Can you share why? As an American I'm pretty oblivious to the topic.
Can you share why? As an American I'm pretty oblivious to the topic.
Probably two reasons
1. Countries like Sweden and Finland have been traditionally very neutral to try avoid getting into conflicts with neighbours. It hasn't always worked out, but traditions are traditions, and there is an argument to be made in avoiding getting tangled alliances
2. Joining NATO could in future result in pressure from NATO allies to take joint action against Russia, or get involved in another Iraq or Syrian war in the event that Iran, Turkey, USA, UK or France does something stupid again. Which is pretty likely all things considered
Kinda sorta. I apologise if my language is particularly bad down below, I have been having trouble formulating myself all day for some reason
1, Our neutrality is important to me, both for practical and ideological reasons.
-1a, Our neutrality has afforded us over 200 years of peace, which is of course the longest continual period of peace we've ever had. It's open to debate how much peace we are in these days as we do get involved in wars, conflicts, and peace-keeping abroad (I debate that it myself) but official peace is still better than nopeace.
-1b, It's basically part of my national identity to be honest
2, Sweden has a lot of diplomatic swingspace for such a relatively small and quite frankly insignificant country. I don't know how much it actually is because of it but at least here the narrative is that it's because our neutrality enables us to be seen as a mediator on the international scene. I think this is beneficial both for Sweden and our relations with the world but also for the world itself. Yes, I realise how arrogant that sounds as a type it out but I'm being honest here
3. A common argument that I used to agree whole-heartedly with is economic, that instead of spending millions on military we could spend it on social and development stuff. These days I feel we have to spend more budget on our defence in case, so I am a bit clove-hearted in this argument, but I still agree with it to some extent, and would prefer we have control over how much we spend and on what rather than it being bound by treaty.
4, Being forced into being complicit with American/British/French bad stuff is a big one. I'd rather we keep to ourself over in our little corner of the world rather than ally with countries invading others over banana supply or ravaging Africa's coastline and depleting it of fish.
As a general rule I don't see nato as a force of good in the world, I simply prefer it to the alternative if I were forced to make a choice. Plague or Cholera, basically.
Also, Denmark is in it