History

Has Switzerland Taken Off Its Mask? Notes on the Language of Neutrality, from 1939 to the Present

Has Switzerland Taken Off Its Mask? Notes on the Language of Neutrality, from 1939 to the Present In September 1939, on the eve of the war, the Federal Council issued its Declaration of Neutrality. The language speaks louder than many commentaries: no aggressor named, no belligerent mentioned, only an “international tension” without a subject. Neutrality is founded on the treaties of 1815, which recognize it as “corresponding to the true interests of the politics of all of Europe”—a role that Europe had assigned to Switzerland, standing above the parties. And the apparatus that supported it—the ordinance on the maintenance of neutrality of April 14, 1939, and a war economy already in place since December 1938—had been built months in advance and triggered at precisely the right moment. Not a reaction: a mechanism. I contrast these documents with the interview of the head of the Military Intelligence Service, Brigadier Stefano Trojani, who referred to the Russian government as a “regime.” Technically speaking, the term is defensible. But “regime” has a second, connotative meaning: it is reserved for those one wishes to identify as adversaries, never for partners or allies with similar traits. No Swiss official would say “the Saudi regime” or “the Egyptian regime.” The choice does not follow a coherent political science framework: it follows the prevailing political alignment of the moment. And in the broadcast report, the visual framing—the American aircraft carrier, “American military assets,” “the Western arms industry”—places Switzerland within a camp, not above the camps. Here, the correct standard of judgment is not state neutrality—which does not apply to RSI—but the requirement of relevance under Art. 4(2) of the Radio and Television Act (LRTV): opinions and comments must be recognizable as such. Much of what was broadcast is legitimate: the statement comes from an interviewee, and the Federal Supreme Court acknowledges that individual positions may be one-sided (DTF 139 II 519, which arose precisely from an examination of coverage of a referendum). But two points stand out: a characterization as a “regime” that appeared in the news broadcast without any indication that it was a value judgment; and, above all, the body of broadcasts (Art. 4, para. 4)—Süssli, Roos, Trojani, the coverage of the Baud case—which all follow the same tone, in the run-up to a vote on the issue. This is not an isolated incident: it is a trend that spans the change in leadership. The question, just a few days before the September 27 vote on the neutrality initiative, is not whether the right word was used. It is whether Switzerland still perceives its neutrality as an existential condition—or as a label to be handled casually, because we no longer feel the danger—or even—as it was in 1939.

Neutral, not indifferent

Risposta all’editoriale di Orazio Martinetti “Neutrali ma non ignavi” (La Regione, 27 agosto 2026), che criticava l’iniziativa Pro Svizzera come “neutralismo” ingenuo. L’articolo contesta le tesi punto per punto: la neutralità non è un’opinione morale sulla guerra ma uno statuto giuridico (Convenzioni dell’Aja 1907) fondato su doveri precisi — parità di trattamento, vigilanza armata, assistenza umanitaria imparziale — che la Svizzera ha smarrito dal 28 febbraio 2022 con l’adesione alle sanzioni UE contro la Russia. Testo apparso in forma ridotta il 2 settembre 2026 su LaRegione.

