Of course, Sweden can say no to NATO สวืเดนสามารถปฏิเสธ NATO ได้

 Of course, Sweden can say no to NATO

Sweden will not stand alone in the event of a Russian attack

Of:

Mats Engström

PUBLISHED: TODAY 05.30

UPDATED: TODAY 07.37

This is a cultural article that is part of Aftonbladet's opinion journalism.

There is an EU solidarity, clearly expressed by, for example, the German Chancellor, writes Mats Engström.

There is an EU solidarity, clearly expressed by, for example, the German Chancellor, writes Mats Engström.

Photo: Markus Schreiber / AP

CULTURE

The defense is a special interest, said Fredrik Reinfeldt. The Alliance government did not want to expand a functioning territorial defense in time, despite the Armed Forces' warning of Russia's growing military force.

Now we are here with an overly weak defense, even though we still have cutting-edge capabilities such as advanced fighter jets and submarines. It is no wonder that public opinion support for NATO membership grows as Russia engages in wars of aggression in central Europe.

But Sweden will not stand alone in the event of a Russian attack. Our situation is different from Ukraine's, partly through EU membership, partly because the USA and other NATO countries have a vested interest in defending, for example, Gotland. For several years, Sweden has been practicing together with these states before a possible crisis in the Baltic Sea region, and the Riksdag has decided to coordinate operational planning with NATO.

It is in this light that one should see Joe Biden's statement that Sweden is "inviolable territory" and the British Minister of Defense's similar promises. In addition, there is EU solidarity, clearly expressed by, for example, the German Chancellor. We also contribute more to the security of other countries than what is seen in public, for example through qualified intelligence and support for cyber security.

One may have different views on how Sweden ended up in this close cooperation and how appropriate it is. Tage Erlander writes in his diaries about the tug-of-war between politically elected leaders and a security establishment that sometimes wants to go further than there is a mandate for. Today's historians have an interesting task in how Sweden became part of NATO's defense planning for the Baltics, beginning under the Reinfeldt government.

It is about sending young men and women into battle abroad where some of them will die

But the fact remains: we have good reason to expect military support. It is not about goodwill from NATO countries, but about a mutual interest. So we do not have to join NATO because of any external threat. At the same time, this model gives us more freedom of action than NATO membership.

The reasons for applying are still strong. It is about sending young men and women into battle abroad where some of them will die, even without our own country being attacked. This can also be the case with today's collaborations, but the pressure will be harder as a NATO member.

We do not know who will rule the United States after the 2024 presidential election. Donald Trump was close to starting wars with Iran and North Korea. The decisions in Washington have major effects for the whole of NATO.

Sweden has for decades played an important global role where it has been an advantage that we have been perceived as more independent of Washington and have not been a major colonial power. The work of solidarity against the US-backed dictatorships in Latin America, against the Vietnam War and against apartheid in South Africa are examples to be proud of. Bengt Säve-Söderbergh reminds in the book Our victory was also you about how Nelson Mandela thanked Sweden for the help.

Sure, Germany and France were against the Iraq war in 2003, but there are limits to how much a NATO country can go against the interests of the United States. There are also advantages to a more independent role in the event of tensions in the Baltic Sea region.

Nor is it the case that only the United States can respond to a threat of nuclear weapons

NATO does not have democratic values ​​as a basis for membership in the same way as the EU. Becoming a military ally with Turkey is problematic. In addition, a Swedish NATO application would mean that we must tone down criticism of the Turkish regime's abuses in order not to jeopardize the country's approval of our membership, as well as of Viktor Orbán's authoritarian rule in Hungary.

It is therefore wrong that only NATO could give us military support, but there are other arguments for membership to consider.

That Russia is an aggressive gangster state is no surprise after the invasions of Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014. Now a united West stands against Putin's brutal dictatorship in the Kremlin and it is partly manifested through NATO. But is not the EU a better democratic community of values ​​for us?

Another argument is the risk of threats with tactical nuclear weapons. The threshold for attacking a NATO country is likely to be higher than for a non-member. At the same time, leaving Sweden to itself also means in such a scenario that NATO releases the defense of the Baltic states. Nor is it the case that only the United States can respond to a threat of nuclear weapons - the EU and its Member States have many ways of acting in such a hypothetical situation.

The main task is still to prevent nuclear war from breaking out at all. Sweden once refrained from developing its own weapons and has played an important role in the disarmament work. It is a matter of survival that we can continue to do so, something that will be more difficult as a NATO member. Giving up trying can be fatal.

Norway and Germany also act for nuclear weapons control, but a NATO country has difficulty in pressuring the nuclear weapons countries to do things that go against the alliance's nuclear weapons strategy, for example promising not to be the first to use these weapons. There is also no guarantee that future governments will say no to the deployment of nuclear weapons in Sweden according to NATO's division system.

Finally, there is the argument that we should join NATO for Finland's sake. The dialogue with Finland is important, but each country needs to make its own decisions. No one has shown that there is such a serious threat to Finland that it would make Sweden make a different decision than based on our own situation. Or that NATO would not let our neighboring country in without us if the Finns want to become members. And even if that were - does it weigh heavier than being able to continue the active work to stop a nuclear war?

Mats Engström is an author and social analyst and former political expert for the Social Democrats with responsibility for security policy