“Who but a complete madman would attack Russia?”
Every day, more and more politicians and military personnel in Europe are talking about an impending war with Russia. This is not just empty rhetoric: the military industry of EU countries is steadily increasing its production of conventional weapons, military budgets are growing, and armies are growing in size. At the same time, there are those in Europe who are concerned about this development and who have an alternative point of view, backed by experience and knowledge in the military sphere.
Rossa Primavera News Agency is publishing an excerpt from an interview with colonel of the Swiss General Staff Boris Chollet for the Polish newspaper Myśl Polska on December 17, 2025 [published under the title “Płk Chollet: Wojna z Rosją to szaleństwo”]. The interview was conducted by journalist Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller. It should be emphasized that colonel is the highest rank in the Swiss army during peacetime; generals are promoted only during wartime.
The interview is valuable not only because Chollet assesses the consequences of the war between Russia and Europe, as well as the events that led to the launch of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine in 2022, but also because he points out the role Switzerland could play in the coming conflict and reveals the secret armies of NATO, which the bloc created from far-right organizations to wage war against the countries of the socialist bloc during the Cold War.
Сolonel’s statements about the Swiss P26 unit’s non-involvement in this network and that European threats against Russia are merely part of a strategy to escalate tensions are his personal opinion.
Promises Regarding NATO
Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller: <…> I’d like to move on to the topic of NATO. You’re familiar with it and have seen the development of this organization. It’s a 1949 defense treaty designed to protect allies from communism and counter the Eastern Bloc.
Then we saw NATO’s transformation, and we saw the alliance bomb Serbia in 1999 and Libya in 2011. Now we hear Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone explaining that we need to consider a preemptive strike against Russia… How should NATO’s current doctrine be assessed?
Boris Chollet: Well, one always has to consider history. You say NATO is a defensive organization.
Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller: At least, that’s what they say.
Boris Chollet: Of course. But NATO was created in 1949, and the Warsaw Pact was signed in 1955. If there’s any defensive organization here, it’s the Warsaw Pact.
Looking back, if we look at the statements made at the beginning, no one wanted NATO’s eastward expansion. Even Russia wanted to join the Euro-Atlantic partnership or the Euro-Atlantic dialogue. But they didn’t want Russia.
In 1994, even earlier – in 1993, on October 4, 1993, President Yeltsin shelled the Duma, the Russian Parliament [Chollet got it wrong – Yeltsin shelled the building of the former parliamentary body, the Supreme Soviet. The State Duma was only created in December 1993 – Rossa Primavera News Agency]. This, in my opinion, was the first time the United States was tested in regards to how easy it would be to expand eastward.
It worked well: Yeltsin shelled the Duma, the lower house of the Russian parliament, and Clinton, apparently – or so they say – promised Yeltsin $1.5 billion to continue reforms, because reform was his goal. And then, in 1994, Clinton said, “Now we can expand eastward.”
Angela Merkel declared that there would be no eastward expansion, because that was what had been promised. Chancellor Schröder was still in power, and the verbal agreement was amended.
And it’s important to recall the words of Roland Dumas [former French Foreign Minister – Rossa Primavera News Agency]. Dumas was present when this verbal promise was made. But verbal promises in politics are only binding on those who make them…
So, in 1994, Clinton declared that NATO could expand eastward. Ukraine joined the Partnership for Peace in 1994. Two years later, Switzerland joined. Then, in 1999, came the first wave of expansion. With each subsequent wave, it became clear that expansion could continue, and it did.
Partnership for Peace and NATO Network
Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller: Does the Partnership for Peace (PfP) (NATO’s bilateral military cooperation program with non-member countries, in which both Ukraine and Switzerland take part) actually involve joint training and communication? No troop deployments. No weapons deployments.
