Friday, April 25, 2025

Polaris of Enlightenment

Ad:

“After DCA: Open letter to Sweden Democrat grassroots”

The new cold war

The DCA agreement is the biggest political scandal since the Second World War, which means that foreign powers can now have military bases on Swedish soil. The Sweden Democrats has contributed to this, writes Björn Backengård.

Published 19 October 2024
Sweden Democrat leader Jimmie Åkesson.
This is an opinion piece. The author is responsible for the views expressed in the article.

If the Sweden Democrats had voted no to DCA, the issue would have been tabled, and the Swedish people would have had time to familiarize themselves with the issue. Members of the Swedish Parliament (Riksdag) were informed. On June 7, Svenska Dagbladet published the article Wait with decisions on American bases, and they received emails with tips about the article.

Here you can see how the Riksdag voted. Scroll down a bit and you will see a list of how each person voted.

What does DCA mean?

The DCA has nothing to do with NATO membership but is only a military agreement between the US and Sweden. The agreement is for ten years, which means that the US is allowed to have seventeen military bases in Sweden where they can also store military equipment. Their aircraft, ships and vehicles may move freely in the country. There are no guarantees that nuclear weapons will not be placed in Sweden.

The work on the agreement was started by the former Minister of Defense, Peter Hultqvist, and completed by the current Minister, Pål Jonson. The idea behind the DCA is that the US is planning war against Russia, and they want to be able to attack Russia from Sweden. The US can attack with aircraft or missiles. They avoid attacking from their own country, while any response from Russia impacts Sweden. This would drag Sweden into the USA’s war against Russia. This plan from the USA is diabolical, and unfortunately, there are people here in Sweden who have helped facilitate it.

Read the agreement here with some comments.

Response to an opinion poll

The Swedish Peace Council commissioned an opinion poll. The question was: Do you think that foreign powers should be allowed to place military and war material on Swedish military bases without Swedish supervision? 84% answered “No”.

The Sweden Democrats’ central office was informed of the opinion poll, and the following response was given:

Hello

… the starting point is that all activities are conducted with respect for Swedish sovereignty… [Regarding selected parts of the agreement: Economy, law, bases, nuclear weapons.]… the significantly deteriorating security situation in our region has necessitated a reevaluation of our foreign and defense policy.

Kind regards,

[First name]
Information assistant”

On Swedish sovereignty. It is abolished in point 7.3 of the agreement. Also paragraph 11.1 abolishes Swedish sovereignty: “[U.S.] aircraft, vessels, and vehicles may not be boarded or controlled without the consent of the United States.”

On deteriorating security policy developments. There is nothing in the agreement about US assistance. Instead, with American attacks from here, the security policy development will be much worse for us.

The full response from the Sweden Democrats can be read here. It was probably written by influential people at the top of the party, and it is cowardly that they do not sign their names.

On crimes against Sweden’s security

The human rights organization Accoun filed police reports on 13 December 2023 and 9 June 2024 about how DCA had come about. The reports have so far led nowhere, but they contain valuable material for further work against DCA. In the report, they drew our attention to the Criminal Code’s provisions on crimes against Sweden’s security.

DCA supporters try to bluff

The DCA supporters claim that Russia is threatening its surroundings. They mention Ukraine, Crimea and Georgia and then claim that US military bases are therefore needed in Sweden.

The war in Ukraine began in 2014 with the coup d’état in Kiev. The new regime then rearmed, and for several years bombed its own population in eastern Ukraine. In December 2021, Russia submitted proposals to the United States and NATO for agreements on security issues, but was rejected. On February 24, 2022, Russia entered Ukraine and in March there was a peace agreement that NATO blocked.

Crimea was annexed to Ukraine in 1954. In 2014, following a referendum, it applied to become part of Russia. Russia approved the application, protecting the Russian population and preventing its naval base on the Black Sea from becoming part of NATO.

The war in Georgia in August 2008 was not Russian aggression. See Swedish Wikipedia.

It is NATO that has been pushing against Russia and preparing for war in Ukraine for many years, as part of NATO’s plans to attack Russia. That’s the big picture in a nutshell.

The Sweden Democrats bylaws

We read in the Sweden Democrats bylaws, Chapter 1, General Statutes, § 1 Purpose and goals:

The Sweden Democrats are a social conservative party with a nationalist outlook … The party was formed in 1988 with the overall goal of forming a democratic, political movement that would safeguard the common national

identity … We affirm … proven well-functioning natural communities in the form of the family and the nation.”

