Army Chief says Switzerland can't defend itself from a full-scale attack

[Pioneer]

Don't tell me that Switzerland of all country's is begining to believe this bullshit engineered narrative that Russia is on the march and will be at the English Channel in a week.....

Sadly, this has all the connotations of preparation for Switzerland to give up its proud and distinguished history of neutrality to join NATO to me, and Lieutenant General Thomas Suessli sounds as if he's going to become an advocate/lobbyist for it, when he steps down.....

https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/army-chief-says-switzerland-cant-defend-itself-full-scale-attack-2025-12-27/

Regards
Pioneer

 

[UpForce]

Curious framing. Suessli is weighing options and pointing out realities that may have not wholly sunk in with the Swiss gen pub or politicians. Decisions have to be made in one form or another and in a timely manner to boot. In any case additional investment is necessary. The headline does Suessli's intention no favors as he is clearly up on speed on the whole spectrum of Russia's well established attempted malign influence and imperial spheres of influence thinking in Europe.

Especially interesting is Suessli's notion about Switzerland missing "(defenses) against threats from a distance". Perhaps this is thinly veiled frustration about the shrinking F-35 buy but also a reflection on how a neutral country can meaningfully project such a capability. Proactive and externally imposed changes in EU's and Switzerland's strategic position are both ongoing and possible in quite a short timeframe; fortunately at the sharp end of capabilities the nation's reservists are quite capable of employing any additional resources they may be granted. No doubt he's looking closely at the recent choices of Sweden and Finland and how nations with a whole of society defense posture have taken stock of the currently evolving situation.

When people start violently breaking conventions they really shouldn't be surprised that all bets being off doesn't work solely in their own favor.

 

[EmoBirb]

Did anyone ever seriously believe that Switzerland could even hope to defend itself against a proper strategic threat? A sizeable reserve and old bunkers in the Alps only get one so far. When you don't have thousands of AFVs and hundreds of modern aircraft you're ultimately a small fish in a large pond. When you don't have that, the only saving graces are geography (like, for example, sitting at the very heart of Europe) or being resource poor and unimportant.

 

[MihoshiK]

Did anyone ever seriously believe that Switzerland could even hope to defend itself against a proper strategic threat? A sizeable reserve and old bunkers in the Alps only get one so far. When you don't have thousands of AFVs and hundreds of modern aircraft you're ultimately a small fish in a large pond. When you don't have that, the only saving graces are geography (like, for example, sitting at the very heart of Europe) or being resource poor and unimportant.

For the last few decades the only real defense the Swiss have had is that an attacker would have to go through NATO countries to get to them.

Considering their behavior in the whole Ukraine thing it's about time they started paying their dues. Nobody likes a freeloader.

 

[UpForce]

For the last few decades the only real defense the Swiss have had is that an attacker would have to go through NATO countries to get to them.

Considering their behavior in the whole Ukraine thing it's about time they started paying their dues. Nobody likes a freeloader.

Neutrality has been such a marginal phenomenon that outside the likes of Switzerland it's often conceived of quite superficially, if at all. Neutral actors do not try to behave as in an imaginary vacuum but rather it's a moral that guides practice in particular circumstances; this is actually one of the more interesting dynamics in formerly neutral countries' contribution to the evolution of NATO and EU defense policy.

In terms of investment to sovereign capabilities I wouldn't call Switzerland a freeloader even in terms of its somewhat meager percent of its GDP to its own defense. The Swiss do contribute to the stability of the country's immediate environment. Switzerland's absolute stance of not donating equipment it doesn't need toward the defense of Ukraine and thus Europe at large, Leopard 1A5s a particular case in point, is of course a considerable disappointment. Beyond its immediately tangible effects it reflects a more cynical and/or naïve understanding of neutrality than I hoped for. But the debacle also illuminates more general misunderstandings of theories and practices of neutrality.

In essence the Swiss have to decide, in an ongoing basis, what neutrality means within their sovereign powers and then how they maximize it. Some alliances and commitments may be or become more accurate expressions of this than a strict, doctrinaire and performative disengagement. Neutrality, as democracy, is more of a verb than a steady state.

 

[DeltaGreen]

A state’s donation of weapons to a belligerent country usually places it in the category of a non-belligerent, rather than a neutral state. However, I do believe that Switzerland itself is a non-belligerent rather than a neutral country.

