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.

That's true Beamtr but even if you took Sweden you're still stuck with Denmark in the way - then if you take Denmark you're in the same situation pretty much as Germany was in WW1 - you've gained access to the N Sea but not the Atlantic - so you finish up having to invade Norway and the UK (or just Scotland)

Anyway its hard to see Russia starting with Sweden - they'd try the Baltic States first and, if they really are stupid Finland...... that's like invading Afghanistan or the Yemen - you can get in easily but can you get out? Even Stalin got burnt there.

I suspect the Russians would be very happy if the Swedes were as effective as the Swiss - armed forces go home for the weekend, don't ask too many questions and just not bug the Russians as they try and go about their business elsewhere

You are absolutely right Asturias56, there are multitude of issues with it, but it is something that was in their plans during the cold war too. Through Sweden to Norway. Another plan they had was to isolate Scandinavia by the sea, and that meant placing tremendous task force to the Norwegian sea, in which Murmansk was the key. But at that time the Warsaw treaty had a direct sealine all the way from Finnish border to West Germany and they had big portion of the Baltic sea in their hands. So in essence they couldn't do it nowadays with any significant benefit and stepping on NATO's toes.

Coming back to modern day, the russians have started to re-arm Kola peninsula very heavily during the past five years. Refurbishing old airbases and submarine bases and establishing new troops along the entire Finnish border gives a hint.The armament includes anything and everything from special forces to nuclear weapons.
The issue is that Russias internal propaganda relys heavily on external threats. If there isn't any, one is made.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/ice-cu...kola-peninsula

The problem is, the way I see it, that you really can't predict the irrationalism of the russians. Who in their right mind thought ten years ago that russians would take crimea at this age and time? And yet they did. And the russians are feeding the war in Ukraine too, but denying everything (MH17). From Nordic point of view: the heat comes from the east. If it doesn't, they have flanked.

Still Russia invaded Georgia when they wanted to join NATO and Ukraine wanted to join EU so at least there is some move prior before they start a war... Sweden and Finland are the only two soft countries before the real border with NATO starts also so i guess that's why Russia is playing games there more easily. Swedish defence spending is from a very low baseline also i read somewhere so perhaps a good move to change course and invest more for the future...

Why would they wish to rule the Baltic ? There is a choke point bridge that pretty much blocks the Baltic if it became necessary.

Bearing in mind that the Transit route across Northern Russia is now open and growing massively then needing a route into the Baltic seems a moot point. Exactly what comes into Baltic ports than can not go into Northern ports or be transitted by rail from Asia ?

The rush to invest massively in the military seems to be pursuing someone's agenda that will make a lot of money for suppliers but nobody else.

Why do they want to rule the Crimea and Black sea? The Bosporus blocks the Black sea from rest of the world with a NATO country controlling it.
It really isn't that Russia would not have ANY other route, it's about controlling the area.
If the Baltic sea would of no interest to them, why is there a significant naval station and army presence in Kaliningrad? Why are their military aircraft continuously testing the alertness of neighbouring countries in the Baltic sea (Finnish F/A-18 jocks have had some rather nice pictures of a multitude of Russian planes within Finnish airspace).

Remembering that Crimean occupation was argumented with "russian inhabitants demanded it", so imagine the feelings in Baltic states with a rather significant minority of ethnic russians (Latvia: 25%, Estonia 24%, 5% in Lithuania). Imagine if those minorities started "demanding Russia to come and save them". No wonder the baltic countries rushed to NATO asap. Or Poland. Or many other ex Warsow treaty countries.

We are looking at the eastern bear from different angles and backgrounds.

The US has called on Europe to contribute more to defense to the tune of 2% of GDP, the Swedes had fallen well behind, you can’t put off replacing old weaponry for ever. It makes sense to cooperate with neighbors if only to keep your own defense industry active, no immediate threats but you never know where the next is coming from.

I am sure i am one of the dissenting voices, but bring back 18 month compulsory service for all. Then reserve forces until say 35, issue every reservist a rifle and can of ammo.

That's really not something you want to be doing in most European countries these days with the open door policy of the past 20 years, and the percentage of people now contained within that you are doing everything you can to keep well away from arms and things that go bang....!!

Free rider conundrum...
 

