SHARE
COPY LINK

NATO

INTERVIEW: Would the EU defend Sweden if it was attacked?

Could the EU's mutual defence clause, which says member states will help each other if one is attacked, provide extra security for Sweden?

Björn Fägersten, Senior Research Fellow and Director of UI's Europe Programme.
Björn Fägersten, Senior Research Fellow and Director of UI's Europe Programme. Photo: Claudio Bresciani / TT

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has reignited Sweden’s long-running debate about its own defence, and in particular whether it should join Nato. Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson has rejected joining the transatlantic alliance, but has written to EU leaders along with her Finnish counterpart to remind them of the bloc’s mutual defence clause, which says member states will come to each others’ aid “with all possible means” if one of them is attacked.

Sweden and Finland are close partners of Nato, but as non-members they can’t count on Nato intervening militarily if attacked, as they aren’t covered by the alliance’s Article 5 guarantee. Andersson this week ruled out joining Nato, saying that an application to join “would destabilise this part of Europe even further.”

But does the EU’s mutual defence clause really provide Sweden with a cast-iron guarantee? Björn Fägersten, head of the Europe program at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs, says there are some key differences between the EU’s and Nato’s guarantees.



The Local: Does the EU’s mutual defence clause have a similar effect to Nato’s Article 5?

Björn Fägersten: In a purely legal sense they are equivalent – in some ways the EU is a bit sharper. But on the other hand, the EU’s clause has a sub-clause that makes clear that it doesn’t affect member states’ individual choices on security policy, for instance for those countries that are neutral.

A key difference between the EU and Nato is that the EU has no real apparatus. Nato has a joint military headquarters, SHAPE, but the EU doesn’t have an equivalent.

Within the EU there are also expectations that Nato will be at the centre of European planning – most EU countries are members. In the EU’s Global Strategy from 2016 it is made clear that Nato is the cornerstone of the EU’s defence.

TL: So what’s the point of this clause?

BF: There are a few things: for instance, it could be used in scenarios where Article 5 would be less relevant, like cyber- or hybrid attacks, or if two Nato countries ended up in conflict with one another, like Greece or Turkey. And it also covers countries like Sweden and Finland that aren’t part of Nato.

TL: What sort of military coordination does the EU have?

BF: The EU has an embryonic military planning organisation, but its purpose is mostly to coordinate small missions outside Europe. But clearly in a future scenario, for instance if there was a feeling that US support wasn’t going to be there, it could be used for European defence.

Finland has long been pushing for the mutual defence clause to be filled with more meaning, as has France, for whom this dovetails with the aim of the EU achieving ‘strategic autonomy.’



TL: At present the most significant EU military power is France, but so far the strongest statements in favour of defending Sweden and Finland have come from the US and UK. What does that tell us?

BF: This is really an effect of what has become known as the Hultqvist Doctrine [after Sweden’s defence minister Peter Hultqvist], under which Sweden will build as much security as possible through cooperation with the US and to some extent the UK. Sweden has also built a very close cooperation with both in arms manufacturing. But of course this is not uncomplicated: Sweden ends up being pulled in two directions when the EU also wants to build its own defence cooperation. We have had a very transatlantic focus, and been an outlier within the EU together with the UK, but after Brexit we have moved towards the EU mainstream.

TL: Looking to the future, many in the EU, not least Macron, have long spoken about the need for strategic autonomy, where Europe will take a more independent line in defence from the US. Last week Germany announced a huge increase in defence spending. How will that change the equation for Sweden?

BF: If in the long term Europe starts taking greater responsibility while the US takes the main responsibility for handling China, that would change Sweden’s calculation. Sweden would like there to be an American interest in its security, but if, for example, a new president was elected in the US in 2024 who had a more doubtful approach to European security, Sweden would be forced to rapidly reevaluate its defence strategy.



TL: Sweden has a memorandum of understanding with Nato (the ‘värdlandsavtal’), under which Sweden can host Nato forces engaged in operations in the region. Does that provide Sweden with a degree of protection?

BF: This gives the possibility of cooperation, which could give a degree of security, but it is no guarantee. We are as close as you can get to being members of Nato, but we don’t have security guarantees.

There’s quite a big difference between this and a traditional neutrality doctrine: the Swedish policy means that we are clearly seen as part of the West, both politically and militarily, so that is a risk. But the [ruling] Social Democrats say that it would be a risk to decide to join Nato and thereby create uncertainty.

