Parmelin criticizes how the Federal Council was taken by surprise by the war in Ukraine and indiscretions in the Federal Council

Ignazio Cassis chattered out of the box. On 1 February, the foreign minister spoke at an event organized by the Bernese newspaper Der Bund about Switzerland’s role in the war in Ukraine. And said “surprisingly openly” that official Switzerland had previously ignored numerous warnings from the US about a Russian attack.

Since December 2021, the Americans have been warning repeatedly behind the scenes. The deployment of Russian troops to the border with Ukraine was in full swing. They also gave an exact date, Cassis said. When there was no invasion, Switzerland and all European countries were convinced that nothing would happen.

“You are always much wiser in hindsight,” admitted Cassis, who was president a year ago. Ten days later, Vladimir Putin gave the order to attack. The US, which apparently had first-class sources in the Russian power apparatus, was right in its warnings, some of which had found their way to the public.

Impact “unexpected”

True, even in Ukraine, many did not want to face the threat of invasion. The Europeans, however, were not as naive as Ignazio Cassis described it in Bern. Until shortly before the outbreak of the war, there were intensive attempts at mediation. Chancellor Olaf Scholz and President Emmanuel Macron traveled to Moscow to see Putin.

However, the Federal Council seemed completely surprised. The control delegation (GPDel) of the National Council and the Council of States also came to this conclusion in their annual report 2022, published at the end of January. The extent of the developments in the months before the attack was determined by the responsible federal authorities.

Core group without army leader

The Security Committee (SiA) of the Federal Council, which included Secretary of Defense Viola Amherd, Secretary of State Ignazio Cassis and then-Secretary of Justice Karin Keller-Sutter, and the Security Core Group (KGSi), on whose assessments the decisions of the state government are taken based are particularly criticized.

It ex officio includes the Secretary of State for the State Department and the heads of the Federal Office of Police and Intelligence, but not Army Chief Thomas Süssli, who criticized the GPDel last March in an unusually sharply worded letter leaked to several media outlets.

Major offensive unlikely

In fact, a major Russian offensive to (partially) annex Ukraine was still considered the most unlikely of three scenarios by the KGSi on 15 February – nine days before the invasion – in a situation assessment for the SiA. The panel’s most likely assumption was limited military action to destabilize Ukraine.

In the days that followed, the situation worsened. On February 21, Russia recognized the “independence” of the separatist areas in Donbass. The next day, the safety committee ordered the core group to conduct a further investigation. Before she completed the assignment, the Russian invasion of Ukraine began.

Lead underused

In the said letter, the GPDel held the two bodies responsible for the Bundesrat being “so unprepared for this crisis”. It sounds diplomatic in the annual report. The KGSi recognized the danger early on, but the lead was “not used enough to strengthen the Federal Council’s ability to act.”

When the time came at 04:00 on February 24, the Europeans seemed better prepared again. The European Union approved the first of several sanctions packages mainly targeting the Russian central bank and the oligarchs. Ignazio Cassis called a special session of the Federal Council at 11 a.m., but little came out of it except outrage.

Embarrassing sanctions rumble

At a media conference, he criticized Russian aggression: “Today is a sad day.” However, the Bundesrat does not want to impose its own sanctions, but only to prevent the EU measures from being circumvented via Switzerland. The Federal President then disappeared, leaving the stage to the federal experts.

But they themselves did not know exactly what the Federal Council had decided. Her answers to the questions of the irritated Bundeshaus media seemed correspondingly helpless. In many ways, it was a memorable event, recreating the impression that Switzerland wanted to back down from its neutrality and ride out the crisis as much as possible.

Pressure test from Washington

The reaction of the parties was correspondingly violent. “Disappointing non-decision and non-appearance by the Federal Council,” tweeted Central President Gerhard Pfister, who went on to become Ukraine’s most vehement advocate in Bern. Only the SVP, as usual, refused to accept the EU sanctions against Russia.

Abroad, Switzerland’s maneuvering on that Thursday a year ago was well noted. On Saturday, Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman called Secretary of State Livia Leu and issued a brief statement. It was a clear power play by Washington.

Keller-Sutter moves forward

On Sunday, Karin Keller-Sutter took part in an extraordinary meeting of EU justice and home affairs ministers in Brussels as a representative of Schengen member Switzerland. Prior to the meeting, she personally supported tightening Swiss measures against Russia. Apparently she suspected she would be under pressure.

Finally, on Sunday evening, Federal President Cassis gently prepared the public on the daily news from West Swiss television that the Federal Council was likely to decide on stricter measures at another meeting on Monday. In the end, he had no choice but to adopt EU sanctions in full.

Still not up to par

There was another media conference at which the members of the safety committee (Amherd, Cassis, Keller-Sutter) appeared who had previously denied the danger. Even after that, the Bundesrat did not leave the impression that it specifically took up the challenge of Swiss neutrality.

It is about the refusal to allow other countries to transfer Swiss weapons and ammunition to Ukraine. But it is also about the confiscation of Russian assets to rebuild Ukraine. It would violate the constitution and international obligations, it said in a statement on Wednesday.

Neutrality is no excuse

From a strictly legal point of view, Switzerland’s position on these issues may be justified. Whether she can keep them is more than the question. In an interview on the sidelines of the WEF in Davos in January, Ignazio Cassis admitted that there was “international pressure” on the issue of Russian assets that all states should participate, “including us”.

“Neutrality is not indifference,” the Foreign Minister stressed during his appearance in Bern. It’s the familiar phrase he’s used over and over for the past twelve months. However, neutrality should not be an excuse for the Bundesrat to allow itself to be surprised again and again by international crises.