Can a nationalist party really allow foreign powers to acquire military bases on Swedish soil?

Members’ power in the party

The Sweden Democrats grassroots can arrange for an extraordinary National Congress to be convened in order to replace the top members responsible for the party voting in favor of the DCA agreement.

Furthermore. Elections to the Riksdag will be held in the fall of 2026. The party candidates, and thus the ballots, will probably be decided in 2025 or early 2026. Then make sure that those who voted for the DCA agreement end up so far down the ballot that they do not enter the Riksdag again.

Collaboration is important

The purpose of the DCA is that the US wants to be able to attack Russia from Swedish soil, and thus the agreement is extremely dangerous for us. Therefore, we must seek cooperation in every possible way to terminate the agreement, preferably before the ten-year deadline. NATO supporters and opponents must work together. Most NATO supporters are peaceful, but unfortunately, they have not fully understood NATO’s militaristic nature. They can help against the DCA.

A renewed Sweden Democrats party should seek cooperation with the Left Party (V) and the Greens (MP) on the issue of DCA and apply something called a united front. This means that even if you are far apart politically, a particular issue may be so important that you work together on that particular issue to achieve results.

All avenues must be explored. It is possible to propose in the Riksdag that the Chancellor of Justice and the Constitutional Committee examine how the agreement was established, doing so in light of Chapter 19 of the Penal Code, and that as long as the review is ongoing, the agreement should not be valid.

Chapter 19:3 of the Penal Code states:

If a person assigned to negotiate on behalf of the realm with a foreign power, or otherwise to safeguard the interests of the realm with someone representing the interests of a foreign power, abuses their authority to represent the realm or otherwise misuses their position of trust, thereby causing significant harm to the realm, they shall be sentenced for disloyalty in negotiations with a foreign power to a fixed term of imprisonment, not less than two years and not more than eighteen years, or for life.

This is serious stuff.

Our times are dramatic, and a revitalized Sweden Democrats party can make a significant impact on Sweden.

 

Björn Backengård,
Hisings Backa, Gothenburg, Sweden

 

Translation by TNT editorial team.

The Defence Cooperation Agreement (DCA) is a bilateral defense cooperation agreement between Sweden and the United States. It was approved by the Swedish Parliament on 18 June 2024.

The Sweden Democrats is the second largest party in the Swedish Riksdag. They are not part of the current "Tidö" government, but work closely with it.

TNT is truly independent!

We don’t have a billionaire owner, and our unique reader-funded model keeps us free from political or corporate influence. This means we can fearlessly report the facts and shine a light on the misdeeds of those in power.

Consider a donation to keep our independent journalism running…

Swedish Major General: “Leave the Ottawa Treaty and buy anti-personnel mines”

The new cold war

Published 16 April 2025
– By Editorial Staff
Karlis Neretnieks argues that today's anti-personnel mines cannot be compared to those that kill thousands of civilians every year.

Recently The Nordic Times highlighted how the defense ministers of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia announced that they intend to withdraw from the international convention banning the use of anti-personnel mines.

In early April, Finnish officials also confirmed that they are also preparing to withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty. Retired Swedish-Latvian Major General Karlis Neretnieks now wants Sweden to do the same and start buying “smart” anti-personnel mines.

– My opinion is clear. We should do what the Finns did, leave the Ottawa Agreement, and acquire anti-personnel mines, declares Neretnieks, who has also previously served as President of the Swedish National Defense College.

He explains that within the NATO military pact, there is a plan for the Swedish army to be able to move quickly to Finland and form joint defense forces with Finnish soldiers in the event of a possible Russian attack. In such a scenario, he argues, the armies of both countries must have similar rules of engagement.

– What should we do when Swedish commanders have to command Finnish units? Should a Swedish commander tell a Finnish commander that you are not allowed to use anti-personnel mines because you are under Swedish command? That’s not how it works in reality.

Kills thousands annually

Finland’s defense minister, Antti Häkkänen, insists that “mines are only for war” and “will not be scattered in the countryside“. However, over the years, anti-personnel mines have caused enormous civilian suffering and in 2021 alone, an estimated 5,500 people were killed by them many of them children.

Millions of undestroyed anti-personnel mines remain in former war zones around the world and can detonate at any time when someone accidentally steps on them. This is also one of the primary reasons why some 160 countries around the world have committed to stop stockpiling, producing or using them.

