analysis
The Federal Council pursues a dogmatic policy of neutrality towards Ukraine. Now the USA is waging war – and the federal government is maneuvering around the issue of war materials. In doing so, he undermines his credibility.
March 7, 2026, 6:11 p.mMarch 7, 2026, 6:37 p.m
Stefan Bühler / ch media
At the side of EU Foreign Affairs Representative Kaja Kallas: Federal Councilor Ignazio Cassis explains Switzerland’s neutrality policy in the case of the USA on March 5th in Zurich.Image: keystone
The United States has been embroiled in war since February 28th. Together with Israel, they are bombing the regime’s power centers in Iran. The mullahs are fighting back. The war has expanded into a regional conflict in the Middle East.
In addition to diplomatic challenges in the context of the protective power mandate for the USA, the Federal Council is faced with one question in particular – a tricky one, however: How does it feel about neutrality in the case of the USA? When will he officially ban all deliveries of war material to the USA? Will he close Swiss airspace to US military aircraft, as he did in the Iraq War in 2003?
And is he taking as strict a line towards the USA as he has towards Ukraine since it was attacked by Russia?
Depending on the size and intensity of the conflict
On Thursday evening, on the occasion of EU Foreign Affairs Representative Kaja Kallas’ visit to Zurich, Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis commented on the topic. “We are neutral, and our neutrality applies at all times,” said the FDP Federal Councilor. Due to neutrality, arms exports would be stopped “if the intensity and duration of a military conflict reach a certain level”. Now the war in Nahst has only lasted a few days. “If the conflict or war is large or, as we have seen in other parts of the world, intense, then of course we must stop the export of weapons.” Under what conditions and when the Federal Council would decide this in the case of the USA – Cassis did not say anything about this.
The Federal Council is apparently playing for time.
The renunciation of arms sales would in itself still be bearable. In 2024, the USA was the second best customer of Swiss gunsmiths behind Germany. But at 76.1 million francs, it is a negligible amount in economic terms.
The signal to the US government would be more sensitive: Switzerland is currently negotiating with Washington about a trade deal that would protect exports from Switzerland to the USA against Donald Trump’s customs capers. In addition, the US President is apparently acting according to the motto in the Iran war: “Whoever is not with me is against me.” There isn’t much room for neutrality. In this respect, the Federal Council’s maneuvering in the USA case is understandable.
But he doesn’t have much time left if he doesn’t want to get caught up in contradictions.
This is shown by a look at the previous neutrality policy in the case of Ukraine. The federal government is implementing its neutrality towards Kyiv almost dogmatically. Most recently on the sidelines of the WEF in Davos when the exhibition organizers in the Ukraine House wanted to show the shell of a shot down Shahed drone. Only: The wreck, which had been officially declared unusable by the Ukrainian authorities, was not allowed to be imported into Switzerland. Reason given by the responsible State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (Seco): “Shahed drones meet the definition of war material.” This applies as long as they are not completely destroyed.
It is the last and probably most absurd episode in the neutrality discussion surrounding Ukraine. Since the outbreak of war, the Federal Council has steadfastly refused to allow third countries to transfer armaments from Switzerland to Ukraine, despite strong foreign pressure. To the detriment of our own arms industry.
In order to give this a helping hand, Parliament relaxed the War Materials Act in December so that the transfer of Swiss defense products will be possible in the future under certain conditions. But Ukraine, of all places, was explicitly excluded from this – even though peace in Europe is defended there.
Economics Minister Guy Parmelin (SVP) and the bourgeois majority argued extensively in the council debates – with neutrality: in order to preserve it, the sale of armaments material to warring armies should remain prohibited in the future.
If this principle is now stretched in the case of the USA, the Federal Council will not be credible. And he weakens his argument with regard to a vote on the easing of the War Materials Act. The left is already collecting signatures for the referendum. (aargauerzeitung.ch)