Sweden builds up defences - 40% increase in spend
 

They introduced a new defence bill on October 14th to fund the largest military expansion for 70 years.

Under the new bill the defence budget will rise by SKr27.5bn ($3.1bn) between 2021 and 2025, a 40% increase to around 1.5% of GDP—the highest level for 17 years.

50% increase in the armed forces to 90,000 people, a figure that includes regular soldiers, conscripts and local reservists in the Home Guard

two mechanised brigades increase to three, each of around 5,000 soldiers, with a smaller additional brigade for the Stockholm area.

The draft reintroduced for both genders in 2017, will double in size to 8,000 conscripts a year,

five new local-defence battalions will be established protecting supply lines from the Norwegian ports of Oslo and Trondheim.

An amphibious unit will be re-established in Gothenburg

newer Gripen fighter jets with longer range and better radar,

new air wing in Uppsala

an extra submarine,

a new type of warship

air-defence missiles for its ships .

funding for cybersecurity, the electricity grid and healthcare.

The aim is to enable Sweden to hold out in a crisis or war for at least three months, until help arrives

It is a dramatic expansion, but much of it is to patch up a creaking force. In 2013 Sweden’s top general admitted that his forces could only defend part of the country, and only for one week. Even today Sweden’s army has only two dozen artillery pieces. They are located in the north of the country, more than ten hours’ drive from the brigades they are supposed to support. Under the new plans, the army will have a more respectable 72 artillery pieces.

The bill is expected to pass

I never believed in the so called Peace Dividend, hence the decision to boost the military spending is late, but better late than never.

The statement from the quote is interesting, since Sweden is not a member of any alliance, so I have no idea who would come and help them, should such help be necessary. There is no agreement between Sweden and NATO, US or EU.

There's no formal, public agreement, but that doesn't mean the Swedes didn't help the US in a very quiet way all through the cold war. SR71's limping home to Mildenhall straight over Sweden instead of around it, on one engine, that sort of thing.

There may not be any formal alliances, but an attack on Sweden (guess the aggressor) would probably be an attack on Scandinavia, or at least a threat. Norway is in NATO and Finland, is a member of the EU. Denmark and the Baltic States are members of both.

Can't see the West letting Sewed go under just like that.................. especially if they are fighting

There had been comments on earlier threads that the Swedish airfield support gear was NATO compatible, so there was surely cooperation at the practical level.
That said, the value to Sweden of an increased military effort when the issues are domestic social cohesion and Chinese economic dominance is not evident.

The value to Sweden is evident if you listen to the Swedish defence minister: what he's worried about is neither social cohesion nor China but - of course - Putin's Russia.
Call to arms - Sweden embarks on its largest military build-up for decades (The Economist)

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.

There are many aspects to consider regarding these news. One is that there is a bilateral agreement between Finland and Sweden regarding co-operation in the times of peace and war (signed 2018 originally). One may read it as agreement of joint defence.
The swedes realized that they are not able to defend themselves (eg Gotland would be lost if anyone would mind shoring with a rowboat and a handgun).
That also means that they would not be able to provide any assistance to Finland if required.
So, Finland has one of the largest inventory of artillery pieces in the western europe (bit over 2000), 500000 already trained conscripts available, approx 250 Leopards, the F-18's (sorry sweden, can't match with your Saabs) and these acquired in the name of a strategy to make invading too costly for the enemy. the situation is therefore way different from Swedens strategy to try to defend for a month or two meanwhile yelling for help (only a handful of forces and no backup).
In this view: Why bother helping out a neighbour that really can't wash your back? The swedes got it. And after a long period of degrading the defence, it costs.

btw, regarding possible help in case of urgency: there is an agreement between the US and Sweden, too. But it is more about training to my understanding, but I wouldn't be surprised if it contained sometihng more as well.

Perhaps a wise decision. Europe had a genocide in its backyard in the 90s. Despite a widespread belief in regional capitals that something had to be done, it took an extraordinarily long time to make it happen. The extra time this allows for the prerequisite political hand wringing to occur before the cavalry arrives.