Swiss Neutrality in a Bind: Protector Powers, Atlantic Alignment, and the Paradox of Self-Created Security

** **Neutrality Trapped: The Security Switzerland Built for Itself** Historical-political synthesis of the essay "Swiss Neutrality Trapped: Protecting Powers, Atlantic Alignment and the Paradox of Self-Made Security" (Niccolò Salvioni, 8 February 2026) On 27 January 2026, Federal Councillor Martin Pfister asked Swiss citizens for a permanent 0.8-point increase in VAT — 31 billion francs over ten years — because the Confederation "would no longer be able to defend itself alone." Read against the grain, the announcement reveals a historical paradox of the first order: much of the threat citizens are now being asked to pay for stems from political choices made by the Federal Council itself starting in 2022, when Bern decided to join the European Union's sanctions against Russia, effectively abandoning — though never formally declaring so — two centuries of armed neutrality. Moscow reacted by immediately placing Switzerland on its list of "hostile countries." The bill for that political shift, never put to a referendum, is now being presented to taxpayers as a consumption tax. **From Vienna 1815 to today: a neutrality constantly reinterpreted** Swiss neutrality was born as an institution of international law at the Congress of Vienna in May 1815 and was ratified by the Treaty of Paris of 20 November of that same year, when Russia, England, Prussia, Austria and France recognized the Confederation's "perpetual" neutrality, declaring that its inviolability was "in the interest of the whole of Europe." Since then, doctrine has distinguished five defining traits: voluntary, permanent, armed, internationally recognized, and active (oriented toward good offices and humanitarian aid). In practice, however, Swiss neutrality has never been a rigid bloc, but a principle constantly renegotiated with history: - **First World War (1914-1918):** integral neutrality, defended through mobilizations of up to 450,000 men, yet crossed by strong internal linguistic tensions between opposing sympathies for the Central Powers and the Entente. - **Second World War (1939-1945):** the peak of military credibility — the "Alpine Redoubt" strategy made invasion too costly for the Wehrmacht — but also the lowest point on moral and economic grounds, with Swiss arms manufacturers (Bührle chief among them) supplying the Reich and the National Bank purchasing German gold of uncertain origin, while Jewish refugees were turned back at the border. - **Cold War (1945-1989):** Federal Councillor Max Petitpierre's formula, "neutrality and solidarity" (1953), describes a Switzerland formally equidistant yet culturally and economically anchored to the West. - **From 1990 to today:** the Confederation accepts UN sanctions (Gulf War, 1991), joins NATO's Partnership for Peace (1996), and sends unarmed contingents to Kosovo (1999). But the turning point of 28 February 2022 — joining EU sanctions against Russia — is of a different nature: for the first time since 1815, Switzerland took sides in a conflict between great powers without a universal UN mandate, and did so by autonomous choice, not out of membership obligation as was the case for Ireland or Austria, which are bound by the EU's common foreign policy. **The silent collapse of the protecting powers** Less well known to the general public, but central to the essay, is the trajectory of the protecting-power institution: the neutral state that, on a belligerent's mandate, represents its interests before another state with which diplomatic relations have been severed — a function codified by the 1949 Geneva Conventions, of which Switzerland is the depositary. During the Second World War, Bern administered 219 such mandates, the absolute peak of its diplomatic influence. Today only eight remain. The best known — representing American interests in Iran since 1980, in the aftermath of the hostage crisis — is also the most emblematic of the current paradox: Switzerland represents Washington in Tehran while simultaneously applying sanctions against Iran under Western pressure, a structural conflict of interest that Tehran cannot help but perceive as taking sides rather than as equidistance. The same mechanism has reproduced itself, on a larger scale, with Switzerland's adoption of anti-Russian sanctions: a reciprocal protecting-power mandate between Bern and Moscow, on the model of the one activated after the 2008 Russo-Georgian conflict, is today politically unthinkable. Sweden and Finland, which during the Second World War administered 114 and several mandates of