Defense, neutrality, non-alignment, information

by Gunnar Lindqvist

BEFORE THE SEPTEMBER ELECTION, THERE WAS A LOT OF DEBATE about the important issues of welfare, education, research and unemployment. However, there was relatively less discussion about our external and internal security. This was actually strange because security is the basis for us to build on our free society as well as the opportunity for positive development in welfare and culture.

The global security situation has deteriorated significantly in recent years, not least for our country. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990, many believed that we only needed minimal defense. After all, we had no potential enemy. But those with experience were not as optimistic. The result is that we now have far too little defense. The security situation could become critical in a short time.

When it looks like we have no threat to our country, it is tempting to shrink the defense to a minimum, as was done in 1925 and 2000. When threats later arise, it takes more than ten years to build up a sufficiently strong defense. One question is: How long before the threat becomes real can we count on some form of grace period. It can be anything from a few months to a few years. It also depends on the intelligence service organization and the decision-making power that is available. In order for the processes not to get out of phase with each other, the defense must always be dimensioned so strongly that it only takes part of the ten years before you have a sufficiently strong defense.

Sweden has been neutral and non-aligned since the Napoleonic Wars in the early nineteenth century. It was a good policy until the mid-1930s. After the First World War, few understood that a whole new field of tension had been created between the countries of the world.

Our neutrality and non-alignment have been praised by many, not least by politicians. The reasons why we became neutral and non-aligned during World War II and the Cold War have never been described to the citizens in a correct way, but they have been fed the myth of the “successful” Neutrality and Non-alignment.

The background to our neutrality and non-alignment
Neutrality means not choosing sides between two states that are at war or in crisis. Non-alliance means not committing oneself to solidarity with other states. When an ordinary citizen and some politicians talk about neutrality, they often mean both concepts.

Sweden has pursued a policy of neutrality and non-alignment for almost 200 years. Before that, the country had been part of various alliances on several occasions in history. The most important were the Kalmar Union during the late Middle Ages and the alliance with France during the 1600th century. The result of the Thirty Years' War was largely that the unification of Germany was delayed for 30 years and that Sweden became a military superpower. However, this superpower was based on neither a sufficiently large population nor a sufficiently strong economy. After the Napoleonic Wars, it was realized that: 200) we should no longer get involved in other people's wars and 1) we should not send our soldiers out to bleed to death on foreign battlefields. Sweden became neutral. It was the right decision at the time. Now, at the beginning of the 2st century, these two principles have been abandoned.

At various times, the issue of our neutrality policy and non-alignment has been up for discussion, but hardly seriously enough from a political perspective.

1800s
During the 1800th century, discussions were held on three occasions between Sweden and Norway about whether to deviate from neutrality.

The border in Southern Jutland between the duchies of Holstein, Lauenburg and Schleswig on the one hand and Denmark on the other had long been a point of contention. The three duchies had belonged to the Holy Roman Empire since the Middle Ages. The dukes came from various German princely houses, including Danish kings. In 1806, the Holy Roman Empire was abolished by Napoleon. In 1815, the German Confederation was formed instead by 39 German states, including the Empire of Austria, the Kingdom of Prussia, the Duchy of Holstein, etc. (But not Schleswig). The German Confederation was initially a fairly loose association. In 1848, Denmark wanted to tie Schleswig and Holstein closer to itself. The Germans living there did not want this. The unrest in Schleswig-Holstein meant a clear opposition between Denmark on the one hand and Prussia and Austria on the other. The result was the Schleswig-Holstein War of 1848–51. Sweden-Norway did not participate directly in the war, but stationed just over 4 soldiers on the island of Funen. This was a signal that Sweden-Norway would not accept German troops in North Jutland. These troops returned home when a ceasefire was reached in the autumn of 000. However, after a short time the parties resumed fighting. A preliminary peace was reached in July 1848. In the period leading up to the peace of 1849, two buffer zones were opened: Prussian troops were stationed in southern Schleswig, Swedish-Norwegian in northern Schleswig. The peace of 1851 was to Denmark's advantage. Several volunteers from Sweden-Norway participated in the war in the spirit that developed during Scandinavianism.

