Yes. Unfortunately any "team" gets embarrasing supporters. However, both sides (pro/anti) should by now agree on the need to HAVE a military of substantial size. One side, to credibly stay out of NATO. The other, to credibly expect an application be granted.
> However, both sides (pro/anti) should by now agree on the need to HAVE an military of substantial size.
What seems to be happening is that priority is given to projects that benefit certain companies, rather than increasing military capabilities. Investments are made in platforms such as Gripen[1], A26[2], Visby[3], PRIO (licensed SAP system) rather than giving priority to training and maintaining personnel. The mentioned projects are relatively expensive and low volume and there are a lot of people in the armed forces who would rather see the focus shifted from those projects to the armed forces. Unless you're air force or navy and get to play with new toys, I guess. Meanwhile, the army and the amphibious corps are less happy.
It is not likely that we'll see the size needed for quite some time.
This is what is happening. I still hope (maybe in vain) that the rest will ramp up too and that will build political clout for the army and the civil defence that will need to be rebuilt. But it's not surprising that the first initiatives would be money heavy corporate spending. After all, the last couple of decades, "government doing military duties" has increasingly translated to "selling fortifications cheaply and spend time with industry lobbyists". The toys are nice but we need boots on the ground. And civil defence. Do I repeat myself?
Switzerland spends half as much as Sweden on its annual military spending as percentage of GDP (also less in absolute terms), and they can credibly stay out of NATO, so why couldn't Sweden? Geographics? I don't buy it.
Also, if Sweden wanted to join tomorrow morning, they would have the application granted after lunch the same day. NATO has been salivating at the thought for decades now, and considering Sweden's military is already running on NATO standards, its officers take all the NATO courses, and the military partakes in all major NATO war games, it's not ridiculous to say that for all intents and purposes, Sweden is basically already a member, just not officially.
The pro-NATO side's argument tends to be that since Sweden's already basically a member, at least it should have voting rights by the merit of being an official member. That's their top argument IMO.
Joining NATO would be a massive provocation towards Russia that I don't think neither Sweden nor the surrounding nation states would benefit from. I'd rather not choose sides in a Second Cold War, since either side in such a conflict would be rather contemptible. Now, it's pretty clear "we" already did, however.
> Switzerland spends half as much as Sweden on its annual military spending as percentage of GDP (also less in absolute terms), and they can credibly stay out of NATO, so why couldn't Sweden? Geographics? I don't buy it.
I think you should go look at that map again and think about the strategic value of Sweden vs Switzerland.
There are five other countries on the Baltic Sea for whom that is their only ocean access, Russia's northern ports may not be open year round, and their Black Sea ports are behind the straits of Bosporus, Dardanelles, and Gibraltar.
Sweden and Turkey can both make naval operations more difficult and expensive for Russia, particularly those operations it might prefer to keep secret. Switzerland isn't exactly a place you might ordinarily want to go through on your way to somewhere else, unless you really like climbing over mountains (or digging under them). Militarily, it's almost always easier to go around Switzerland than through it. So you would only ever attack Switzerland if they, specifically, had something that you wanted, or were threatening your flanks or rear.
Sweden-Denmark, Egypt, Panama, and Turkey, and to lesser extents, Malaysia, Canada, and Spain-Morocco-Gibraltar all preside over strategic bottlenecks to aquatic vessels. They have huge strategic value.
