For centuries Sweden has managed to stay away from global conflicts but now their history of neutrality is being threatened.
 |
| [Sweden map of wood/Anthony/Pexels] |
Sweden has managed to remain out of global wars for decades, due to its political neutrality and careful use of its own geography.
Years of peace dividend helped the Swedes to create one of the world's best-organized and wealthiest countries. However, Stockholm faces new geostrategic threats in the third decade of the twenty-first century.
Overview of Sweden's Geostrategic Position
Sweden is a small country in terms of population, despite having a relatively large territory compared to most other European countries.
Read More:
Lousanne Treaty, Montreux Convention and Turkish coup culture
Sweden, along with Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Azerbaijan, is at the bottom of the world's top 100 most populated countries, with just 10 million inhabitants.
Sweden, on the other hand, is one of the world's wealthiest countries, thanks to its strong creative economy. The Swedes, like many other western countries, took advantage of the post-Soviet Union security system established by the United States.
Although the unipolar world called for a dramatic reduction in defense spending, the emphasis was largely on quality of life, health, and prosperity. Stockholm's army has been diminished and modified to fit more seamlessly into the western collective defense architecture, with less emphasis on defending its own territories.
The total defense concept's previously existing civilization components were simply disbanded. The emphasis on issues of war readiness and planning has all but vanished, as the subject has been widely dismissed as outdated or irrelevant.
The aggressive policies of Russia and emerging China, as well as the collapse of US hegemony, have caused the Swedes to see a sharp decline in the world order's certainty.
All of this has prompted Stockholm to refocus on national defense as a top priority, and to formulate its own grand plan to overcome these challenges.
The key reason for the shift in analysts' opinions at the Swedish Defence Research Agency is the Russian Federation's increasingly dangerous attitude in the Baltic Sea basin.
Moscow's hostile posture in 2008 was the first red flag, but Stockholm and the rest of the west continued their geostrategic slumber. Just a few years ago, then-Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt declared that a war between two European countries was no longer unthinkable. Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine just two months later.
Despite the fact that Sweden is nearly 2,000 kilometers away from Crimea, the Swedes recognized that the existing geopolitical balance of power compelled them to participate in this game whether they liked it or not.
Russia is revising the new regime by opposing the NATO-designed protection model.
The NATO's Achilles Heel is the protection of the Baltic states, which are in close proximity to Russia. As a result, the Baltic Sea area is the most vulnerable to Moscow's research. Stockholm, in turn, must be ready with its own answer.
Sweden is not a NATO member, but its geography indicates that the Swedes will not be able to escape the upcoming challenges.
As a result, concepts like national defense, the ability to perform combat operations and mobilization, organizational capability, and 24/7 readiness have resurfaced.
 |
Conscription was also reinstated in Sweden's military institutions.
The Baltic Defence overview
In international relations, modern Swedish politics is hesitant to enter the realist school. Stockholm's foreign policy has been radical since the 1980s, with a stronger emphasis on global rather than merely national affairs. The national interests were based on what was referred to as "cautious neutrality."
However, in Sweden, such a proposal is currently being tested internally.
The Russian Federation's propensity to conduct hostilities in order to achieve political aims is clearly shown by the Ukrainian Crisis of 2021. One of the most significant long-term consequences is that NATO's stability and the United States' status as a global force are jeopardized.
Although NATO is unmistakably on Kyiv's side, it has no formal obligations to assist the Ukrainians. As a result, while Russia is successfully undermining NATO's unity in Ukraine by highlighting the member states' divergent interests, it is unable to conduct a final verification of the alliance.
This can only be accomplished by invading a NATO member state, and there is no better place to do so than the exposed Baltic states bordering the highly militarized Kaliningrad Oblast.
If Russia is really willing to challenge the West's and America's dominance, a small assault on either of the Baltic states would be the most effective way to do so. The alliance's future would be jeopardized if the US and NATO did not take immediate action, and Washington's global status as a security provider would be seriously harmed.
However, if a definitive response happens, Sweden's territories would almost certainly be thrown into the mix, owing to the importance of Gotland as the Baltic Sea's possible only aircraft carrier.
 |
| [Gotland Island of Sweden/Pinterest] |
Because of the high risk of being sunk by Russian Anti-Access Aerial Denial or A2/AD capabilities, American aircraft carrier strike groups are unlikely to reach the Baltic Sea. Each version poses significant security risks.
Should America withdraw, the fundamental question of the nuclear security shield that Washington has spread across Europe, including Sweden, will resurface.