Russia had been expanding geographically since the 1300th century. Turkey, the Ottoman Sultanate, was in decline during the 1700th century. This extensive empire began to be called the sick man of Europe. By conquering Ukraine, Russia gained ports on the Black Sea. The next step would be to conquer the exit to the Mediterranean. The timing was well chosen in terms of propaganda, 400 years after Christendom had lost Constantinople to the Muslim Turks. France and Britain opposed Russia's demands. The reason was that the balance between Europe's great powers would be completely different. The war lasted from 1853 to 1856 and was fought mainly in the Crimea and the Baltic Sea for France and Britain. Another front was Moldova.

France and Great Britain wanted Sweden-Norway on their side. Sweden, with Oscar I as king, probably had some hopes of reconquering "our eastern half of the kingdom". Whether Finland was involved in this was probably very doubtful. They would probably have preferred to form their own state even then. The negotiations between the four countries did not lead to any entry into the war from the side of Sweden-Norway, but rather to the so-called November Treaties, which can be considered a departure from our neutrality and non-alignment. These agreements were valid well into the 1900th century. However, the British and French fleets were given the opportunity to resupply on Gotland and in the southern archipelago of Stockholm on their way to Bomarssund on Åland.

In 1863, Prussia, under Bismarck's leadership, had created a strong organization within the German Confederation. Now they demanded back what they had lost in the war of 1848–51. Even now, there was discussion about whether Sweden-Norway should side with Denmark. But that did not happen. Denmark therefore stood alone. After a few months of war, Denmark capitulated. The war is usually called the Danish-German War. The German Confederation took back all three duchies. Several volunteers from Sweden-Norway participated in the war in 1863. But Scandinavianism died after the war.

Shortly thereafter, in 1866, Prussia forced the Austrian Empire to withdraw from the German Confederation. Now all German states were united under Prussia and formed the German Empire. Germany attacked France and won in 1870-71.

The First World War
Around the turn of the century, our defense had been reduced. Despite the increased threat of war, only small measures were taken to re-arm. It went so far that the citizens themselves spontaneously began to collect money for defense in the face of the threat of a world war. The peasant movement and Gustav V's speech to the court caused a government crisis. A reinforcement of the defense was begun.

The First World War was caused by several factors. It was the balance between the great powers, Russia's desire to take responsibility for the Slavic states, the struggle for colonies, etc. On one side were France and Great Britain (the Entente), Russia, the USA, Italy, Japan, etc. On the other side were Germany and Austria/Hungary (the Central Powers), the Ottoman Empire, etc. The war lasted from 1914 to 1918. We managed to remain neutral in Scandinavia.

During the October Revolution on November 7, 1917, the Bolsheviks decided that several parts of Russia would become new states; including Finland. On December 6, the Finnish Parliament proclaimed the country's independence. Sweden recognized the new state on January 4, 1918. (Same day as the Soviet Union)

At the beginning of 1918, there were still about 40 Russian soldiers in Finland. The country's population was divided into two camps: the Whites (mostly in northern, central and eastern Finland) and the Reds (mostly in southern Finland). The Whites had prepared for the freedom struggle by training so-called hunters in Germany. At the end of February 000, the civil war/war of freedom between the Whites and the Reds began due to a Red coup d'état in Helsinki.

The White government in Vaasa requested permission to buy weapons and ammunition from Sweden and to transit war material from Germany through Sweden. They also appealed for direct Swedish intervention. The answer to that question was no. The reason for the negative attitude was largely due to the fact that our politicians had different opinions about who should win; the Whites or the Reds. At that time, they knew nothing about what communism would lead to. But our reaction then, as well as during the Winter War of 1939-40, is still fresh in our neighbor's memory. They do not seem to have experienced any greater solidarity from Sweden.

