These are strange times in the politics of European security.
In Sweden, the NATO-lapdog, centre-right government is being criticised by the left for not being militaristic enough in its approach to security policy. There seems to be little real opposition to the exponential expansion of military spending and investment.
The Social Democrats, the traditional colossus on the left in Swedish politics, recently demanded that the Swedish government open up the Baltic island of Gotland to multinational forces. This is a change of rhetoric that has surprised the Swedish Prime Minister himself: “So far, the Social Democrats, together with the Left Party, have been the most opposed to having permanent foreign forces on Swedish soil.”
It is inevitable that political parties will seek to score easy points in the current chaotic political environment, but we must be wary of being swept up in the bandwagon of militarism without first considering the implications.
Yes, multinational forces on Gotland would make the safety of the island the responsibility of several nations, increasing the deterrence and defensive ability. At the same time, the existence of multinational forces would also mean that the running of Gotland would be the business of several nations. Such a loss of sovereignty is dangerous and will ultimately lead to several issues.
To understand what the future holds for Gotland, we can look to Okinawa and Greenland, two other islands with permanent bases for foreign troops.
In the case of Okinawa, Japan, many locals see the more than 30 US military facilities as a “painful legacy of occupation”and a poll from 2023 showed that 70 per cent of Okinawans consider the concentration of US bases in the region to be “unfair”. Much of the resistance to the bases stems from a history of soldiers being protected from facing justice after sexual assault and murder accusations. The bases are also seen as making the island a prime target in case of war.
The case of Greenland is even more worrying. President Trump has made it extremely clear in recent weeks that NATO bases are better protected under American ownership. He points to previous investment and perceived threats as valid reasons to annex allied territory. If this constitutes the ground rules in a new world order, any nation should be extremely wary of opening up its islands to foreign troops.
Finally, any European leader myopically focused on the Russian threat at the moment must have their head in the sand. The Russian bear has loomed over Europe for centuries, and there is a valid consensus that its imperial aspirations are extremely worrying. These aspirations get even more worrying as the resilience of NATO support wavers.
However, the United States is not only withdrawing support against Russia but is actively threatening European sovereignty itself. NATO is increasingly working like a mafia, where Donald Trump can make demands, and the rest of the countries pay for protection with flattery and concessions.
Waiting out Donald Trump’s presidency in hopes that all will return to normal in 2029 is naïve, and instead of obsessively reinforcing its helmet, the European community should start looking at how to protect its exposed underbelly.
“Swedish military on the island of Gotland” by Ooland123 is marked with CC0 1.0.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
Questioning the need for a Baltic Okinawa
These are strange times in the politics of European security.
In Sweden, the NATO-lapdog, centre-right government is being criticised by the left for not being militaristic enough in its approach to security policy. There seems to be little real opposition to the exponential expansion of military spending and investment.
The Social Democrats, the traditional colossus on the left in Swedish politics, recently demanded that the Swedish government open up the Baltic island of Gotland to multinational forces. This is a change of rhetoric that has surprised the Swedish Prime Minister himself: “So far, the Social Democrats, together with the Left Party, have been the most opposed to having permanent foreign forces on Swedish soil.”
It is inevitable that political parties will seek to score easy points in the current chaotic political environment, but we must be wary of being swept up in the bandwagon of militarism without first considering the implications.
Yes, multinational forces on Gotland would make the safety of the island the responsibility of several nations, increasing the deterrence and defensive ability. At the same time, the existence of multinational forces would also mean that the running of Gotland would be the business of several nations. Such a loss of sovereignty is dangerous and will ultimately lead to several issues.
To understand what the future holds for Gotland, we can look to Okinawa and Greenland, two other islands with permanent bases for foreign troops.
In the case of Okinawa, Japan, many locals see the more than 30 US military facilities as a “painful legacy of occupation”and a poll from 2023 showed that 70 per cent of Okinawans consider the concentration of US bases in the region to be “unfair”. Much of the resistance to the bases stems from a history of soldiers being protected from facing justice after sexual assault and murder accusations. The bases are also seen as making the island a prime target in case of war.
The case of Greenland is even more worrying. President Trump has made it extremely clear in recent weeks that NATO bases are better protected under American ownership. He points to previous investment and perceived threats as valid reasons to annex allied territory. If this constitutes the ground rules in a new world order, any nation should be extremely wary of opening up its islands to foreign troops.
Finally, any European leader myopically focused on the Russian threat at the moment must have their head in the sand. The Russian bear has loomed over Europe for centuries, and there is a valid consensus that its imperial aspirations are extremely worrying. These aspirations get even more worrying as the resilience of NATO support wavers.
However, the United States is not only withdrawing support against Russia but is actively threatening European sovereignty itself. NATO is increasingly working like a mafia, where Donald Trump can make demands, and the rest of the countries pay for protection with flattery and concessions.
Waiting out Donald Trump’s presidency in hopes that all will return to normal in 2029 is naïve, and instead of obsessively reinforcing its helmet, the European community should start looking at how to protect its exposed underbelly.
“Swedish military on the island of Gotland” by Ooland123 is marked with CC0 1.0.
Share this:
Like this:
Related