Overall, Switzerland faithfully follows U.S. extraterritorial jurisdiction in almost all fields. Its de facto compliance in the financial and sanctions domains, even at the cost of amending its own domestic laws, demonstrates this tendency. Therefore, further alignment with the United States and NATO should not be regarded as some kind of major change.

 

[Anduriel]

Did anyone ever seriously believe that Switzerland could even hope to defend itself against a proper strategic threat? A sizeable reserve and old bunkers in the Alps only get one so far. When you don't have thousands of AFVs and hundreds of modern aircraft you're ultimately a small fish in a large pond. When you don't have that, the only saving graces are geography (like, for example, sitting at the very heart of Europe) or being resource poor and unimportant.

Just hundreds tanks and IFV and planes is not enough. You also need a powerful industry to repair and replace unrecoverable losses, and ofc people to man them, along with infantry.

 

[MihoshiK]

Neutrality has been such a marginal phenomenon that outside the likes of Switzerland it's often conceived of quite superficially, if at all. Neutral actors do not try to behave as in an imaginary vacuum but rather it's a moral that guides practice in particular circumstances; this is actually one of the more interesting dynamics in formerly neutral countries' contribution to the evolution of NATO and EU defense policy.

In terms of investment to sovereign capabilities I wouldn't call Switzerland a freeloader even in terms of its somewhat meager percent of its GDP to its own defense. The Swiss do contribute to the stability of the country's immediate environment. Switzerland's absolute stance of not donating equipment it doesn't need toward the defense of Ukraine and thus Europe at large, Leopard 1A5s a particular case in point, is of course a considerable disappointment. Beyond its immediately tangible effects it reflects a more cynical and/or naïve understanding of neutrality than I hoped for. But the debacle also illuminates more general misunderstandings of theories and practices of neutrality.

In essence the Swiss have to decide, in an ongoing basis, what neutrality means within their sovereign powers and then how they maximize it. Some alliances and commitments may be or become more accurate expressions of this than a strict, doctrinaire and performative disengagement. Neutrality, as democracy, is more of a verb than a steady state.

I wasn't even thinking of the Leopards... My memory is about 35 mm munitions.

For a people who can only crow about being neutral because they're surrounded by countries that are not, the Swiss have, frankly, been behaving like assholes whenever it's about Ukraine.

 

[whatismoo]

I wasn't even thinking of the Leopards... My memory is about 35 mm munitions.

For a people who can only crow about being neutral because they're surrounded by countries that are not, the Swiss have, frankly, been behaving like assholes whenever it's about Ukraine.

Much the same as Ireland, tbh. Austria too.

 

[DWG]

Did anyone ever seriously believe that Switzerland could even hope to defend itself against a proper strategic threat? A sizeable reserve and old bunkers in the Alps only get one so far.

Could Switzerland stop a Russian thrust? Maybe not, but it would be bloodily expensive for Russia to try and occupy a country where every adult male is a trained rifleman and marksmanship is the national sport, and where every bend of every mountain road is pre-prepped for an ambush. And any Russian thrust would itself be disrupted in advance by having to fight its way through Austria and/or Southern Germany.

And of course any Swiss conflict with Russia would necessarily be also a NATO vs Russia conflict, and by the time Russia gets to the Swiss border the distinction between Switzerland and a NATO member is likely to be notional at best.

With regard to Swiss neutrality, the utility of a theoretically neutral European state for back-channel diplomacy is perhaps being under-estimated in this discussion.

 

[Mr.T]

Propaganda push to subvert European neutral states that managed to stay neutral for decades of cold war or in swiss case hundreds of years is immense , arguments are thin mostly made BS.
Most bizarre is the whole Russia racing to channel or invading Switzerland for no reason , . Whole Russia scare its just BS EUcrats trying to sell to its members taxpayers as an excuse for robbing them blind for some pet project while also mismanaging domestic economies, with Ukraine apparently going tits up after 300billion $ being sunk in ,throwing good money after the bad one golden toilet at a time . while much of EU member states debts are exploding as are debt payments that are already higher than defense expenditure and set to get much higher ,swiss are a juicy target with low interest rates and balanced budgets , meaning there is ample room to waste money .opaque and as rule mismanaged defence spending is big business.