The Åland population was mostly Swedish-speaking. They showed a desire to belong to Sweden. A delegation was sent to Stockholm in early February 1918 to request that King Gustav V allow Åland to be reunited with Sweden. However, there were still Russian soldiers on the island. The Swedish government assumed that there was a risk that these soldiers would turn against the population. On 13 February, Sweden sent transport ships to Åland, escorted by ships from the Navy, to evacuate the Ålanders who wanted to move directly to Sweden. But now both White and Red soldiers from Finland also came to Åland. These started fighting against each other. Sweden then sent some larger warships, a battalion from the army and three companies from the coastal defense to Åland. After negotiations, it was agreed to evacuate Russians, White Finns and Red Finns to desired ports.

At the separate peace of Brest-Litovsk on March 3, 1918 between Germany/Austria and Russia, Russia was forced to give up several countries, such as Finland and Poland. Now Germany could more actively support the Whites in Finland. Both Germany and Finland asked the Swedes to go home. On March 5, units from the German fleet arrived in Åland. The Swedish units handed over the evacuation to the Germans. (One is surprised at how quickly decisions and actions were made.)

In 1919, the Ålanders held yet another referendum which again showed that almost everyone on Åland wanted to belong to Sweden. The matter was referred to the new League of Nations. At the negotiations in Geneva in 1920, it was decided that Åland would belong to Finland. However, Åland was granted a certain independence. One of the reasons for the decision was perhaps that the Finno-Swedes in Finland did not want Åland to become Swedish.

1920s and 1930s
Fundamental discoveries and inventions were made during these years. They became significant in many respects. Then semiconductors were discovered (a prerequisite for the entire development of computers), then radar, the jet and rocket engine were invented, and then the first nuclear fission was achieved. Airlines established transcontinental routes.

Politically, the world changed considerably. From being dominated by strong and technologically advanced countries with extensive colonies, we entered an era where the different political ideologies came to fight against each other. Germany, Japan and Italy with national racist ideas began to commit violence against other countries. The newly formed League of Nations did not have time to live up to its intended role. The democratic countries did not have time to join forces in a sufficiently strong alliance. Negotiations with Hitler were pointless. One experience from these years and everything since then is that you can never trust a deal with a dictatorship. Few people in the world realized where things were going. Actually, our and others' neutrality policy should have been reconsidered even then. But the time was not ripe.

In Sweden, the 1925 defense decision had led to disarmament. It was believed that no one would be so crazy as to start a second world war. Unfortunately, there were some. In 1939, we had a poor, outdated defense. However, people had woken up in 1936 and started rearmament and building a defense equipment industry. Per-Albin Hansson said: “Our preparedness is good.” It was a white lie. We were not equipped until the 1950s, several years after the end of the Second World War.

However, the disarmament decided upon in 1925 was in several respects not as comprehensive as today's disarmament and restructuring of the defense.

The Second World War
In 1939, World War II broke out. It could not be stopped because the Axis powers had gained too much of an advantage in their armaments. Germany and the Soviet Union began by dividing Poland and the Baltic countries. France and Great Britain declared war on Germany. In 1939, the Soviet Union demanded naval bases in the Gulf of Finland. Finland refused and the so-called 100-Day War began. Finland requested help, but Sweden did not want to enter the war. However, a Swedish air force was established in northern Finland with aircraft and personnel from our air force. Much military equipment was transported over to Finland. Many volunteers from Sweden participated in the Finnish army, including the Swedish Volunteer Corps of approximately 7 men who were deployed in Northern Finland.

During World War II, our country built up a fairly comprehensive defense equipment industry to become less dependent on imports of military equipment.

Sweden, like most other European states, declared itself neutral. After Poland and the Baltic states had been slaughtered by Germany and the Soviet Union, and after Germany had occupied France (except for its southeastern part), Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and several states on the Balkan Peninsula, Germany was ready to break the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact and invade the Soviet Union. The Germans treated the European states in different ways. Some became allies of Germany: Hungary, Finland, and Romania. Norway was occupied because Germany needed submarine bases in its fjords. Denmark was also occupied. The reason was to block the entrances to the Baltic Sea.

How did the Germans reason about Sweden? The relevant question in Berlin was: did they get the most iron ore from a neutral or from an occupied Sweden? Those responsible for the war industry and those who planned for the army in Germany must have come to the conclusion that they got the most iron ore and tied up the fewest occupation troops if Sweden was allowed to remain neutral. It was therefore the German government, and no one else, who decided that Sweden should not be occupied but should remain neutral. The Germans could do the math. Right or wrong? It doesn't matter. Had they come to a different result, we would have been occupied. This reasoning may seem to be without real references, but clear logic nevertheless leads to the above conclusion.

So it was not our government that made the decision about our neutrality during the Second World War. Theoretically, the government could have allied itself with Germany or with the Allies. But both options must have been difficult for our country. Our government only had to make the best of reality. We cannot blame the members of the Swedish government. But Germany had several demands on our country that conflicted with neutrality. They built a submarine barrier across the Sound. They transported German troops through Sweden. Afterwards, our neighbors believe that we could not have done anything else, but they also realize that we profited from the war.

Another question is: Did the war prolong because of our ore deliveries? If so, for how long? We can never know. Each new month of the war in Europe meant about half a million deaths. To call our policy of neutrality successful must be wrong, insulting and macabre.

The Cold War 1945–1990
The security situation after the end of World War II was not as good as had been expected. A new field of tension arose between communism and democracy. No one dared to disarm. In addition, a balance of terror developed between the great powers due to the advent of nuclear weapons. NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was formed in 1949 (1951) and the Warsaw Pact, WP in 1955. The period from 1945 to 1990 came to be called the Cold War.

The experiences from the Second World War were alive for a long time. Sweden did not carry out any significant disarmament. Minister of Defense Sven Andersson is said to have often said: “Never again 1939”. After discussions between politicians, the defense, etc., it was decided that Sweden would not acquire nuclear weapons. That was probably a good thing. We would live under the US nuclear umbrella, whatever that means.

In the years immediately after World War II, Sweden took the initiative for a Scandinavian defense alliance. The Soviets forbade Finland from participating, citing the Pact of Friendship and Assistance. Norway and Denmark were interested, provided that Sweden joined NATO. Their experience, and that of several other Western European states, from World War II was that neutrality does not protect against war.

During the Cold War, our neutrality and non-alignment were truly a support to Finland and to ourselves. According to the Friendship and Assistance Pact between Finland and the Soviet Union, the latter could unilaterally station military units in Finland if the Soviet Union felt threatened. That is to say, there was an obvious risk that the Iron Curtain would have been moved to the Bothnian Sea if Sweden had become a member of NATO. This was the real reason for neutrality during this time. But every government in Sweden during the Cold War hoped that NATO would succeed in keeping peace in and around Europe. At the same time, all our governments during this time counted on Sweden receiving help from NATO if we were attacked anyway, this without being a member of NATO.

The Soviet Union and Germany were the countries that lost the most people during World War II. Our government offered the Soviet Union and also Poland large credits after the war as a gesture to these countries. But unfortunately, perhaps as a further gesture to the Soviet Union, the Swedish government very quickly recognized the annexation of the three Baltic countries beforehand. This should not have happened. In addition, we sent Baltic refugees back to the Soviet Union. These shortcomings in “solidarity” are not forgotten by our neighbors.

During this time, citizens were only informed that our neutrality and non-alignment were due to our successful neutrality policy during the Second World War. In fact, operational plans were now being developed together with NATO. These were kept up to date until around 1980. They were probably destroyed in the early 1980s. All of this was known to many in Washington, London and also in Moscow. In addition, we cooperated with several NATO countries in the military equipment sector during this era. In connection with Sweden's connection to the Marshall Plan, an agreement was signed between the USA and Sweden on the exchange of technical information and supplies of equipment to Sweden. In the early 1960s, cooperation was structured in more detail between the respective branches of defense. What was the reason that we only turned to the West for this cooperation? There were two reasons: 1) we were ideally oriented towards democratic countries. 2) you would not get a deep exchange of technology if you turned to both great powers.

All of these activities were secret from the citizens. This was especially true for the work on the operational plans. However, many people were involved in the materiel sector.

One wonders who was deceived? Both on the NATO side and on the WP side (the Soviet Union) knew about the activities above. Was it so sensitive for the Soviet Union that they wanted to pretend they didn't know the reality? Those who were deceived were in any case the Swedish citizens.

During the Cold War, our defense forces participated in many peacekeeping operations under the mandate of the UN.

A new security policy situation
In the early 1990s, the Soviet Union collapsed. The union was divided into 15 countries. Now there was only one superpower left. In Russia, a transition towards capitalism began.

A parliamentary inquiry in Sweden now considered that the policy of neutrality was not justified. Moreover, it was theoretically not possible because there was only one great power. When, after a few years, it joined the European Union, the EU, it became an ally of this organization. It did not therefore become completely non-aligned. But the military non-aligned policy was still justified, most in the inquiry thought. The People's Party, however, believed that Sweden should become a member of NATO. The risk of war was considered by many to be small. In Russia, the defense began to rust away. Among Swedish politicians, the prevailing opinion was that it would take more than ten years before Russia would pose a threat.

Since 1990, many of the Eastern European states have joined NATO, but not Ukraine. These countries had experience of occupation, annexation and communist dictatorship. They quickly realized that security lay in NATO membership. The United States began to investigate the possibility that Russia would be interested in joining the alliance. But the new Russia did not want to join as a minor nation. Later, the Obama administration (shortly after its inception) informed Russia that NATO membership for Ukraine was not currently an option!

Since the late 1990s, Sweden has disarmed most of what existed during the Cold War. The defense transitioned from invasion to operational defense, which meant that it would have a “sharper” defense, but a defense that could not defend the whole country but only parts of it. But at the same time, the defense would participate in peacekeeping operations under the UN mandate. It also meant moving from recruiting conscripts to employing volunteer personnel. A very far-reaching decision.

A large part of the defense equipment industry has disappeared. In times of crisis and war, it is not like today that it is a buyer's market. Procurement is now mostly directed towards buying only from the "shelf". But as unemployment increased, people began to take more interest in domestic industry. There are three ways to guarantee that the equipment is in place when it is needed:

• A comprehensive domestic defense industry.
• A major purchase in time before the war begins.
• To participate in an alliance where delivery can be guaranteed.

Some defense equipment industries remain, but otherwise Sweden has not decided on any of the above three alternatives. There has been a lot of talk about the defense economy. This has resulted in detailed control of the economy. The risk is that bureaucracy will become heavier and that there will therefore be less focus on what is most important. That is, the effect, effectiveness and availability of the equipment.

Today we have a small defense that is designed for peacetime conditions. But we do not have sufficient resources to guard our territory, let alone our zone of the Baltic Sea. The current situation in defense is that the number of units within the army has been reduced by about 80-90%. The quality of the ground units, however, has become much better than before 1990. The navy and air force have been reduced almost as much as the army. In addition, it is difficult to recruit personnel. We will probably have to do as Denmark, for example, i.e. reintroduce limited conscription.

The Swedish units operating abroad must be considered very effective. Sweden exercises with NATO. We are part of the Partnership for Peace. That is good, but it does not mean that Sweden has the same advantages as the affiliated states. Many of these must ask themselves why Sweden believes it gets the same advantages as them without being a member. The Secretary General of NATO recently declared clearly that Sweden cannot get the same benefits as the members. The thoughts of our governments have been for some time that we should significantly develop cooperation with Finland and the northern NATO members. That would probably not be appreciated by the other NATO members. Incidentally, it has been tried before in the 1940s. It is not so good to try to sneak into NATO and get the same advantages as those who contribute according to the rules to the common security. Our NATO neighbors usually say: the Swedes participate in debates within NATO, but sit on the front row when decisions are to be made.

