Sweden and a political neutrality shift

[gf0012-aust]

I've attended a number of briefings recently where its become apparent that Sweden is actively courting the US and asking to be included in technology developments that were previously restricted to ABCA, NATO, "Five I's" partners etc... Some Swedish technologies are also now owned by US parent companies - and there has not been any resistance by the Swedish Govt for this to happen

Some of these technologies that Sweden seeks entry or admission into require other allied partners agreement, so the US is nominally obliged to seek other partners concensus.

The big issue, outside of the obvious change in Swedens escalation in participation in US weapons systems, electronic warfare and communications programs is the shift in perception held about neutrality.

I'm curious about how some of the other countries are reacting to this shift as its not getting any attention in the public domain - and yet is obviously happening. Whereas before we would not be sharing emergent technology sets with the Swedes, we now are seeing other countries establishing MOU's etc....

I'm not going to discuss the technologies involved (for obvious and various reasons) - just the implications that arise out of this very clear shift in behaviour.

[Grand Danois]

Geopolitical issues in the Swedish neighbourhood:

BMD sites in Poland/Iskanders in Kaliningrad,
Nord Stream pipeline,
SIGINT, new law permitting the FRA to dip into the Russian int'l internet comms, 80% of which passes through Sweden.
Stability and security of neighbours:

Finnish elites and military wish to get cuddly with NATO,
Baltic states and their unease, reinforced by the war in Georgia.



Politico-industrial:

Access for Swedish defence industry to markets & technology - bilateralism/multilateralism seems to lead nowhere.

To name a few...

[Feanor]

Another to consider is the fact that development and procurement costs are on the rise. It's becoming harder and harder for countries to manufacture their own weapons. It looks like the Swedish MIC is on a course of integration with other major western weapons manufacturers.

[swerve]

Feanor has hit the nail on the head.

Sweden always expected that if WW3 began, there was only one side it could possibly fight on. That hasn't changed. But technologically, & in terms of military budgets, times have changed. Sweden can no longer develop its own aircraft (except engines), radars, tanks, guns, datalinks, missiles (except AAMs), submarines, etc., etc., export very little, & keep up with the world well enough for its forces to stay credible. Development costs are up, budgets & volumes are down.

[Feanor]

Which leaves them with two choices: integration with a larger MIC and export orders. They have been doing a little bit of both, but integration seems to be the favored choice. After all the world weapon markets are largely divided up between existing players, and even new markets as they emerge are quickly gobbled up.

[swerve]

Agreed: the Swedes lack both political clout & mass, which matter in arms exports. Integration is their only option, if they want to stay in the game. The only choices they have (& there they have to be careful, as mistakes may cost them dear) are on exactly how, & with who, they integrate.

[Grand Danois]

It's not only a question of mass/volume, but also of access to tech and market. Being in the same alliance diminishes political risk and also reduce economical risk (because there are more potential partners for projects). Access to technology and restricted data also helps out. The product is becomes more competitive.

What has been overlooked so far is the informationalizing of warfare. Earlier exports were discrete systems like howitzers or recoilles rifles. Today with NCW, weapons has to fit into C2 & doctrine on so every levels, not to mention the security aspect of it. Being able to certify to NATO standards become an issue not only of access to markets, but also of security clearances.

It seems that if a nation wants to collaborate, intimacy is required on all levels - and since a female can't be half pregnant...

[nevidimka]

Does it has anything to do with the Swedish politicians and people finally warming up to the idea of joining NATO with the disappearance of the Soviet Union threat? They stayed neutral to avoid being turned into a desert by the SU, but its irrelevant now as there is no worries from the east.

On the business front, the loss of the Gripen in the Scandinavian markets probably made them see what their position brings to them.

[Feanor]

And the new east-European NATO members are a perfect market niche for Swedish equipment if they can certify it to NATO standards. Then again it doesn't require NATO membership. Afterall MiG was able to create the 29SD variant which is standardized with NATO. We may see either a new NATO member, or possibly simply increased collaboration without actual formal acceptance into the alliance.

[gf0012-aust]

Afterall MiG was able to create the 29SD variant which is standardized with NATO. We may see either a new NATO member, or possibly simply increased collaboration without actual formal acceptance into the alliance.

