By Jonathan Michael Feldman, March 11, 2022

Russia is engaged in a hideous and immoral war. There’s no point in excusing Russia or being a “useful idiot” for Russian militarism. Yet, there is a point in understanding Russia’s security logic and how it’s not that different from those who want to join NATO or Swedish practices, e.g. exporting violence, transgressing a nation’s borders illegally, support for the cycle of conflict and violence. There’s no point in being a useful idiot for Swedish militarism either. NATO advocates believe that they advance the cause of security and human rights. They actually end up doing neither. Even if the two can be coupled in the Ukrainian case, they can’t be coupled so easily in the Swedish case. Sweden’s complicity in the Iraq War and NATO Libyan invasion help explain why.

John McCain and Saudi Finances

In a public opinion article in Dagens Nyheter published on March 7, 2022, Gunnar Hökmark, Chairman of the Frivärd think tank (aka “The Stockholm Freeworld Forum”) argued that “Sweden has no security guarantees, despite the fact that our entire defense and security policy is based on us receiving help from others. It is time to step into NATO.” Before analyzing Hökmark’s arguments, it is important to say something about Frivärd. Their aims seem noble enough, as they claim their mission is to extend freedom: “there are still nearly two billion people living under oppression who are denied the fundamental freedoms of assembly, religion, thought and expression.” So far so good, until we get to this part of the story: “individual liberty…is a fundamental right that transcends national borders, religious faith, age, gender and ethnicity.” They “believe in free societies, free individuals and free markets.” The problem here is that “free markets” can be associated with the freedom of industry to flee Country A in pursuit of low wage nations in Country B, then the freedom to go to B comes at the expense of workers and communities in A. In this version of freedom, we see a clear zero sum game. Free markets can also occur when Country A exports weapons to Country B and thereby tramples B‘s freedom.

This principle of freedom of A at the expense of B is exemplified by the Stockholm Freeworld Forum’s Director, Katarina Tracz, who worked as an International Research Fellow at the McCain Institute for International Leadership in Washington DC. This institute is named after Senator John McCain who gained fame by flying bombing missions over North Vietnam. These kind of bombing missions were linked to a genocidal war against Vietnam, where schools, hospitals and other civilian targets were indiscriminately bombed. The McCain Institute is not exactly an organization that legitimates freedom; they received $1 million from Saudi Arabia according to a 2016 news story. That’s the same country that assassinates journalists that they don’t like. Perhaps Tracz was a fellow there prior to the Saudi funding. Fair enough. Yet, McCain’s direct engagement in bombing runs in Vietnam were certainly prior to Tracz’s arrival. Last year, former Defense Secretary Mark Esper joined “the McCain Institute for International Leadership as its first John S. McCain Distinguished Fellow.” Esper “advised” then President Donald Trump “against pulling U.S. troops out of Afghanistan.” In sum, the director of the Stockholm “freedom” organization is associated with an Institute linked to a variety of militarist (mis)adventures.

The Era of Magical Mantras: Sweden is Always Practicing Defense But Supports Illegal Wars

Hökmark claims that “Russia’s war in Ukraine is directed at Europe and aims at a sphere of interest of nations subordinate to Russia in which Sweden is a part.” Yet, despite this claim there is absolutely no evidence. The war in Ukraine is aimed at Ukraine not “Europe.” No matter how brutal, horrific, and unjustified this war is, the West has actually aligned against Putin and Russia, not the other way around. Even if Putin goes further, it might have something to do with NATO encirclement and mutually assured paranoia in which all aligned against Russia have contributed to. For reasons described below, the appeasement arguments (stop Russia before Russia attacks the Baltics or Poland, etc.) simply don’t work when competing power blocs fuel the cycle of militarism and conflict and make even NATO states on Russia’s border vulnerable.

Is Putin aligned against the post-Cold War European security order or against “the idea of Europe”? Is that why we can say Putin’s war is directed against Europe? If so, Putin would not be alone. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the European security order saw NATO invasions in Yugoslavia sold as a human rights enterprise, continual military exercises and U.S. (as well as Russian) modernization of nuclear forces. If the idea of Europe is a peaceful global world, that world was decimated in the 2003 Iraq war when various nations attacked Iraq, a conflict leading to the death of hundreds of thousands of persons, more than 200,000 civilian deaths according to the Watson Institute. The Iraq war was partially a European war, involving British and Polish troops (then both NATO and EU member states). This war was also illegal according to the International Comission of Jurists. It was thus an illegal, partially European war. The Swedish government concurred. Yet, “Swedish military intelligence provided the United States with information about potential bombing targets in Bagdad ahead [of] a 2003 attack on the Iraqi capital, despite the Swedish government’s opposition to the US invasion” according to US military documents. Hundreds of Swedish weapons were used in the Iraq War, including the AT4 weapon which Sweden later sent to Ukraine.

In other words Putin has actually embraced this idea of a militaristic Europe, illegal militarism, not defied it. One essay, by Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of Russia in Global Affairs, makes interesting claims in this regard in Al-Monitor (March 18, 2013): “The conclusions drawn by Putin from the situation surrounding Iraq were concerned less with Russian-American relations, and more with [the] general idea of how the world works in the twenty-first century. The strong do what they want: they don’t contemplate international law, global reality or the costs incurred by themselves and others. The only rational way of behaving in such a world is to increase one’s own power and capabilities, so that one can fight back and exert pressure, if necessary.”

Putin has issued vague statements which have been interpreted as nuclear threats but an analysis by The Local of a statement by Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova as a threat to Sweden and Finland, found that the statement resembled earlier statements and was not really conveying “new” information, e.g. “In a press conference on February 25th, Finnish President Sauli Niinistö stated that Russia’s threats were ‘not new’, although more ‘dramatic’ given Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Niinistö also noted that both Putin and Lavrov had made similar comments referring to a visit to Finland in 2016 and on another occasion in January of this year.” In other words, the somewhat vague discursive statement need not be translated into an actual material threat to Sweden. In contrast, Swedish politicians have engaged in material actions aimed at Russia; they have sent weapons to kill Russians, have supported close activity with NATO (a military alliance aimed at Russia), and engaged in multiple military war manoeuvres close to the Russian border.

As I have noted elsewhere, these material actions are erased in the heads of various politicians, journalists and experts by deploying what I will now call the magical mantra: anything Sweden does is defensive (and therefore is not provocative); anything Russia does is offensive (and therefore is provocative). Russia can and does engage in material and offensive actions. The brutal Ukraine invasion proves that. But when it comes to Sweden, Russia has basically engaged in “talk” but Sweden has engaged in “action.” Russia has not sent any weapons to any nation to kill Swedes. The counterargument is that “if Russia were not in Ukraine, no Russians would be killed.” Yet, one could also say, “if Sweden did not send weapons, Russia would not crank up its hostile rhetoric.” How do we weigh “dead Russians,” killed by Swedish weapons, against Russia’s threatening talk? If Ukraine proves that Russia is brutal, what does Sweden’s support for Iraq prove?

Finland and Sweden have come under cyber-attacks. Hökmark does see real threats from Russia in cyber- attacks and the like, but he never attributes these to a cycle involving Swedish actions. A new report states that Finland has experienced disruption to its GPS network for several days. Assume these are directed by Russia. Despite Russian malfeasance, Finland, like Sweden, abandoned its neutrality vis-a-vis Russia by sending weapons to Ukraine: 2,500 assault rifles, 150,000 bullets, and 1,500 anti-tank weapons. Yet, the Russians can simply argue that Finland and Sweden have entered the Ukraine conflict with weapons that cross their borders, but don’t kill from a vantage point of the country of origin. Russia similarly engages in cross border activity through cyber-warfare, which doesn’t kill directly from the country of origin. The cyber-attacks, while wrong, can’t be compared to the scale of violence linked to Sweden’s support for the Iraq War.

An Alliance that Makes Sweden Vulnerable is Viewed as Sweden’s Best Defense

Hökmark writes that Sweden’s failure to be in NATO makes Sweden “particularly vulnerable,” something “reflected in the fact that Sweden and Finland have faced threats from the Kremlin.” This argument is simply wrong. First, Russia has objected to Sweden being in NATO. Therefore, Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson argued that an approach to NATO at this time would actually complicate Sweden’s security interests, an application to NATO would de-stabalize the region. Therefore, entering or approaching NATO makes Sweden insecure. Second, as noted, the threats from the Kremlin simply are part of a logic in which Sweden has already made aggressive moves to Russia, e.g. by cooperating with NATO, an alliance which has as its major impetus military interventions (as in Libya and former Yugoslavia) or potential action aimed at Russia. Sweden participated in the Libyan mission which helped empower ISIS, but was sold on a human rights basis. Hökmark wants to sell the NATO alliance as (a) defensive and (b) pro-human rights, when history suggests just the opposite, i.e. the alliance was offensive and helped degrade human rights. These arguments have been made clearly by Noam Chomsky in The New Military Humanism, but the counter-argument is simply to attack Chomsky as being “unreliable,” i.e. the other side feels no need to provide arguments any more. More footnotes and references, less character assassination required. There were various controversies in Sweden on this topic, too complicated to go into here, the history of which I cannot verify. They center in part on whether one can criticize NATO actions without being maligned for no reason.

Putting Chomsky’s book to the side, let’s look at the Libya case in greater detail. In “A Model Humanitarian Intervention? Reassessing NATO’s Libya Campaign,” International Security, Vol. 38, No. 1, 2013: 105-136, Alan J. Kuperman writes (on page 114): “Rather than pursuing a cease-fire, NATO and its allies aided the rebels who rejected this peaceful path and who instead sought to overthrow Qaddafi. Such assistance to the rebels significantly extended the war and magnified the harm to civilians, contrary to the intent of the UN authorization” (Kuperman, 2013: 114). Kuperman writes: “NATO’s primary aim had evolved to overthrowing Qaddafi’s regime, even at the expense of increasing harm to Libya’s civilians…NATO began attacking Libyan forces that were retreating and therefore not a threat to civilians, who were far away” (Kuperman, 2013: 114). He notes, “without NATO intervention….Libya’s rebellion and civil war—and resulting endangerment of civilians—likely would have ended by late March 2011, less than six weeks after the conflict had started” (Kuperman, 2013: 118). In sum without intervention there might have been 1,100 deaths as opposed to the 8,000 to 11,500 deaths that occurred (Kuperman, 2013: 120-123). The interested reader is invited to read Chomsky’s book and Kuperman’s various writings and draw their own conclusions (my summary of key points is provided below).

Sweden Can Violate Another Nation’s Air Space Illegally, But Not Russia

Hökmark writes that the “threat that the Russian ambassador and Russian representatives have shown towards Sweden shows our vulnerability, as well as new threats of action against us if we choose a different security policy. The overflight of Swedish territory in the past week is a clear and concrete expression of this.” This statement continues with the same logic as previously stated, i.e. if Sweden sends weapons to kill Russians, and gets verbal threats in return, then that should lead to an alliance. No connection is made between the approach to or support for an alliance and the threats. One could argue that Sweden has the “right” to join NATO and do what it wants, but then one may counter, Russia has the right to do what it wants or say what it wants. Then, one says, but Russia’s right is the right to transgress borders, but Hökmark’s very own think tank speaks of “individual liberty…is a fundamental right that transcends national borders.” The Russian overflight was highly problematic and not justified, but it closely followed in timing the Swedish weapons transfer to Ukraine.

We see another level to the potential logic to Hökmark’s thinking here. It seems to be, “Sweden is innocent or defensive when it sends weapons,” it is not taking sides, because somehow those are “defensive weapons,” but while Russia is aligned against Sweden, Sweden is not aligned against Russia. Anyway, this is just another example of the magical mantra, that Swedish weapons are always defensive, but Russian weapons (airplanes) are offensive. I previously cited a report that suggests that the Russian planes might not have even been armed. Let’s assume, however, that the planes were armed. This incident is similar to others and it’s part of Russian signaling against Sweden, just like Sweden signals to Russia by cooperating extensively with NATO. Sweden cooperates with NATO, but does not join the alliance with some Swedish elites (e.g. in the Social Democratic Party) hoping to send Russia a message without hoping to make Russia too annoyed. Russia does the same, i.e. it sends a signal to Sweden without hoping to make Sweden too annoyed. One could say, “no, Russia is worse, Sweden merely does joint exercises with NATO and does not invade Russian air space.” This argument is not tenable if we shift the dependent variable to the issue of invading air space.

Sweden violated another country’s air space, Libyan air space, far more than the Russians violated Swedish air space during Sweden’s so-called “human rights” mission in Libya. A NATO publication explains: “But it was during NATO’s Operation Unified Protector in Libya that Sweden reached a new level of partnership, which has no parallels among partner states.” Two scholars, Geir Ulfstein and Hege Føsund Christiansen claim this Libyan action was not even legal despite whatever the United Nations claimed. Sweden’s Libyan mission therefore violated international law if we agree with Ulfstein and Christiansen. Sweden jumped further into NATO in a mission which violated international law. Yet, Russian transgressions against international law are used to justify NATO commitments. The idea of Russia joining NATO to defend against a Swedish state that made illegal incursions into Libya would be considered absurd, however.