In the early 2000s, our government issued a unilateral declaration of solidarity, in which we promise to help our neighbors without any strings attached. At the same time, we expect our neighbors to come to our aid. But how has this declaration been interpreted by our neighbors? They believe that Sweden has rarely or never shown solidarity, but on the contrary has failed many times. An example is our hasty approval of the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states. Sweden must show proof of solidarity before its neighbors take the declaration seriously. In addition, its neighbors know that we have a very weak defense.

Since Putin became president, Russia has developed into an authoritarian-ruled country. He has clearly declared that he will rebuild Russia into a great power. For more than ten years, he has begun to build a new defense, both qualitatively and quantitatively. The country has great natural resources but a shortage of people. The country today has a population that is less than half of what the Soviet Union had in 1990. Now Russia has begun to recreate its former greatness, including by annexing parts of neighboring states. We must now realize that the security policy situation has changed for the worse.

The experience from World War II shows that it took more than ten years to build up a defense that was even remotely adequate. At that time, World War II had already ended several years ago. The conditions for building up an adequate defense today are no better. What advance warning can we get before a conflict that seriously threatens our country emerges? It could be a year or so at most. We should therefore be at least 70% prepared in peacetime. Many may find this reasoning too uncertain. But what other method is better? Many may want to take greater risks. But no one can take responsibility for such a game.

Several opinion polls have indicated that the majority of our citizens do not believe that Sweden should join NATO. But gradually it is approaching 50/50. What information have citizens received from our governments? It consists solely of the myth of “fortunate neutrality”. It claims that neutrality means the least risk of being affected by war. Most small and medium-sized countries in Europe were neutral in 1939. Almost all were drawn into World War II.

The security situation has worsened during the 2000s
Dominant causes are:

• Russia's aggressive behavior. Putin has seriously begun annexing the territories of his neighbors to restore Russia's great power status. His biggest problem now and in the long term is a population that is too small.
• Terror by fanatical Muslims in large parts of the world. These groups, who claim to be based on the Quran, aim to establish theocratic republics or caliphates.
• Latent global macroeconomic problems. The Western world is creating conditions for recession and high unemployment, among other things through too little saving. A shortage of natural resources is also to be expected. In addition, there are too large differences in birth rates between different population areas. The positive trend is that the world's population appears to reach a maximum in a few decades.

A big problem for Sweden is Russia's actions in the Baltic Sea region. Now Russia is provoking our country in the air and at sea. Our big neighbor wants to prove that Sweden cannot defend its territory and cannot maintain order in our zone in the Baltic Sea. The truth is that Sweden constitutes a security policy vacuum.

We should really strengthen our defense. There are two paths for our country:

• 1. Remain neutral and militarily non-aligned
  2. Become a member of NATO

Alternative 1: We must, as during the Cold War, build a much larger defense than we have today. It is not enough to believe that we will get help from NATO just because we are in the Partnership for Peace. There is a big difference between being a member of NATO and not being one. The costs of this alternative will be greater than for the defense we had in the middle of the Cold War due to increases in the cost of materiel.

Alternative 2: To find out what it costs to become a member of NATO, you can study Norway's defense costs or study the investigation that Finland has conducted on the same matter.
The choice between the two options naturally depends not mostly on how much they cost but on the security they provide.

Another question is how much can we afford to spend on defense? Defense spending was 2,5% of GDP in 1980, but only 1,1% of GDP in 2012. We were not starving in 1980. And earlier, during the Cold War, the defense budget was even larger in relation to GDP.

Conclusion

• We must strengthen our defense in the face of the current security situation and for the future.
• The solidarity declaration does not make our security better.
• Before choosing the alternatives as above, citizens must be given relevant information about our neutrality and non-alignment, where the truth is spoken and false myths are dispelled. Only then can Sweden's citizens take a position on the alternatives.
• We must decide whether to join NATO or not.

Not choosing any of these options or only making marginal improvements is irresponsible.