their own respectively, closed the circle by formally joining NATO in 2023-2024, acknowledging the abandonment of neutrality. Switzerland, by contrast, remains in a hybrid position: too aligned to be believed impartial, too formally neutral to enjoy the guarantees of collective defense. **An army that can't spend: the 19-billion-franc bill** The paradox of "self-made security" also has a distinctly managerial face. A parliamentary commission certified, at the end of 2024, that seven military and IT projects of the Department of Defense — worth a combined 19 billion francs — present "serious problems and major risks": cost overruns on the F-35A fighter jets (up to 1.8 billion francs), the Israeli ADS-15 drones running seven years behind schedule, the ground-to-air defense system suspended since 2016 with no replacement, the FIS Heer IT system that collapsed after nearly a billion francs invested, and mobile military telecommunications delayed by years. No executive has been removed, no political responsibility taken. The international comparison, the essay explains, shows that the only way to reconcile armed neutrality with industrial credibility is the Swedish model — Saab and the Gripen fighter — which, however, costs nearly five times what Switzerland currently spends as a share of GDP (0.72% versus the 3.5% Sweden is moving toward). Over 80% of Switzerland's recent military procurement now comes from a single country, the United States, or its close allies such as Israel: the exact opposite of the industrial autonomy that the June 2025 Armaments Policy Strategy itself claims to pursue. **Who pays the bill: the regressivity of VAT** The VAT increase proposed to finance rearmament — from 8.1% to 8.9%, aimed at bringing military spending back to 1% of GDP by 2032, against a current 0.72% and a 1960-2024 historical average of 1.43% — is, by its very nature, a fiscally regressive choice: it disproportionately hits those who spend nearly all of their income on consumption (low-income families, pensioners on fixed incomes) compared with those able to save or invest a substantial share of their earnings. According to the estimates cited in the essay, a family with an annual income of 30,000 francs would face an added burden equal to 0.72% of its income, against 0.60% for a family with median income. The Federal Council could have chosen progressive instruments instead — a higher marginal rate on federal direct tax above 250,000 francs, or an extraordinary levy on the profits of multinationals benefiting from the November 2025 deal with the Trump administration (200 billion dollars in investment committed to the United States) — but did not: none of these alternatives has ever been publicly discussed. **Horizon Europe and Bilaterals III: neutrality mortgaged** An entire chapter of the essay is devoted to a little-discussed contradiction: starting in July 2025, the European Commission opened the Horizon Europe research program (2028-2034, budget nearly doubled to €175 billion) — for the first time in over forty years — to dual-use projects, meaning those with both civilian and military applications: drones, artificial intelligence for weapons systems, quantum technologies, satellite surveillance. Through the Bilaterals III package and the EU Programmes Agreement (EUPA), in force since 1 January 2025, Switzerland participates as an "associated country," contributing hundreds of millions of francs a year with no safeguard clause, no opt-out right, and no independent audit over how the funded technologies are ultimately used. Article 4 of the EUPA requires the dynamic adoption of all future EU program rules: the only way out would be to denounce the entire agreement. On top of this comes the infrastructural integration foreseen by Bilaterals III in energy (ENTSO-E) and transport, which in the event of a conflict between the EU and a third state would force the Confederation into discriminatory choices toward one of the belligerents — an automatic violation of the equal-treatment principle enshrined in the 1907 Hague Conventions, and with it, effectively, the end of the very possibility of remaining neutral in the legal sense. **From equidistance to economic subordination** The picture is completed by the November 2025 trade deal with the Trump administration — 200 billion dollars in Swiss private investment committed to the United States by 2028 — and by a symptomatic episode of the current political climate: in January 2026 the municipality of Muralto revoked authorization for a screening of the documentary "Maidan: The Road to War," organized by the Ticino chapter of the Friends of