Sweden to raise military spending to 2% of GDP as soon as possible - PM

Reuters via Yahoo ^ | March 10, 2022 | Reuters

[fluorescence]

STOCKHOLM (Reuters) -Sweden's government wants to increase military spending to 2% of GDP "as soon as practically possible" in light of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson said on Thursday.

[fluorescence]

President Trump insisted on this very matter and the NATO "partners" threw a collective tantrum and said it wasn't necessary and that Trump was destroying NATO by expecting them to help with their own defense. Now they have resident Addelbrain and a war on Europe's border.

[ScaniaBoy]

Sweden is not a NATO member. When we had a proper defence we spent about 3% of the annual GDP on our defence (as is correctly stated in the article). Two percent is still too little and too late.

[Jonty30]

Meaningless words. Getting on board when you did not build it until the crisis doesn’t mean a thing.

[Sacajaweau]

Germany scr**** NATO for years....Germany said....yeh...2%...but not till 2025. Then they FINALLY upped it....

[fluorescence]

D’oh, of course.
Then is the 2% target to align it with NATO or just a coincidence?

> Two percent is still too little and too late.

Well they can’t immediately increase supplies or manpower. By the time it makes a meaningful difference the current crisis could well be over one way or another.

[ScaniaBoy]

Yes, time is a variable that is often neglected by our politicians.
Sweden had cut down on defence spending from 1927 onwards. In 1938/39 some geniuses understood the need for rearming. By 1955, 1960 Sweden’s defence was strong again. A bit late for WWII.

[nathanbedford]

2% of Sweden's relatively small economy is a cheap price to hire a powerful mercenary, the mightiest military power on earth, the United States to defend them. Even cheaper for deadbeat NATO nations who have yet to pay their 2%, 2% to themselves for their own defense. Germany has seen Poland geographically insinuated between itself and the Russia threat tending to cause Germany to be even less responsible because it knows that the Russians can not get to Germany except through Poland.

Sweden works the opposite way, it adds an ally in the event of a front line attack on one of the Baltic states.

The question for the United States is, what is our national interest in accepting the possible additions to the NATO states, like Sweden, every one of which compels us to go to war in the event of attack? Is a united front in Europe worth the risk to the United States?

Just as it is easy to despair of European nations to act as true partners, equally is it easy to dismiss NATO altogether. The point is to determine American national interest. Are we overall safer with NATO or without NATO?

If we think that we can behave like the W M A fighter/rancher in Arkansas and "dig our heels into our soil", consider whether there is any serious risk of a ground pounding invasion of the heartland of America or is the risk simply that the progressive powers now controlling America, including media and virtually every institution, will simply open the gates and invite the Chinese through.

No invasion, no occupation, but abject surrender. NATO dismembered, Belt and Road encircling, who will be there where it counts, in Washington, to "dig their heels into our soil?"

How does NATO fit in to that scenario?

[BiglyCommentary]

GREAT JOB VLAD! Reviving NATO and getting European defense freeloaders to start pulling their own weight.

[Candor7]

Fortunately Sweden still enjoys a national ,ilitary industrial complex and its increse in funding can result in an immediate production of ordnance and equipment.NATO has diversified extra national weapon production, which is slow and cumbersome.Two qualities whichi are not good in an era of quick strike warfare.

[bgill]

A bit late to the party. It takes time to get equipment and train troops.

[mewzilla]

It’s about growing the state, not pulling their weight.

And growing state government is something Pootie totally approves.

[central_va]

The "team" is ready.

We're going ot have to PT the one on the far right a bit.

[BobL]

” When we had a proper defence we spent about 3% of the annual GDP on our defence (as is correctly stated in the article). Two percent is still too little and too late.”

I remember that during the Cold War, and that you guys could pretty seal off the Soviet fleet if things got ugly.

And, and not just Sweden, of course. European countries need to get to at least 3% (I think UK was 5% during the Cold War). Allied countries outside of Europe (particularly Japan, Australia, and South Korea), need to be looking at 4% to 5%, and the US needs to be looking at 6%, IF we want to keep things peaceful in the world.

[corkoman]

How does NATO fit in to that scenario?

Treaties are tricky things. The NATO treaty obliges treaty nations to engage Warsaw Pact countries in the event of an attack on a NATO country. For the past 30+ years most Euro countries have not honored the terms of the NATO treaty to prepare for war (2% of GDP towards defense spending). Why do that when they believe that Team America will come to their galloping defense?

That premise allows them to use those funds to support their social contracts. Butter over guns.

That makes them weaker and increases the likelihood of Russian mischief. So the USA component of NATO has an opposite effect - USA leaving NATO means the Euros might want to reconsider their contributions to their own defense.

For this reason I feel the USA should depart NATO. Before the Austro-Hungarian Empire does something stupid and demands all NATO countries start firing.

[BeauBo]

“We’re going ot have to PT the one on the far right a bit”

I volunteer.

[jmacusa]

I like the blond.

[cgbg]

Increased defense budgets are the opposite of “saving the planet from climate change”.

It should be amusing watching them try to square the circle.