 

[Arjen]

Err... no. Finland and Sweden joined NATO when Russia invaded Ukraine four years ago. An obvious own goal by Russia.

 

[galgot]

Propaganda push to subvert European neutral states that managed to stay neutral for decades of cold war or in swiss case hundreds of years is immense , arguments are thin mostly made BS.
Most bizarre is the whole Russia racing to channel or invading Switzerland for no reason , . Whole Russia scare its just BS EUcrats trying to sell to its members taxpayers as an excuse for robbing them blind for some pet project while also mismanaging domestic economies, with Ukraine apparently going tits up after 300billion $ being sunk in ,throwing good money after the bad one golden toilet at a time . while much of EU member states debts are exploding as are debt payments that are already higher than defense expenditure and set to get much higher ,swiss are a juicy target with low interest rates and balanced budgets , meaning there is ample room to waste money .opaque and as rule mismanaged defence spending is big business.

Lol, Exactly what Putin said during his last TV press conf.
I suppose we should take example on this wise leader, seeing how so beautifully managed, both economically and.. all, his country is compare to ours in degenerating western Europe.

 

[DWG]

Propaganda push to subvert European neutral states that managed to stay neutral for decades of cold war or in swiss case hundreds of years is immense , arguments are thin mostly made BS.

I'm a little confused as to how the Swiss chief of the defence staff is supposed to be subverting his own country by noting it has some gaps in the defence budget?

 

[EmoBirb]

Could Switzerland stop a Russian thrust? Maybe not, but it would be bloodily expensive for Russia to try and occupy a country where every adult male is a trained rifleman and marksmanship is the national sport, and where every bend of every mountain road is pre-prepped for an ambush. And any Russian thrust would itself be disrupted in advance by having to fight its way through Austria and/or Southern Germany.

And of course any Swiss conflict with Russia would necessarily be also a NATO vs Russia conflict, and by the time Russia gets to the Swiss border the distinction between Switzerland and a NATO member is likely to be notional at best.

With regard to Swiss neutrality, the utility of a theoretically neutral European state for back-channel diplomacy is perhaps being under-estimated in this discussion.

There wouldn't be a Russian thrust (kinky), because there's the entirety of Eastern Europe between the two, most of which NATO states. But with strategic threat I was more so alluding to getting obliterated by nuclear weapons and being able to fight the war that follows after an exchange, as was common cold war doctrine.

As it stands though, Switzerland couldn't hold off any of it's neighbors, except Austria. If that's practical or not, doesn't matter. The point is that Switzerland has become incredibly weak and complacent and that this isn't a new development. This isn't WW2 where the myth of the neutral fortress country of Switzerland originated. The thing is that a militarily weak Switzerland isn't a worthless Switzerland. Their value lies elsewhere, as is the case with most of Europe. One would seriously question why a country that's surrounded by non-hostile countries should spend more than barely necessary on the military.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I'm a little confuItsed as to how the Swiss chief of the defence staff is supposed to be subverting his own country by noting it has some gaps in the defence budget?

Ukraine showed how changing situations can make formerly friendly nations into aggressors. The Swiss chief of the defence staff is saying they are underequipped and underspending on defence, and should consider investing more. There are other, nearer, potential future enemies than the Russians.

 

[DWG]

Ukraine showed how changing situations can make formerly friendly nations into aggressors. The Swiss chief of the defence staff is saying they are underequipped and underspending on defence, and should consider investing more. There are other, nearer, potential future enemies than the Russians.

I'm not sure anyone's a likelier threat than the Russians, but it's a valid point.

 

[paralay]

In about 162 days, Nazi Germany captured "heroic Europe." Poland in 36 days, Denmark and Norway in 32 days, the Netherlands and Luxembourg in 5 days, Belgium in 19 days, France in 43 days, Yugoslavia in 12 days, Greece in 15 days. For example, Pavlov's house in Stalingrad was on the defensive for 58 days.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Switzerland should perhaps pursue nuclear weapons. Again.

 

[yeetmahboi]

Switzerland should perhaps pursue nuclear weapons. Again.

My opinion is that if you're pro 2A then accordingly every nation state should possess nuclear weapons.

Of course there are other ways to make a potential invader capitulate.