the Constitution, a case of preventive censorship that the essay places within the same trajectory of rhetorical and political alignment with the Atlantic bloc. **Open questions for citizens** The essay closes with a constitutional reading: Article 185 of the Federal Constitution charges the Federal Council with "safeguarding neutrality," yet the decision to join sanctions against Russia was never ratified by Parliament on an ordinary legal basis, and Bilaterals III is headed only for an optional referendum, not the mandatory one required under Article 140 for treaties involving supranational integration. A signature drive is currently underway, the author notes, for an initiative that would enshrine in the Constitution a mandatory double-majority referendum requirement for this type of agreement. In its final chapter — an afterword devoted to twenty-first-century threat scenarios — the essay judges a conventional invasion of Swiss territory to be extremely unlikely, while rating the probability of hybrid threats — cyberattacks, disinformation, economic pressure — as high, threats against which F-35 jets and armored systems are largely useless. Its conclusion is that, among the four available paths — a full return to armed neutrality on the 1960-1990 model, explicit Atlantic integration through NATO membership, a "Irish-style" light neutrality, or a reinforced light neutrality that selectively retains elements of the classic model (mandatory military service, strategic reserves, cyber-defense) — the latter offers the best balance between cost, effectiveness against real threats, and compatibility with public values, provided, however, that Switzerland forgoes precisely those Bilaterals III commitments which, by integrating it into Europe's energy, digital and research structures, would in any case leave that same autonomy only partial. What remains, as the author's closing note, is a question no official document has yet put directly to citizens: what kind of Switzerland do we want for the twenty-first century — neutral and coherent, allied and declared, or still trapped in a hybrid that has so far accumulated the costs of every option without the benefits of any? Niccolò Salvioni, Locarno Neutrality Trapped: The Security Switzerland Built for Itself -political synthesis of the essay "Swiss Neutrality Trapped: Protecting Powers, Atlantic Alignment and the Paradox of Self-Made Security" (Niccolò Salvioni, 8 February 2026) On 27 January 2026, Federal Councillor Martin Pfister asked Swiss citizens for a permanent 0.8-point increase in VAT — 31 billion francs over ten years — because the Confederation "would no longer be able to defend itself alone." Read against the grain, the announcement reveals a historical paradox of the first order: much of the threat citizens are now being asked to pay for stems from political choices made by the Federal Council itself starting in 2022, when Bern decided to join the European Union's sanctions against Russia, effectively abandoning — though never formally declaring so — two centuries of armed neutrality. Moscow reacted by immediately placing Switzerland on its list of "hostile countries." The bill for that political shift, never put to a referendum, is now being presented to taxpayers as a consumption tax. From Vienna 1815 to today: a neutrality constantly reinterpreted Swiss neutrality was born as an institution of international law at the Congress of Vienna in May 1815 and was ratified by the Treaty of Paris of 20 November of that same year, when Russia, England, Prussia, Austria and France recognized the Confederation's "perpetual" neutrality, declaring that its inviolability was "in the interest of the whole of Europe." Since then, doctrine has distinguished five defining traits: voluntary, permanent, armed, internationally recognized, and active (oriented toward good offices and humanitarian aid). In practice, however, Swiss neutrality has never been a rigid bloc, but a principle constantly renegotiated with history: - First World War (1914-1918): integral neutrality, defended through mobilizations of up to 450,000 men, yet crossed by strong internal linguistic tensions between opposing sympathies for the Central Powers and the Entente. - Second World War (1939-1945): the peak of military credibility — the "Alpine Redoubt" strategy made invasion too costly for the Wehrmacht — but also the lowest point on moral and economic grounds, with Swiss arms manufacturers (Bührle chief among them) supplying the Reich and the National Bank purchasing German gold of uncertain origin, while Jewish refugees were turned back at the border. - Cold War (1945-1989): Federal Councillor Max Petitpierre's formula, "neutrality and solidarity" (1953), describes a Switzerland formally equidistant yet culturally and economically anchored to the West. - From 1990 to today: the Confederation accepts UN sanctions (Gulf War, 1991), joins NATO's Partnership for Peace (1996), and sends unarmed contingents to Kosovo (1999). But the turning point of 28 February 2022 — joining EU sanctions against Russia — is of a different nature: for the first time since 1815, Switzerland took sides in a conflict between great powers without a universal UN mandate, and did so by autonomous choice, not out of membership obligation as was the case for Ireland or Austria, which are bound by the EU's common foreign policy. The silent collapse of the protecting powers Less well known to the general public, but central to the essay, is the trajectory of the protecting-power institution: the neutral state that, on a belligerent's mandate, represents its interests before another state with which diplomatic relations have been severed — a function codified by the 1949 Geneva Conventions, of which Switzerland is the depositary. During the Second World War, Bern administered 219 such mandates, the absolute peak of its diplomatic influence. Today only eight remain. The best known — representing American interests in Iran since 1980, in the aftermath of the hostage crisis — is also the most emblematic of the current paradox: Switzerland represents Washington in Tehran while simultaneously applying sanctions against Iran under Western pressure, a structural conflict of interest that Tehran cannot help but perceive as taking sides rather than as equidistance. The same mechanism has reproduced itself, on a larger scale, with Switzerland's adoption of anti-Russian sanctions: a reciprocal protecting-power mandate between Bern and Moscow, on the model of the one activated after the 2008 Russo-Georgian conflict, is today politically unthinkable. Sweden and Finland, which during the Second World War administered 114 and several mandates of their own respectively, closed the circle by formally joining NATO in 2023-2024, acknowledging the abandonment of neutrality. Switzerland, by contrast, remains in a hybrid position: too aligned to be believed impartial, too formally neutral to enjoy the guarantees of collective defense. An army that can't spend: the 19-billion-franc bill The paradox of "self-made security" also has a distinctly managerial face. A parliamentary commission certified, at the end of 2024, that seven military and IT projects of the Department of Defense — worth a combined 19 billion francs — present "serious problems and major risks": cost overruns on the F-35A fighter jets (up to 1.8 billion francs), the Israeli ADS-15 drones running seven years behind schedule, the ground-to-air defense system suspended since 2016 with no replacement, the FIS Heer IT system that collapsed after nearly a billion francs invested, and mobile military telecommunications delayed by years. No executive has been removed, no political responsibility taken. The international comparison, the essay explains, shows that the only way to reconcile armed neutrality with industrial credibility is the Swedish model — Saab and the Gripen fighter — which, however, costs nearly five times what Switzerland currently spends as a share of GDP (0.72% versus the 3.5% Sweden is moving toward). Over 80% of Switzerland's recent military procurement now comes from a single country, the United States, or its close allies such as Israel: the exact opposite of the industrial autonomy that the June 2025 Armaments Policy Strategy itself claims to pursue. Who pays the bill: the regressivity of VAT The VAT increase proposed to finance rearmament — from 8.1% to 8.9%, aimed at bringing military spending back to 1% of GDP by 2032, against a current 0.72% and a 1960-2024 historical average of 1.43% — is, by its very nature, a fiscally regressive choice: it disproportionately hits those who spend nearly all of their income on consumption (low-income families, pensioners on fixed incomes) compared with those able to save or invest a substantial share of their earnings. According to the estimates cited in the essay, a family with an annual income of 30,000 francs would face an added burden equal to 0.72% of its income, against 0.60% for a family with median income. The Federal Council could have chosen progressive instruments instead — a higher marginal rate on federal direct tax above 250,000 francs, or an extraordinary levy on the profits of multinationals benefiting from the November 2025 deal with the Trump