Should Sweden join NATO?

[Deleted]

Therre's no reason right now but if you had paid attention to my posts you'd have noticed I wrote about the future and what might happen if the world economy crashes 1929 style. History has certainly seen its share of nations attacking other nations to remove focus from internal affairs...

And to remove focus from internal affair, Russia would attack Europe, on of the best trading partner there is.
Why would they do that? Attack someone else. Tirgikistan, Kazakhstan. Pick someone that won't destroy your economy if attacked.

[Neufab]

And to remove focus from internal affair, Russia would attack Europe, on of the best trading partner there is.
Why would they do that? Attack someone else. Tirgikistan, Kazakhstan. Pick someone that won't destroy your economy if attacked.

I don't pretend to know what the world economy/political situation will look like in 20 years, or whenever. Do you?

---------- Post added 2013-04-30 at 11:10 AM ----------

Sure, join NATO and send the people to be dismembered in Afganistan and Irak for nothing. That will certainly protect you from Russia

The thing with Russia and NATO is that if Russia ever attacks, no fucking NATO can ever protect you. They still have a gazillion nukes that can make Europe and US a really nice place to live. If you're a cockroach...

MAD.

Look it up.

[Deleted]

Sure, join NATO and send the people to be dismembered in Afganistan and Irak for nothing. That will certainly protect you from Russia

The thing with Russia and NATO is that if Russia ever attacks, no fucking NATO can ever protect you. They still have a gazillion nukes that can make Europe and US a really nice place to live. If you're a cockroach...

Nobody in NATO was obliged to send troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, they are the issue of the USA/UK, not NATO.

[Deleted]

Sure, join NATO and send the people to be dismembered in Afganistan and Irak for nothing. That will certainly protect you from Russia

We already have people deployed in Afghanistan under ISAF nato forces (they have been there for years by now ), how would that be a difference to the current situation?

Sweden is already working with NATO, its just not anything official at this point and we have no ties to them other then helping them.

[Yutani]

Nobody in NATO was obliged to send troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, they are the issue of the USA/UK, not NATO.

Nobody is obliged to work either. Then again most people do.
The campaigning that was done to get other nato countries to send troops to afghanistan was published on wikileaks. Of course nobody had to anything except that at the end of the day they did have to.

[Jackmoves]

SD is the only political party who has a defense agenda like that. Not sure if Sweden is ready to vote SD into power at this point.

Thats not really true, Vänstern(The left party- Swedish Socialists party in parliament) wants mandatory military service to. To a far greater extent then SD even. They want it to include stuff like foreign aid working etc as well.

Pretty interesting ideas tbh, but I could never vote for them. Newsmill is really the best place to follow the political debate in our country btw since it's open to everyone to write debate articles and have it publicized. A lot of people get their news and form their opinions from somewhat biased news sources, be it Fria Tider or Aftonbladet.
http://www.newsmill.se/artikel/2012/...da-v-rnplikten

Restore and expand conscription

About the author

Torbjörn Björlund (V) MP and Defence political spokesperson.

The Left Party's defense spokesman: We want to reinstate and extend conscription system. All young people should be called, regardless of gender and any disabilities. Civil service functions should be included.

The Swedish Armed Forces have recently gone through the most sweeping changes in 100 years. We have gone from a defense built on the general publics participation and support through the conscription system to a professional military based on "voluntary" and the recruitment of a partially new labor market area.

All of the effects this will have, we will not see until quite a few years. We have already seen some problems encountered, but so far is not the whole picture. However, you can already see which way things are moving, and what dangers lurk around the corner. We in the Left sees these problems and have also chosen a different solution. We want to keep, and even build, a defense built on conscription in which all citizens should be given the opportunity to contribute from their own perspectives.

The problems that one can discern already include:

Recruitment. Today, the Armed Forces must attract young people who want to train and work as soldiers and sailors, which is a new area of ​​the Swedish labor market. They will encounter difficulties. There is also a risk for "recruitment bias."

Costs. According to some analysts, the new professional system will cost more than a military defense based on conscription. The turnover of staff can be a factor that influences.

The grassroots support. With the soldier profession as a profession amongst others to choose from, the knowledge and support of the defense might be threatened. It will also give the Armed Forces a unique position when it comes to the power of influence. Experience from other countries can be dismaying, though we hope that it is far away.