 

[Arjen]

@paralay My country has been taking on the sea for two thousand years for keeping our feet dry. Beat that.

 

[perttime]

Err... no. Finland and Sweden joined NATO when Russia invaded Ukraine four years ago. An obvious own goal by Russia.

Perhaps the Swiss are coming to the same conclusion as Finland and Sweden.



Geographically, the situation is a little different. But only a little.

 

[Antonio]

@paralay My country has been taking on the sea for two thousand years for keeping our feet dry. Beat that.

Please try to avoid going personal

 

[paralay]

@paralay My country has been taking on the sea for two thousand years for keeping our feet dry. Beat that.

What I'm implying is that European countries with their entertainment armies are only good for keeping Europeans from killing each other. It is impossible for them to fight Germany or Russia in principle. It makes sense to spend your money on something useful.

 

[EmoBirb]

Acting like Sweden and Finland didn't belong to NATO for several years in all but name is incredibly silly. Ukraine was just a welcome opportunity for politicians to formalize the ordeal without having to argue for and against it in parliament. Not to mention border proximity and Russia historically pummeling both, so the precedent has been set in the past already to justify the notion of joining a predominantly anti-russian coalition.

Switzerland is a bit different in that regard.

 

[Arjen]

Recent history - when old history failed to teach it - has driven countries to join NATO and the EU. Because history shows small countries, and, on occasion, bigger ones, get crushed between superpowers. Militarily. Economically.
Georgia. Moldova. Ukraine.

 

[Mr.T]

Ukraine war is a massive own goal for Russia , i fully agree with that .

But when you follow the Media in Austria and Switzerland you can clearly see there is a massive push for NATO by a very small segment of the establishment that is not shared by the population at all. Both countries are quite prosperous without NATO membership as are Finland and Sweden. (although Sweden is well on its way to a third world sh*t*hole ,hand grenade volley ball is like a national sport )

Folks kinda forget without US , NATO Europe is quite a paper tiger ,and article 5 does not mean what folks think it means and what is purposefully falsely portrayed by the politicians and the media all the time .

Article 5 does not require any member to commit any troops at al ever. And as wars between NATO members example if Greece-Turkey if it ever went hot only bonus is both are NATO so no one would lift a finger.Same goes for Swiss or Austria that are surrounded by NATO member states.

Article 5 was carefully worded at NATO inception to allow US not to go to war in Europe if they chose not to !. At present Ukraine is enjoying equal to full Article 5 .

For Swiss ,NATO membership brings what!? Chance to partake in some illegal wars in the future after missing the whole GWOT?Spend their $$ in some 3rd world war one of the members cooked up or feels its important for them (US,UK ,France being typical culprits), Chance to finally lose some troops ''defending democracy'' in Country X. (lets remember how Afghanistan was sold in Europe ,for 20years ''Unsere Demokratie wird am Hindukusch verteidigt'' Germans were told that their democracy was defended in Afghanstan , end resoult they got 0.5mio of them to finance into perpetuity while they get a privilege to get raped and murdered by them on daily basis - all in all absolute win.

 

[galgot]

What I'm implying is that European countries with their entertainment armies are only good for keeping Europeans from killing each other. It is impossible for them to fight Germany or Russia in principle. It makes sense to spend your money on something useful.

Well, What I know is that the super sTrOnK Russian army started a "3 days special operation" four years ago, to take a country whose army had arguably less resources than west "European countries with their entertainment armies" (two of which are nuclear powers btw), and it's still not done. Bit disappointing, isn't it ?

A way countries would falls or resist to an invasion depends on so many factors, that I think no "expert" here can predict any outcome, even in the case of an hypothetic Switzerland Vs Russia scenario just because one look "sTRonKer" than the other on paper.
US got kicked out of Vietnam. Both USSR and NATO got kicked out of Afghanistan. It took years and a blood bath for Russia to tackle Chechnya. Just to name a few examples of how some said "powerful armies" fared sometime against "weak" opponents.

 

[TomcatViP]

It's a good point that I have tried to elevate in another thread (canceled/closed/who knows): One of the main lesson from the 2nd Ukraine conflict is that conscription is by itself a factor of deterrence.