Hökmark later claims that sales to Ukraine “defend its freedom and our common legal order.” Yet, the “common legal order” was already violated in Libya. Furthermore, while Ukraine has the right to defend itself, it might benefit by having at least one state (other than Turkey, Israel, or France) that is disengaged and sympathetic that negotiates on its behalf without sending weapons to Russia. That state can’t be Sweden in part because of NATO and arms transfer champions like Hökmark.

Sweden’s Actions Have Nothing to Do with Sweden; It’s the Russians

Hökmark says “through Putin’s threats, we are part of the bloc he sees as the enemy and exposed to the demands he places on a Russian sphere of interest.” I’m sorry but this argument does not work. Sweden’s long and extensive cooperation with NATO made Sweden part of the bloc, not simply “Russian perceptions” or “Russian framing systems.” Sweden’s weapons exports made Sweden part of the bloc, not Russia. Sweden has combined a discourse about its past neutrality when engaging in joint military production arrangements with NATO countries like the UK.

Hökmark writes, “the war in Ukraine is part of the demands for a Russian sphere of interest and is also about us and our neighbors. This means that Russia is an enemy of Sweden and our neighbors.” This is an illogical statement. Sweden has made itself an enemy of Russia by cooperating extensively with an alliance against Russia and sending weapons to fight Russians. Sweden may rightly object to Russia’s view of its sphere of interest, but Sweden can’t invent away that superpowers have spheres of interest. History, geopolitics and military realities can’t be erased by simply denying them. Russia does not have the right to invade Ukraine, but Russia might have a right to a neutral Ukraine. Swedish leaders say very little about this reality or the right to have a neutral neighbor, i.e. a neighbor not aligned against yourself. Hökmark begs the question here by making references to history: “The historical perspective is needed to understand how we should look at the threats now, in real time and in the years to come” (emphasis added). This sentence could be taken out of Putin’s diaries.

Hökmark continues with more revisionism, where black is white and white is black: “The hostile threats and actions against us do not take place in isolation from the war in Ukraine. In such a situation, it is dangerous to let the notions of peace…limit our freedom of action.” The first sentence is correct, but Hökmark can’t concede that Sweden’s arming Ukraine is what might trigger threats and “actions against us.” Why? Again, the magical mantra. Sweden can arm Ukraine and expect few repercussions or Sweden has the right to arm Ukraine. Finally, what “notions of peace” are at play? This is simply Orwellian nonsense, i.e. exporting weapons has zero to do with peace.

Finnish History to the Rescue? Another Case of Appeasement or Swedish Weapons Never Kill?

Hökmark says “the attack is a parallel to the invasions of Poland in September 1939 and Finland in November of the same year.” Yet, parts of Finland’s military were aligned with the Nazis and Finnish troops went on to invade Ukraine. Using this example is absurd. Hökmark says that if we are indifferent and let Russian violence win, then Sweden will diminish its security and that will give a free pass for Russia to attack others whenever they want. This sounds like a sound principle, but let’s look at Sweden’s various arms exports, including sales to Yemen that some argue make Sweden complicit in war crimes. What about the person in Yemen whose family is killed by these weapons. Can they say, that “if we are indifferent and let Swedish violence win, then Yemen will diminish its security and that will give a free pass for Sweden to export more weapons (and kill) others whenever they want”? The selective and arbitrary morality here might be deemed hypocrisy. Please note: The magical mantra is used to exempt Sweden from any responsibility in Yemen or elsewhere.

Disarmament Degraded

Hökmark speaks of the disarmament of Sweden, its diminished military budgets. This use of this Swedish word, “nedrustningen” (disarmament) is misplaced. Military budget cuts are not real disarmament, but rather were money saving moves. We know that because under the government of Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt Sweden cut military budgets (or kept them relatively low) while encouraging Swedish arms exports. Real disarmament involves systematic treaties to cut conventional and nuclear forces. Sweden is not championing a general and complete disarmament treaty against weapons sales. It can’t champion nuclear disarmament if it joins NATO, a country that triggers interventions that help encourage countries like North Korea and Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. Hökmark thinks that Sweden should end neutrality defined as freedom from alliance, but Sweden is already indirectly aligned with NATO. Hökmark must mean that Sweden must formalize and a deepen an alliance with NATO that already exists.

