This is how pressure is put on other countries and a rare glimpse by media into processes presumably meant to be semi-official and basically hidden to the public.

And of course, it is up to sovereign Sweden to decide what to do – but, however, not joining NATO will have a price. See below the ambassador’s formulation and hint at Ukraine’s situation.

The truth is that Sweden doesn’t need to join because it is strategically important enough where it is.

Added February 18, 2016: And this is why the host nation support agreement between Sweden and NATO is so important. And should be refused mainly through broad popular debate and democratic pressure on the government.

Here is a first a Google translation of the article in Svenska Dagbladet, April 28, 2014 – followed by the original text in Swedish:

Monday April 28, 2014, Svenska Dagbladet

”Sweden should join NATO “

If Russia threatens Sweden , we can not count on any help from NATO or the United States. Should Sweden be defended , we should join NATO . In the midst of the Ukraine crisis , the U.S. has given this clear message to all Swedish parliamentary parties .

Today there are only a realistic security actor in Europe who can provide you with a guarantee of security, says U.S. Stockholm Ambassador Mark Brzezinski in his arguments for Swedish NATO membership . PHOTOS: Jonas Ekströmer / TT

April 27, 2014 at 20:31 , Updated : April 27, 2014 at 22:54

The message was made a month ago to the eight political parties in the government’s defense preparation. SvD has gained access to the document in which the U.S. line is established .

The news from the U.S. is seen by several informed sources as SvD spoken to as a cold shower . In Sweden, it namely long been a Swedish view that we are protected by the NATO defense guarantees, despite the fact that we are not part of NATO. Armed guarantee enshrined in the NATO Charter Atlantic Treaty Article 5 (“One for all – all for one” ) .

During the Cold War also had the super power USA a secret policy to assist Sweden if we were attacked or threatened by the Soviet Union. But none of that applies anymore, got the Swedish politicians informed about.

– I must be frank and say that Sweden is neither guaranteed protection under Article 5, or of any bilateral security agreement between our two nations, said U.S. Ambassador Mark Brzezinski, according to the eight-page document , on March 27.

– Ukraine had closer ties with NATO than Sweden , he also pointed out.

Sweden is today the partner country to NATO because we are members of the Partnership for Peace .

– Participating in the Partnership for Peace and the possible deterrent effect it can have guarantee you no protection against Russia, the ambassador said .

The U.S. message is that NATO is like an insurance company. Should we help the insurance must be taken out in advance. The reason the United States in front of that message is now Ukraine crisis . It has led to the Defense Committee , which is preparing next year’s defense , had its mandate extended to May 15

Interesting too?  DR nĂŠsten ikke til at bĂŠre - Iran og terroren

Time used by the formulation to collect information about the new geopolitical situation after Russia’s annexation of the Crimea. In the process , several ambassadors visited the formulation to give his country’s views on developments following Russia’s annexation of the Crimea.

On March 27 it was the turn to the U.S. Ambassador to Sweden , Mark Brzezinski . The U.S. has long said that NATO’s door remains open to Sweden , but this is a Swedish decision. The U.S. authorities have since NATO founding in 1949 has been careful not to press Sweden in NATO issue as this could backfire.

But Ambassador Brzezinski’s speech to the Defense Committee tone was now a different:

– Russia’s military actions in Ukraine will certainly have the military , economic and political effects , hit the ambassador and said that there are ” some things to consider .” “How can Sweden meet these new strategic realities? ” Asked the ambassador.

– It is not realistic to increase defense spending will be large enough to fully secure Sweden’s security interests. According to the Defence ‘s own words , Sweden’s defense build security together with others. The question is by whom? , Asked the ambassador.

America’s answer to that is clear: NATO. But to come up with an application first if Sweden is in danger, it is not enough, according to Mark Brzezinski .

– Today there are only a realistic security actor in Europe who can provide you with a security guarantee . To wait until the last minute is not a good strategy . In the same way that it does not make sense to buy insurance for their house when it was already in flames – or when the neighbor’s house is on fire , hit ambassador firm and further stated :

– We have always recognized that the issue of NATO membership is a matter which is entirely determined by the Swedes. It’s your decision.

The original article of April 28, 2014 in Svenska Dagbladet

”Sverige bör gĂ„ med i Nato”

Om Ryssland hotar Sverige kan vi inte rÀkna med nÄgon hjÀlp frÄn Nato eller USA. Ska Sverige kunna försvaras bör vi gÄ med i Nato. Mitt under Ukraina- krisen har USA gett detta tydliga besked till samtliga svenska riksdagspartier.

27 april 2014 kl 20:31, uppdaterad: 27 april 2014 kl 22:54

Budskapet framfördes för en mÄnad sedan till de Ätta politiska partierna i regeringens försvarsberedning. SvD har fÄtt tillgÄng till det dokument dÀr USA:s linje slÄs fast.

