analysis
Since the Ukraine war, security policy has been trying to get more money for the army with new proposals. It almost always fails because of financial policy. Why that is so.
December 15, 2025, 10:16December 15, 2025, 10:18
Othmar von Matt / ch media
The warnings that the Federal Council is hearing are clearer than ever since 1989. On Friday, the new security policy strategy spoke of a “fundamental change in the geopolitical situation”. Russia could intensify its hybrid actions from 2028 and attack other states in Europe. The security situation in Switzerland has “deteriorated significantly”.
Federal Councilor Martin Pfister is in trouble: He must provide the Federal Council with a list of all armaments projects by the end of January.Image: keystone
The state government has approved Defense Minister Martin Pfister’s explosive report. She doesn’t want to talk about more money for the army, although Pfister wants to increase the VAT by 0.5 percentage points. This has to do with an omission on Pfister’s part: he does not provide his colleagues with a list of arms purchases for the next few years – even though politicians have been demanding exactly that since Viola Amherd’s time.
The state government gave Pfister a punitive task: He should deliver the list by the end of January, with answers to three questions: Which systems does the army want to procure? What priority are they? How should they be financed?
The example illustrates two things: Firstly, security policy is often slowed down by financial policy. The debt brake remains more important than more money for the army. Secondly: Security policy bears a significant share of the blame for this being the case.
This can also be shown using an example from the Council of States. In the budget process of the December session, centrist politician Andrea Gmür requested that the army be given the 300 million tax dollars from Geneva that the federal government unexpectedly received from Geneva. Gmür argues that the army’s resources are “far from enough” in view of the threat situation, which has worsened dramatically.
Center Councilor Andrea Gmür.Image: keystone
It would be easy for the commoners to get this civic security issue passed. The Center, FDP and SVP have a comfortable majority in the Council of States with 34 out of 46 votes.
Only: Gmür’s request fails with an equally comfortable counterargument (13:30). What happened there? An evaluation of the vote leads to three findings.
First: The most important civil security politicians vote for Gmür’s concerns. But they are being outvoted by an unholy alliance of bourgeois financial politicians and left-wing critics of the army.
Second: The center neutralizes itself, even though the proposal comes from within its own ranks. Six council members voted with Gmür, six against her.
Third: At the same time as saying no to the army’s millions, the Council of States decided to “park” the majority of Geneva’s funds in unemployment insurance (ALV). This means that Parliament can later use these funds for other concerns. A financial trick.
“Give a penalty on the empty goal”: Green National Councilor Mathias Zopfi on the Council of States’ decision not to give the 300 million from Geneva to the army.Image: keystone
The Green Councilor of States Mathias Zopf, new president of the security policy commission, speaks of an “empty gate penalty” for the army supporters, which they would have awarded: “It is astonishing that many bourgeois politicians rejected the application. The procurement of approved military equipment could have been accelerated.” For financial politician Benedikt Würth (center), the decision is “incomprehensible in terms of security and financial policy”. Because: “The army has a planning surplus of 700 million francs.”
The question is: Why does bourgeois financial policy override bourgeois security policy to such an extent?
The powerlessness of security policy
In recent years there have been countless pushes by bourgeois security politicians for more money for the army. They often came from the middle: from Viola Amherd herself, from National Councilor Martin Candinas and Councilor of States Marianne Binder (funds), from Councilor of States Benedikt Würth (VAT), from Andrea Gmür (security bonds).
Former Federal Councilor Viola Amherd.Image: keystone
They always failed because of the phalanx of financial policy. Security policy doesn’t think strategically enough and doesn’t network well enough, especially across council borders. Gmür’s 300 million application is an example of this. Both security and financial politicians say it was submitted too late and without an alliance. And it exposes the failure of the center security policy. Gmür has announced her advance in the center faction. But Center National Councilor Reto Nause, President of the Swiss Security Alliance, says: “I didn’t know anything about that in advance.”
After thirty years of the peace dividend, security policy has to learn again how lobbying works. “We security politicians were not used to being at the center of decisions,” analyzes SP National Councilor Priska Seiler Graf. And what does Andrea Gmür say? “It was clear from the start that my application would have a difficult time. The concern remains.”
After 30 years of peace dividends, security policy (Federal Councilor Martin Pfister pictured) has to learn again how lobbying works.Image: keystone
The power of financial policy
“The financial politicians are well connected,” admits security politician Nause. “You can make majorities.” Financial policy is perhaps the most well-connected policy area today.
Center National Councilor Reto Nause.Image: keystone
Financial politicians from the Estates and National Council meet annually for a two-day financial policy seminar. In 2025 it took place in Basel with SP National Councilor Sarah Wyss. There are regular meetings of the heads of delegations across all political groups. In the National Council, the bourgeois trio around Alex Farinelli (FDP), Lars Guggisberg (SVP) and Pius Kaufmann (center) orchestrated the budget debate. The financial politicians also have a direct line to Finance Minister Karin Keller-Sutter.
They also control the interaction between the councils. This is evident in the Geneva millions. Alex Farinelli brings the idea of parking 290 million in the ALV to the National Council. Damian Müller (FDP) is requesting something similar in the Council of States. The procedure has been agreed upon.
The role of government
The myth of Karin Keller-Sutter’s power suffered during the presidential year. Nevertheless, it sets the pace in the debate about the 300 Geneva million. It is Parliament’s decision how to use the 300 million. But if Parliament wants to give the army more money, “this must correspond to the debt brake”.
Federal Councilor Karin Keller-Sutter.Image: KEYSTONE
Center National Councilor Nause sees the dilemma of security policy in “the fact that we have a four-party axis in the Federal Council that puts the debt brake above everything.” Added to this is Karin Keller-Sutter “as an erratic block”. Nause’s conclusion: “These are significant starting advantages for financial policy.” His party colleague Pius Kaufmann confirms this indirectly: “For me as a financial politician, what is crucial in security policy is what the entire Federal Council has passed.”
Security policy is having great difficulty breaking through the wall of financial policy. Whether Martin Pfister will succeed in the Federal Council at the end of January is considered one of the most exciting bets in Federal Bern. Reto Nause is already practicing precautionary cynicism: “At least we can hand our country over to Putin debt-free.”
In the December session, National Councilor Gerhard Andrey (Greens) and Councilor of States Werner Salzmann (SVP) demonstrated how it can be done. They succeed in the hussar’s feat of increasing the budget of the Federal Office for Cybersecurity in the Defense Department by 25 million. Against Karin Keller-Sutter’s wishes.
How did they do that? They networked everyone: the Security and Finance Commission and political groups. And played across the board between the National Council and the Council of States. Many can learn from them. Also Martin Pfister. (aargauerzeitung.ch)
You might also be interested in these articles: