RTWed, 19 Jun 2024 00:40 UTC

© Getty Images / Narciso Contreras/AnadoluUS service member on a HIMARS at the Baltops 24 military drills, alongside Swedish troops, in Uto, Sweden, June 11, 2024
The opposition is worried that a new defense pact does not prohibit acceptance of American nuclear weapons
Lawmakers in Stockholm have approved a controversial defense pact with Washington, which allows American troops onto 17 Swedish military bases and training sites. Critics have blasted the agreement for not explicitly barring US nuclear weapons from being deployed in the Nordic country.The Defense Cooperation Agreement (DCA) was signed between Swedish Defense Minister Pal Jonson and US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in December of last year, but needed parliamentary approval to take effect.
On Tuesday, lawmakers in Stockholm overwhelmingly backed the DCA, with 266 members of parliament voting in favor and 37 against, while 46 were absent. As a high-stakes vote, a three-quarters supermajority with more than half of lawmakers present was required for the bill to pass.
The agreement was opposed by the Left and Green parties, who argued that the terms should explicitly state that Sweden would not host nuclear weapons.
"We want to see legislation that bans nuclear weapons from being brought onto Swedish soil," Green Party MP Emma Berginger said in parliament during Tuesday's proceedings, arguing that the pact "doesn't close the door to nuclear weapons."
The Swedish Peace and Arbitration Association, a major anti-war non-profit organization, slammed the move as one that increases tensions and security risks for Sweden, claiming it betrays voters' expectations for a nuclear-free nation.
"Unlike in Norway and Denmark's DCA pacts, the Swedish agreement contains no reservation against nuclear weapons," the group's leader, Kerstin Bergea, wrote in an op-ed after the vote. Sweden's neighbor Finland, which joined NATO in 2022, has a national law barring nuclear weapons from its territory, and their DCA pact with the US refers to it, Bergea pointed out.
Sweden, a member of the US-led military bloc since March, will allow American troops, vehicles and aircraft unimpeded passage across the country. The Pentagon will also be allowed to set up its own facilities at existing Swedish military bases. The presence of US personnel will be regulated by the US rather than local laws.Earlier this month, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov pointed out that numerous waves of NATO expansion have made Europe less safe. Moscow has no territorial disputes or points of tension with the bloc's new members Sweden or Finland, he stressed, while acknowledging that NATO military infrastructure will no doubt be hosted on their soil. Stockholm and Helsinki "understand this would lead to consequences for their own security," he said.
Comment:
1) If the agreement or surrender allows the US: "unimpeded passage across the country ... set up its own facilities at existing Swedish military bases ... will be regulated by the US rather than local laws." then
whether the agreement is explicit about the stationing of nuclear weapons could be said to be irrelevant, since there will be nobody to control what goes on in the US areas of the country except the US. Besides, with enough pressure even an informed government could be made to keep silent as Denmark and Sweden most likely did about the Nord Stream bombing, which was for the most part brushed under the carpet due to considerations of national security.
2) The move from the US has been well prepared. Sweden is a somewhat fragmented country with much energy spent on parallel society areas influenced by minority laws, whether religious, criminal or both. Still some mental preparations have been needed to get the Swedes formally into NATO.
Sweden won't allow citizens referendum vote over NATO membership (April 2022) which has:
Sweden does not plan to hold a referendum on the subject of NATO membership if its parliament approves of the measure, Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson announced on Thursday, suggesting that putting the matter to a vote would be a "bad idea."
"I don't think it is an issue that is suitable for a referendum," the Swedish leader told reporters, implying that Parliament's support was sufficient. "There is a lot of information about national security that is confidential, so there are important issues in such a referendum that cannot be discussed and important facts that cannot be put on the table," she explained.
The Swedish parliament is conducting an overview of security policy, with plans to release a report on the subject by the middle of next month. With a majority of Parliament reportedly backing membership in NATO, Andersson's own party, the Social Democrats, is considered the primary obstacle to Stockholm signing on to the 30-country alliance. However, Ulf Kristersson, head of the leading opposition party, the Moderates, agrees that a referendum is a bad idea.
3) With the military US-SE agreement in the central country on the
Scandinavian Peninsula the road is paved for more influence. As a possible example, from Russia there was this claim:
US preparing major anti-Russia propaganda campaign in Scandinavia - Moscow (May 30)
At the same time, high-ranking Swedish and Finnish officials are being trained, "like diligent students," to repeat the "Russophobic mantras of their American patrons without hesitation," the service wrote.
Specifically, it mentioned the commander-in-chief of the Swedish Armed Forces, Micael Byden, who recently claimed that Russia is planning to invade the island of Gotland to establish control in the Baltic Sea; and Finnish President Alexander Stubb, who has claimed that Russia poses an "existential threat" and has insisted that the only way to achieve peace is "through the battlefield."
If 'the only way to achieve peace is "through the battlefield."' the invitation for the Scandinavians to join the effort is open, even if for now the active game is by proxy and military-financial aid.
4) For recent articles that connect in a more peripherical sense:
Now why would they do that? Is it because you and your insane counterparts are trying to block Russian access in the Baltic?
You live by the sword, you die by the sword.