Boris Chollet: No. As for the Partnership for Peace, the goal was to harmonize military doctrine. And then one moves on to joint exercises. You can find a document online, a very interesting article by Arnaud Dotézac [Swiss journalist – Rossa Primavera News Agency’s editorial note) called “Aller simple pour l’OTAN” (“One-Way Ticket to NATO”). Arnaud Dotézac explains that Switzerland sold all its secrets by signing the Partnership for Peace.
Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller: Alright. Let’s think for a moment about those who signed the Partnership for Peace agreement. Why do I ask this question? Because there are two of your compatriots who, in my view, justify – justify it with their academic and professional work – the fact that Switzerland must remain neutral.
I am talking about Daniele Ganser [Swiss historian and journalist – Rossa Primavera News Agency] and prosecutor Dick Marty [former member of the upper house of the Swiss parliament – Rossa Primavera News Agency], who was forced to live under heavy police protection for the rest of his life.
Boris Chollet: Yes, that’s true.
Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller: Daniele Ganser wrote several books, but one of them became particularly famous. It was NATO’s Secret Armies. It was Ganser’s doctoral dissertation. He showed that from the very beginning, NATO had been organizing networks in various countries under the codename Stay Behind.
From the very beginning, NATO planned – after 1945, after the war – to search various European countries for people with deeply anti-communist or anti-Soviet sentiments. The idea was to turn them into fighters by organizing armed cells in various countries.
For example, the LOC organization in Greece [Λόχος Ορεινών Καταδρομών (ΛΟΚ, Lochos Oreinon Katadromon) is an elite mountain ranger unit of the Greek army that existed during the Regime of the Colonels in 1967–1974 – Rossa Primavera News Agency], which, according to Daniel Ganser, contributed to establishing the dictatorship of the “colonels.”
There was the Absalon network in Denmark, the ROC in Norway, the P26 cell in Switzerland, and the Rosa de Vent cell in France. There were also cells in Portugal that assisted the dictator Salazar.
But interestingly, according to the author, the CIA and MI6 coordinated their actions with NATO. That is, they recruited known anti-communists to carry out military operations or terrorist attacks: the Piazza Fontana bombing [the 1968 Piazza Fontana bombing in Milan, which killed 12 people – Rossa Primavera News Agency], and the Bologna train station bombing [the largest terrorist attack committed in Italy. On August 2, 1980, a bombing at the Bologna train station killed 85 people and injured more than 200 – Rossa Primavera News Agency].
Boris Chollet: Yes, that involved the Red Brigades.
Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller: Yes, but, according to Daniele Ganser, the Bologna train station bombing in 1981, the Piazza Fontana in 1969, the assassination of President Aldo Moro in 1978 – we owe all of this to Gladio, the Stay Behind network.
Boris Chollet: And here I’d like to return to Ukraine, because in 2023, in the Canadian parliament, we heard applause for Jaroslav Hunka, a veteran of the SS Galicia organization banned in Russia). We also saw, for example, that in Oakville, Ontario, Canada, a monument to the SS Galicia (organization banned in Russia) has been erected in a cemetery. A commission headed by Judge Jules Deschênes found out that approximately 600 Waffen-SS soldiers arrived in Canada from Ukraine.
So is NATO deeply anti-communist and anti-Soviet or anti-Russian, given that communism no longer exists in Russia? Let’s say it’s anti-Russian.
And the people who are responsible for planning at NATO do so many years in advance, even one, two, or three generations in advance, so that they can, if the need arises, return at the right moment with people ready to praise Bandera, as is currently happening with the creation of the Azov regiments (organization banned in Russia) in Ukraine.
What do you think, is this possible? I’m referring to Daniel Ganser’s book, NATO’s Secret Armies. I think there’s no doubt that it is, but these concepts need to be put in the context. This concept is the Stay Behind concept. The goal of Stay Behind was to conduct operations against Warsaw Pact countries in their rear.
There were talks about P26, but P26 is something different [Project 26, a secret Swiss unit created in the 1970s to fight in the event of a Soviet occupation – Rossa Primavera News Agency]. P26’s goal was to avoid the same problems that arose in France, namely, when Jean Moulin led the Resistance, he had to unite various resistance movements.