No, it wasn’t always part of Russia, that’s a weak, apologetic argument. You may not like it, but since 1954, its been Ukraines.

Sure, distance and standing is relevant. As such, I don’t see Italy or Portugal committing their blood and treasure to a ground war to save a nation that they can’t reliably say would do the same for them. Sweden should not expect military assistance if they themselves aren’t willing to provide the same, their history shows they aren’t. I personally couldn’t support an article 5 like response from US elements of NATO should Sweden be invaded. If they’re hoping to buy extra time with this, they should hope whatever existing security agreements they have Can be acted upon.

Neutrality is all good and well until the bullets fly your way

Do you really believe that the "Ukraine " in 1954 was independent of Russia - or the USSR as we called it ?? It was Russian in 1854 when the British and French invaded it.................. IIRC it was annexed by Russia in 1793

Legally speaking your argument has no merit. There's a reason Russia has been ostracized in the world after its invasion. The historical ties argument aligns you with Putin, a great place to be. To return it to Sweden, just the simple matter of logistics and military commonality would sink an effort by NATO to save them. If he does invade, perhaps you can fall back to past Russian historical claims to part of Sweeden as an excuse.

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 £20,000,000,000 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

What invasion was that ? People in Crimea sought independence from Ukraine in the 1990's and were threatened with war. They did not wish to be a part of Ukraine then or since, they have a right to self determination do they not ?.

Just like the people who have lived for centuries in Artkash / Nagorno Karabakh.............. should a line drawn on a map a century ago force them to live under a dictatorship who has always wanted them to be Ethnically cleansed from lands.

Nobody has yet provided a reason for Sweden to spend billions it can't afford, for an invasion that will not happen. Once you unwind the influencers and the media stools you get back to the same actors funded by the same people parroting same message.

They were a part of a sovereign nation, Ukraine. That’s the bottom line.

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.

You can certainly argue historical ties, it doesn’t hold water from a legal perspective. Or a political one for that matter either, Russia has paid a high price.

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)?

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.

"Legally speaking your argument has no merit." It is irrelevant for the period 1793- 1990 - it was part of Russia, everyone agreed it was part of Russia and some gerrymandering by Mr K it was just smoke and mirrors

However AFTER 1990 it's a different story - whatever Racedo thinks it was clearly an invasion of a sovereign country - I can here him howl if Poland walked into Kalingrad for example.

Beamrs link re the Kola was interesting - it looks as if upgrading bases for the new SLBM's is a priority whereas the glacial progress on upgrading Severomorsk 1 suggests that aviation upgrades are not as seen critical

Social cohesion problems can be eased or at least obscured by focusing on an external threat (Russia). Also handy when a new but inexperienced party (right winger Sweden Democrats) is in for a landslide - when in old fashioned defense mode, a country tends to opt for the tried&trusted government. Economically, much of the list in the opening post can be fulfilled by buying/developing Swedish and removing Swedish youth from un(der)employment stats. I think they are pulling off a combination of domestic economy program, preparing for expected Baltic/Arctic tensions, and factoring in a long term recession. Plus, historically Sweden has had a whole different outlook than their Scandi neighbors. Despite their branding as the über-humanitarians, the Swedes where THE Baltic hegemon and occupiers for centuries. Their reaction towards Russia is thus much more one of silent rivalry than for example the tough but defensive Norwegians, and the skillfully negotioating Danes.

Interesting development nonetheless.

Crimean people voted in 1991 to be part of USSR in Jan 91................1.3M for, 81,000 against on a 81% turnout, when in December 91 they had a vote for the declaration of independence of Ukraine was only a 60% turnout and a 54% yes....... in stark contrast with rest of Ukraine When they voted for their own parliment they were forced to bow to Kiev. Crimea had been clear it wished not to be part of Ukraine and it got ignored. It was not invaded because the people living there voted for independence, then they asked to join Russia.

Kola missiles will have little impact on Sweden as if used their targets would be further afield.

Kalinigrad was last part of Poland many decades ago, let the people decide if they so wish what they wish to be a part of. Are you so afraid of democracy that people are not allowed chose their own destiny ?

If people wish to go back centuries to when people were part of other places does that mean US surrenders to UK as a colony again ? Nope thought not.