3 ms·

Why do you think they waited this long to join?

duxup 6y ago
Tradition and convenience maybe. They got to have it both ways, official neutrality and yet they were closely tied to the west, NATO nations, and had assurances that they would be provided some level of protections as well. For a close to border nation at that time I think that is a desirable position. Provides at least the idea that there may be some flexibility for them.
mongol 6y ago
Much of this can be explained with domestic politics. Sweden has 8 parties in parlament, each with it's own foreign policy agenda. Over the course of 20 years, one party after the other have changed it's position and now there are at least 4 parties in favour. But note that foreign policy is defined by the government, and the government parties are still opposed.
outside1234 6y ago
Sweden, has for a long time, received the benefits of NATO and the Western alliance without the costs. They call it "official neutrality" but what it really means is that they are willing to let Germany roll over them on the way to Norway and not spend 2%+ on defense while knowing, like in WWII, we will bail them out.
- duxup 6y ago
  Sweden also cooperated with western intelligence agencies and etc during the cold war. I think portraying them a sort of freeloader is inaccurate / an over-simplification / unfair. They worked closely with NATO, and NATO countries worked with them.
- nradov 6y ago
  Ironically Swedish defense spending as a percentage of GDP is actually higher than some current NATO members. In many ways they are now more combat effective than Germany.
georgeecollins 6y ago
The Baltic States are independent now, and if there was a fight over that Sweden could get dragged in easily. Also, Sweden used to make its own tank (at least in the WW2 and early cold war era) and still makes its own jets. It's getting harder and more expensive to make your own military equipment. You can probably make your next jet in a consortium of other European powers, or buy from them in an alliance.

Tradition and convenience maybe. They got to have it both ways, official neutrality and yet they were closely tied to the west, NATO nations, and had assurances that they would be provided some level of protections as well. For a close to border nation at that time I think that is a desirable position. Provides at least the idea that there may be some flexibility for them.

mongol 6y ago

Much of this can be explained with domestic politics. Sweden has 8 parties in parlament, each with it's own foreign policy agenda. Over the course of 20 years, one party after the other have changed it's position and now there are at least 4 parties in favour. But note that foreign policy is defined by the government, and the government parties are still opposed.

outside1234 6y ago

Sweden, has for a long time, received the benefits of NATO and the Western alliance without the costs. They call it "official neutrality" but what it really means is that they are willing to let Germany roll over them on the way to Norway and not spend 2%+ on defense while knowing, like in WWII, we will bail them out.

duxup 6y ago
Sweden also cooperated with western intelligence agencies and etc during the cold war. I think portraying them a sort of freeloader is inaccurate / an over-simplification / unfair. They worked closely with NATO, and NATO countries worked with them.
nradov 6y ago
Ironically Swedish defense spending as a percentage of GDP is actually higher than some current NATO members. In many ways they are now more combat effective than Germany.

georgeecollins 6y ago

The Baltic States are independent now, and if there was a fight over that Sweden could get dragged in easily. Also, Sweden used to make its own tank (at least in the WW2 and early cold war era) and still makes its own jets. It's getting harder and more expensive to make your own military equipment. You can probably make your next jet in a consortium of other European powers, or buy from them in an alliance.