Now when all is said and done. Sweden and Finland joined NATO. I can surmise that Finland is now the leading country in the Nordicks. Why you may ask? The population is more conservative, they have a closer and better economic/armed relationsship with the baltics, where Estonia can be considered the leader of their group. Even if Riga is the star of the baltic capitals, the economic powerhouse is in reality in Estonia due to their very anglo-norman tax shenanigans compared to the other countries in the nordicks or even in the baltics.
And if we use this a simile, in security and military matters Finland is the de facto military leader of the nordics and the baltics. Sweden had a brief stint as the leading military nation during the height of the coldwar between 1950 and 1970. When the nation started its economical and social collapse trajectory. If Finland wants into NATO, all other nations that are depending on them in a time of war (which Sweden had a mutual defence pact with) has to join as well. Nothing else can explain why Sweden so quickly throws 200+ years of neutrality into the drain unless it is to follow Finland and make sure the mutual defence pact is not shredded. As a Macrobian addendum, DO NOT party with the Frømanskorpset in denmark. You have been warned.
This is my own personal eulogy of 200 years of neutrality on paper. An era has died, and a new is born.
NATO - a Swedish eulogy
abc The European right has historically been as critical of the American control over Europe as the left, the main difference has been that the right has consistently turned against Soviet control of the Abendland as well. This is based on an analysis of the United States and the Soviet Union, which results in the fact that they were not yet a couple in the line of European great powers that held the leadership of our civilization, such as Spain and Great Britain, among others. Instead, the USA and the Soviet Union were, for both historical and geopolitical reasons, somewhat fundamentally different, the USA and the Soviet Union were in crucial respects Anti-Europe. Both were, among other things, ideological nations and for geopolitical reasons they had interests incompatible with those of the European peoples (compare their actions against the European colonial powers). That the two world wars led to Europe being occupied by two non-European powers instead of an intra-European conflict that led to German hegemony is a tragedy for the more genuine right. Many on the genuine right also viewed the American consumer society and its culture relatively early on with equal parts disdain and horror.
To the more geopolitical, culturally critical and idea-focused analysis of the USA has gradually been added one based on class and elite theory, when the USA has gone from republic to empire, her elites have also turned against their own population. Financial capitalism and mass immigration are just two aspects of this, a Europe integrated into American institutions and elite networks has embraced these phenomena as well. This means that Swedish NATO membership appears primarily as a set of affirmations of the current state in the current year.
First, membership formally confirms what was already actual reality. Swedish elites are already well integrated into, and loyal to, the American order. The ambitions for an independent line belong to the history of practically all of established Sweden. That this did not coincide with formal membership not only in the EU but also in NATO has appeared as an anomaly. Not least the disarmament of the Swedish defense can be seen as a first step on the road to NATO membership, regardless of whether it was deliberate or not. Joint exercises and the like had de facto already made the two-hundred-year-old non-alignment that kept Sweden out of two world wars overplayed.
Second, membership militarily affirms a non-military reality. Economically, ideologically and politically, Swedish institutions and elites are already part of the American sphere. What one can possibly suspect is that the Swedish "good girl" syndrome that made the country's establishment follow EU rules more ambitiously than most other EU countries will also make itself felt in NATO membership, with everything from the deployment of nuclear weapons to participation in operations in the Third World. Several of these may well reduce rather than increase Swedish security.
Thirdly, the way in which the membership has been pushed through confirms the character of the club the Swedish establishment has now also formally become a part of. The United States is today an empire rather than a republic, and this relationship also characterizes the elites who are part of the transatlantic alliance. That the membership took place without significant debate or opportunities for popular veto becomes logical in light of this. Incidentally, this suggests a contradiction in the Atlantic alliance, at the same time an alliance between countries and an institution of and for elites. The former is most clearly recalled in deviants such as Hungary and Turkey, but also in several Eastern European countries where membership primarily functions as a defense pact between countries. In passing, this contradiction is the strongest argument for NATO membership, a populist and nationalist wave in Abendland can in the future transform the alliance into a genuine defense pact of European, and European-affiliated, countries. But as far as Swedish membership is concerned, we are primarily dealing with an alliance between elites, even if the rhetoric says otherwise, there is a world of difference between Hungarian and Swedish NATO membership. There is also a stark difference in the pragmatic foreign policy of the Hungarian state visavi the ideological foreign policy of the Swedish state.
All in all, this means that the attitude towards Swedish NATO membership for friends of Sweden will often be based on the view of Russia. Judging Russia as an imminent threat and a fundamentally non- or anti-European power, membership can be seen as a necessary evil. If one does not make that assessment, the membership appears instead as a tragic event that reduces Swedish security and confirms the establishment's split loyalties. Regardless, it should be relevant to work to ensure that a devastating major war in Europe can be avoided, and that NATO moves in the direction of an alliance between countries rather than one between elites. In short, working for European interests in a primarily American organization. Alternatively, to also struggle for a Swedish withdrawal.