However, Neretnieks argues that today’s modern anti-personnel mines can be turned on and off by remote control and he emphasizes that some models stop working after a certain amount of time.

– The reason for removing the mines was that they were often left behind after the fighting was over. Then they were dangerous for children, farmers and anyone walking around the terrain… I’m advocating that we abandon the Ottawa agreement and get these anti-personnel mines with self-destruction, he continues.

“Were far too enthusiastic”

Sweden signed the convention in 1998, the year after it was drafted, but the major general says it was a big mistake.

– I think we were far too enthusiastic about a ban at the height of the discussions in 1996-1997. It was quite obvious that the Russians had no intention of signing anything like that, he states.

It should be noted that it is not only Russia that has chosen not to sign the convention. Major military powers such as the US and China have so far also refused to sign the Ottawa Treaty, as have Israel, India, Iran and both North and South Korea.

Moderate Youth League: Raise the retirement age to finance Sweden’s rearmament

The new cold war

Published 15 April 2025
– By Editorial Staff
Raising the retirement age to fund the Swedish defense effort is not expected to be well received by the electorate.

As reported by The Nordic Times, Swedish politicians have decided to borrow at least SEK 300 billion (€26 billion) for what is described as the “biggest rearmament since the Cold War”.

Douglas Thor, chair of The Moderate Youth League (MUF), fully supports the military investment – but emphasizes that it should be paid for by older Swedes through a higher retirement age.

The governing politicians agree that it is reasonable to borrow the equivalent of €4,400 for each Swede of working age for the military project, and analysts have noted that it will largely be future generations of Swedes who will have to pay for the decisions made today.

– It’s clear that future generations will have to take a bigger hit than if we were to just go on this year’s budget. But it also seems reasonable that future generations should help finance reconstruction because it will also benefit them, commented, for example, Daniel Waldenström, professor of economics, and continued:

– It’s simply that they will have to pay a bit more tax as a result of this. They will have to pay taxes to finance our repayment of these loans.

“In the long run, everyone will pay”

Just like the other establishment parties’ youth wings, MUF applauds the military investment, but believes older Swedes must bear a greater share of the cost – not just the younger generation.

– Borrowing money is not free. The costs are postponed to the future, which means that the younger generation has to pay. We are happy to contribute, but it is unreasonable that we alone should bear the cost, they say.

Thor’s solution is to raise the age at which older people can start drawing their pension from the current 63 to 67.

– Today, people can start drawing their income and premium pensions at the age of 63. We believe it is reasonable to raise it. One possible age is 67, confirms the Muf leader, who states that raising the retirement age is a much better option than raising taxes.

– In the long run, everyone will pay because we are all getting older. When our country has faced difficult challenges in the past, we have coped by working more, Thor argues.

Unpopular measure

Raising the retirement age to fund military spending is not expected to be a particularly popular message with voters but Thor says this does not matter much.

– There are many issues that were previously unthinkable, but which have been reconsidered in this serious international situation. For example, loan financing has been reconsidered. It should be possible to do the same with regard to this issue.

According to Muf’s calculations, if older Swedes worked two years longer than they do today, this would mean around SEK 30 billion (€2.6 billion) extra to the public purse annually about half the contribution needed to meet the government’s target of spending 3.5% of GDP on defense.

International law expert on the Swedish suicide drones: “Risk that civilians are affected”

The new cold war

Published 10 April 2025
– By Editorial Staff
Ove Bring points out that commanders who accidentally injure or kill civilians can be prosecuted for this - but that it usually requires that the deaths are extensive.

The Swedish military plans to acquire several million military drones. This includes so-called “suicide drones” – and in two years’ time, Swedish kamikaze drone systems could be in operation.

Ove Bring, an expert in international law, notes that the type of drone is certainly not prohibited under international law – but that there is always a risk of civilians being killed.

The drones are equipped with explosive charges and, with the help of artificial intelligence, can fly around until they find their target – whereupon they fly into it and explode.

– A human operator sets them off and then they can fly on their own, find targets and attack targets on their own, explained AI and weapons scientist Arash Heydarian Pashakhanlou in 2022, clarifying that the suicide drones “can fly into the target on their own, explode and destroy the target”.

Many observers are critical of the technology development. The ability of unmanned aerial vehicles to kill and destroy on their own risks blurring the lines of responsibility, increasing the risk of civilian casualties and wrong decisions being made.

