![\"Neutral](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/608297035_highres.jpg\")
<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
The so-called neutrality initiative draws on pacifist motifs like the dove of peace. <\/p>\n
Keystone \/ Anthony Anex <\/p>\n
The neutrality initiative, if approved by Swiss voters in September, would give the country little or no room for manoeuvre on economic sanctions. Do sanctions really violate neutrality? A closer analysis shows that the answer is neither a simple yes nor a simple no.\n<\/p>\n
This content was published on <\/p>\n
July 31, 2026 – 09:00\n<\/p>\n
Supporters of the neutrality initiative like to draw on a stark image: starving the enemy into submission. They argue there is little difference between medieval sieges and economic sanctions like those Switzerland \u2013 in line with the European Union \u2013 imposed on Russia following its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.<\/p>\n
For centuries, sieges were a common weapon of war in Europe. When attackers besieged a city, they cut off its water supply and supply routes. The aim was to force the defenders to surrender or at least weaken them enough to make a later assault possible.<\/p>\n
Sanctions force the enemy to its knees<\/p>\n
In 1870, German forces laid siege to Paris. To survive, residents were forced to first eat their pets before they eventually turned to the elephants in the zoo. Around 40,000 civilians died during the siege. This paled in comparison with the Nazi siege of Leningrad between 1941 and 1944, during which more than one million people died.<\/p>\n
In Switzerland, the small town of Murten was besieged in 1476 until the forces of Charles the Bold were driven away by the Old Swiss Confederacy in the Battle of Murten.<\/p>\n
![\"Medieval](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/e-codices_kol-S0023-2_214_large.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Medieval methods: the siege of Murten depicted in a historical illustration. <\/p>\n
Luzerner Chronik des Diebold Schilling <\/p>\n
Under international law, deliberately starving civilians is considered a war crime. Economic sanctions, however, remain a common measure. Like sieges, they are intended to force an enemy to its knees, and they, too, have been used for centuries.<\/p>\n
The difference is that such sanctions are meant to be purely economic and targeted. They often focus on a country\u2019s defence industry or restrict the activities of individual actors.<\/p>\n
Unwanted side effects<\/p>\n
Yet sanctions often end up harming civilians. One of the starkest examples was the trade embargo imposed on Iraq under dictator Saddam Hussein in the 1990s. The embargo had unintended consequences: food became scarce and the country\u2019s healthcare system suffered severely.<\/p>\n
As a result of this experience, economic sanctions have become more targeted. Today, so-called \u201csmart sanctions\u201d are designed to be more predictable and maximise their impact while keeping collateral damage to a minimum.<\/p>\n
One of the key questions swirling around the neutrality initiative, which will come before voters in September, is whether sanctions are a weapon of war, as supporters of the neutrality initiative claim. The answer to this is complex \u2013 and highly political.<\/p>\n
![\"Calls](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/651496575_highres.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Calls for tougher sanctions: a rally in support of Ukraine outside Russia\u2019s permanent mission to the UN in Geneva, March 2025. <\/p>\n
Keystone <\/p>\n
One of the key questions swirling around the neutrality initiative, which will come before voters in September, is whether sanctions are a weapon of war, as supporters of the neutrality initiative claim. The answer to this is complex \u2013 and highly political.<\/p>\n
Economic warfare?<\/p>\n
On one side are those who say that sanctions are a weapon of war because economic measures can clearly be used to wage war, and sanctions are never imposed without a specific purpose. On the other side are those who say this is not the case: sanctions are a policy tool to prevent wars rather than wage them.<\/p>\n
