Campaign material on the neutrality initiative at an Swiss People’s Party meeting.
Keystone / Urs Flueeler
Swiss voters have backed the kind of neutrality implemented since Russia attacked Ukraine. According to a Swissinfo analysis, the bid to enshrine a stricter form of neutrality in the constitution also failed due to doubts about the motives of those behind the proposal.
1. The war in Ukraine was a turning point for perceptions
When it comes to Swiss neutrality, the war in Ukraine marks a clear rupture. Before 2022, the topic rarely sparked strong feelings. Neutrality seemed a rather static and musty concept; at most, it was of interest to a handful of bookish historians.
The return of conflict to European soil has changed the game. After a brief period of hesitation, the Swiss government – under international pressure – took over European Union (EU) sanctions against Russia. This decision took neutrality out of the archives and put it back at the heart of political debates: was Bern right to follow its European neighbours? Or should it have held back in the name of a stricter interpretation of its neutrality? Citizens have now given their answer: they accept a vision of neutrality as an evolving instrument, which can be adapted by government in the face of geopolitical upheavals.
Significantly, voters over the age of 65 were more critical than others of the initiative. This can be understood in light of this generation’s Cold War experience, when the threat of large-scale conflict loomed. At the time, Switzerland was strictly neutral in both military and legal terms, while remaining clearly within the Western sphere. In 2026, as war gets close to Europe again, they have chosen a similar path by refusing to endorse a stricter interpretation of neutrality.
2. For voters, flexible neutrality and diplomatic credibility can go hand in hand
In advocating the idea of total neutrality, supporters of the initiative said they wanted to preserve Switzerland’s credibility as a provider of good offices and as an independent venue for mediation. This position was championed not only by the populist right, but also by a movement – billed as apolitical – created specifically for the occasion: the Committee for International Geneva and its Neutrality. This group warned Switzerland’s international reputation for impartiality was at stake, and that “a little bit neutral is no longer neutral”.
However, a majority of voters aligned with a different view, put forward above all by diplomatic and humanitarian circles, that the main risk was actually the opposite: by applying an absolutist neutrality, the depositary state of the Geneva Conventions could appear to be handling victims and aggressors indiscriminately, or even de facto favouring the latter. Yet in the eyes of many, Switzerland’s diplomatic credibility stems in part from its neutrality, but above all from a steadfast commitment to peace, international law and human rights. For voters, it is not an undermining of Swiss neutrality to give the government scope to respond through political channels when these principles are flouted.
3. At a time of unpredictable geopolitical shifts, isolation is not the option
The result on Sunday also reflects a desire not to cut Switzerland off from the rest of Europe in an increasingly uncertain geopolitical context. The decision to take over the EU sanctions on Russia in 2022 sparked much debate – and ultimately the launch of the neutrality initiative. But a large swathe of the population seems now to have shown an understanding for the government’s strategic reasoning. A majority does not want to commit to systematically stand aloof from European sanctions – and run the risk of sparking incomprehension or isolation from its neighbours.
Similarly, a majority did not want to rule out all future cooperation with military alliances, for fear of being unable to count on help in case it was needed. Recently, the head of the Swiss Armed Forces warned that Switzerland is no longer immune to the threats looming over Europe, and that in the event of conflict, the country would depend on support from its neighbours to defend itself. In such a context, the initiative appeared to many citizens as an overly risky gamble on the future.
More
More
Explainer: Russia pushes Europe’s neutral states closer to NATO
4. The perception that the initiative was pro-Russian helped tip the scales
The initiative’s supporters sought to downplay its apparent pro-Russian side – in vain. Voters saw through the campaign’s “No War” slogan and peace imagery, recognising it as propaganda and not fully sincere. Indeed, it was all too clear that the initiative mainly targeted Swiss sanctions against Russia. Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova praised the initiative from the start, and this set the tone for what followed. Russia’s mouthpieces in Switzerland rallied behind the campaign’s dove of peace. It became clear that the circles behind the People’s Party initiative, which portrayed itself as Swiss through and through, also represented foreign interests.
At the same time, Russia was stoking fears in Europe with a series of aggressive acts: a foiled drone attack in Germany, sabotage in the Baltic Sea or targeting European politicians in Poland. In September, the Swiss Army head Benedikt Roos said clearly that “yes, Switzerland is a target for Moscow”. Swiss voters’ resounding “no” to the initiative is also a “no” to Russia’s attacks on the West.
More
More
Russia sanctions at heart of Swiss neutrality vote
5. Voters punished Christoph Blocher for seeming to serve his own interests
The result is a disaster for former government minister and People’s Party figurehead Christoph Blocher. At 85, he wanted to lead yet another referendum campaign. But he too came in for harsh criticism. Was he fighting for the vision of strict neutrality, as he claimed? Or for his own business interests, as the initiative’s opponents alleged?
In the end, doubts about the integrity of his intentions carried the day. While still building up the company that made his fortune, EMS, Blocher continued to do business with South Africa’s apartheid regime, subject to international sanctions at the time. Much later, EMS – now with his daughter at the helm – continued to work in Russia, even after the invasion of Ukraine. Blocher sought to play this down, but this just made his Russian leanings seem all the more arbitrary.
For EMS, however, China is more important than Russia. And should Beijing one day attack Taiwan, it too could come under sanctions – thus directly affecting EMS’s business dealings with China. Thanks to this company, Blocher became a billionaire; and thanks to his instincts for reading the public mood, an epochal Swiss political figure. It was years before he managed to come to terms with his 2007 ousting from the Swiss government – it was his first major defeat. Now, in his twilight years, comes the second.
6. Debates about neutrality are far from over
Despite Sunday’s result, neutrality is not about to be consigned to the history books just yet. With another vote on a reform to Swiss weapons export rules set for November 29, it will remain a hot topic. Current legislation prohibits arms exports to countries involved in a conflict. The proposed amendment would allow such exports to certain states considered close partners – though not including Ukraine. This time, centre-right parties are backing the reform in order to give a boost to the Swiss arms industry. The left, meanwhile, fears more Swiss weapons will end up in conflict zones as a result; at the same time, it criticises that the new rules still don’t allow for providing support to Ukraine.
While the neutrality law does not prevent Switzerland from exporting arms, the question will nevertheless be at the heart of debates in the coming months: can a country export more weapons and still be neutral? Where is the line between military neutrality and political solidarity?
More
What does the future hold for Swiss neutrality?
Edited by Samuel Jaberg. Adapted from French and German by Julia Bassam/dos