However, from Stockholm's viewpoint, the Baltic region is not the only significant region. The Swedes are also aware of the Arctic's increasing significance, with 15 percent of Sweden's land area falling within the Arctic Circle.
In reality, the Arctic region competes for strategic attention and scarce resources with the Baltic Sea basin. This forces Sweden to establish a plan that works on two fronts; finding the right balance will be difficult, and internal conflicts of interest are likely.
The larger picture that is gradually becoming clearer helps us to comprehend the recent shift in Swedish security policies.
Sharp criticism of the Kremlin's aggressive posture, continuous military change, and a growing focus on military cooperation with neighboring countries, NATO, and the U.S.
After the Minister of Defense who spearheaded the reform, it was dubbed the 'Hulkfest Doctrine.'
Nonetheless, Sweden's national defense policy remains largely a wish list. Despite promises from the government that state security is a national priority. However, the way the budget is organized says something else.
Defense spending has been consistent at about 1% of GDP for several years. The budget for the years 2021-2025, which was passed at the end of 2020 and includes a 40 percent increase in military spending, will bring some change.
That would still be less than NATO's recommended 2%, but it would result in major improvements, such as a rise in the armed forces from 55,000 to 90,000 troops by 2030. Formerly disbanded regiments will be reinstated, and the number of conscripts will be increased to 8,000.
It should be remembered, however, that despite comparatively low financial outlays allocated to the army in recent decades, the Swedish armed forces have a high fighting value.
It is enough to note the great silent submarines that in war games were able to destroy an American aircraft carrier, or the air force, which is fitted with one of the best fighter jets in the world, as well as the best air to air missiles – the Gripen and Meteor.
Fragile Strategic Neutrality
For the last 200 years, Sweden has not been involved in a major war, namely after Napoleon marched through Europe in 1814.
This long period of peace and prosperity has left an indelible mark on a country that now portrays itself as prosperous and conflict-free. However, such rhetoric was only possible because of its own geography.
The presence of Finland as a central buffer between Russia and Sweden made it possible to avoid invasion. As a result, Finland's stability is also in Sweden's national interest.
Furthermore, Swedish decision-makers cleverly exploited their own position on the Scandinavian peninsula. It provides a direct route into the Russian heartland as well as into the heart of Europe.
The Swedes could still use this card to threaten intrusive powers with breaking the power balance by allying with their adversary. Sweden's internal dynamics have also contributed to the country's 200-year neutrality.
In practice, defending a vast area with a low population density is challenging. It is possible to rapidly paralyze much of the nation by striking major human centers or main bridges.
As a result, the Swedes' aversion to forming alliances is based on cold calculations. When you stay outside of negotiations rather than being bound by them, you have a lower risk of getting into a dispute.
Many have forgotten that partnerships can be a burden over the decades of American dominance. Sweden, on the other hand, remembered.
However, the world today is very different from what it was 200 years ago, and identical mental maps cannot be applied to current risks.
Stockholm does not consider the United States or any of the European Union countries to be a danger. As a result, using the strategic balancing card is no longer a viable option.
Furthermore, since it is dangerously close to Swedish home land, the center of gravity of European tensions has changed, to the detriment of the Swedes.
As a result, a segment of Sweden's political class is beginning to regard membership in a joint coalition as a weakness. In a nutshell, the prospect of joining NATO has resurfaced.
The pro-membership camp and the anti-NATO contingent are currently debating internally, with the latter referring to Sweden's 200+ years of neutrality. The former intern emphasizes the risky situation in Stockholm, which Russia regards as part of the European security structure.
However, it lacks the security guarantees that NATO members enjoy.
According to research from the University of Gutenberg, Swedish society is almost evenly split between two choices.
By the end of 2020, the pro-NATO contingent had achieved significant success, with the previous opposition to Sweden's membership in the North Atlantic Alliance being defeated and support for Sweden's acceptance of the so-called NATO alternative.
This is not a firm decision to join NATO. Finland, for example, enacted a law similar to this in 1995 but has yet to join NATO. It does, however, make Stockholm's accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization easier and closer.
When the rig stock election takes place in Sweden in 2022, a lot will be announced. If the center-right parties win power, Sweden will abandon its policy of strategic neutrality and join NATO after 200 years.
As a result, a shift in the power balance in the Baltic region will be good news for the Baltic state of Poland and NATO as a whole, as well as a concrete response to Russian revisionism.
On the other side, it would compel the Swedes to increase their military presence, and Gotland would become a central geostrategic point for the Baltic states' defense.
Whatever choice is chosen, the Swedes must reaffirm their commitment to Europe's security architecture.