Carl Bildt is a eurofundamentalist politician who has attracted quite a bit of attention for his tough talk about Russia in recent years. As foreign minister in Sweden’s recently-defeated center-right government he was “gravely concerned” about this and “seriously concerned “about that, but this new report from Estonia’s International Centre for Defence and Security puts all this concern into some context:
Last year, Sweden saw a lively debate on security and defence policy issues, focusing on three major topics: Russia’s increasingly unscrupulous behaviour, the poor state of the Swedish armed forces and the future of the country’s traditional non-alignment policy. By the end of 2014, the debate had not resulted in any significant political decisions. It is not obvious why Sweden’s political leadership would need more than nine months to draw the necessary conclusions from Russia’s occupation and illegal annexation of Crimea in early 2014. Neither the previous centre-right Alliance for Sweden nor the newly formed left-wing government were ready to increase the defence budget more than symbolically or consider the option of joining NATO.
The debate was sparked by comments by the Supreme Commander of the Swedish armed forces in 2012 that, once the current defense ‘restructuring’ had been completed, Sweden would have the capacity to defend itself from an attack coming from one direction for (up to) one week.
Back to ICDS:
Some opinion formers blamed the previous centre-right government led by Fredrik Reinfeldt for the poor state in which the armed forces found themselves, but in reality the parliamentary decisions that caused this situation had been drawn up by previous social-democratic governments more than ten years ago.14 Thus, all major political parties are responsible for the current situation…
In safeguarding the rear of the Baltic States, Sweden has an important role in preventing Russian forces from cutting off Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania from their allies. As pointed out by retired Major General Karlis Neretnieks, access to Swedish territory and airspace will be decisive if NATO is called on to defend the Baltic States.
Denying an opponent the same access would also be crucial. By lacking the capacity to defend its own territory and failing to make any preparations to either support NATO-led operations or receive assistance, Sweden is undermining NATO’s ability to defend the Baltic States.
A key worry in this respect is Gotland, a Swedish island that could make an ideal jumping-off point for NATO forces looking to defend their three Baltic allies.
Back in May, Swedish blogger Johan Kylander (AKA The Imaginary Club) had this to say:
The Swedish island of Gotland is an unsinkable aircraft carrier in the middle of the Baltic Sea, situated right across the shipping and air routes required for a speedy reinforcement of the Baltic States. The island is virtually undefended by the Swedish armed forces: its sole defence consists of less than 200 homeguardsmen, a smattering of police constables, four hastily deployed JAS Gripen fighters, fourteen tanks and other armored combat vehicles conveniently stored in a shed. The crews, however, must first assemble and journey to Gotland before the hardware can be taken out of storage, fueled, readied for combat, deployed and, eventually, used. There are no SAM defences, no artillery, no pre-stored munitions, no marine forces, no helicopters, indeed, there’s virtually nothing available to impede, much less stop, an invader from walking all over the place.
And as Sweden has chosen not to join NATO it does not benefit from the security guarantee at least notionally provided by NATO’s Article 5.
Kylander:
A few S-300 and/or S-400 [Russian] batteries operating from Swedish territory, augmented by ship-borne SAM systems and the whole gamut of short-to-mid range air defence assets on the ground and in the air, would, on the other hand, completely block NATO air and ship assets from operating in the region – because NATO cannot attack a non-combatant nation.
Writing a few days later, Justyna Gotkowska of the Poland-based Centre for Eastern Studies noted this:
In case of possible crises and conflicts in the region, Stockholm County and Gotland island have been prioritised in the defence of the country. However, no decision was made to permanently deploy military units in Gotland.
Back to ICDS:
[Then center-right] Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt stated in January 2014 that NATO membership was not currently on the agenda. Sweden’s new Social Democratic Prime Minister, Stefan Löfven, recently reaffirmed Reinfeldt’s view by stating that Sweden would not launch a study on what NATO membership might bring for the country. In addition, the new left-wing government also signalled a return to the traditional non-alignment policy that had been abolished by the former centre-right government…
It should be remembered that this is the same Reinfeldt who presided over the neglect of Sweden’s defenses for eight years, the same Reinfeldt whose ‘generous’ immigration policies (to use a far, far kinder adjective than they deserve) led directly to the defeat of his government, and whose party, under new leadership, but showing no signs of having learnt anything from the past, has effectively agreed to keep the new left-wing government in power.
But have no fear, the new Swedish government does have a plan. In this interview, the country’s new foreign minister (a reliable source of comic relief during her stint as an EU Commissioner) explains:
…We have also said that we will pursue a feminist foreign policy. But what does that mean? Well, actually I have opportunities every day to incorporate that perspective into my work. It is a question of highlighting the issue in all discussions, peace talks, negotiations, etc. And when we visit a conflict area, making sure that we meet and talk to the women first.
Somehow I think that a smile broke through Putin’s Botox when he read that.
ICDS concludes as follows:
The issue of Sweden being able to defend itself militarily and/or being a member of NATO is directly related to the freedom and independence of the Baltic States. A strong and stable neighbour on whom you can rely will in itself not guarantee a bright future for these three small nations. But a militarily weak neighbour whose territory may be used by an aggressive opponent would be a concern for any nation that wants to live in peace and stability.
Indeed.