For years, Switzerland, the Swiss Government that is, has been moving gradually towards NATO and the European Union (EU). As is now in the open, NATO and the EU are intent walking hand-in-hand towards the next war against Russia. There is hardly a political body more warmongering than these two “unions”; their aggressive posture may be even exceeding the United States.

At the same time, you may call them non-unions because their members are not united among themselves. Of the 27 EU members, 23 also belong to the NATO Club. Many of them do not see eye-to-eye for a common Defense Strategy, let alone the European funding of NATO, while the US, under President Trump, is effectively withdrawing from NATO.

Switzerland – a country that has in the past made her reputation with her legendary neutrality, being a country of “good services”, diplomacy for mediation, conflict prevention, conflict resolution – is about to abandon not only her neutrality, but also her democracy, as this steady move is against the overwhelming will of the Swiss people.

This is done under the propaganda pretext of the Russian threat, following the western motto: “The Russians are coming, The Russians are coming…”, the inevitable threat of a Russian invasion. This is of course nonsense. There are no indications whatsoever that Russia has any intention of invading Europe.

If the five western worldwide media giants all use the same narrative – in every country – people are progressively indoctrinated with a lie and will eventually believe that War is Peace and Peace is War, a George Orwell prediction in his dystopian predictive writing “1984.”

The Swiss Government remained silent on the International Day of Neutrality on 12 December 2025; no celebration of Neutrality whatsoever. To the contrary, coinciding with this very day, the Swiss Government, as what looks for many, an irreversible shift towards NATO Integration, released her “Security Policy Strategy 2026.”

It is based on a highly propagandized but fictitious Russian threat as outlined below – a betrayal of the Swiss people, and of all those countries and people who hoped Switzerland would still recognize that neutrality is a precursor for peace – that neutrality is a condition for peace.

See below.

—Peter Koenig, December 20, 2025

***

by

On December 12, coinciding with the International Day of Neutrality, the Swiss Federal Council launched the consultation process for its “Security Policy Strategy 2026,” a 60-page draft document outlining a comprehensive overhaul of Switzerland’s defense posture in response to a “drastically deteriorated” security environment, primarily citing Russia’s war in Ukraine as a turning point.

The strategy adopts an “umfassende Sicherheit” (comprehensive security) approach, integrating civilian and military tools across federal and cantonal levels. It outlines three main directions: strengthening resilience, improving protection and deterrence, and enhancing defense capabilities. Key measures include over 40 actions to counter hybrid threats like cyberattacks, disinformation, sabotage, and extremism; bolstering critical infrastructure; and preparing for cooperative defense scenarios. A core controversy revolves around neutrality. The document portrays it not as the “core essence” of Swiss identity but as a flexible “security and foreign policy instrument” that has “always been adapted to current challenges” (p. 9). It argues that international cooperation – including joint exercises, coordinated procurement, information sharing, and even participation in NATO’s Article 5 simulations – remains compatible with neutrality, as Switzerland would act as a “partner,” not a simulated ally. Critics decry this as semantic gymnastics, claiming it effectively positions Switzerland as a de facto participant in alliances, potentially drawing it into conflicts.

NATO’s Article 5 is the core principle of collective defense, stating that an armed attack against one member is considered an attack against all, obligating each member to assist the attacked ally, including potentially using armed force, to restore security in the North Atlantic area. The strategy assumes Russia poses the primary threat to Europe, preparing its economy and forces for confrontation while rejecting diplomatic resolutions. It notes unsuccessful efforts to de-escalate the Ukraine conflict (mentioned briefly in a footnote on p. 47), without assigning blame or acknowledging Western escalation. A direct armed attack on Switzerland is deemed unlikely, yet all measures orient toward deterring such a scenario, including acquiring offensive weapons effective beyond borders and engaging in frameworks like NATO’s Framework Nations Concept, PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation), or the European Defense Agency.

On hybrid warfare, the draft loosens definitions of an “armed attack.” Previously (2016), it required a sustained, nationwide threat; now, emphasis shifts to damage extent, acknowledging blurred lines between peace and conflict due to digital interconnectedness. This vagueness, critics argue, grants the Federal Council broad discretion to declare neutrality inapplicable, effectively seizing war-and-peace decisions without clear parliamentary oversight beyond troop deployment thresholds (4,000 soldiers by Council; more requires Assembly). The timing and rollout fueled accusations of deliberate downplaying: Presented on a Friday afternoon, media coverage focused on F-35 jet procurement reductions rather than the strategy’s long-term implications. With immediate implementation ordered despite consultation running until March 31, 2026, opponents fear irreversible facts on the ground before parliamentary debate or a potential 2026 vote on a popular “neutrality initiative” aiming to constitutionally enshrine perpetual armed neutrality. Voices from neutrality advocates lament media silence and power imbalances: The Defense Department’s 106 communication staff dwarf critical journalism. They warn of creeping militarization, threats to free speech via disinformation countermeasures, and precedents like EU sanctions on former Swiss intelligence officer Jacques Baud for Ukraine analysis. Historical revisionism is alleged, contrasting Cold War non-cooperation despite graver cross-border nuclear risks. Proponents, including Defense Minister Martin Pfister, frame the strategy as pragmatic adaptation: Surrounded by NATO/EU states, Switzerland must contribute to European stability while benefiting from it. Neutrality allows cooperative policies, and isolation risks making Switzerland a “security gap.” As consultation proceeds, the document risks deepening domestic divides. For traditionalists, it signals neutrality’s “death notice”; for modernizers, essential evolution in a volatile world. With no broad public outcry yet, the strategy could reshape Switzerland’s role profoundly – from impartial mediator to aligned European security player.

In Summary: Critics Slam Switzerland’s New Security Strategy as “End of Neutrality”

Bern, Dec 16, 2025 – A critical opinion piece warns that Switzerland’s draft “Security Policy Strategy 2026,” launched for consultation on Dec 12, signals the irreversible erosion of Swiss neutrality. The 60-page document, critics argue, pushes deep integration with NATO (incl. Article 5 exercises) and EU defense projects, redefines neutrality as a flexible “instrument,” and downplays diplomacy amid perceived Russian threats. While viewing a direct attack on Switzerland as unlikely, the strategy prioritizes military cooperation and offensive capabilities. Immediate implementation begins despite ongoing consultation until Mar 2026, potentially preempting a neutrality initiative vote. The author decries media silence and calls for public resistance to preserve Switzerland’s independent peace role.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst, regular author for Global Research, and a former Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).

Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.