So similar, yet so different. So, it is tempting to sum up Sweden's and Finland's security policy situation on the basis of the insights delivered in the think tank Frivärlds anthology ”Security policy for a new government”, which was presented at a seminar earlier in the week.
both are small countries in the european periphery, which must relate to the major powers – and in particular to the right now, increasingly aggressive giant in the east. But who have radically different views on how the national territory to be defended.
In Finland, is instead confident that it ultimately only goes to trust to oneself.
Despite the reluctance to abandon alliansfriheten, we are in Sweden, convinced that our country should be defended with the other. Finland is instead confident that it ultimately can only rely on himself.
The different perceptions are, in turn, rooted in different historical experiences of war. We do not have such in modern times. On Finland's behalf was the national survival game on several occasions during the 1900s. To the rescue came – in all cases according to the conventional story – not from the outside.
also how big the risk is that they would be drawn into an armed conflict. Despite Finland's long border with Russia, it is piquant enough Sweden live a dangerous.
the Reason for this is that the most likely threat scenario revolves around a Russian invasion of the Baltic states. In this case, it's Swedish land, which must be controlled for to isolate, alternatively, keep the way open to, Nato's north outposts.
Greater vulnerability and poorer preparedness. There is no further position. Long ago, it is high time that Sweden would obtain assurances that others give us help in case of an emergency that only nato membership can provide. In addition, we should ensure that we can defend ourselves at least one time. To learn from the Finnish experience is the best insurance against being forced to do some of my own.