- cross-posted to:
- politics@kbin.social
- cross-posted to:
- politics@kbin.social
You must log in or register to comment.
It’s a good article, just a dumb headline.
I have a few catchy alternatives to offer: Sweden’s slam dunk military… Sweden’s AI powered military… Sweden’s mystery military power…
The article has lots of good information though regarding Sweden’s leading edge military technology in multiple sectors, military structure & size and geopolitical opportunities for NATO with Russia’s aggression in mind.
Finland in NATO is already a huge gain for the defence alliance. Sweden would as well lift NATO’s abilities to new heights. Membership is not 100% guaranteed yet, just one step closer and a positive outlook in Turkey. Hungary already stated they would follow Turkey’s position.
Sveriges “Det är lugnt jag vill inte ha bråk” och så bara PANG — KNIV I MAGEN-militär
Nu kommer Försvarsmakten på tunnelbanan hugger dig i ansiktet med skruvmejsel-militär.
I don’t think the headline is that bad. The Swedish military has known that Russia is the only real threat since before the Cold War. In the late 90s early 2000s when the government decided to remove conscription and cut spending, the military intelligence was warning that Russia was just ramping up to continue aggression, and have continued to argue the same point ever since. Our military has been specifically tailored to counter Russian aggression during this entire time period, with the goal to wear them down as much as possible using guerrilla warfare until foreign reinforcements arrive. SVT (Swedish state television) has a documentary about this, titled “Om kriget kommer”, which goes into detail about how the response to Russian aggression would work.
I have read a few different takes in the last week. That this war shows how much an army needs to be able to fight a war of attrition if they want to fight Russia and that Sweden with its relatively small numbers heavy equipment might run into problems.
We have never believed that we could stand up against Russia. The plan has always been to delay an attack as long as possible to allow troops to head to the woods for guerilla operations. Oh and to blow up our own harbours.
That’s also why the Swedish military is trained to be flexible and make their own decisions. Even our air force is designed to work like that, with small ground crews capable of serving a plane out in the field. Jas39 gripen is able to land on roads and is low enough that you can perform service standing on the ground.
That has been an issue for many years now and will take many years to change. The previous supreme commander even stated that the armed forces could only sustain a limited operation for one week. That stated was highly controversial at the time for some reason. He was even investigated for treason by the police.
But now that they are part of NATO isn’t it irrelevant?
Worst case we’ll still need to hold our own until any reinforces would arrive so not really.
NATO will probably make sure that Finland and Norway are supplied with enough material/manpower so that they are able to buffer against any eastern flank attacks.
Usually the NATO countries have temporary and sometimes permanent deployments in other countries. So it is to expect that in the near future, there will be e.g. US, French, Italian troops stationed in Finland or Sweden for some combined exercise over a few months and in rotation with other NATO countries. After the Russian invasion in Ukraine, the US moved troops of the 101st airborne to Romania, close to the border to Ukraine.
Which is the super cool living proof of NATO article 5. If one would the start an attack on Romania or in the example on Finland or Sweden, he would also attack other countries’ forces at the same time that are stationed there. So it’s not just a combined defence because of some letters on a paper. The troops are already there and would get attacked as well.
Unless they deploy tens of thousands of troops most of the time that is more of a complement in the beginning and doesn’t really change what I said.
The type of deployment we see in Romania is more to show that “attack our friends you attack us too” in the spirit of article 5 as you said.
Joining NATO comes with a certain commitment to maintaining levels of military spending. Depends on if they reach the GDP bar or not.
Good point
But nobody is fighting russia now they defend themselve sure but no attack on russia really who know how long russia can stand a full front attack from top military
