RSS

Last year Russia purchased four Mistral-class amphibious assault ships from France, allowing the Russian navy much greater latitude in responding to contingencies worldwide. In response to this event, Swedish Defense Minister Sten Tolgfors told a recent Stockholm security conference, "Mistral will contribute to the development of Russian military capability and we will need to relate to this as well. A strong Swedish air force with sea targeting capabilities and modernization of our submarine fleet are some of the decisions that I see as relevant when the effect of the Mistral is discussed." If one were to simply identify Mr. Tolgfors as a ‘Western European defense minister,’ his comments would seem unusually bombastic when addressing Russia. Looking into the recent past, however, this sort of commentary is actually not unusual for a Swedish official on issues of security.

In contrast to Scandinavian neighbors Norway and Denmark, Sweden chose not to join the NATO security collective during the Cold War. Nonetheless, Sweden maintained a strong defense capability during this period due to its close proximity to the Soviet Union. This also helped Sweden to develop a strong indigenous defense industry. Joining the European Union in 1995, the more independent course taken by the country was relaxed somewhat as the country joined efforts to stabilize Eurasia in the post-Cold War era. Despite not being a NATO member, Sweden has nonetheless made substantial military personnel contributions to NATO’s International Security Assistance Force mission in Afghanistan as well. On March 23, Sweden's relationship with NATO was further strengthened by its participation in a NATO Baltic air forces exercise. This marked the first time that Sweden utilized its Gripen fighter aircraft, in operation since 1996, in a NATO exercise. Such an exercise proved particularly important given recent global events: on April 1, the Swedish parliament approved the government's proposal to contribute Gripen aircraft to the NATO-led enforcement of the no-fly zone over Libya.

A lingering influence of traditional independence on foreign policy matters combined with the underlying complexities in Sweden’s geographical position have made it a more interesting case than may initially be apparent. This has also given Sweden greater latitude in developing itself as a leader on European security issues. Foreign Minister Carl Bildt asserted this tone in remarks to parliament, noting that Sweden must have an active role in the Libya crisis given the probability of the EU facing a refugee influx in the coming weeks. Such a statement is a positive step toward giving the EU a more unified voice on the Libya crisis as EU assertiveness on the issue has been questionable up to this point. Sweden has already taken the correct step toward a stronger relationship with NATO by agreeing to be part of the alliance's enforcement of the Libyan no-fly zone. As such, it would behoove both organizations to continue to give strong consideration to Sweden's pragmatic approach to security issues given the positive contributions by the nation to recent collective security efforts.

Mike McCormack is a graduate of Florida State University and the University of Denver.

April 19, 2011

Erik Tropp, University College London, Bronze Contributor (12)

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Mr. McCormack,

Thanks for an interesting article! I believe the Nordic region in general has been unduly overlooked in both Transatlantic and European security discussions.

Regarding the statements made by Tolgfors, I believe that the context might be worth noting. Tolgfors has in fact been a driving force in restructuring and reducing the armed forces, moving it from a Cold War-style territorial defense force to more mobile - but significantly smaller - task forces, effectively meaning Russia is no longer recognized as a military threat.

Therefore, intuition tells me that his remarks might have been intended for a domestic audience still locked in a geopolitical mindset (i.e. worrying about a Russian invasion), although I am not familiar with which audience might have attended the conference.


You raise an important issue concerning both the relationship with NATO and its EU-membership. Although Sweden is supposedly neutral, it has been, along with Finland, one of the most active proponents for a more capable and integrated EU in terms of security and defense. But Sweden is also, as you rightly point out, taking part in several NATO-led operations.

This leads me to believe that Sweden in some ways is exactly where it wants to be. It takes part in NATO operations and exercises, increasing its capabilities and international recognition. But not taking the full step towards membership means Sweden can still opt out from some operations without serious repercussions. Furthermore, not being a NATO-member still has advantages in some important bilateral relations. In the meantime, striving to build EU capabilities means it will move closer to the core of decision-making in the EU, which is where Sweden, vis-á-vis NATO, will ultimately put its allegiance.

Therefore, while I definitely see Sweden continuing to develop its relationship with NATO in the future, I don't think it's likely that it will pursue membership. If nothing else, domestic opinion is still opposed to membership, and this has always been heeded.