Member comments

  1. I didn’t even bother to read the article in the face of the very obvious.
    Of course European countries including NATO would defend Sweden……if Putin was to decide to attack Sweden…..he would have to start with Finland…..etc…..etc…….and this would lead….because no other option…..to nuclear Armageddon…….in a nutshell…..the end of the world …..at least in Europe.
    I know Americans would not be dragged into this and would be quite happy leading their lives as if nothing happened.
    We have no other choice but to defend Sweden……what’s the point of having the EU ? Everybody is now realising how right Macron was in his request to boost defence.
    Instead of that…..Germans rolled on their back, wanting to believe it was ok to ditch nuclear energy and now what ? On their knees to get liquid gas not even to heat their ageing population but to get their economy rolling.

Log in here to leave a comment.
Become a Member to leave a comment.

MILITARY

Swedish parliament votes in favour of Defence Cooperation Agreement with the US

Swedish law-makers have signed off on the controversial Defence Cooperation Agreement (DCA) with the United States, despite critics saying it could lead to the deployment of nuclear weapons and permanent US bases in the country.

Swedish parliament votes in favour of Defence Cooperation Agreement with the US

The DCA is a major step for a nation that in March ended two centuries of military non-alliance to join Nato.

Signed by Stockholm and Washington in December, the deal gives the US access to 17 military bases and training areas in Sweden, and allows the storage of weapons, military equipment and ammunition.

The agreement was approved by a broad majority in parliament following an almost five-hour debate, with 266 MPs voting in favour and 37 against, while 46 were absent.

The main opponents, the Left and Green parties, had argued that the agreement ought to state outright that the Scandinavian country would not allow nuclear weapons on its territory.

READ ALSO:

“We want to see legislation that bans nuclear weapons from being brought onto Swedish soil,” Green Party MP Emma Berginger told parliament during Tuesday’s debate.

“Unfortunately, the government has chosen to sign an agreement that doesn’t close the door to nuclear weapons, and therefore the Green Party is going to vote no to this agreement,” she told said during the debate.

Manual widget for ML (class=”ml-manual-widget-container”)

Greens leader Daniel Helldén had argued on Monday that the agreement made Sweden “a target for nuclear weapons” since “we’re going to have 17 bases where the Americans can store (military) materiel”.

Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson’s centre-right minority government, propped up by the far-right Sweden Democrats, has said the deal respects Swedish sovereignty.

“It is very clear that Sweden is a sovereign nation, and there is no other country that can force Sweden to have nuclear weapons on Swedish soil,” Defence Minister Pål Jonson insisted.

‘Naive’

The Left and Green parties, which also voted against Sweden’s Nato membership, together hold just 42 seats in parliament, which was not enough to block the agreement’s adoption on their own.

The Swedish Peace and Arbitration Association, one of the biggest critics of the move, said two successive Swedish governments insisted during the Nato application process that Sweden would have the same stance on nuclear weapons as neighbouring Denmark and Norway.

“But unlike Norway’s and Denmark’s DCA agreements, there is no clause in Sweden’s agreement against nuclear weapons being brought into or placed in Sweden,” the association’s head Kerstin Bergeå wrote in an op-ed.

In addition, Finland, which joined Nato in April 2023, “has a national law prohibiting nuclear weapons on Finnish territory and Finland’s DCA agreement refers to this law”.

A similar Swedish clause would “strengthen the Nordic region and contribute to a joint de-escalation vis-a-vis Russian nuclear weapons”, Bergeå said.

Nukes in wartime?

Sweden’s prime minister made headlines last month when he opened the door for the possibility of nuclear weapons in the country during wartime.

“In a war situation it’s a completely different matter, (it) would depend entirely on what would happen,” Kristersson told public radio broadcaster SR.

Two Left Party MPs said in an op-ed on Sunday: “That’s an incredible statement and is totally the opposite of what the Swedish people think and what Sweden has long stood for.”

Bergeå questioned whether Sweden would be able to put a brake on the United States.

“An agreement based solely on confidence is not enough in important matters such as these,” she said.

Jonson, the defence minister, has said Sweden needed to strengthen its international cooperation “to defend our freedom and democracy”.

“With the DCA, Sweden can receive early, swift and effective military support from the United States in a deteriorating security situation,” he said last month.

“The agreement acts as a deterrent and is stabilising. It reduces the risk of war breaking out and makes Sweden safer,” Jonson said.

SHOW COMMENTS