administration (200 billion dollars in investment committed to the United States) — but did not: none of these alternatives has ever been publicly discussed. Horizon Europe and Bilaterals III: neutrality mortgaged An entire chapter of the essay is devoted to a little-discussed contradiction: starting in July 2025, the European Commission opened the Horizon Europe research program (2028-2034, budget nearly doubled to €175 billion) — for the first time in over forty years — to dual-use projects, meaning those with both civilian and military applications: drones, artificial intelligence for weapons systems, quantum technologies, satellite surveillance. Through the Bilaterals III package and the EU Programmes Agreement (EUPA), in force since 1 January 2025, Switzerland participates as an "associated country," contributing hundreds of millions of francs a year with no safeguard clause, no opt-out right, and no independent audit over how the funded technologies are ultimately used. Article 4 of the EUPA requires the dynamic adoption of all future EU program rules: the only way out would be to denounce the entire agreement. On top of this comes the infrastructural integration foreseen by Bilaterals III in energy (ENTSO-E) and transport, which in the event of a conflict between the EU and a third state would force the Confederation into discriminatory choices toward one of the belligerents — an automatic violation of the equal-treatment principle enshrined in the 1907 Hague Conventions, and with it, effectively, the end of the very possibility of remaining neutral in the legal sense. From equidistance to economic subordination The picture is completed by the November 2025 trade deal with the Trump administration — 200 billion dollars in Swiss private investment committed to the United States by 2028 — and by a symptomatic episode of the current political climate: in January 2026 the municipality of Muralto revoked authorization for a screening of the documentary "Maidan: The Road to War," organized by the Ticino chapter of the Friends of the Constitution, a case of preventive censorship that the essay places within the same trajectory of rhetorical and political alignment with the Atlantic bloc. Open questions for citizens The essay closes with a constitutional reading: Article 185 of the Federal Constitution charges the Federal Council with "safeguarding neutrality," yet the decision to join sanctions against Russia was never ratified by Parliament on an ordinary legal basis, and Bilaterals III is headed only for an optional referendum, not the mandatory one required under Article 140 for treaties involving supranational integration. A signature drive is currently underway, the author notes, for an initiative that would enshrine in the Constitution a mandatory double-majority referendum requirement for this type of agreement. In its final chapter — an afterword devoted to twenty-first-century threat scenarios — the essay judges a conventional invasion of Swiss territory to be extremely unlikely, while rating the probability of hybrid threats — cyberattacks, disinformation, economic pressure — as high, threats against which F-35 jets and armored systems are largely useless. Its conclusion is that, among the four available paths — a full return to armed neutrality on the 1960-1990 model, explicit Atlantic integration through NATO membership, a "Irish-style" light neutrality, or a reinforced light neutrality that selectively retains elements of the classic model (mandatory military service, strategic reserves, cyber-defense) — the latter offers the best balance between cost, effectiveness against real threats, and compatibility with public values, provided, however, that Switzerland forgoes precisely those Bilaterals III commitments which, by integrating it into Europe's energy, digital and research structures, would in any case leave that same autonomy only partial. What remains, as the author's closing note, is a question no official document has yet put directly to citizens: what kind of Switzerland do we want for the twenty-first century — neutral and coherent, allied and declared, or still trapped in a hybrid that has so far accumulated the costs of every option without the benefits of any? Niccolò Salvioni, Locarno

Swiss Sanctions as an Economic Weapon Against Russia: A Legal, Technological, and Historical Analysis

