A Defence Minister Admits He Is Defenceless

There is a certain candour, perhaps uniquely Swiss, in a defence minister admitting he is, in fact, defenceless. From the balcony of his office in Bern, Martin Pfister concedes that against a simple drone attack, neither he nor the seat of government would be protected. The man tasked with national security acknowledges a complete lack of means. It is a startling admission that serves as a fitting metaphor for the country's current security posture.

Mr. Pfister, a former militia colonel, is attempting to shake his compatriots from their comfortable slumber. He argues that the army is ill-equipped to handle the most likely modern threats and that, at the current pace, it will not be fully prepared by 2028—a year some European intelligence agencies have flagged as a potential flashpoint for further Russian aggression. The diagnosis is clear: the country’s defensive capabilities have atrophied.

His proposed remedy, however, seems to have triggered a national allergy to fiscal commitment. A temporary value-added tax increase of 0.8 percentage points is all the Federal Council is asking for. The reaction has been predictably, and almost uniformly, negative. From the free-market FDP to the Greens and Social Democrats, politicians have lined up to denounce the plan as naive, unsocial, or simply unworkable. Even the nationalist SVP, typically a champion of the military, dismisses the proposal, arguing the government is failing its duty by putting forward a plan the people will surely reject. They are not wrong; a recent poll suggests two-thirds of the population oppose spending more on the army.

This domestic squabble looks particularly provincial when viewed from abroad. During a recent visit to Berlin, Pfister met with his German counterpart, Boris Pistorius, who presides over a defence fund of some 100 billion euros. While Germany, scarred by its history and proximity to the conflict, is rearming at a historic pace, Switzerland debates fractions of a percentage point in consumption tax. Pfister finds himself in the awkward position of explaining his country’s concept of neutrality to neighbours who have a vested interest in Switzerland maintaining its own security and not becoming a liability in the heart of Europe.

Some argue the money is better spent elsewhere, pointing to climate-related dangers like rockslides as the “real” security threat. This line of reasoning conveniently ignores the geopolitical realities that are redrawing the continent’s security map. The memory of war has faded in Switzerland, replaced by a deep-seated confidence that its prosperity provides a shield. The question is how long that illusion can last. A nation may be forced into its good fortune, as Pfister once was in his military career, but it cannot be forced to recognize reality.

Written by Thomas Nussbaumer thomas.nussbaumer@alpineweekly.com