You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Europe
Agony of the Swedish Army
2004-11-29
(summarised from Svenska Dagbladet, one of the main newspapers in Sweden)
In 1990 Sweden was still the major Scandinavian military power and could mobilise almost 800,000 men in 24 hours (about 10% of the population). By 2007 they'll be down to at most 31,500 men, however only six months after ordering the call-in of soldiers. Sweden will have 35 generals, and 36 cannons. By contrast, Finland has now 28 generals and 1,000 cannons. Almost 10% of Swedish soldiers will be assigned to "international" efforts (i.e. the UN and EU).

Personal notes: In 1989 I was serving in the Swedish Army. The enemy was very clearly the Soviet Union, we spent all of our tactical and strategic classes on the Red Army (we were counting on NATO support through Norway, and studying the WW II Finnish resistance to Soviet invasion). The fall of the Berlin Wall was a very tense moment. There were major Soviet troop movements in the Baltic States. We were in the field 20 minutes after hearing the news, not allowed to talk to our families for a whole week. Now the country might just as well have an answer phone announcing unconditional surrender. As an anecdote, a (drunk) naval officer confessed to me that the only reason they hadn't sunk a Soviet submarine in Swedish waters was that (social-democrat) politicians repeatedly ordered them not to.

I'm not surprised, but very disappointed. I don't live there anymore, so I can shrug, not weep.

You, Americans and other Coalition partners, cannot count on Sweden for anything, no matter which party leads the country, no matter what enemy arises. Sweden for decades had a good military, and excellent equipment, proud of being able to counter-attack and quickly reject any (communist) enemy setting foot anywhere in-land or on the coast -- but no more. Thirty thousand soldiers is insufficient to defend the country.
Posted by:Kalle (kafir forever)

#8  Longboats, they've done it before, they can do it again... Anyone has any data on the status of the Swedish forests and the occurences of the berserker mushroom within them? May be important more than you think--without it, the pussillanemous nordic menfolk may not be much of the challege to the mildly irritated canucks, especially their wenchfolk, expecting proper pillage and rape.
Posted by: Conanista   2004-11-29 8:06:48 PM  

#7  Except the Swedes will either have to hop a ride with the USAF or row a Viking longboat across the Pond...
Posted by: Seafarious   2004-11-29 7:57:39 PM  

#6  Notes to the Swedish army:

1) Don't take on any small Ohio towns.
2) Taking on Canada is OK. By 2007, the Canadian military will consist of three Mounties, a mime, a polar bear, one ancient rusty Sea King helicopter, and a diesel submarine up on blocks.
Posted by: AJackson   2004-11-29 7:19:52 PM  

#5  Just exactly how many people would it take to conquor Sweden? Er... just out of curiosity.
Posted by: Chuck Simmins   2004-11-29 2:26:04 PM  

#4  I've seen small Ohio towns with more cannons.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2004-11-29 1:29:39 PM  

#3  Could the decline of the army be connected with the surrepstitious increase in Muslim influence in Sweden?
Posted by: Bryan   2004-11-29 1:24:46 PM  

#2  It's human nature. People think the danger has passed and they take their pack off. No wonder they get so ticked off at us when we don't go with the flow.
Posted by: BH   2004-11-29 10:09:47 AM  

#1  Every billet has his bullet. Every colonel has his cannon.
Posted by: lex   2004-11-29 9:38:47 AM  

00:00