Sanzioni come arma economica: la lezione di Giuseppe Motta a un secolo di distanza Una sintesi storica e istituzionale in vista del voto sulla neutralità del 27 settembre 2026 Il 26 settembre 1921, alla tribuna dell'Assemblea della Società delle Nazioni a Ginevra, il consigliere federale ticinese Giuseppe Motta pronunciò uno dei discorsi più lucidi mai dedicati a quella che allora si chiamava «l'arme économique»: la sanzione economica come strumento di pressione tra Stati. Un secolo dopo, mentre la Svizzera applica il più esteso regime sanzionatorio della sua storia contro la Russia e si prepara a votare, il 27 settembre 2026, sull'iniziativa per una neutralità «permanente e armata», quel discorso torna a essere sorprendentemente attuale. È il filo conduttore di un recente studio giuridico e storico del 29 dicembre 2024, che si può ripercorrere per votare con più consapevolezza. Il regime sanzionatorio svizzero, oggi Dal 4 marzo 2022 la Svizzera applica contro la Russia un pacchetto di sanzioni recepito quasi integralmente da quello dell'Unione Europea, tramite l'Ordinanza sulla situazione in Ucraina (OUcr). La base giuridica non è una legge discussa in Parlamento, ma un'ordinanza del Consiglio federale fondata sull'articolo 184 capoverso 3 della Costituzione federale e sulla Legge sugli embarghi del 2002. Secondo i dati della Segreteria di Stato dell'economia (SECO) riportati nello studio, a fine 2024 risultavano sanzionate oltre 3'200 persone fisiche e giuridiche russe. Lo studio si sofferma su un caso concreto che tocca da vicino la professione notarile: il divieto di fornire «consulenza giuridica» a entità russe, introdotto con l'ottavo pacchetto di sanzioni UE, aveva sollevato il dubbio se includesse anche l'autenticazione notarile di un atto. La Corte di giustizia dell'Unione europea ha chiarito, con sentenza del 5 settembre 2024, che il notaio esercita una funzione pubblica imparziale — non una rappresentanza di parte — e che l'autenticazione resta lecita (CGUE, causa C-109/23). Il punto critico sollevato dall'autore è che questa interpretazione non risulta mai stata comunicata in modo sistematico al mercato notarile svizzero, un silenzio istituzionale che rischia di apparire come una presa di posizione implicita in una materia dove la Svizzera dovrebbe invece proiettare imparzialità. Il precedente di Ginevra: i sette principi di Motta È qui che lo studio si volge alla storia. Nel suo discorso del 1921, Motta enunciò una serie di principi che avrebbero dovuto governare il ricorso all'arma economica nell'ambito del Patto della Società delle Nazioni: gli Stati hanno un dovere morale, non un obbligo automatico, di applicare sanzioni contro chi viola il Patto, restando giudici sovrani della propria decisione; le sanzioni sono legittime solo se le condizioni dell'articolo 16 del Patto sono pienamente realizzate; violare il Patto costituisce un atto ostile verso tutti i membri, ma questo non obbliga gli altri Stati a dichiarare guerra; il blocco economico opera da Stato a Stato, senza penetrare all'interno dei singoli territori; i legami umanitari e diplomatici devono comunque sopravvivere al blocco. Il settimo principio, quello che Motta considerava decisivo, è l'universalità: un blocco economico privo della partecipazione delle grandi potenze — Motta citava esplicitamente gli Stati Uniti, mai entrati nella Società delle Nazioni — perde gran parte della sua efficacia, colpendo i civili senza realmente costringere i governi responsabili a cambiare rotta (discorso riprodotto in Testimonia Temporum, Istituto Editoriale Ticinese, 1931). Il primo vero banco di prova di questi principi arrivò pochi anni dopo, con l'aggressione italiana all'Etiopia nel 1935. La Società delle Nazioni deliberò sanzioni contro Roma — ribattezzate dalla propaganda fascista «inique sanzioni» — ma la Svizzera scelse un'adesione parziale e prudente: mantenne alcune forniture strategiche verso l'Italia, limitò l'impatto sulla propria economia e preservò i canali umanitari e diplomatici, bilanciando l'obbligo di solidarietà internazionale con la propria neutralità permanente (Wikipedia, Sanzioni economiche all'Italia fascista). È una traiettoria che si ripete: la Società delle Nazioni si sciolse nel 1946 e la Svizzera restò fuori dalle Nazioni Unite per oltre mezzo secolo, aderendovi solo nel 2002 dopo un referendum popolare (54,6% dei voti favorevoli) accompagnato da una Dichiarazione di Neutralità Permanente — sì alle sanzioni economiche decise dall'ONU, no a missioni militari coercitive. Perché conta per il voto del 27 settembre 2026 L'iniziativa propone di sancire nella Costituzione una neutralità «permanente e armata», vietando l'adesione ad alleanze militari (salvo aggressione diretta) e il ricorso a misure coercitive non militari verso Stati belligeranti — con un'eccezione esplicita per le sanzioni decise dall'ONU e le misure anti-elusione. È difficile non vedere, in