In a letter to the editor on the DN View, argues Ivan Aronsson Sweden strengthens its defense greatly because of an imaginary threat. There are a number of inaccuracies in his letter to the editor that must be addressed.
to begin with, it is a very strange claim that Russia's annexation of Crimea was ”peaceful”. When a state with the military means to take over territory even the most hardcore fredsvännen able to recognize that it is not a peaceful approach, despite the fact that open conflict did not happen. To conquer the territory with the help of military power must still constitute the very definition of non-peaceful means.
It is interesting that the author refers to the interwar period where Germany collapsed and the dream of revenge was on the agenda. Just at that stage is Russia at present.
want to make the country strong again. To once again compete with the united states, many russias will, even if open war might not stand on top of the agenda.
The first countries invaded by Germany, other German-speaking nations or lands which, according to the nazis, formed part of their people and therefore must be included in a Germany. The same premises was in the Crimea.
the Author is certainly right in that the USA is the strongest and an open confrontation with the US would likely all of the countries in the world to avoid. The author, however, fall in the natural Swedish the trap of neutrality.
Sweden was neutral. The year 1848 broke neutrality first time when we helped Denmark in their war against Prussia. In this way, it has continued.
The Swedish self-image of neutrality has interestingly survived both world wars and even the cold war. Even when we now open part of a political-economic alliance, the EU, has a large number of people imagine that we are neutral.
For us to be fully neutral, for example, requires a withdrawal from the EU, which is not desirable. Sweden has not been neutral for a very long time.
wrong in that we provide significantly. What is happening is that the units we already have are added to the staff and materieluppgraderingar as it had been several years ago, but which could not be added because of the strained economy in the defence in the last 20 years. It is not about rehabilitation, without paying for what you already ordered.
the Idea that Sweden would be able to lead a global nuclear disarmament, and that the other states would automatically respect our neutrality is naive. History shows time and time again to other larger states, little cares little about the declared neutrality when the smaller states stand in the way of strategic ambitions.
The Swedish disarmament process in the 90 - and 00-century, has probably not stopped a single conflict in the world, even if we like to have the image of everyone to follow Sweden's example in all areas.
I never I heard someone refer to sexual frustration as a cause of the war started. But I would be happy to take part of the research around this topic.