April 20, 2011

Niina Nykänen, University College London, Bronze Contributor (13)

• 4
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Mr. McCormack,

Thank you for your interesting opinion on the recent developments in Swedish defence politics. The participation of the neutral Scandinavian country in the NATO operation in Libya has certainly increased attention to its defence activity, which was here highlighted by the comments of the Defence Minister on Russian military capability. However, I have to disagree with that these developments would have a considerable impact on the neutral position of Sweden in the near future.

The participation of Sweden in Operation Odyssey Dawn seems to be more a demonstration of solidarity for the protection of Libyan civilians than truly active cooperation with NATO forces, at least compared to the contributions from other countries. The Swedish JAS Gripen aircrafts, with their ability to operate both in air and land, are highly compatible with NATO forces. This explains, at least to some extent, why Sweden was asked to contribute to the operation. However, the Swedish forces are only mandated to the use these capabilities in self-defence, which undermines their cooperation in the operation. Furthermore, the securitization of Libyan civilians is increasingly calling for forces to the ground. In order to make a real contribution to the operation, a neutral country would be better advised to focus its capabilities on non-military securitization of the civilian population on the ground. Instead, in showing support for the operation from the air, Sweden is trying to have its cake and eat it too.

The comments of the Defence Minister on Russian military capability clearly reflect the growing importance of Russia in the Arctic region, which directly influences its neighbouring Norway. The maritime border between the two countries was agreed on in September last year, coinciding with the commentary of the Defence Minister. I would view these comments as a reflection on this development rather than a growing need for Sweden to increase its strategic importance. Furthermore, as the developments of recent years have also included cuts on the defence budget and the abolishment of national conscription, I would argue that Sweden is going to stay neutral in the future as well.

April 27, 2011

Mike McCormack, Florida International University, Gold Contributor (88)

• 3
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Thank you both for your comments, which add a lot of new contexts for me as well. I would certainly agree that Sweden will not be looking to join NATO any time soon--if anything, its current relationship with the organization works well for both parties. To that extent, I do not think it will seek a considerable departure from its traditional attitude toward alliances (I'm not so sure that I like using the word "neutral" in its purest form to describe Sweden, given its participation in Afghanistan, Libya, etc).

I do think, however, that it may end up taking an influential role in the development of the EU's growing defense system. You can certainly argue that this is happenstance rather than purposeful intent, as only 3 other Western European countries are members of the EU but not NATO. As it does not have to balance its defense commitments with NATO, however, Sweden would thus have the ability to channel a lot of its energy toward the EU system. As we have seen in recent events, Sweden is certainly keeping events outside of Europe in mind when it comes to its defense capabilities (even if it's only doing so under certain conditions, as Ms. Nykanen pointed out). As such, it will be interesting to see what sort of influence Sweden will have in the European security system should the EU build a greater role in the defense arena.

November 30, 2011

An American

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Sweden contributes very little economically to these world efforts. Afghanistan and Lybia were justified actions. Irag was a personal war for George Bush and Dick Chaney; it had no justification. But in all three countries Sweden is one of the first to go in to these countries after the action is nearing completion to gain a commercial footprint. So Sweden invests very little and gains a great deal in return. Neutrality is just an excuse to let other countries finance these efforts - right or wrong - and to keep Sweden's money at home. Sweden's actions speak loudly about the greed and self-interest of the Swedish people. If Sweden wanted to remain neutral then don't profit off of the countless deaths and billions of dollars other countries have put forth in these efforts. Sweden is collecting the money these other countries contribute to re-build these war torn countries in commercial sales. I actually sat near some Swedish executives in a restaurant and heard them discussing using certain connections within the government to get these contracts.

Tags: | An American |

December 23, 2011

Arthur Zielinski

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Let's be real here. Sweden's neutrality is a formality, useful for domestic political consumption, but it has always been seen by the Soviet Union, and now Russia, as as much part of NATO as any other formally aligned country. The numerous nuclear-armed Scud missiles based on the Baltic coast of Poland during the Warsaw Pact era, and aimed at Swedish targets, were sufficient proof of this. On their part the Swedes have, since the 1960's, have had all of their command, control and tactical facilities fully compatible with NATO systems. So the Swedes have their cake and eat it - so what? Sweden's "neutrality" suits their internal politics, their not-so-secret allies, and a potentially threatening Russia. There are no losers, so it's a benign hypocrisy.

As to the "greed and self-interest of the Swedish people", well, business is business, and if they have something to sell that Iraqis want to buy, commerce rules, and there are profits to be had. This is, for good or ill, the world we live in......

Commenting has been deactivated in the archive. We appreciate your comments on our more recent articles at atlantic-community.org