questa formulazione, un'eco quasi letterale del settimo principio di Motta: vincolare la Svizzera alle sole sanzioni realmente universali, quelle con mandato delle Nazioni Unite, respingendo l'allineamento automatico a regimi sanzionatori regionali — come quello UE/G7 attuale, dal quale restano fuori Cina, India e gran parte del cosiddetto Sud globale. Lo studio non si limita a rilevare questa continuità storica: la usa per criticare la modalità con cui la Svizzera ha adottato le sanzioni attuali. A differenza della legge COVID-19, che fu formalizzata dal Parlamento e confermata da un referendum popolare nel giugno 2021, il regime sanzionatorio contro la Russia poggia interamente su ordinanze del Consiglio federale, senza un dibattito legislativo paragonabile. È un argomento istituzionale — sulla forma, non necessariamente sul merito — che ha una sua autonomia rispetto all'esito del voto di settembre. Una lettura equilibrata Va detto con altrettanta chiarezza che il parallelo storico non risolve da solo la domanda referendaria. Il Consiglio federale difende la prassi attuale proprio in nome della flessibilità: una regola costituzionale rigida, sostiene l'esecutivo, toglierebbe alla Svizzera margine di manovra diplomatico. L'iniziativa, inoltre, introduce un elemento assente nel modello di Motta — l'eccezione per l'autodifesa in caso di aggressione preparatoria, che apre a una lettura meno pacifista di quanto il termine «neutralità armata» lasci intendere. E ciò che ha funzionato — o non ha funzionato — nel sistema multipolare degli anni Venti non garantisce risultati identici nel contesto geopolitico odierno, assai più frammentato. Resta però un dato difficile da contestare: la tensione tra universalità e selettività delle sanzioni non è un'invenzione del dibattito politico contemporaneo, ma una questione che la diplomazia svizzera — attraverso la voce di un ministro ticinese — aveva già inquadrato con precisione un secolo fa. Conoscere quella storia non dice a nessuno come votare il 27 settembre, ma permette di misurare quanto la posta in gioco affondi le radici in una tradizione istituzionale ben più lunga della crisi ucraina.

The Geography and Hydrography of the Waterways Between Switzerland and the Adriatic Sea, from Lake Maggiore to Venice via Milan, Toward the End of the 19th Century: Geographer Élisée Reclus’s 1886 Observations on the Po River Basin (with a prologue and some prehistoric and historical hypotheses on navigation in the Alps)

Sintesi del testo sulla preistoria e Reclus Il documento si articola in tre blocchi: 1. Prologo storico-idrografico — presenta l’opera di Élisée Reclus (19 volumi, 1875-1894) e la sua descrizione del 1886 della rete Locarno-Lago Maggiore-Ticino-Milano-Po-Adriatico come asse di navigazione interna europea, poi progressivamente ostacolata da dighe idroelettriche e ponti (prima centrale idroelettrica italiana: Bertini, Adda, 1895). Include un approfondimento sulla piena del 1868 — il livello più alto mai registrato sul Verbano (6,96 m sopra lo zero di Sesto Calende, contro 4,62 m nel 2000) — con le lapidi commemorative di Locarno e Sesto Calende, il contesto geomorfologico (bacino ripido, rocce cristalline, massima piovosità svizzera) e il dato che la copertura forestale nel 1868 era solo la metà di quella attuale, complice il disboscamento per l’export verso la Lombardia. 2. Divagazione preistorica — ripercorre, per ipotesi, l’evoluzione del bacino dal Messiniano (5,3-7,2 milioni di anni fa) attraverso l’era glaciale (ghiaccio di 1000 m, 20.000 anni fa), il ritiro glaciale (16.000 anni fa) fino alle prime comunità di cacciatori-pescatori (Uomo di Similaun, cultura dei Terramare nell’Età del Bronzo) e all’avvio della navigazione moderna (il piroscafo Verbano, varato a Locarno-Muralto nel 1826). 3. Estratti tradotti di Reclus (1876, Nuova Geografia Universale, vol. 1) — la parte più densa: descrive la regressione delle rive del Verbano per apporto alluvionale (Gordola, Magadino, golfo di Locarno, lago di Mergozzo), la funzione regolatrice dei laghi alpini su piene e siccità, e soprattutto l’idrografia artificiale del Po — la Lombardia come “classico Paese dell’irrigazione, modello per tutta l’Europa”, con Naviglio Grande (XII secolo, dal Ticino), Muzza (XIII secolo, dall’Adda — definita da Reclus “il fiume artificiale più copioso del mondo” fino ai canali indiani) e Martesana (completata da Leonardo da Vinci). Chiude con un excursus sulle città della pianura padana (Milano, Pavia, Mantova, Verona, Venezia) e una conclusione dell’autore: la diga della Miorina (1943) ha ridotto le grandi oscillazioni di livello descritte da Reclus.