Neutrality
When Russia invaded Ukraine, Switzerland almost immediately adopted the EU sanctions against Russia in full. This, despite the fact that the Swiss Constitution from 1848 requires neutrality. The Swiss department of foreign affairs attempts to justify their stance here. Encyclopedia Britannica, however, has a more sensible definition here. It talks about an attitude of impartiality, and the recognition by the belligerents of this attitude. This attitude is surely not included in the Swiss policy, and, to nobody's surprise, Russia has officially declared Switzerland as a non-friendly state. What good is it to claim neutrality, if any of the belligerents concludes otherwise?
In the past Switzerland has shown how neutrality can be useful to help broker agreements between combatants. This requires the trust, from both sides, in the impartiality of the neutral country. The very point of neutrality is to earn this trust, and without it neutrality is a hollow shell devoid of meaning and purpose. It may be technically and legally valid, but in real life, it is useless. In the case of Switzerland, it is a fig leaf hoping to cover up unconstitutional actions of the Bundesrat (Federal Council).
This explanation of Swiss neutrality, published shortly after the invocation of sanctions, is an obvious attempt to justify actions that any normal person would consider a breach of neutrality. The fact that the Bundesrat suddenly felt a need to publish this makes it clear they recognize they are on thin ice, and need to convince people that they really are neutral. They resort to legalities and technicalities to prove their case, ignoring the all-important attitude. They brazenly claims that neutrality does not imply impartiality, yet without that, what combatant would trust the "neutral" state as a broker? Unsurprisingly, the Russians, one of the only two parties that matter in this case, are not convinced.
