Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Sweden builds up defences - 40% increase in spend

Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Sweden builds up defences - 40% increase in spend

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 22nd Oct 2020, 20:18
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Exit stage right.
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Beamr
For the first part of your statement: why isn't Russian Karelia then annexed to Finland, as there is a Finnish population that was strongly terrorised by soviet authorities after the area was occupied and joined to USSR in the aftermaths of WW2? Russians cleansed the area by ethnic background during Stalins era. Should a line drawn on map almost a century ago force them to live under dictatorship (yes, Putins Russia)?
Should Poland be forced to give up the territory in the west in acquired from Germany ? Should German reacquire Gdansk / Kallinigrad ? Republic of Ireland get Northern Ireland ?

As what comes to the second part regarding Swedish defence budget uplifts I believe you are not aware of the figures. The proposed uplift of 40% is in essence 3 billion USD in the time frame of five years (2021-2025). That is 0,57% of Swedish GDP (GDP in Sweden 2019 was 536 billion USD). As the swedish military budget has been approx 1,1% of GDP, this increment doesn't take it even to the NATO proposal of 2%. The Swedish government deficit has been in between -1,5% to 1,4% for the past decade and currently Swedish government debt is only 40% of GDP. All this in essence means that the economy is very well capable of handling that military spenditure uplift and they don't even have to think of it twice from budget perspective.

For comparison we can look at a couple of other countries with their figures
Finland: Military budget 3,2 Billion USD (1,3% of GDP), and rising with the upcoming FJ investement. Government debt 59,4% of GDP. Deficit 0,7%.
Norway: Military budget 6,6 Billion USD (1,7% of GDP), Government Debt 40,8% of GDP, Deficit 6,4%
Denmark: Military budget 4,0 Billion USD (1,3% of GDP), Government debt 33,2% of GDP, Deficit 3,7%
UK: Military budget 46 Billion USD (2,1% of GDP), Government Debt 85,4% of GDP, Deficit 2,7%
Germany: Military budget 50 Billion USD (1,3% of GDP), Government debt 59,8% of GDP, Deficit 7,25%

To make it short, Sweden has made cuts to defence budgets in the past and now they are just ramping up to the same level as others around them and with a rather healthy economy.
UK Govt debt is now well in excess of GDP so should military spending be decimated to get back to that notional figure ? Sweden has little danger of invasion but it suits those who will make money from it to promote that idea.

Still waiting for what anybody would get by invading Sweden, aside from a bloody big headache.

In the age of drone warfare on land, sea and air the invasion of countries is old.
racedo is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2020, 01:01
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 4,078
Received 55 Likes on 34 Posts
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidni.../#48a14dea67ba

Nothing too terribly new except the last sentence. It comes from a retired Swedish General, but it’s likely still accurate. It would seem to indicate Sweden hopes to hold out, hoping for external assistance rather than expecting to drive the invader back themselves.
West Coast is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2020, 03:51
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Outer ring of HEL
Posts: 1,708
Received 349 Likes on 119 Posts
Originally Posted by racedo
Should Poland be forced to give up the territory in the west in acquired from Germany ? Should German reacquire Gdansk / Kallinigrad ? Republic of Ireland get Northern Ireland ?
My point exactly. What makes crimean so special then?
Originally Posted by racedo
UK Govt debt is now well in excess of GDP so should military spending be decimated to get back to that notional figure ? Sweden has little danger of invasion but it suits those who will make money from it to promote that idea.

Still waiting for what anybody would get by invading Sweden, aside from a bloody big headache.

In the age of drone warfare on land, sea and air the invasion of countries is old.
What are the odds of UK being invaded? Why are they throwing money out the window then?
Or scaling up a bit, the US? Australia? New Zealand?
or, Russia? Who is threatening Russia so that it has to invest in new military bases, troops and armament in the Baltic area?

Last edited by Beamr; 23rd Oct 2020 at 04:33.
Beamr is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2020, 13:21
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 63
Posts: 1,854
Received 77 Likes on 43 Posts
Beamr,

I think it would be misplaced to regard Russia as a country which has to feel honestly threatened before it will behave in a Belligerent manner, certainly, and definitely initially, through what they call 'soft power'.

FB
Finningley Boy is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2020, 13:34
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Outer ring of HEL
Posts: 1,708
Received 349 Likes on 119 Posts
Originally Posted by Finningley Boy
Beamr,

I think it would be misplaced to regard Russia as a country which has to feel honestly threatened before it will behave in a Belligerent manner, certainly, and definitely initially, through what they call 'soft power'.

FB
I agree. My question is more of why is it okay for every other country to spend more to defence but all of the sudden it is not ok when it comes to Sweden.
Beamr is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2020, 13:57
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,926
Received 139 Likes on 64 Posts
Originally Posted by Finningley Boy
Although Sweden has protected its economy far more valiantly than any other country, apart from the likes of New Zealand and South Korea, and with a radically different approach compared with the other two. Given their highly competent way of balancing social costs with commercial and national productivity, that they can find 40% (for us it would be about Ł20,000,000,000 increase per annum or not far short) additional spending on defence really has to make you wonder about our own constant can't do saga of defence reviews, more and more wrapped up with one or more allied departments or ministries. Reviews which always arrive at a predicted outcome, leaner and meaner. I also have to wonder if the traditionally liberal swedes have their Chiefs of Staff putting out public feelers about braided hair, dreadlocks, pony tails and gender neutral terminology? Perhaps we're the new Sweden, or Netherlands, and they are the new UK? In terms of by what store each places priority on social inclusion and serious defence concerns.