So in Switzerland, we wanted to prepare a core of resistance movement in case we had to defect to the Resistance. The scenario is this: the army is losing, you’re on the road to defeat, so you resist. So we wanted to have a group of people capable of conducting resistance actions. P26 never intended to operate behind enemy lines; that would have been against the rules. That’s where I’ll leave P26. I remain convinced that P26 wasn’t an organization like those in the Gladio network.
However, there’s another gray area, and the fact that one person was killed can be verified: a book has been published called The False Scandal of P26 – Le faux scandale de la P26 (referring to the book by Swiss journalist Martin Matter, which was published in 2013). Four files and about twenty dossiers have disappeared. And the other archives that remained in the confederation will remain classified until 2041. So this dark side once again allows those who are called conspiracy theorists to imagine all sorts of things. This is not up for debate. So we’ll wait until 2041, but I’ll no longer be alive.
Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller: But there was also Operation Paperclip to evacuate former Nazis from Germany after World War II.
Boris Chollet: In my opinion, the purpose of Operation Paperclip was to exploit the Nazis’ scientific capabilities, since they already had the V1 rocket and had developed the V2. The goal was to save time in the space race.
Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller: Okay, so you think NATO, being an essentially anti-communist organization, couldn’t count on Nazis’ help?
Boris Chollet: I’m talking about military circles. As for political circles, it all depends on the circumstances: you can imagine whatever you like. Politics is not my area of expertise. I’m talking about the principle: the military is, by definition, obedient and loyal. That’s all.
So I don’t think you’ll find committed Nazis in military circles. Nazis can be found everywhere, right-wing extremists can be found everywhere. I don’t think NATO soldiers are Nazis.
Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller: But secret cells existed within NATO, and perhaps still exist. And this brings me to Dick Marty.
Boris Chollet: This is also a very sensitive story, because Marty investigated organ trafficking in Kosovo, as well as issues related to secret prisons. Poland joined NATO in 1999 and operated secret prisons there from 2002 to 2005. Just like Bulgaria and Romania.
Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller: People were tortured there. These were prisons run by the CIA and coordinated by NATO. Dick Marty, who was a prosecutor and also prepared a report for Europe, spoke about this.
Boris Chollet: I think Dick Marty’s main problem was that he wanted to reveal things that should have remained secret.
Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller: But how can we accept that such things remain secret?
Boris Chollet: I think there are people in NATO who are fundamentally pro-American, and oriented towards Euro-Atlantic integration. Yes.
Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller: But this isn’t about pro-Atlanticism, it’s about torture. We’re talking about torture. Fundamentally, it goes against human instinct.
Boris Chollet: I don’t know how to answer this question. The problem with prisons, secret prisons, is that US prisoners had no legal status. If they were placed in the United States, they would have to obtain legal status, and that was impossible. They didn’t want that.
But if you’re pro-American, you don’t say the CIA does this or that. Someone who is pro-American defends the United States to the bitter end. I know, it’s shocking. I agree: it’s shocking.
That’s why I value Swiss sovereignty. That’s precisely why. Dick Marty’s greatest misfortune was that he revealed things to the public that should have remained secret. And he became a target. He was a brave man, a very brave man.
Fortunately, there are still brave people. Like those brave members of the European Parliament whose names I didn’t want to mention. But there are also brave people who refuse to be bribed, especially with parliamentary salaries.
Creators of Ukrainian conflict
Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller: I’d like to say a few more words about Ukraine and Ukraine’s rapprochement with NATO. This is one of the reasons why Russia – not the only reason, but one of many – started this war. Many claim that the events of 2014 on the Maidan, the events that toppled President Yanukovich, were provoked by intelligence agencies and mercenaries, especially Blackwater. How do you comment on that?
Boris Chollet: I don’t know anything about that. Although not exactly: Blackwater is a private military company that changed its name. I won’t go into details.