For Switzerland, the purpose of sanctions is to promote peace. As a member of the United Nations, the economically powerful but small country aligns its sanctions policies with decisions taken by the UN Security Council.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cSwitzerland implements sanctions aimed at ensuring compliance with international law, in particular respect for human rights,\u201d writes the governmentExternal link<\/a>. \u201cIn doing so, it promotes peace and security.\u201d<\/p>\n Sanctions against Russia a special case<\/p>\n At the moment, Switzerland maintains sanctions against 24 countriesExternal link<\/a> \u2013 from Belarus and Myanmar to the Central African Republic \u2013 as well as against several entities, including Hamas, Islamic State and the Taliban.<\/p>\n The sanctions against Russia are different. Switzerland did not follow any UN decision here, since Russia could have used its veto in the Security Council to block any economic sanctions. Instead, Switzerland adopted the EU\u2019s sanctions against Russia in 2022.<\/p>\n That decision is one of the main drivers behind the neutrality initiative. Its supporters argue that by joining the EU\u2019s sanctions, Switzerland abandoned its neutrality. Christoph Blocher, the former leader of the right-wing Swiss People\u2019s Party and a driving force behind the initiative, has written that \u201cyou can also violate neutrality by starving a warring party. Such sanctions are a weapon of war. Switzerland has become a party to the conflict.\u201d<\/p>\n >> The background, stakes, and supporters\/opponents of the neutrality initaitive:<\/p>\n \n More<\/p>\n More <\/p>\n Swiss Politics\n <\/p>\n Should Swiss neutrality be stricter? Voters will decide <\/p>\n This content was published on <\/p>\n Jul 24, 2026 <\/p>\n On September 27, Swiss voters will decide on whether or not to enshrine a stricter definition of neutrality into the country\u2019s constitution. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Read more: Should Swiss neutrality be stricter? Voters will decide Is Switzerland still neutral?\u00a0<\/p>\n It\u2019s a fact that Russia no longer perceives Switzerland as neutral due to its sanctions. It placed Switzerland on its list of 49 so-called \u201cunfriendly states\u201d. Does this make Switzerland a party to the conflict? The initiative\u2019s supporters even point to remarks by former US president Joe Biden, who they say described Switzerland as no longer neutral.<\/p>\n If Biden ever made such a statement, it was at best implied. In his State of the UnionExternal link<\/a> address on March 1, 2022, he said: \u201cAlong with 27 members of the European Union including France, Germany, Italy, as well as countries like the United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and many others \u2013 even Switzerland \u2013 we are inflicting damage on Russia.\u201d<\/p>\n In October 2022, however, the German-language newspaper Aargauer ZeitungExternal link<\/a> put the following question to Swiss Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis: \u201cPresident Vladimir Putin and US President Joe Biden have both said that Switzerland is no longer neutral. Volodymyr Zelensky has also questioned its neutrality. Only the Swiss government says otherwise. Wouldn\u2019t it be more honest to admit that Switzerland cannot remain neutral in the face of such blatant violations of international law and human rights as those committed by Russia?\u201d<\/p>\n Cassis, who held the rotating Swiss presidency that year, replied: \u201cNo, we are and will remain neutral. We are neither sending troops nor supplying weapons. But we stand for freedom, democracy and our values. And that is entirely compatible with our neutrality.\u201d<\/p>\n \u2018Non-military coercive measures\u2019<\/p>\n This is where the subtle distinction lies. According to Cassis and the government, neutrality means that Switzerland does not participate in foreign wars with troops or weapons. Blocher, however, goes a step further, arguing that neutrality also rules out \u201cnon-military coercive measures\u201d. He mentions in particular \u201ceconomic sanctions, state boycotts, diplomatic restrictions [and] expropriation of property\u201d.<\/p>\n The differences become even clearer when the perspective widens. One side sees two equal warring parties that should be treated equally. The other side argues that Russia\u2019s war of aggression against Ukraine violates international law and must therefore be punished.<\/p>\n Hot political topic: Senators debate the neutrality initiative, March 2026. <\/p>\n Keystone \/ Peter Klaunzer <\/p>\n The opponents of the neutrality initiative accuse its supporters of being too friendly towards Russia. The initiative\u2019s backers argue that a long-standing Swiss principle is being sacrificed because of the war in Ukraine. For this reason, the initiativeExternal link<\/a> calls for Switzerland to only join sanctions imposed by the UN in the future.<\/p>\n Why sanctions matter<\/p>\n![\"net](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/708312950_highres.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\n <\/a><\/p>\n![\"Highly](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/703631300_highres-1.jpg\")
<\/p>\n