FB
Finningley Boy,

Perhaps a more relevant approach is that Sweden HAS gone through its own 'constant can't do sage of defence reviews' and it is precisely because of these defence reviews and cuts that the Swedes find themselves in such a perilous position.

And don't forget that we are talking figures of around Ł3b here, and that Boris gave UK defence an additional Ł2b last year.

So I think you are painting a wrongly nuanced picture.
pr00ne is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2020, 07:32
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: N/A
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Fonsini
It would be more interesting to know why the Swedes are ramping up so significantly - makes me wonder if they have any specific intel.

On a side note I worked there for a while for an unnamed government department back in the 90s. Stockholm, Ludvika, and Gothenburg - I even learned some Swedish. They were just the nicest people and it’s a beautiful country (apart from the travesty of the Systembolaget - spelling?) - I really didn’t want to leave.
Growing tensions with Russia apparently is the reason...https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...h-russia-grows
Cantbebothered is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2022, 09:28
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Outer ring of HEL
Posts: 1,708
Received 349 Likes on 119 Posts
This year-and-a-half old thread is now even more timely than it was then. We've all seen the russian talk shows about taking gotland and the importance of it militarily and the Russian rhetorics of "military and political consequences" of Sweden joining NATO.

now Sweden has announced it will invest an extra 300M€ to defence immediately, on top of the spend increment announced earlier. Also they have activated the civil defence organization in Gotland and placed more troops there.

It will be interesting to see where the funds will be invested and in which order.
Beamr is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2022, 09:29
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,080
Received 66 Likes on 40 Posts
Russia is triggering all those things it claims it does not want to happen.
Because it wants them to happen for some reason?
Less Hair is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2022, 15:11
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,104
Received 31 Likes on 25 Posts
I've been trying to learn some Swedish, and have been watching the nightly news (Aktuellt). There seems to be broad support for increased military spending from all the political parties (except maybe the left-most one?). If your neighbor's threatening you, and you have a weak military and no formal allies, either you sit back and hope for the best, or you do something about it. Support for joining NATO is also growing, with opinion now about evenly divided. And Sweden has also sent AT4s and other gear to Ukraine (the first time since 1939 it has sent lethal weapons into a combat zone).
Chu Chu is online now  
Old 19th Mar 2022, 18:45
  #51 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,491
Received 366 Likes on 215 Posts
"and you have a weak military "

TBH Sweden has working capacity for off base ops, networking all units and modern kit and missiles hat puts a lot of Europe to shame - they build their own aircraft as well..............
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2022, 19:21
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,104
Received 31 Likes on 25 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56
"and you have a weak military "

TBH Sweden has working capacity for off base ops, networking all units and modern kit and missiles hat puts a lot of Europe to shame - they build their own aircraft as well..............
I should have said "small."
Chu Chu is online now  
Old 19th Mar 2022, 23:42
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Norway would be a better strategic capture for the Russians. And easier to. Plus Russia would then control almost all of the european gas.
Sweden already have a substantial defence, including not only their own homebuilt fighterplanes but armored infantry fighting vehicles and the best canons as well. In strength of 3 times Norway. But it would take time to rebuild to the 15 standing and 100 reserve battalions they had 25 yers ago, from currently 7 and 14 battalions. Or grow back their air force from currently about 120 to their previous cold war strength of 400.
Problem is Norway is part of Nato while Sweden (and Finland) is not. But if the Russians capture Sweden, Norway is a dead duck and will eventually be forced to come into line through third columnists. And then Nato is faulted without attack on a single Nato country.
So Sweden should be afraid for more than loosing Gotland. They are a non-nuclear weapons country that is neither protected by an aliiance partner's nuclear weapons. That could be a problem against somebody with such weapons, as Ukraine has shown. Can fully understand why they are arming even if they can't really afford it. Can't understand why Norway is not in any significant way, even though they have both the funds and a lot to protect.
vikingivesterled is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2022, 12:37
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,926
Received 139 Likes on 64 Posts
Originally Posted by vikingivesterled
Norway would be a better strategic capture for the Russians. And easier to. Plus Russia would then control almost all of the european gas.
Sweden already have a substantial defence, including not only their own homebuilt fighterplanes but armored infantry fighting vehicles and the best canons as well. In strength of 3 times Norway. But it would take time to rebuild to the 15 standing and 100 reserve battalions they had 25 yers ago, from currently 7 and 14 battalions. Or grow back their air force from currently about 120 to their previous cold war strength of 400.
Problem is Norway is part of Nato while Sweden (and Finland) is not. But if the Russians capture Sweden, Norway is a dead duck and will eventually be forced to come into line through third columnists. And then Nato is faulted without attack on a single Nato country.
So Sweden should be afraid for more than loosing Gotland. They are a non-nuclear weapons country that is neither protected by an aliiance partner's nuclear weapons. That could be a problem against somebody with such weapons, as Ukraine has shown. Can fully understand why they are arming even if they can't really afford it. Can't understand why Norway is not in any significant way, even though they have both the funds and a lot to protect.