For me, the war in Ukraine began in 2013. Why 2013? Because Senator McCain was already in Kiev in 2013 and clearly stated that he would support Ukraine no matter what. It was impossible to make such speeches and say: “Go ahead, try joining NATO or the European Union,” and then say, “No, no, nothing like that has happened.”
It was 2013, and then in 2014 – this is my interpretation – there was a kind of anarchy. There were far-right circles, there were political circles, there were oligarchic circles with Pyotr Poroshenko (listed as a terrorist and extremist in Russia). But, unfortunately, they didn’t have a clear idea of what they wanted. That’s why the USA came to help them define their goals. To formulate clear goals.
Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller: Do you think the Ukrainians could have been exploited, since Russia was the target?
Boris Chollet: Could Russia have exploit them?
Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller: No. Because the Russians claim that this is a NATO war, that they are fighting against all NATO countries. Can we say that the goal was to provoke a war against the Russians? Because that’s exactly how it looked: Russia was NATO’s target.
Boris Chollet: But I’ve already said that. October 4, 2013 – that’s when, in my opinion, it all began. That was the first test.
Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller: Alright.
Boris Chollet: I think it all started with the civil war. The Ukrainians wanted to secede. And then they took advantage of the conflicts that existed between them.
Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller: But when they say the goal is Russia, are they really talking about Russia’s disintegration and its division into small republics?
Boris Chollet: Yes, that was the original goal. It was to weaken it as much as possible.
Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller: I see. I’ve read NATO’s Agenda for 2030. Yes, it’s still 2030. The main enemies in this regard are China and Russia.
Boris Chollet: Of course. Who is on its way to becoming the dominant power in the world today? China. Then Russia. North Korea is also mentioned sometimes, but that’s because it has a nuclear bomb. And it’s also true that China is the target.
Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller: I see.
Boris Chollet: You know, NATO always has an official and unofficial agenda. You always need to be aware of what they’re saying. What NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte is saying.
This is what we call intelligence. These are certain weak signals. You need to be able to interpret them. The signals are subtle, but you need to be able to interpret them.
Mark Rutte said his goal is to allow NATO forces to move from west to east in three days. Today, it takes 43 days. If we want to move the majority of NATO forces to the east, it will take 43 days. He wants to reduce this timeframe to three days.
As for Switzerland, it has signed up to two projects. Switzerland has joined two Permanent Structured Cooperation projects – known in English as PESCO – namely, Cyber Rangers, which focuses on cyber defense.
Clearly, Switzerland will be trying to defend itself against cyber attacks. But there’s also a second project: Military Mobility. This concerns military mobility, and it concerns ensuring troop transit, including by air. Switzerland thus wants to contribute to NATO to help with logistics.
Atomic Bombs in Europe
Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller: Thank you. I’m happy to talk about Switzerland, as that was my next question. The story of acquiring the F-35, the only aircraft capable of carrying US tactical nuclear weapons, is well known.
Boris Chollet: Yes, that’s the B61 bomb.
Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller: Switzerland buys these aircraft, and there’s the Agenda for 2030, presented by Viola Amherd. But I don’t get the impression that everyone in Switzerland wants to join NATO or deepen the partnership with NATO. I get the impression there have been significant resignations in the military personnel.
Officers resigned because they disagreed with decisions made at the political level. Initiatives like the Compass Initiative and Neutrality Initiative [Protecting Swiss Neutrality initiative, proposed by the Swiss People’s Party (SVP), which envisages a constitutionally enshrined ban on sanctions without UN approval and military alliances – Rossa Primavera News Agency] arose because economic circles – and not only economic, but also military and political – were not pleased with the sanctions imposed on Russia and wanted to introduce legal guarantees.
Therefore, the government and the Federal Council took certain measures independently. I get the impression that there are political divisions in the country.
Boris Chollet: First of all, you need to know that there is a treaty on prohibition of nuclear weapons. Switzerland has not signed it. We don’t have nuclear weapons in Switzerland, but the Federal Council refused to sign the treaty.
