Without being a NATO member, Sweden enters into an extremely far-reaching agreement with the United States, which completely undermines the country’s ability to conduct an independent security policy. Decisions are made without debate and behind the backs of the Swedish people. The official threat perception is fake: Russia will not attack the island of Gotland, but Russian missiles will now quite naturally be aimed at Sweden and be the first to be fired – if! Sweden might as well shut down the Ministry of Defence and let the Pentagon and State do the rest.

Sweden has just signed a so-called defence agreement with the US. It gives the US access to no less than 17 military bases all over Sweden – and it does not exclude nuclear weapons on Swedish soil.

It is now absolutely certain to be dragged immediately into a US war – the country that has fought more wars and killed more people than any other country since 1945 and is currently the main culprit in Israel’s genocide.

This happens with the standard argument that it will make Sweden safer and that the country can get earlier and faster “help” from the US, e.g. in case someone tries to occupy Sweden – no, not even that but an isolated attack on the island of Gotland, according to the country’s defence minister.

And the (mis)leading militaristic mainstream media don’t ask a single critical question.

Here are a couple of examples of how public service Sveriges Television (SVT) treats these issues – about the defence agreement; why the agreement does not exclude nuclear weapons in Sweden; what does the defence agreement mean; the agreement has no limitations – and of course SVT uses a regiment commander to tell us how good this is; and here the bases (17 !!), which the US gets access to.

No one who could raise critical questions about this has SVT’s interest. SVT behaves as a mouthpiece for the Pentagon and the Swedish government, not as a critical problematiser or the classic fourth estate.

Can it get any dumber? Of course, it can – as long as the Swedish people continue to give a damn about their security and blindly believe the media and politicians.

History will judge harshly those who, in panic over Russia’s – primarily NATO-provoked – attack on Ukraine, abandoned the basic principles of Sweden’s security and its sovereignty and showed more solidarity with the US than with the security of the Swedish people. Without any broader investigation or impact assessment, that is.

And how do we know this?

We know this because no comprehensive, competent and serious analysis, investigation, commission report or public discussion was ever conducted before the then Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson and her government headlong and thoughtlessly submitted the application for Swedish NATO membership.

She did so with the most irrational populist and ignorant argument – that we Swedes may disagree on many things, but we agree that we love Sweden and that it is worth defending – and it shall be defended in NATO.

That’s how you talk in a kakistocracy, not in an enlightened democracy.

What is going on now is not even a natural part of a possible future Swedish NATO membership. For example, Denmark has never supported the US in this extreme way. Denmark has a number of restrictions on its NATO membership:

+ No foreign troops on Danish territory

+ No advance storage of weapons on Danish territory.

+ No nuclear weapons on Danish territory.

+ No participation in NATO’s nuclear planning group.

This has been the case for NATO country Denmark since 1949. This is misrepresented in the Swedish government’s declaration on these issues. And indeed, Denmark may change these reservations.

But in about a year, Sweden has gone much further without being a NATO member than Denmark did in 74 years!

There are no publicly available risk assessments – or pro and contra membership and cooperation of this type with the US – that the Swedish people have ever been asked to consider.

Today’s policy completely violates a long-established democratic principle that the Swedish people should receive full information, take a position on political choices on the basis of documents that have been sent out for consultation, have the opportunity for debate and understand the meaning of future decisions so that security policy can be said to be anchored in the “people’s home”.

The way in which the Andersson government then and the Kristersson government now persevere in total contempt for classical democracy and Swedish security policy thinking, thereby indisputably jeopardising the future security of the people, is worthy of a dictatorship.

Treason in peacetime?