Beskedet frĂ„n USA ses av flera initierade kĂ€llor som SvD talat med som en kalldusch. I Sverige har det nĂ€mligen lĂ€nge funnits en svensk uppfattning om att vi skyddas av Natos försvarsgarantier trots att vi inte Ă€r med i Nato. Försvarsgarantin slĂ„s fast i Natos stadga, Atlantfördragets artikel 5 (”en för alla – alla för en”).

Interesting too?  Intellectual nonsense about Syria

Under kalla kriget hade ocksÄ supermakten USA en hemlig politik att bistÄ Sverige om vi dÄ angreps eller hotades av Sovjet- unionen. Men inget av detta gÀller lÀngre, fick de svenska politikerna besked om.

– Jag mĂ„ste vara uppriktig och sĂ€ga att Sverige varken garan- teras skydd enligt Artikel 5, eller av nĂ„got bilateralt sĂ€kerhetsavtal mellan vĂ„ra bĂ€gge nationer, sade USA:s ambassadör Mark Brzezinski, enligt det Ă„ttasidiga dokumentet, den 27 mars.

– Ukraina hade nĂ€rmare band med Nato Ă€n vad Sverige har, pĂ„pekade han ocksĂ„.

Sverige Àr i dag partnerland till Nato eftersom vi Àr med i Partnerskap för fred.

– Att vara med i Partnerskap för fred och den möjliga avskrĂ€ckningseffekt det kan ha garanterar er inget skydd mot Ryssland, sade ambassadören.

Det amerikanska budskapet Àr att Nato Àr som ett försÀkringsbolag. Ska vi fÄ hjÀlp mÄste försÀkringen tecknas i förvÀg. Orsaken till att USA framför detta budskap nu Àr Ukrainakrisen. Den har lett till att försvarsberedningen, som förbereder nÀsta Ärs försvarsbeslut, fÄtt förlÀngt mandat till den 15 maj.

Tiden anvÀnds av beredningen för att hÀmta in information om det nya sÀkerhetspolitiska lÀget efter Rysslands annektering av Krim. I arbetet har flera lÀnders ambassadörer besökt beredningen för att ge sitt lands syn pÄ utvecklingen efter Rysslands annektering av Krim.

Den 27 mars var turen kommen till USA:s ambassadör i Sverige, Mark Brzezinski. USA har sedan lÀnge sagt att Natos dörr stÄr öppen för Sverige, men att detta Àr ett svenskt beslut. FrÄn amerikansk sida har man alltsedan Natos grundande 1949 varit noga med att inte trycka pÄ Sverige i Nato-frÄgan eftersom detta skulle kunna slÄ tillbaka.

Men i ambassadör Brzezinskis anförande till försvarsberedningen var tonen nu en annan:

– Rysslands militĂ€ra agerande i Ukraina kommer helt sĂ€kert att fĂ„ militĂ€ra, ekonomiska och politiska effekter, slog ambassadören fast och framförde att det finns ”en del saker att övervĂ€ga”. ”Hur ska Sverige möta dessa nya strategiska realiteter?”, frĂ„gade ambassadören.

– Det Ă€r inte realistiskt att ökade försvarsutgifter blir stora nog att fullt ut sĂ€kra Sveriges sĂ€kerhetsintressen. Enligt försvarsberedningens egna ord ska Sveriges försvar bygga pĂ„ sĂ€kerhet tillsammans med andra. FrĂ„gan Ă€r med vem?, frĂ„gade ambassadören.

USA:s svar pÄ det Àr entydigt: Nato. Men att komma med en ansökan först om Sverige Àr i fara, det rÀcker inte, enligt Mark Brzezinski.

– I dag finns det endast en realistisk sĂ€kerhetsaktör i Europa som kan förse er med en sĂ€kerhetsgaranti. Att vĂ€nta till sista minuten Ă€r ingen bra strategi. PĂ„ samma sĂ€tt som det inte tjĂ€nar nĂ„gonting till att köpa en försĂ€kring till sitt hus nĂ€r det redan stĂ„r i brand – eller nĂ€r grannens hus stĂ„r i ljusan lĂ„ga, slog ambassadören fast och tillade slutligen:

– Vi har alltid erkĂ€nt att frĂ„gan om Natomedlemskap Ă€r en frĂ„ga som helt och hĂ„llet avgörs av svenskarna. Det Ă€r ert beslut.

[END]

JO

Welcome to my official personal home. I'm a peace researcher and art photographer.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Previous Story

“Fredsforsker” i Bent Jensens regi

Next Story

☟ ☟ IndkÞb af kampfly fortjener en seriÞs debat

Latest from Defence and security

%d bloggers like this: