Putin’s accomplices

In the debate on Swiss neutrality, arguments from the Kremlin are being adopted by both the left and the right. The position of the NATO free-riders carries considerable risks. In September, a report raises concerns in Switzerland about the country’s security policy, specifically how the country should position itself in light of the heightened security situation in Europe. The report was commissioned by a study commission convened by the Department of Defense, which included representatives of the governing parties, business, academia, civil society, and the cantons. The author of these lines was a member of the commission and author of the report.

What is the cause of the unrest? Certainly not the methodological shortcomings pointed out by critics of the recommendations. The focus is more likely to be on the content, although this is rarely stated. Specifically, the Commission proposes a strengthening of defense capabilities and increased international cooperation, especially with NATO and the EU, as well as a policy of neutrality adapted to this orientation.

Conflict over arms exports

The latter focuses on lifting the ban on the re-export of war material, which is not well understood, especially by European partners, because it hinders their solidarity with Ukraine. Looking at the political situation, it is striking that the political poles on the left and right, i.e. the parties on the fringes of the political spectrum, are particularly uncomfortable with this approach. They do so with similar arguments, but for different reasons.

First of all, both camps find it difficult to recognize the threat as such. Is it really possible for Switzerland to be drawn into the current conflicts? Why would Russia be interested in Switzerland? And tanks on the Swiss border are still a very unlikely scenario. So why equip the army properly? Such doubts are certainly justified, but they ignore the most important aspects.

Distance does not mean protection

It is true that Switzerland is further from the Russian border than Poland, the Baltic States or the Balkans. But in hybrid warfare, which includes disinformation and influence operations, cyberattacks, espionage and sabotage, geography plays a subordinate role. As a hub of transportation axes and a gateway for energy supplies and other infrastructure, Switzerland could be an attractive target for hitting Europe as a whole. You don’t need tanks to do it. Vulnerable infrastructure, coupled with military weakness and political credulity, is all it takes.

Neither left-wing sympathy for Russia nor right-wing understanding of Putin would prevent the ruler in the Kremlin from pursuing his political goals – namely, the weakening, if not destruction, of Europe as a political entity. The second argument resulting from the trivialization of the threat is the apparently logical but factually incorrect conclusion that strengthening one’s own defense capabilities should be avoided at all costs. It could – so it sounds from the right – provoke Putin, as NATO has already done.

On the left, on the other hand, peace is endangered by more weapons and a stronger army – as if a warmonger could be deterred by the weakness of his opponent. Both camps thus adopt the Kremlin’s narrative without admitting it. They don’t have to, it’s common knowledge anyway. The same pattern is now emerging in several European countries.

Neutrality is also brought into play in the third place to give this hypocritical argument a moral integrity: elegant restraint is the motto. It could hardly be more noble. Neutrality is the welcome excuse to close one’s eyes to reality. No wonder NATO countries accuse their neutral neighbors of free-riding. After all, they benefit from protection without contributing to its costs.

Neutral states with moderate aid to Ukraine

As usual, neutral countries are responding with humanitarian, peacekeeping and mediation efforts. However, it is more than questionable whether this can compensate for NATO’s military protection. According to the „Ukraine Support Tracker“, in which the Kiel Institute for the World Economy systematically records the value of military, financial and humanitarian support to Ukraine, the neutral countries cannot boast.

Switzerland ranks 20th in terms of total cost (Austria ranks 19th), 35th in terms of GDP (Austria ranks 18th), and 16th if refugee aid is included (Austria ranks 20th). The United States, Denmark and, if refugee aid is included, the United States (although it does not participate in refugee aid) are at the top of the three lists. But again, the numbers tell only part of the story. However necessary and urgent humanitarian aid may be, it does not contribute to deterrence.

Comfortable restraint

All in all, such restraint is advantageous because it is convenient and inexpensive, especially in a democracy. If you don’t see a need to act, you don’t have to act. And if you don’t have to act, you don’t have to worry about funding. At a time when deferred bills – such as energy costs – are hitting the books, and the general expectation is that losses in living standards will be compensated for by government benefits, a policy that does not have to deal with security issues is definitely desirable – from the point of view of both the elected and the voters.

If such an attitude should one day turn out to be a lack of foresight, the awakening could be all the more unpleasant. Then, at the latest, the obstructionists on the left and the right would have to admit that they were wrong. Or they would have achieved their goal. When things go wrong, leadership is needed. And they are happy to take it – together, if necessary.

Op-ed by Katja Gentinetta, published at DER PRAGMATICUS