In contrast to the idea that neutrality protected Sweden during World War II, Hökmark makes a rather interesting point: Sweden was actually protected by making concessions to the Nazis, allowing German troops free transit, promoting steel exports to Nazi Germany, and banning criticism and news which would antagonize Hitler. This specific argument raises many questions.

First, it seems to contradict the idea of free movement of goods across borders, which is the basis of Hökmark’s own think tank. During World War II, this free movement included steel and other suppliers to Hitler. I assume Hökmark was against that German linkage, but I don’t know.

Second, if concessions protected Sweden and not neutrality, why does Sweden reject concessions, i.e. exporting weapons to Ukraine are hardly concessions to Russia.

Third, if concessions provided security and security seems to be Hökmark’s goal, why does he not support concessions to Russia? If concessions were wrong, then why doesn’t he criticize the whole Swedish arms industry system which indirectly helped aid Germany in ways that facilitated the Nazi war machine? Instead, Hökmark embraces NATO which is itself highly integrated into the international system of weapons exports.

Finally, if Hökmark thinks concessions were bad even though they produced security, then he may think that NATO produces security without concessions. Yet, this logic also begs many a question. One question is whether Sweden will now have to make more concessions to the USA and NATO, such as concessions about locating nuclear weapons on Swedish territory. Another question is whether NATO is a good security bet if Donald Trump is re-elected president. If that comes to pass, NATO’s ability to deliver security will probably be less than concessions to Russia would have achieved. If the idea is that NATO provides security and human rights, that argument has already been discredited over and over (at least outside Ukraine). In fact, the Ukrainians were led by NATO boosters (and other empty agreements) to believe they would get security which they never obviously got. Until a country is actually in NATO, the security of NATO does not necessarily exist (an argument which NATO boosters use even though the argument actually works against their position).

Hökmark persists with the NATO as security argument, pointing to the Baltic states. This argument is very flawed. One reason is that the Baltic states joined NATO when Russia was weaker (or less aggressive). Another reason is that actually being in NATO provides more security than trying to be in NATO. Hökmark concludes that Sweden should join NATO before it’s too late, i.e. Sweden should not wait to be attacked before it joins NATO. The problem is that it may already be too late: (a) as Sweden’s approach to NATO will make Sweden vulnerable either by antagonizing Russia or by putting the country into the nuclear camp; (b) or Sweden can ve vulnerable by entering the alliance at a point when it is viewed as being hostile by a Russia that itself is more hostile; (c) and it may be too late as NATO may become a devalued brand by Donald Trump’s re-emergence, the turn to the U.S. towards greater isolationism (as it is over-burdened by military spending and imperial overstretch), or by the limits to military power in general. Sweden could make something out its predicament by returning to neutrality or at least sending out signals of its disengagement with NATO.

Finally, let’s assume Ukraine should get weapons to defend itself. Did Sweden really need to be involved in this cause using an indirect embrace of hard power when it could have done better by putting its own house in order first, e.g. the need to stop Swedish government-enabled weapons proliferation, the need to end dependency on purchases of Russian oil (funding Russian weapons production), the urgency of introspection and Glasnost about Sweden’s involvement in illegal wars in Iraq and Libya, and the need to speed up green transitioning? One might ask what kind of strategic theory led Sweden to export weapons to Ukraine when not in NATO: offensive realism, magical thinking, wishful thinking or magical mantras?

Postscript, March 12, 2022

Russian Foreign Ministry Second European Department Director Sergei Belyayev told the Russian news service Interfax that “Finland and Sweden’s possible accession to NATO would have serious military and political consequences and require Russia to take retaliatory measures.” He added, “‘But we cannot ignore the growing intensity of Helsinki and Stockholm’s practical interaction with NATO, including participation in military exercises of the alliance, the provision by Finland and Sweden of its territory for such maneuvers conducted in close proximity of the Russian borders, including the United States’ imitation of attacks using nuclear weapons against the so-called ‘comparable enemy.'” At Almedalen some years ago, a leading Swedish defense reporter tried to tell me that there were not military exercises on the Russian border when I told him there were and I could supply him with references. Some time later, he wrote about such exercises. In other words, Swedish security is jeopardized by the magical mantra and military cheerleading journalism within the Swedish media.