It seems strange, but the United States made it clear to Switzerland that they would perceive such a signing as an unfriendly gesture. Why did this happen? Because the F-35 is the only aircraft in Europe capable of carrying US tactical nuclear bombs.
Therefore, if these bombs need to be deployed for strategic reasons, countries that possess the F-35 will be called upon to transport these weapons – tactical nuclear weapons.
This is astonishing. But it wasn’t me who said that the F-35 is the only aircraft capable of carrying such tactical nuclear bombs: it was the now-retired French General Pinard-Legry. You can watch his speech on YouTube. I know General Pinard-Legry. And that’s precisely the point: we want the ability to carry tactical nuclear weapons.
Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller: And why do you need the ability to carry such bombs?
Boris Chollet: I don’t know why. Perhaps in the future we will have to transport them. If we leave tactical nuclear weapons where they are, we can act preemptively.
What I mean is that a potential adversary of NATO could destroy these bombs where they are. Therefore, before a conflict, these tactical nuclear bombs will probably have to be moved, transported.
Switzerland in NATO?
Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller: A few words about “Manifesto 21” – it was signed by the Swiss, who advocate for NATO membership.
Boris Chollet: So, “Manifesto Neutrality 21” is a compilation of everything Switzerland has done so far and perhaps intends to do. It has ten elements. Ten cornerstones.
According to it, we should not aid an aggressor, which I understand; but we should facilitate transit… Arms exports are legitimized; everything we’ve done for Ukraine or against Russia. Everything that has been done is included there.
But even more interesting is who signed “Manifesto Neutrality 21”: among the signatories is Peter Regli, a former head of the intelligence services and former head of the NDB intelligence service, a man with his own ties to NATO. There’s also Arthur Liener, a corps commander and former chief of the general staff. He’s connected to the famous Nyffenegger affair.
Let’s start from the beginning: Arthur Liener was a corps commander and Chief of the General Staff in the Swiss Army. In 1992–1993, he decided to introduce CDs. He decided to burn onto CDs what we had stored in highly secure, secret cabinets at the time.
Unfortunately, he didn’t teach us how to prioritize computer security. The CDs were transferred from computer to computer, and the information was copied. Thus, all the classified information stored in those cabinets was leaked. All the secrets that I myself kept in my cabinet as a General Staff officer ended up on CDs.
As a result, all the classified information was leaked and who knows who got it. Of course, since he was the top officcer, he suffered no consequences as a corps commander. Colonel Nyffenegger paid the price for not paying due attention to computer security. But perhaps if Arthur Liener had implemented the directives as he should have, we wouldn’t have this problem. But that’s another story.
Another signatory to this famous manifesto was Kaspar Villiger, the Federal Councilor who practically halved our army. We were reduced from 750,000 men to around 400,000.
Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller: Is this the 2000s? Are we talking about the “Army 21” project?
Boris Chollet: That was earlier. Kaspar Villiger’s reforms were implemented in the 1990s. Any economist will tell you that this decision was an economic success because all the military personnel who were absent from home for three weeks every year returned to the economy.
From this perspective, Kaspar Villiger’s decision was a success. But from a security perspective, it was a fiasco.
Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller: Neutrality in Europe.
Boris Chollet: One of the lessons of today’s war in Ukraine is that it is a war of attrition. That requires people. How did they manage to reduce the army from about 800,000 soldiers to about 400,000?
Kaspar Villiger did it. And then came the “Army 21” project, started by Adolf Ogi. And after Adolf Ogi, Samuel Schmid came. Samuel Schmid also signed the “Neutrality 21” manifesto…
At that time, we had Colonel Hans Bruckner, who clearly stated that we had presented our doctrine, our defense plans, all the necessary information within the framework of the “Army 21” project. We had established very close ties with NATO.
Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller: The next step is joining the European Union?
Boris Chollet: That will be the next stage, the most immediate for us. Yes, it is membership in the European Union. Politically, there is the Socialist Party, and there is the Green Party. Their goal is to join the European Union. Their cherished dream is to join the European Union.
