Federal Council recommended that Parliament reject the
neutrality initiative without a counter-proposal.
The initiative would severely restrict cooperation with military alliances such as NATO.
Switzerland should also no longer adopt EU sanctions, such as those against Russia.
The neutrality initiative is expected to be put to the vote on November 30, 2025 or 2026 and reads as follows:
"The Federal Constitution is amended as follows:
Art. 54a Swiss neutrality 1 Switzerland is neutral. Its neutrality shall be perpetual and armed.
2 Switzerland does not join any military or defense alliance.
Cooperation with such alliances is reserved in the event of a direct military attack on Switzerland or in
the event of actions in preparation for such an attack.
3 Switzerland does not participate in military conflicts between third countries and does not take any
non-military coercive measures against belligerent states.
Obligations to the United Nations Organization (UNO) and measures to prevent the circumvention of
non-military coercive measures by other states are reserved.
4 Switzerland uses its permanent neutrality to prevent and resolve conflicts and is available as a mediator."
3. for a Switzerland of good offices - "Movement for Neutrality" founded
From a press release to the media dated March 14, 2025:
"For a Switzerland of good offices - with this goal in mind, 46 committed people founded the supporting association of
the 'Movement for Neutrality', or 'bene' for short, on Sunday.
The movement sees neutrality as a prerequisite for peace and direct democracy.
Because those who 'move closer' to power blocs or military alliances give up their sovereignty piece by piece.
And it is precisely in the existential question of war and peace that every decision
must come about through direct democracy. (...)
The movement understands neutrality not as a passive stand-off and deal-making, but as the basis for a
commitment to international law, the UN ban on the use of force and mediation between conflicting parties.
It therefore wants to network internationally and also campaign for neutrality as a principle of peace in other countries.
The formation of an international neutrality council is also planned, which will comment on current conflicts and
problems from an independent international law perspective.
The movement's primary goal is to win the vote on the neutrality initiative.
Neutrality is the most effective protection against conflict and war, it belongs to the whole
nation and therefore also to the constitution.
Further information: bene-schweiz.info"
Spread the word and help inform the Swiss people so that the vote on the neutrality initiative is won.
This is the only way to preserve Swiss neutrality and prevent war guilt!