At best completely meaningless – at worst dangerous

The reality of the “NATO option”

The controversial “NATO option” does not seem to save Sweden from the aggressive Russian bear.

At best, it’s just a fabrication.

At worst, directly harmful.

The Russian bear stood on its hind legs and roared. With military concentrations of up to 100,000 men on the border with Ukraine, there are unacceptable demands to judge other countries’ foreign and security policies (eg. Sweden) and equally sudden and unexpected traffic with a Russian landing craft in the Baltic Sea. Including.

This, in turn, has fueled controversy over Swedish security policy. He does this at regular intervals.

Now it’s about the so-called then-And options.

Full Screen

In December 2020, a majority of members of Parliament requested Which consisted of four bourgeois parties and SD that the government would express the so-called NATO option.

Finland has had such weight for so long and given such weight that both President Sauli Niinisto and Prime Minister Sanna Marin mentioned them in their New Year greetings to Finland.

In short, NATO choice means expressing the possibility of joining NATO.

This is how it looked in Niinisto’s New Year’s address:

Let me state again: Finland’s freedom of movement and choice also includes the possibility to ally itself militarily and to apply for membership in NATO, if we so decide.

But the Swedish government does not want the NATO option. Recently, this weekend, Defense Minister Peter Hultqvist reiterated that it is not in the cards, and that in today’s tense situation it is important to sit in the boat otherwise it is the government, not the Swedish parliament, who is in charge of foreign and security policy. . The door of the so-called option cannot be closed.

Now we start getting close The interesting thing – what does the NATO option mean?

One could say that NATO’s choice is normal. Of course, each country decides its foreign policy. It shouldn’t be repeated in time and out of time because it’s fair – of course.

Now, however, it is not clear to everyone, for example not Russia. The list of demands that the Putin regime handed over to the US and NATO before Christmas states that NATO will not be allowed to accept more members. So neither Sweden nor Finland or Ukraine.

At best, the NATO choice is simply a matter of course.

But at worst, it’s quite different. It is a code language because NATO is not just an option. The intent in this scenario is not to say that NATO membership is a possibility for many. This is the goal.

Those who want to offer Sweden NATO’s choice doesn’t just mean that from time to time one has to rhyme that membership in NATO is an opportunity for Sweden. They believe that Sweden must prepare to be able to join quickly. This is the join.

For example, it says on the brokers website:

The NATO option means that Sweden clearly states that we reserve the opportunity to apply for membership in the defense alliance and ensure that there are no practical or technical obstacles to joining.

It is possible, and even probable, that this is an explanation of the NATO option that Russia does not like at all. Perhaps also deeply hated. In this case, it will be harmful to us. Then we are in Sweden.

Finally, it can be said It swings well in Swedish security policy.

For three decades, the Baltic Sea was called the “Sea of ​​Peace”. It feels far away.

In this spirit, all the regiments on Gotland were dissolved, leaving 400 home guards.

In 2016, reality caught up with the decision makers. Then the island would be remilitarized, which took practically two years.

Gotland is now considered a very important strategic location. Those who own the island in their control have complete control over all air and sea transportation in the Baltic Sea. for example.

Join the Inizio board at Demoskop – and make yourself heard!

The answer is optional, you are anonymous and can leave whenever you like. Click on the link to register.