The Israelis also did their upgrade proposal for the Romanians (Mig 29 Sniper). Problem was that it was too expensive and they went for the Lancer upgrade instead.

[nevidimka]

A big reason is just business then. During the cold war, they had to be carefull with selling their weapons to the west or the eastern block. With the end of the Cold war military weapons are being sold to everyone and anyone with $$$. They just don't wan to be left behind in the lucrative market.

[gf0012-aust]

A big reason is just business then. During the cold war, they had to be carefull with selling their weapons to the west or the eastern block. With the end of the Cold war military weapons are being sold to everyone and anyone with $$$. They just don't wan to be left behind in the lucrative market.

It's a bit more complicated than that.

Previously the swedes did sell to both sides of the fence, and it had caused some angst with some of the skandinavians because of them selling to both sides in WW2.

the difference now is that some of the new technologies developed by the US involve other allied agreement to "share" - whereas previously it was just commercial and no prior agreements etc were required or sought.

eg some of the new communications technologies aren't being made available to all allies, but sweden has been "invited" to participate.

that indicates a subtle shift across all fronts. ie, access into these new technology streams by association makes them an "ally"

[harryriedl]

It's a bit more complicated than that.

Previously the swedes did sell to both sides of the fence, and it had caused some angst with some of the skandinavians because of them selling to both sides in WW2.

the difference now is that some of the new technologies developed by the US involve other allied agreement to "share" - whereas previously it was just commercial and no prior agreements etc were required or sought.

eg some of the new communications technologies aren't being made available to all allies, but sweden has been "invited" to participate.

that indicates a subtle shift across all fronts. ie, access into these new technology streams by association makes them an "ally"
A slightly related question what tech is considered privileged (if OPESC don't bother) would things like comms and sig management or are there other things which require similar privileged statues between allies which require prior agreement.

[gf0012-aust]

would things like comms and sig management or are there other things which require similar privileged statues between allies which require prior agreement.


purposely vague.

technology that impacts upon joint operations

[Dalregementet]

It's a bit more complicated than that.

Previously the swedes did sell to both sides of the fence, and it had caused some angst with some of the skandinavians because of them selling to both sides in WW2.

the difference now is that some of the new technologies developed by the US involve other allied agreement to "share" - whereas previously it was just commercial and no prior agreements etc were required or sought.

eg some of the new communications technologies aren't being made available to all allies, but sweden has been "invited" to participate.

that indicates a subtle shift across all fronts. ie, access into these new technology streams by association makes them an "ally"


This very fact has now been noticed by the "leftists" in Sweden. A debate article that protested against Sweden's "step by step" move into Nato was today published in one of Sweden biggest newspapers, Dagens Nyheter.

http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/artikel_2124119.svd

[Feanor]

Do you have a translation by any chance?

[Dalregementet]

Do you have a translation by any chance?

Ehh - yes, after some searching and trial & error work... Also, It was the newspaper Svenska Dagbladet not Dagens Nyheter - sorry.

- - - - - - - - - - -

In a newspaper letter in February 2006, the Karlskoga native Roland Forsgren stated the following: 'One day we will, of the Swedish people, to wake up and find that we are in NATO, EMU and the United States of Europe. I hope someone can explain how it happened / ... /. How do we - in the name of democracy - the loss of our sovereignty. 'Since then, this issue has become even more acute, not least with regard to NATO issue. Because Sweden has been drawn ever deeper into NATO, which is dominated by the United States and that, in accordance with the superpower doctrine, claiming the right to first use of kärnvapen. This deepening cooperation has been contrary to public opinion. According to the SOM-institute, the Institute's latest poll 2007 was 44 percent against and only 19 percent for NATO membership, and with some minor variations, so it has been published since 1994 began studying the issue. But behind people's backs has been a stealth accession to NATO.

It has now gone so far that NATO supporters can reasonably be argued that Sweden in fact is already informally with the order where 90 procent.Det is simply to acknowledge this fact, it says, and take the next small step to formal membership with all benefits that this alleged offer, that it will 'be with, and influence.' (See eg 'We should join NATO formally', 7 / 11 2007, and 'Sweden is already in NATO', 8 / 2 2008 in Svenska Dagbladet Brännpunkt.Unfortunately it is true that Sweden's cooperation with NATO has gone extremely deep without debate. The underlying process deserve proper lighting. It is not just a question of our security policy. It is also very much a question of democracy.