Others have warned that warfare is being dehumanized and that we are moving towards a development where autonomous weapon systems make lethal decisions without human intervention.

– A machine should not be allowed to decide on the life and death of a human being, says Deborah Solomon of the Swedish Peace Society.

“There is the risk that civilians are affected”

Ove Bring, professor emeritus of international law and former advisor to the Swedish Foreign Ministry on international law, admits that the use of drones can result in civilian deaths – but also emphasizes that suicide drones do not violate international law.

– This type of drone is not prohibited by international law as it is designed to hit military targets, but there is always the risk that civilians are affected, he says to The Nordic Times.

He notes that commanders who, in violation of the humanitarian law principles of precaution and proportionality, happen to harm civilians can also be prosecuted for this – at least in theory. However, this usually presupposes that the injuries or deaths are extensive.

If, on the other hand, a military target is hit by the drones – but civilians are also killed during the same attack, this does not violate any laws or conventions, the professor says.

– If the military target is hit and civilians are exposed to minor collateral damage, it must be accepted as an inevitable part of warfare. It is not considered a war crime, he concludes.

Peace researcher urges diplomacy: “War leads to total destruction”

The new cold war

Published 10 April 2025
– By Editorial Staff
According to Frida Stranne, it is important that our leaders have the capacity for "strategic empathy".

As war rhetoric has escalated in recent years, advocates of peace and diplomacy have increasingly been met with suspicion, demonization, and stigmatization in public discourse – often accused of being either out of touch with reality or so-called “useful idiots” for the enemy.

However, Swedish peace researcher and US expert Frida Stranne notes that peace is neither frivolous nor naïve – but in fact “the only alternative to the total destruction of countries, societies and our shared environment.”.

Stopping a spiral of violence that risks leading us all to our deaths is one of the main tasks of politics. The dialogue that must precede peace requires far more intelligence and courage than pushing for increased militarization”, she wrote on Facebook, citing the Cuban Missile Crisis as a telling example.

John F. Kennedy, when he saved the world from nuclear war in 1962, understood the importance of understanding the interests and pretexts that drove his opponents. He also realized how poor intelligence (and propaganda from within his own ranks), political peer pressure, and an over-reliance on military solutions risked leading him to foolish and fatal decisions”, she continues.

According to Stranne, Kennedy also understood the importance of avoiding symbolic actions to satisfy public opinion – but lacked strategic thinking.

He realized that either he would contribute to an acceptable level of security for both the Soviets and the US, or no one would be safe”.

“Don’t have to be a pacifist”

Stranne points out that the Swedish diplomat Hans Blix similarly spoke of the need for “strategic empathy” – that is, it is the task of politicians to try to understand how other states or actors perceive the current situation, and what interests, fears or motives drive them to act as they do.

This does not mean sympathizing with them, but having the wisdom to understand their perspective in order to anticipate the other’s actions and thus make wiser decisions yourself – and avoid endless wars and, in the worst case, nuclear war”, she explains.

You don’t have to be a pacifist to talk about ending war and building a sustainable peace – in fact, you can be a staunch advocate of strong military defense. Nor do you need to be naïve about your opponent. But you do need to realize that more weapons alone can never bring stability and security as long as unresolved security dilemmas remain”, continues the peace researcher.

Looking away is the greatest cowardice

And above all, she stresses, our leaders need to abandon the idea that war can be understood in oversimplified terms of good and evil

Looking away from your own responsibility in a conflict is the most cowardly and dangerous thing of all.”.

Stranne also points out that in all wars – without exception – there are also interests that profit from war and rearmament and that have very extensive resources at their disposal that they can use to influence the public and their worldview in various ways.

We have endless knowledge of how this works and several horrifying examples of how we have been lured into senseless spirals of violence on false grounds. It is the role of the media to never lose sight of their task to critically examine power based on these experiences. And not to let social media feeds driven by emotions – and not by knowledge – define how war and peace should be described”, she concludes.

Our independent journalism needs your support!
We appreciate all of your donations to keep us alive and running.

Our independent journalism needs your support!
Consider a donation.

You can donate any amount of your choosing, one-time payment or even monthly.
We appreciate all of your donations to keep us alive and running.

Dont miss another article!

Sign up for our newsletter today!

Take part of uncensored news – free from industry interests and political correctness from the Polaris of Enlightenment – every week.