"...forced to come into line through third columnists..?"

I think that you do the Norwegian population a huge disservice, and also underestimate them in the way that Putin underestimated the people of Ukraine. Look up Norwegian resistance in WW2 if you doubt me.

pr00ne is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2022, 18:04
  #55 (permalink)  

"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: England
Age: 77
Posts: 4,143
Received 224 Likes on 66 Posts
Agreed about the Norwegians, but don't underestimate the Swedes either. My late father-in-law was a Swedish trawlerman who volunteered for the Swedish army in WWII. He told me a few stories. Yes, Sweden was neutral...or was it?
Herod is online now  
Old 20th Mar 2022, 22:32
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by pr00ne
"...forced to come into line through third columnists..?"

I think that you do the Norwegian population a huge disservice, and also underestimate them in the way that Putin underestimated the people of Ukraine. Look up Norwegian resistance in WW2 if you doubt me.
As a norwegian standing outside looking in, from a border village and with my year of service up north back when the reserve army was 8 times the size it is now, and actually quite comparable to what Ukraine had before the attack. So I know a fair deal about norwegian resistance and ww2. I also remember that the original Quisling was a norwegian. And there where many others like him. Norway under the nazi rule also sent quite a few volunteers to fight on the eastern front on the german side. Some of them returnees after fighting on the finish side against the russians in the winter war. A lot of the members of the norwegian resistance spent the war in Sweden and only turned up after the 8'th of May 1945. But one have to remember that the germans had more than 350 000 troops stationed in Norway during the war. That is twice as many as russia is attacking Ukraine with. However Norway's largest contriubution to the allied side was the Nortraship freighter and tanker fleet.

But in this case I've been looking at reports about some local politicians here and there up north that is very reluctant to follow up on any sanctions against russians. Including in Finmark and on Svalbard. Plus a political party that still wants Norway to give up its Nato membership. Norway has its fair share of communists, including of the old Soviet and Mao area type, and now heavily infiltrated in the green movement.
And I seriously doubt Norway will fight in their cities an let them be destoryed, rather than declare them open cities like Paris was. Even though all the military expertice now says a city is the easiest to defend and most difficult to attack, as prooven at Leningrad and Stalingrad. And now in Kiev, Kharkiv and Mariupol. But all sadly destroyed,

When it comes to the swedes in ww2 the opinions are divided, as where the swedish politicians and some royals. It proably varied through the war after who they tought would win. Some, including the founder of Ikea have not looked to well in afterlight. Sweden did let german troops pass through the country on occasions and never stopped shipping iron ore to Germany. But it also was a place of refuge and not all interment for norwegians, some of whom could travel onwards to England.
Another funny thing about Sweden is that Ukraine was once a part of their feifdom and when that ended at Poltava, Russia became the next ruler which signalled the beginning of that empire. Which really lead me to believe that Sweden's reluctance for alliances is that that really signals their fall from grace and they therefore prefer an oversized own military. Except they let that go when the wall fell and they no longer thought they had direct border enemies. Like much of Western Europe. So now they have an air force the size of Ukraine. Instead of as earlier one the size of what is attacking Ukraine. But I believe the state of affairs in the UK is not much different.
vikingivesterled is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2022, 01:45
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 4,078
Received 55 Likes on 34 Posts
Originally Posted by etudiant
Surely simplistic, the USSR had blown up and all its decisions were subject to reconsideration. There were no sovereign nations under the USSR.
Just because Khrushchev, an Ukrainian, opted to give the Ukraine management of the Crimea in the 1950s does not confer sacred title to the rulers of present day Ukraine.
It is basically 'any stick to beat the Russians with' imho.
Simplistic you say?
West Coast is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2022, 01:51
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 4,078
Received 55 Likes on 34 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56
"Unsettled yes, as in Crimean Peninsula. Doesn't mean military intervention to assist."

big difference between the Crimea and Sweden West Coast. Sweden is the heart of W Europe and always has been - for the average European the Crimea is so far east its off the edge of the map and was always part of Russia
Doesn't seem to be so far away now to the average European.
West Coast is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2022, 07:42
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: (ex)Sandpit currently more temperate
Posts: 56
Received 6 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by West Coast
Doesn't seem to be so far away now to the average European.
Funnily enough - Crimea and Stockholm are roughly the same distance away from the OP's location in northern Italy.
As a European I think both qualify as "our back yard"...
sheikhthecamel is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2022, 08:10
  #60 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,491
Received 366 Likes on 215 Posts
One point about Norway - it's damn big country - and people forget that it's a very long way from north to south.

they also forget that Kirkenes is further east than Alexandria and the west coast is further west than Amsterdam
Asturias56 is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.