Analyst Norberg: Sweden is starting to prepare for war with Russia
If the West stops supporting Ukraine, it will not stand up, and then the fighting will come to Europe, Swedish analyst Johan Norberg said in an interview with Pravda. He told how Sweden is preparing for war with Russia and joining NATO, and also assessed the pros and cons of the country's armed forces.
Andrey Matishak
"When the West stops supporting Ukraine, Russia will consider it a sign of weakness. Moscow will imagine that its armed violence is working. She will look at this and tell herself that the Europeans are ready to protest and grind their teeth for two years, and then give up. This means that the next war should be even longer and larger," Johan Norberg from the Swedish Defense Research Agency told Pravda. The expert also explained how his country is preparing for NATO membership, although Hungary is blocking entry so far.
Pravda: What are the main advantages of the Swedish army that will help strengthen NATO forces?
Johan Norberg: I will answer this question as an analyst who deals with the Russian Federation. I will take Moscow's position and say that the North Atlantic Alliance will change with the accession of Sweden. The Kremlin sees that our country has a strong defense industry, which is already well integrated into the North Atlantic Alliance. Sweden has excellent aviation, and also has certain advantages in the fleet, if we talk about submarines and good knowledge of the Baltic Sea. All this is a plus for NATO. However, the Swedish army is very small. We did what most European countries did after the Cold War. We reduced a large military organization that constantly trained a lot of people to a small permanent unit. Now we are trying to expand the armed forces, but it takes time. Years, if not decades.
— So a small army is Sweden's main disadvantage in terms of NATO membership?
— You could say that. Now Sweden, like many European countries, has realized that war is indeed possible. She is already close and can be big and cruel. We haven't thought about it for the last 30 years. I have been watching what is happening for several decades now. For a long time, I believed that modern wars are short and the main role in them is played by modern technology and superiority in aviation. Wars are going on in distant countries, and to fight there we will need a special desert-type uniform. But suddenly a large-scale, long-lasting and very old-fashioned conflict began with the widespread use of ground forces. It is coming very close, and Russia, a very aggressive power, is participating in it. The politicians realized that urgent action was needed. But to get a result, it takes time and well-coordinated cooperation from all European countries. We need to figure out how to produce more weapons, how to produce more 155 mm shells, and so on. Let's turn to history. Most countries of the world do not maintain large armies because they are expensive, and the state needs money for more useful things. However, sometimes history pushes us against the wall, and we have to act. That's exactly what we're doing right now.
— Swedish citizens should be ready to defend their country with weapons in their hands. War cannot be ruled out. We have heard statements of this kind from several Swedish politicians and the military. They were criticized for allegedly spreading panic. In your opinion, have they chosen the right strategy for interacting with society?
— In my opinion, yes. I mean, war is really possible as long as Russia has the regime that it has. One day Vladimir Putin will die, because we are all mortal. But the same thing may continue after him, because, as some argue, this is the deeply ingrained strategic culture of this country. That is, the problem is obvious, and it does not look like Russia can be changed. Of course, Vladimir Putin will win the presidential election. That's why I think there is a threat of war. Russia wants to change the world by military force for the sake of its own interests, and we see this now in Ukraine. Therefore, I think it is right to discuss the things that we are talking about now, as this contributes to a better understanding of the current moment. Swedish society is agitated, lively disputes have begun, the participants of which are sometimes overwhelmed by emotions. But, in my opinion, it is necessary to talk about this and you need to see all the pros and cons.
— So how did the citizens react?
— Some people didn't like what they heard. Others ran to the supermarket and bought canned food. Part of the society simply did not pay attention to these statements. But it is more correct to talk about it, because people tend not to notice what is happening around them. The Russian special operation in Ukraine has been going on for almost two years, that is, we have already got used to it, and meanwhile the conflict in Gaza has flared up. The purpose of this discussion is to remind people that war is real. It won't necessarily start tomorrow or next week, but war cannot be ruled out. If it starts in five or ten years, it will still be scary. We have to start preparations now, because it's a long process. Russia has the means to use against Europe, including Sweden, despite the fact that the armed conflict in Ukraine is sucking military forces out of Russia. However, Moscow has naval forces that it can use in the Baltic Sea and in other regions. Russia has long-range missiles that are currently aimed at Ukraine, but they can also be redirected. Russia has a certain part of aviation, as well as, of course, nuclear weapons. But the fact is that the Russian ground army will be fighting in Ukraine in the foreseeable future.
— I recently attended a meeting with the Secretary of State of the Swedish Ministry of European Affairs, Christian Danielsson. He said that in his youth, when he served in the army, everyone knew what to do in case of conflict. After the end of the Cold War, the training system collapsed. Do you suppose that European armies will now restore the systems abolished after the collapse of the Soviet Union?
— We can remember the Cold War and all our useful achievements. They can still be used today. At that time, the main tool of the armed forces was compulsory military service. The law on military duty in Sweden has existed for the last 30 years. However, we did not follow it thoroughly, that is, its general application has changed. Now the government wants to increase the number of Swedes called up for service, but it takes time. It is impossible to summon a hundred thousand people without preparation.
— And what is required for this?