The last point and most important point for why we advocate a defense built on a conscription system is to give our common defense the support necessary to find the right recruitment to the parts that are filled by permanent staff and to achieve the goal of equility.

We want to reinstate and extend the conscription system. All young people in the 18-19 years of age, regardless of gender, disability etc., should get called so that get a broad scan of how we can use the next generations in the military but also in civil defense and in social protection activities. Preferably with an "outsourced" system where you can enroll "at home", maybe even at their own local school.

Broadening the military, where it is not only military but also included civil defense functions, health education, disaster relief and perhaps even aid work, is our vision. Such a system involves many citizens and will also help to recruit more young people to the important voluntary defense organizations. This will also make people's experiences and knowledge part of an overall defense. Today, it can often be in short supply.

We also believe that it is possible to combine mandatory military service with a modern organization within the military that will be focused on international deployment where the Armed Forces can recruit members to international efforts under the UN flag, for peace-building. In addition, it becomes easier to maintain the portion of the system which must necessarily be territorial, the Home Guard, which we want to be in every single part of the country. One reason for that is that it is easy to keep the Home Guard at short-readiness.

We will develop our model of the Swedish Armed Forces during this term in order to initiate a change in the next legislature period in case we win the next election. It is in our view absolutely necessary in order to regain the grassroots support for our defense.

Our complete(from the ground up) overhaul of our military has been going on since 2010 btw, and is far from done yet. There is a lot of work left to be done.

[Fayth]

Sure, join NATO and send the people to be dismembered in Afganistan and Irak for nothing. That will certainly protect you from Russia

The thing with Russia and NATO is that if Russia ever attacks, no fucking NATO can ever protect you. They still have a gazillion nukes that can make Europe and US a really nice place to live. If you're a cockroach...

You know that the only practical purpose nukes have is that they are used to scare others? Using them does not make any sense, as you just ruin the place you try to conquer. Also US still has a lot of nukes.

[Jackmoves]

Just read a decent article, thought I'd share. Written by a professional observer with an outsider’s perspective and his take on why Sweden would fit in NATO. Food for thoughts and all that jazz. A good read.

2013-05-01 18:05

About the author

Bruce Acker is a former defense attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Stockholm.

WHY SWEDEN WOULD FIT IN AS A NATO MEMBER

In the midst of the tempest over the recent debate of Swedens Defense, Supreme Commander, General Sverker Göranson correctly noted that he was revealing nothing that professional observers couldn’t see clearly for themselves. None the less, the tempest continued and naturally broadened to include aspects of NATO defense and membership. Sometimes seeing clearly requires not only a professional eye, but a bit of professional distance from the issue. The debate also, yet again, pointed out the lack of a realistic NATO debate here in Sweden, and what little debate there is to date suffers from a lack of professional distance. This article seeks to examine some of the common Sweden-related NATO questions and hypothesis from an outsider’s perspective, admittedly, heavily influenced by an American view. My comments should not be considered answers to the posed questions but rather stimulus for further study and perhaps the long overdue debate on NATO membership. It is important to point out however that the following observations reflect personal observations, and in no way seek to represent either NATO or the US Government.


Will NATO assist Sweden in the event of an attack? At Sälen, NATO General Secretary Anders Fogh Rasmussen answered this question as clearly as a politician at his level likely ever will. Article 5 applies to NATO members and only to NATO members, not partners. But the right question is just as important as the answer. Let’s be clear, the foundation for Sweden’s unilateral solidarity declaration is completely correct. There exists no remotely conceivable scenario of an attack on Sweden where NATO’s vital interests are not threatened, likely at an unacceptable level to the alliance. If the question were, will NATO react militarily if Russia, for example, seizes key nodes in Swedish territory like Gothenburg harbour, or Gotland, the answer is most likely yes, with all haste. While NATO is not obliged to aid, Sweden and NATO’s interest coincide to a great degree—though defending the rear of the NATO-member Baltic States and the flanks of member Scandinavian nations are the decisive factors for NATO, not defending Swedish territory. The main point, however, remains: Without membership, Swedish interests are supported by coincidental NATO interests.

If unable to defend herself, why would NATO want Sweden as a member? This is the premise of the oft-quoted net contributor or net consumer argument, which with any limited analysis defies logic. Modern mobility makes most individual small nations indefensible without outrageous defense expenditures, and such outrageous expenditures are threatening in and of themselves. None of the NATO members, with the possible exception of a few, can realistically defend themselves, nor would they need an alliance if they could. The main point of NATO from the beginning was to provide for collective defense. Mr. Rasmussen answered this question as well, stating that were Sweden to seek membership, she would be welcome.

Does Sweden’s Armed forces have the capability to receive help. This is an interesting concept, founded in a military logistics planner’s competence in the complexity of reception, staging, and onward movement. Unfortunately, this thesis also falls victim to the logical flaw of overestimating enemy capabilities while underestimating one’s own. Here is the conundrum. A hypothetical enemy force lands in one or more places in Sweden, presumably in a contested entry, for the assumed purpose of exploiting key transportation notes and strategically advantageous positions. It is assumed that this will succeed not only without the assistance of Sweden, but in fact while exposed to all the resistance Sweden can assemble. By this argument, NATO on the other hand apparently needs a well-prepared Swedish reception in order to succeed. Compared to any foreseeable enemy to Sweden, NATO and the US have far greater experience assembling an effective fighting force in the most barren of environments. Arriving uncontested in the midst of one of the most developed infrastructures on earth would be simple compared to the places they have been in the past decades. The reality of course is that NATO would much prefer to be well received upon arrival, with a well-rehearsed plan to execute, but it is not a necessary condition. The purveyors of this theory are completely correct in one decisive aspect, at least from a Swedish perspective: Without the capability to receive and host assisting forces, command of the situation, and with it sovereignty, is significantly diminished.

Does NATO have the resources to defend Sweden? Of course this question is unanswerable without first identifying against what and with how much warning; and this is often taken out of context as was the Supreme Commander’s statement mentioned at the start of this article. Certainly NATO does not have the capacity in current combat readiness to repel an initial and then sustained attack wherever, whenever. Obviously the forces have reduced over the recent years, and there is no rebuilding on the horizon commensurate with the stated Russian re-armament plan. These kinds of questions though often overlook a critical element of planning, and that is assessing the enemy’s strategic objectives. One likely strategic objective from Sweden’s perspective is to defend all of its territory. As long as Sweden is not a member, NATO will not likely place that objective in the strategic category, but as an operational or tactical objective. It seems unlikely an enemy in the foreseeable future will have a strategic objective to take Swedish territory, but rather will see that as a means to some other end. Most discussions within the limited Swedish debate argue that a likely end will probably be either securing a platform for action in the Baltics or, as some claim, to secure economic lines of communication. I rather strongly dispute the latter in the context of a NATO debate as it implies a split in NATO, since those economic lines go to NATO-member Germany among others. So from a NATO perspective, what is needed is sufficient capacity to prevent the enemy from achieving its strategic objectives, that is using Swedish territory for its advantage. This will require a sizable capability, but does not necessarily require immediately ejecting soldiers from Sweden. Any ground forces occupying Sweden would likely not directly threaten the Baltics, rather it is the air and sea power they support that are the threat. It is also important to note that without Swedish assistance, any invading enemy will have vulnerable logistics paths to defend. Commanding or disputing the air over and the seas around Sweden would probably suffice and it is likely possible for NATO to rapidly deploy that capability. What this scenario implies then is an enemy ground force present in Sweden, removal of which will be much higher on Sweden’s list of objectives than it will be on NATO’s, though it is likely both will desire to see the occupation end eventually.


What can Sweden offer that NATO wants? In this regard, it perhaps is not nearly as bleak as one might think from what appears in some media. By and large, when Sweden contributes something, it is well-equipped, well trained, compatible and complete. The Swedish Air Force, for example, is at the head of the class in the region, and amongst the best of the world. Don’t be confused by the occasional pessimistic review. NATO recognizes from Swedish participation in the Lybia operation and a variety of comprehensive exercises that the airplanes, crews and logistics capabilities integrate into modern warfare essentially seamlessly. There is little doubt that the Swedish-led EU Nordic battle group, both in 2008 and 2011, met expectations at least as well, if not better than any other EU battle group since the idea was conceived. When Sweden deploys soldiers, they are high-end, mature soldiers, well suited to mentoring and assisting organic fighting forces. Sweden has invested in strategic and tactical mobility in their airlift and medium lift helicopter programs. Abroad, the Swedish Navy has proven it has the ships, leadership and crew to participate and lead international flotillas. In the event of a Baltic crisis, Sweden possesses superb underwater capability, not to mention its proven skills to attack and sink US aircraft carriers, undetected, in the Pacific. Most importantly, Sweden possesses geography and arguably a unique appreciation of its geography. Nearly all arguments of a military threat to Sweden start with geography.