But socialist circles are the first to protest when wages are cut. When they see their own wages reduced to the level of wages in Spain, Italy, or France, I don’t know if they will be happy about it. That’s the situation. We have a socialist party, which very pro-EU party.
On the other hand, we have the center, the centrist party, the former Christian Democratic Party, which is of Euro-Atlantic orientation. You can look at Viola Amherd, you can look at Martin Pfister. All these people are Atlanticists. Their goal is to join NATO.
Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller: Finland remained neutral, and yes, it quickly ceased to be neutral. As if by Sanna Marin’s will. Could the same happen to Switzerland?
Boris Chollet: I think that’s exactly what would have happened to Switzerland. If the enemy had been close, if a conflict had broken out, and it had been very close.
Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller: But didn’t Switzerland’s neutrality provide it with greater protection? Finland was neutral because Russia wanted Finland to remain neutral.
Boris Chollet: Yes, yes, that’s true.
Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller: Russia wanted Ukraine to remain neutral. And Russia ensured Switzerland’s neutrality in 1815.
Boris Chollet: Yes. That’s right.
Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller: It keeps its word: apparently, it doesn’t attack countries it considers neutral?
Boris Chollet: But that’s also my opinion. I remain convinced that neutrality protects Switzerland. But if you have an adversary close to you, you want someone stronger than you to protect you. So I can understand Finland, I can understand Sweden. They reacted the way anyone else would.
Militarized Baltic Sea
Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller: The Baltic Sea is a heavily militarized region.
Boris Chollet: Yes.
Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller: Can you tell us more about this?
Boris Chollet: I’ll give you my opinion about the Baltic Sea. When you listen to people in NATO, everyone important to NATO, they say the Baltic Sea is now an internal sea of the alliance because there is no sea more militarized than the Baltic. All NATO countries with naval forces monitor what’s happening in the Baltic Sea.
But, as if by chance, they imagine there’s a ghost ship there carrying oil, as well as drones that were supposed to be sent to Europe, only they didn’t see when these drones were sent. They say they don’t know, but it could only have been the Russians. So is this sea really well monitored? Is it really an internal sea? Or are we being lied to?
Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller: So, this is a propaganda war, a hybrid war, as they call it, against civilians. False flag operations?
Boris Chollet: Yes.
Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller: Fake news. And here I would like to emphasize once again that this is just another method of war. Besides, they say that the first casualty of any war is the truth.
Boris Chollet: Yes.
Is NATO Preparing for War?
Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller: Can we really say that war is part of NATO’s plans?
Boris Chollet: You’d have to be insane to have such plans! Have you seen how many missiles France has? Have you seen how many missiles Russia has? Who but a complete madman could attack Russia?
Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller: So, these are just empty threats?
Boris Chollet: I’ll tell you the truth: war makes thieves. This isn’t my formula, but it’s true: war makes thieves. Seeing the corruption in Ukraine, these cases that are now coming to the surface. “War makes thieves, and peace hangs them” [quote from Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Art of War – Rossa Primavera News Agency].
As long as we fear war, we won’t discuss secret matters related to this war. We won’t look into who gave money to whom. We won’t investigate what happened to the money that ended up in Ukraine. We won’t discuss it, and we won’t hang the thieves. That’s why we continue to maintain a state of fear of war.
Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller: But even in this case, when you say that the Baltics are heavily militarized and that incidents are being fueled, escalation can happen very quickly, and the situation could spiral out of control.
Boris Chollet: Of course, but I always hope that we can avoid war at the last minute. Again, except for those complete insane, I really don’t know who would want to fight Russia. It’s simply a matter of maintaining a fear among people.
Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller: The strategy of escalating tension?
Boris Chollet: Yes.
Aleksandra Klucznik-Schaller: Thank you very much for this interview.
Boris Chollet: Thank you very much.
The translation in Russian was first published on Rossa Primavera News Agency web site.