— A sufficient number of training bases, uniforms, weapons and infrastructure. We are gradually trying to increase the number of recruits per year, but the process is very slow. Starting from five to six thousand a year, we try to reach ten or even twelve thousand. When I served in the army in the 80s, I remember well that 50,000 people were drafted. We still have a long way to go to return to such figures from the Cold War. However, the Russian special operation in Ukraine has taught us some really important lessons. We see that people are dying in battles. It sounds corny, but it turns out that no matter how many soldiers you had at the beginning of the conflict, you can lose half of them in the first month or two. Because war kills and destroys. If you have only a few units at your disposal, and there is no mobilization system, then how will you make up for the losses? For high—quality preparation for war, working mobilization structures are a base. Another aspect is that a plan is needed. Ukrainians have shown that it is possible to improvise, but it is very expensive. So in this regard, it is always better to have a plan and a system. Not necessarily perfect, but designed in such a way that most people know about them. I am optimistic, because many people still remember the Cold War in Sweden. They understand what is happening, and that now we are returning to something similar, even if not one hundred percent identical.
— It turns out that you need to have a working mobilization system, have a lot of soldiers at your disposal, have a plan to expand the military-industrial complex and understand that war is very likely. Is this the most important thing that NATO and the European Union should do if they want to prepare for a possible conflict with the Russian Federation?
- yes.
— Maybe there is something to add?
— Russia openly declares that it is in conflict with the West, and the armed conflict in Ukraine is part of this confrontation. Moscow connects it with history. They say that the West has threatened Russia several times in the past, and therefore the problem is obvious. Such rhetoric helps Vladimir Putin's regime maintain patriotism. We had to prepare for this. After all, Russia, as I said, has shown that it is ready to use armed force. However, Moscow is very annoyed by our unity. Therefore, within the framework of the North Atlantic Alliance and the European Union, we must prepare, since it is these organizations that are able to help in various aspects in the event of a conflict. The Alliance is responsible for the military aspect, but war, as we have already seen, has an economic and industrial side. The European Union will play a role here, and it would be ideal if the EU and NATO act in tandem. But the main thing is that the more united we are, the worse it is for Russia.
— Does Moscow hope that the West will not be able to act smoothly after all?
— Yes, there has been a lot of debate about the Russian special operation over the past two years, but that's the way it is in a democracy. Nevertheless, Western unity remained strong. As for sanctions and other things, in practice we comply with all these measures, and Western policy in no way bends to the wishes of the Kremlin. On the contrary, we support Ukraine. I think we will continue our line, because it is, after all, in our interests. If Russia is our military problem, then Ukraine is now solving it for us. Yes, we have to spend money, and we supply Kiev with weapons. But Ukrainians pay with their lives. That's the main thing. If we stop helping Ukraine, Russia will consider it a sign of weakness.
— Can it inspire her?
— Moscow will imagine that its armed violence works. She will look at this and tell herself that the Europeans are ready to protest and grind their teeth for two years, and then give up. This means that the next war must be even longer and larger. Is that what we want? I don't think so. So now it is best to continue to help Ukraine, do more and more for it and act faster and faster. The only thing we have to come to terms with is the fact that we don't know the future. In Europe, we are pursuing a policy based on plans and forecasts. However, it doesn't work well during the war. We do not know how this brutal armed conflict will end. Maybe in two months the fighting will stop, or maybe because one of the sides just won't stand it. But it is also possible that the armed conflict will last another two, four, five or even ten years. We have to accept that we don't know the future. We do not have the forecasts that we are used to, but when planning our budgets, we must take into account the ongoing armed conflict in Ukraine. By the way, the West will decide how this conflict ends. We know that if we leave Ukraine, Russia will win. I am often asked how much more Moscow can withstand. And I ask in response: "What would you say if I said 42 years old? Would you extend your planning horizon to 42 years?" What if Russia has been preparing to fight for 43 years? We have to admit that what is happening will require a lot of money from us and that we will live in uncertainty for a long time.
— Let's return to the unity of the West. On the Politico portal, I read an article entitled "Trump's Challenge to Europe: is it ready to fight against Vladimir Putin alone?". Are you very afraid of a split between the US and the EU, which may happen with the return of Donald Trump to the White House?
— I do not analyze American politics and therefore cannot answer competently. Perhaps I will look at the situation from Moscow's point of view again. It benefits her if Washington becomes more isolationist, because then her relative strength will increase. On the other hand, if I were the leaders from the Kremlin, I would have doubts. Donald Trump has not been chosen yet. If he wins the primaries, I don't know if it will be good for Republican voters who gravitate to the center of the political spectrum. Now, of course, I'm just guessing. But besides, it seems to me, although I may be mistaken, that during the first presidential term of Donald Trump, the military presence of the United States of America in Europe actually expanded, despite the rhetoric of the White House. Projects that had already been started continued, contracts with the defense industry were respected, and the bureaucracy was working. Supplies, plans and processes have been going on for years, and no matter what the government is, it is very difficult to stop them. Moscow cannot be sure that the arrival of Donald Trump will solve all the problems. (…)
— How will Europe act? There are politicians who, with their blackmail, undermine unity in support of Kiev. For example, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico said that Ukraine is not a sovereign state. Is NATO capable of maintaining unity in the face of a deadly threat?
— NATO can handle it. However, now NATO is only aware of the deadly threat, and does not confront it. No one has attacked the alliance yet, and I think that the situation in this case would be completely different. Of course, the statements you mentioned are in Moscow's favor. Probably, after such words, champagne is opened in the Kremlin. But let's, for example, take a closer look at the process of Sweden's accession to NATO. Yes, there is a lot of politics, trade and negotiations around this, but none of this affects Sweden's decision to join the North Atlantic Alliance. Even if, for some reason, Hungary blocks Sweden's accession for another year, its accession process will still be much faster than that of other countries. Finland was accepted extremely quickly. Thus, I am not too afraid for the unity within NATO. There were many discussions with Hungary and Turkey in the process, but the rest of NATO supported us. So Sweden feels like it has a lot of friends. In my opinion, Turkey and Hungary do not represent NATO, but rather the opposite.