The question that should be obvious is: Given the significant and persistent public opinion towards NATO accession, and that only one of seven parliamentary parties openly advocate full membership, how it was anything possible to Sweden so much already themselves wrapped in NATO? We believe it is about the tyranny of small steps. But it can be assumed that these steps have been taken by real life people who apparently represents a small minority. This is why it is urgent to find out: • What are the small - and perhaps even greater - the steps taken to date? • Who has taken these steps, with the means and motives, and with what legitimacy? • Which elected representatives have allowed this to happen, and how come?

Rapprochement with NATO seems to be proceeding under the assumption that most already know what NATO is, what the alliance previously kept on with what it has for the future, the role of Sweden should have a connection, and what determines under which we beslutsprocess. Do Swedish people accept that our soldiers will die or get but for the life of the OFFENSIVE and other wars in which Sweden alone would never intervene militarily? What does it mean for our ability to support UN operations in the future? And not least: How are we going to the NATO nuclear weapons? Other potentially relevant questions are: Is there any connection between events in American security policy and NATO's growing importance, for example around the submarine incidents?

In what ways, directly and indirectly, said NATO could exert influence on the armed forces and society in general? What relationship is there between the EU and NATO and the United Nations and NATO - important because both the EU and the UN is quite crucial for India? Will Defense Forces economic crisis to increase or reduce the arguments for NATO accession? With few exceptions, our elected representatives and the media had surreptitious connection proceed without much resistance or attempts to lighting. Journalism critical function of security by their absence. This has facilitated a determined minority to create the impression that all resistance is futile. But the information, debate and resistance is never meaningless.

A first step is to highlight the issue and draw the spotlight on the entire process. To this end we have established an online forum where all are welcome to submit comments and suggestions, be informed about the project's development and more. The URL is: www.natosmyg.seSjälvfallet, it is important to also hold the debate in other forums, such as here in the Svenska Dagbladet Brännpunkt.På term, we must also address the issue of how Sweden should maintain its security in other ways than through NATO medlemskap.Denna discussion should naturally assume that Sweden in the first instance and in accordance with the UN Charter, the emphasis on peaceful conflict resolution and dialogue rather than military power and military alliances. We urge all who want to protect the country's democracy and autonomy to participate in this for the future of Sweden's extremely important debate.

- - - - - - - -

That was it! Excuse the bad Swedish/English "online translation" but I think you get the picture. Svenska Dagbladet is the largest conservative newspaper in Sweden and this debate article did pop up today.

BR

[Feanor]

Interesting. But the article ignores the simple fact that Sweden has only 3 choices. Integration with NATO, integration with another major MIC (for example close cooperation with Russia, or China), or finally huge international success in marketing it's defence-related products.

Those are the only three paths which will allow the Swedish MIC to survive within the modern world, and two of them are highly far fetched. I suppose it's possible for Sweden to integrate with both NATO, and another major player, especially if Russia and NATO (in particular it's European component) become less antagonistic, but ultimately it doesn't seem likely, and if I had to bet my money on one of the three outcomes, I'd bet on NATO integration.

[Dalregementet]

Interesting. But the article ignores the simple fact that Sweden has only 3 choices. Integration with NATO, integration with another major MIC (for example close cooperation with Russia, or China), or finally huge international success in marketing it's defence-related products.

Those are the only three paths which will allow the Swedish MIC to survive within the modern world, and two of them are highly far fetched. I suppose it's possible for Sweden to integrate with both NATO, and another major player, especially if Russia and NATO (in particular it's European component) become less antagonistic, but ultimately it doesn't seem likely, and if I had to bet my money on one of the three outcomes, I'd bet on NATO integration.

The people that wrote that article are not considered to be the most intelligent people in this world - this is the far left in Swedish politics and they are quite marginalised. I´m surprised though that it took them this long to figure out that Sweden is moving closer to Nato in a quite rapid pace.

If you would read Swedish history, you would know that cooperation with russia is totally impossible. Sweden and russia have been arch enemies since the 13th century. Russia considers Sweden to be an enemy and they would never think of having Sweden as a "partner".

[Feanor]

The modern world is a very different place from the 13th century. In any partnership Sweden would be a junior partner, and Russia would be more then willing to move closer with Sweden in the defense sphere, in particular as a means for keeping NATO expansion in check, and getting access to additional technologies. However I doubt Sweden would be willing to, not to mention that Sweden is already actively cooperating with the US and using US parts in it's military products. All of that makes the move much less likely.

[Dalregementet]

The modern world is a very different place from the 13th century. In any partnership Sweden would be a junior partner, and Russia would be more then willing to move closer with Sweden in the defense sphere, in particular as a means for keeping NATO expansion in check, and getting access to additional technologies. However I doubt Sweden would be willing to, not to mention that Sweden is already actively cooperating with the US and using US parts in it's military products. All of that makes the move much less likely.

I do understand that you don´t know Swedish history or understands Swedish mentality - if you did then you would know that elaborating a russian/Swedish partnership is totally meaningless. The mutual dislike between russia and Sweden is very deep rooted even though it is masked behind diplomatic phrases. The same goes for Finland/russia.

[Dalregementet]

Does it has anything to do with the Swedish politicians and people finally warming up to the idea of joining NATO with the disappearance of the Soviet Union threat? They stayed neutral to avoid being turned into a desert by the SU, but its irrelevant now as there is no worries from the east.

On the business front, the loss of the Gripen in the Scandinavian markets probably made them see what their position brings to them.

You missunderstand the so called "neutrality policy". Sweden stated before that "Sweden is non aligned, in order to be neutral in war" - I cant translate the Swedish text perfectly, but the statement play with words. The Swedish meaning is that Sweden could be neutral but it doesn't "promise" to be that - it's quite loosely formulated, deliberately of course. The so called "neutrality policy" was only a diplomatic defence line - never to be used in reality. Just like the Finnish/Soviet agreement of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance - the russians tried to activate it during the Cuba crisis with poor results :D

Sweden did plan preemptive strikes against Soviet Union, especially against Baltic harbours. If the Norwegian defence would have broke down, a Swedish attack against soviet forces could have been an option. Otherwise Sweden would have been surrounded by soviet forces.

The "desert" thing has never been something that really scared Sweden. If SU would have used nuclear against Sweden it had also meant the instant death of all cockroaches in the SU...;)

Both Sweden and Finland think the time is right to start moving into a Nato membership and this will probably happen some time 2015-2020.

The decline of the russian armed forces will continue - they are not able to add new equipment in the pace that older equipment becomes useless. Russia is very much a source for raw materials, no value add what so ever. As long as that continues, russia will be a relatively poor country with no possibility to reach a critical mass of funds that allows russsia to recreate it´s defence forces, i.e. russia wont be a great power militarily wise. The items russia adds are too few and also inferior in quality.

[Feanor]

The decline of the russian armed forces will continue - they are not able to add new equipment in the pace that older equipment becomes useless. Russia is very much a source for raw materials, no value add what so ever. As long as that continues, russia will be a relatively poor country with no possibility to reach a critical mass of funds that allows russsia to recreate it´s defence forces, i.e. russia wont be a great power militarily wise. The items russia adds are too few and also inferior in quality.

The reverse of that decline is a real possibility and is being implemented as we speak. If you want to discuss that aspect of it feel free to do it in another thread. But believe me if the planned funding reaches the armed forces, then we will see a very different Russian army in the next 5-10 years.

[Wall83]

Some has sad that the extreme downsizing of the Swedish armed forces in recent years is to make it clear to the people that the only way to defend yourself is by joining NATO.
It is relly scary to see how much the Swedish armed forces has gone downhill in the last ten to fifteen years. In the 1970s and earley 80s the swedish armed forces could mobilized allmost 1 million men, today that figure is down to about 320.000 and it would take a full year to mobilize them. However as soon as the russians made a small military move and attacked Georgia the swedish gouverment stopped all plans to close more regemints.

[Dalregementet]

A Nato exercise, "Loyal Arrow", will be held in Sweden, Luleå next year at the F21 air base.

Loyal Arrow
An international air exercise with participants from about 30 countries and about 60 aircraft. The objective is to train the Nato Rapid Response Force. First time the exercise is in Sweden. The exercise is held between the 8th to the 16th of June 2009.