"It would be more interesting to know why the Swedes are ramping up so significantly - makes me wonder if they have any specific intel."According to the press "

An armed attack against Sweden cannot be ruled out,” warned Peter Hultqvist, Sweden’s defence minister, shortly after he introduced the defence bill on October 14th. Russia’s assertive behaviour across Europe, from invasion to assassination, has alarmed Sweden. In recent years, they have accused Russia of violating its airspace and waters several times, most recently with a pair of warships south-west of Gothenburg in September. Sweden has accordingly deepened military ties with NATO (though it is not a member of the alliance), America and its Nordic neighbours."

Scandinavia is going to become more and more important with the push for arctic resources.

The wheels are already in motion for increased basing and positioning facilities:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...n-operate-from

One wonders whether the increase in military spending is for internal or external use.

The old "Russia is going to invade" slogan doesn't answer the question of "WTF would they want to invade" ? When even Sweden's Govt have pretty much given up trying to govern areas of cities and these are of Swedish (or nominally) citizens what would someone else do ?

What resources has Sweden got that would interest any invader ?

It sounds like some strategically placed media has been at work trying to convince people there is a need to spend billions on defence industries. Of course this media / think tanks getting their funds from Military suppliers is just mere coincidence.

Guess Sweden wants the best of it all, not be a member of NATO yet have assurances of assistance should Vlad invade. Wonder what, if anything would Sweden do if say, North Macedonia (NATO Member) was invaded and asked for title 5 assistance?

I don't think Sweden is asking for NATO assistance; but I do think NATO would be very unsettled if a hostile power was to invade a country on their doorstep.

Unsettled yes, as in Crimean Peninsula. Doesn’t mean military intervention to assist.

Russia has very few contact points to the sea in the west: St Petersburg and Kaliningrad. In the name of protecting these ports, cities and seaways they have a few issues: all the sea routes are basically in control of other countries and providing Baltic NATO countries support. So it's not about resources, it's about geography and who rules what. Take over Åland and Sweden (esp. Gotland) and you'll end up ruling the Baltic Sea without messing with NATO. At the same time you'll be cutting out service routes (air and sea) to Baltic NATO countries, have the opportunity to pressurize Norway (NATO country) and isolate Finland (not a NATO member but better equipped than Sweden).

The only issue in this is Åland, which is a demilitarized zone by international agreements and yet should be protected by Finnish Defence Forces. So would one attack Åland and risk getting the heat from rest of the world about it (esp involving NATO) or just forget about it and close the Baltic sea from further south or just ignore everyone else and just do it anyway (remember the Crimean). Consider this as foil hatting? Well, in the past years russian citizens have been making rather dubious real estate purchases throughout the Finnish archipelago, especially around deeper seaways, and built up very interesting amount of helipads, storages and piers. Eventually some of these have been searched and seized by Finnish authorities. As an example: on one island there was a buildup of two rather large concrete piers on different sides of the island. When asked by the authorities why these were built, the russian millionaire responded that he likes to swim around the island and hence the piers (that could accommodate amphibious ships). This happened in 2018.
For our english speaking friends, NYT article about it at the time: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/31/w...-military.html

Historically we've been living an exceptionally long period of peace in northern/western Europe, now 75 years and counting. For Sweden it has lasted for 206 years, which is astonishing considering that the city of Los Angeles, the city of New York and city of Miami are all younger than the continuous peace time of Sweden. Will it last forever? Nope.

"Russia has very few contact points to the sea in the west: St Petersburg and Kaliningrad. In the name of protecting these ports, cities and seaways they have a few issues: all the sea routes are basically in control of other countries"

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....a3c5c80965.jpg
Murmansk sure as hell is open to the sea................. a very cold sea but open year round

"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

Thats north. A VERY long way to the heart of Europe compared to Baltic sea. Murmansk couldn't support possible action in the central Europe as the vast area between Norway and Iceland is very much NATO playground. And Murmansk does not help in isolating baltic countries.