 

[EmoBirb]

What I know is that the super sTrOnK Russian army started a "3 days special operation" four years ago

Good thing no Russian official ever said this, as it's something originating from Russian (mostly pre-2022) and especially western media

In the months leading up to Russia's February 24, 2022 invasion of Ukraine, virtually no prominent Kremlin pundits were actually predicting that Kyiv would fall "in three days."

On April 11, 2021, during a live broadcast of "Sunday Night with Vladimir Solovyev" on the Rossiya-1 television network, **Simonyan (RT Editor)** did, in fact, say that, "in a hot war, we would defeat Ukraine in two days."

In fact, the predictions were more readily heard in U.S. media, with [Fox News](https://www.newsweek.com/topic/fox-news) citing congressional sources saying then-Joint **Chiefs of Staff Chair General Mark Milley provided a potential 72-hour timeline** for Russia to take the Ukrainian capital

Even Russian propaganda was hesitant to claim Kyiv would fall in three days

In the months leading up to February 24, 2022, virtually no prominent Russian pundits were actually predicting that Kyiv would fall "in three days."

www.newsweek.com

US got kicked out of Vietnam. Both USSR and NATO got kicked out of Afghanistan. It took years and a blood bath for Russia to tackle Chechnya

Vietnam enjoyed the backing of the USSR at it's arguable peak, while the US military was suffering from structural hurdles, the terrain being entirely foreign and hostile to them and popular support back home having crumbled away and the subsequent meteoric drop in morale. Militarily speaking the US was raking in more tactical successes than losses on an individual basis.

The US heavily supported Afghanistan against the USSR, which was at it's weakest before the ultimate dissolution. Later on the Taliban enjoyed arms shipped to through Pakistan and in general utilized Pakistan as a safe haven away from direct US threats, same applies with other fundamentalist Islamists like Al-Qaeda which the US fought but never really defeated either. The first Chechen War was also in large part made possible and prolonged by the recent collapse of the USSR and overarching chaos, neglect and lacking morale.

Point of this is that these wars happened and also ended under very distinct circumstances. Furthermore it really needs to be said that Vietnamese, Afghans and Chechens are incredibly hardy people who are able to put up with major hardship, especially as the regions they live in are rather hostile and were at various points rather underdeveloped. The Swiss are none of that. So equating them, or anyone in central, western or northern Europe to the likes of Afghanistan, Vietnam, Chechnya or even Ukraine doesn't make a lot of sense. This isn't the early 20th century when Europe was at it's peak, and even most like the Netherlands, France or Belgium folded like wet tissue when faced with a powerful force at their doorstep.

 

[galgot]

Good thing no Russian official ever said this, as it's something originating from Russian (mostly pre-2022) and especially western media

Oh, so all that was meant to last that long and be that "effective" ? Thanks, that's reassuring.

Vietnam enjoyed the backing of the USSR at it's arguable peak, while the US military was suffering from structural hurdles, the terrain being entirely foreign and hostile to them and popular support back home having crumbled away and the subsequent meteoric drop in morale. Militarily speaking the US was raking in more tactical successes than losses on an individual basis.

The US heavily supported Afghanistan against the USSR, which was at it's weakest before the ultimate dissolution. Later on the Taliban enjoyed arms shipped to through Pakistan and in general utilized Pakistan as a safe haven away from direct US threats, same applies with other fundamentalist Islamists like Al-Qaeda which the US fought but never really defeated either. The first Chechen War was also in large part made possible and prolonged by the recent collapse of the USSR and overarching chaos, neglect and lacking morale.

Point of this is that these wars happened and also ended under very distinct circumstances. Furthermore it really needs to be said that Vietnamese, Afghans and Chechens are incredibly hardy people who are able to put up with major hardship, especially as the regions they live in are rather hostile and were at various points rather underdeveloped. The Swiss are none of that. So equating them, or anyone in central, western or northern Europe to the likes of Afghanistan, Vietnam, Chechnya or even Ukraine doesn't make a lot of sense. This isn't the early 20th century when Europe was at it's peak, and even most like the Netherlands, France or Belgium folded like wet tissue when faced with a powerful force at their doorstep.

