There is an unpleasant consequence if we choose the NATO path ถ้าสวีเด็นเข้าร่วมNATOจะเป็นอันตรายต่อประเทศมากในเวลาต่อไป

 Jan Guillou

There is an unpleasant consequence if we choose the NATO path

PUBLISHED: TODAY 06.51

This is a column. Analysis and opinions are the writer's own.

US President Joe Biden this week.

US President Joe Biden this week.

Photo: Carolyn Kaster / AP

COLUMNISTS

That the United States has an unpopular and confused president with the habit of putting his foot in his mouth is an international problem. It is as necessary as it is sad to admit.

As most recently when he visited Poland and within a few days succeeded with a triple embarrassment. First, he threatened Russia to respond "by the same means" if Putin decided to deploy chemical weapons in Ukraine. He thus declared himself ready to commit war crimes.

He went on to promise in a speech to US NATO forces that "we will soon see US troops in Ukraine". He thus promised war against Russia.

As a finale to this demonstration in diplomacy, he drew on the immediately winged phrase "for God's sake, that man (Putin) can not remain in power". He therefore wanted to work for a regime change in Russia. Admittedly, an attitude that many of us share. But it is extremely unwise to say out loud if you are the President of the United States.

 These verbal frogs were as useful to the Putin regime's propaganda machine as to the despair of Biden's dementia machine, which had to work hard to explain that the president had not said what he had said or at least did not mean what he said. Under no circumstances did the United States intend to commit war crimes with chemical weapons. The United States had absolutely no plans to enter with armed forces in Ukraine and the United States did not work at all for regime change in Russia.

So the president did not understand what he was saying. The only alternative is that he took the opportunity to most surprisingly declare war on Russia. Then the question arises which is the worse of the two alternatives.

To the one who now routinely sneers at dismissing this description as the old usual "US hatred" of the left type, I have a remark. I took all the reasoning from the neoliberal American columnist Ron Paul, on several occasions a Republican congressman.

 It is clear, regardless of who points it out, that the American party in the United States has a huge problem ahead of the presidential election in two years. Everything points to Joe Biden losing to Donald Trump. And if the Democrats in a panic nominate another presidential candidate, it looks like they are acknowledging that they have nominated a whirlwind that has passed the best-before date to the office as the world's most powerful man.

This problem is shunned by the now apple-cheeked optimistic circle of Swedish NATO supporters.

Their strongest argument for Swedish NATO membership is that Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if the country had been a member of NATO. Consequently, Sweden could enjoy the same security by crawling under NATO, that is, essentially the United States' nuclear umbrella. There is undoubted logic in that reasoning. Provided that the next president of the United States becomes a Democrat.

 Since it is the American president who is the highest commander in NATO, an unpleasant consequence arises if Sweden gives up the last remnants of the right to an independent foreign policy and submits to American command. Not just for the risk of ending up in idiotic wars, an American specialty. Even worse if it is the illustriously sensible Putin friend Donald Trump who becomes the next president of the United States. Which is an equally obvious and imminent catastrophic risk.

  A single bourgeois NATO supporter has dared to take a nap with the Trump problem, Olle Wästberg in Svenska Dagbladet (April 7).

 Wästberg agrees that the danger is obvious, but still has the consolation to come. He points out, quite correctly, that Trump is inclined to make sure that the United States leaves NATO and that Trump believes that the most important task of the US military is to defend the border with Mexico, that is, to forcefully stop Latin American immigration to the United States. Wästberg also points out that Trump, like a majority in American public opinion, is opposed to US military involvement outside the United States.

Thus, Wästberg argues both against himself and against the Swedish NATO accession.

 Because let's say that Ulf Kristersson (M) and the other NATO supporters get what they want. Sweden will join NATO sometime after midsummer and has thus joined the ranks of Russia's openly declared military enemies. Which we can take in our new safe position under the umbrella of NATO and the United States. Financing for two years.

Then Donald Trump is sworn in as the new president of the United States, happy and grateful for all the help he received from Russia also during this election campaign. And the United States is leaving NATO.

The question then becomes whether the nuclear arsenal of France and Britain is deterrent enough for the Russian dictator. Or if France and Great Britain really want to go to world war for the sake of Sweden and Finland, for example.

It all boils down to the disappointing conclusion that one can hardly decide which would be the worst, that the United States stays in NATO. Or that the United States is leaving NATO. If Donald Trump becomes president again.