Will Sweden save money on defense by joining NATO? As stated earlier, the force necessary to defend a small nation alone is outrageously large and therefore expensive. Cooperation yields economic as well as operational efficiencies. However, motivating a NATO membership campaign on the basis of cost savings alone risks NATO’s welcoming attitude toward Swedish membership. Arguments about the affordability of defense in NATO are not well received, especially in the US, and within Europe surely few are willing to subsidize Sweden’s defense, as the Swedish economy is perceived as being well above the norm within NATO. In a brief moment of political clarity, the departing US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made this abundantly clear in his farewell address to a NATO audience.

A healthy NATO debate would address these questions thoroughly and certainly uncover many more. Although Sweden’s choices appear rather limited indeed and fairly well known, it is the analysis of the outcome of the various paths that must be explored to make a rational decision. From my vantage point, most common arguments made to date lack depth, credibility, and analysis.

[Baltasar]

Neutral country and immigrant lovers join nato,just no.

[Bakis]

As intelligent person would say: Yes (cos we already "are").
Will it buff the Russia/West conflict (why does it matter, there will always be one thanks to the Tsars)? Yes but why care about a country* thats greatest feat is to export misery onto others.

* for any possible butthurt moron it means Russian rulership/governments not the common man or woman.

Sweden is a NATO member apart from a signature on a paper. NATO cant afford Russia to get Öland/Gotland cos it would totally shut NATO forces off any access to the Baltic sea, (+ a bunch of other reasons why it cant be afforded as well but not as great).

Almost forgot. Neutral? BHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahaha

[Independent voter]

The only country that will show up when you're attacked is the US, maybe Britain so it doesn't matter.

Necro thread BTW.

[Shibito]

Sweden should join russia so the kremlin hardons gets a break

[Bakis]

Necro thread BTW.

In retrospect its not about refugees so I guess you are right

[Stormdash]

NATO should probably have been dissolved after the fall of the Soviet Union.

[Deleted]

NATO should probably have been dissolved after the fall of the Soviet Union.

No, militairy alliances are good because they serve as a detterence for any war between the countries in the pact and a detterence for a war from the pact with other alliances/coutnries.

[Stormdash]

No, militairy alliances are good because they serve as a detterence for any war between the countries in the pact and a detterence for a war from the pact with other alliances/coutnries.

Military alliances are best with specific purposes in mind, though -- NATO's was for the US/Canada/Western Europe to be invested together against the Soviet Union. Could have always come together around mutual alliance for other purposes as well. Regardless, expansion was a foolhardy misadventure that's actually brought us back to the brink of war in Europe.

[Kellhound]

The only country that will show up when you're attacked is the US, maybe Britain so it doesn't matter.

Necro thread BTW.

The US, Canada, UK, Poland, and lets be honest, only the US has to show up.

[Neufab]

The US, Canada, UK, Poland, and lets be honest, only the US has to show up.

and Spain, those 5 nations has more ayes than nays.

I would like to see the opinions of the smaller nations as well.

[Bumbasta]

Yes, there is no point for such a small country to have its own army. It is way to expensive to maintain. Also, it bascally shares the exact same allies/enemies as the NATO countries so there is no reason not to do it. Except to remain neutral. But then again, they're in the EU so that won't really work either. Conclusion: Join NATO.

- - - Updated - - -

The only country that will show up when you're attacked is the US, maybe Britain so it doesn't matter.

Necro thread BTW.

Opinion doesn't matter, they're bound by agreements.

[Mihalik]

Every single European country should be joining NATO yesterday.

Also we should fully halt all trade of all forms with Russia and build a massive wall along the Russian border. Okay I'm exaggerating. But seriously. NATO is not a threat to Russia, NATO is the only thing that can keep the threat that is Russia in check. Russian are still strangely convinced that the West is out to get 'em... Whatever that means.

Maybe if we build a giant fucking wall TO.KEEP.THE.RUSSIANS.IN it might drive the message home. We are not the fucking threat. You are.