Well yes, you are listing all knowns specifics factors that made these war hard to win for these big powers. An highly unlikely Switzerland Vs Russia would have some too - Ru army would have to reach there, that is already loosing some steam going through Eastern Europe hostile armies (for the time being), then, unless some Putin lackeys have already been elected everywhere and transformed the EU and what's left of NATO into bridge clubs, which is Russian strategy nowadays, rest of Europe would likely not like that and would join the fight, and then if you think Swiss are not hardy peoples, think about how Heidi would react if you try to get her gold and dirty her clean pastures...
That to say, like US Vs Vietnam, or USSR Vs Afghanistan , there are many possible factors too that would make it difficult for Russia to invade Switzerland, 21st century and Europe at it's peak (what's the connection anyway?) or not.

Anyway... never understood these "Russia Stronk" kinks and how it can appeal to some peoples living in Western Europe.

 

[ComradeVortex]

3 days special operation

Reminder that it wasn't even the Russians saying that, it was a US general stating that the Russian *could* capture Kiev in 72 hours.

And another case again of Schrödinger's Russia: Somehow an "incredibly failed state with a GDP smaller than Italy fighting with shovels made with washing machine chips" is a DIRECT THREAT!!!!! to the whole of the West.

 

[Mr.T]

But Ukraine did officially declare 72 hour ATO that is still ongoing 11years later.

Folks ridiculing Russia vs Ukraine ,tend to overlook Ukrainian army in 2022 , had more manpower and firepower (+ 8 years of war exprience) ,you can google it (tanks,artilery,mlrs,men etc) than German,French and British armies combined besides magazine depth of these armies was 2-7days worth of ammo , in 2025 most of these armies are even weaker due to offloading off arms to Ukraine- you would need to throw in Italy ,all the Baltics to equal Ukraine, extreme lack of drones or experience with them would probably require Poland to be added to over match Ukraine in 2025.

Denmark is quite extreme example gave all its artillery to Ukraine has none today, maybe they could beat their own record from ww2 where they hoisted white flag after 6h ,mainly due to Germans not picking up a telephone for a while to accept their surrender fast enough.

Besides Ukraine success does hinge on 300billion or so of our taxes ,arms and particularly US inteligence and most importantly safe 'rear' logistics where supply can be organised safely outside the national borders.

 

[galgot]

Oh, I don't dismiss the destructive power Russian army can have, I mean, Ukrainian civilians getting regularly cruise missiles or drones on their houses certainly know more than us.
But just seeing how Ru army went from sending thousands of IFV and tanks to sending crippled guys with donkeys to the front gives me doubt that it could reach Zurich any time soon.

But sure, Putin's Russia is indeed a military and destabilizing threat to Western Europe . And taking into account the current doubts (to say the least) about the security alliance with the USA, it is wise for West Europe to think seriously about rearming and have a truly independent def industry. For time being, Ukrainian are basically doing the job for us, that's where your precious taxes goes, and I'm quite glad it is .
That unless one dream of a Putin like system governing us, that one would think is better than what we have now, of course.

 

[whatismoo]

Oh, I don't dismiss the destructive power Russian army can have, I mean, Ukrainian civilians getting regularly cruise missiles or drones on their houses certainly know more than us.
But just seeing how Ru army went from sending thousands of IFV and tanks to sending crippled guys with donkeys to the front gives me doubt that it could reach Zurich any time soon.

But sure, Putin's Russia is indeed a military and destabilizing threat to Western Europe . And taking into account the current doubts (to say the least) about the security alliance with the USA, it is wise for West Europe to think seriously about rearming and have a truly independent def industry. For time being, Ukrainian are basically doing the job for us, that's where your precious taxes goes, and I'm quite glad it is .
That unless one dream of a Putin like system governing us, that one would think is better than what we have now, of course.

I think what people miss is that the Russians behave like murdering barbarians in occupied territories and so it is DEEPLY politically unacceptable to trade space for time imo.

 

[galgot]

I think what people miss is that the Russians behave like murdering barbarians in occupied territories and so it is DEEPLY politically unacceptable to trade space for time imo.

Indeed. I would have preferred the West to give full military support to Ukraine, with everything they have, with giving the latest fighters/missiles/best weapons they have, and getting more involved, from the beginning of that shit, to stop Russians once and for all, instead of half measures and buying time.
But that was the choice made, and it's still better than giving no help at all to Ukraine and letting it fall.