av Tommy Jeppsson
Säkerhetsmiljön i omvärlden, det oaktat vi betraktar vårt närområde eller blickar bortom denna, ger anledning till stor oro för okontrollerbara händelseutvecklingar. I den situationen behöver den säkerhetspolitiska situationen fortlöpande analyseras liksom att det finns ett stort behov av att debattera försvarsfrågorna, de militära, liksom de civila, inför det kommande försvarsbeslutet.
I och med att Johan Wiktorin slutat som bloggredaktör övertar jag minst intill nyår den uppgiften. Till vardags är jag redaktör för Kungl Krigsvetenskapsakademiens handlingar och Tidskrift men kommer från och med nu att se till att bloggen lever vidare och ambitionen är en blogg som fortsätter att vara på den fina kvalitativa nivå som är resultatet av Johans utmärkta arbete.
Jag kommer att försöka engagera skribenter som har stor kunskap inom sina respektive kompetensområden för att på så sätt stimulera till tankar och kommentarer/ inlägg från läsekretsen.
Välkomna till en höst med stimulerande försvarsdebatt.
”I den situationen behöver den säkerhetspolitiska situationen fortlöpande analyseras” I think that is the same mistake that has led to the poor situation with Swedish defence today. You shouldn’t look at the situation today and then react to that. It takes time (measured in years or decades) for a military to react to day’s situation. Instead, we should be planning ahead and build a defence that is ”on stand by”.
I fully agree to Andrew Wallace statement:
”You shouldn’t look at the situation today and then react to that. It takes time (measured in years or decades) for a military to react to day’s situation. Instead, we should be planning ahead and build a defence that is ”on stand by”.
Interesting, I agree that a long term approach and forward thinking is needed as change and development indeed takes time. However I also think it is urgently needed that we look at the immediate situation and imminently adapt to it, within the limited resources we can allocate shortly. This means heightening the ”threshold” and close the obvious gaps we have today.
I.e. increase training, as we are starting to do now, rotate units between the key strategic areas including Gotland, Blekinge and Stockholm. Securing that we always have some military presence on Gotland. Within short acquire anti aircraft missiles, for the army and navy as well as long range cruise missiles plus securing ”enough” missiles for the air force.
If we can not be strong short term we must be well trained, fast and flexible, however we also need to close some obvious gaps in our arsenal now.
The long term matters such as u-boats, more planes, surface missiles and artillery will take several years to get operational. We need to have strategy, tactics, resources and well rehearsed scenarios, including command structure, for the present.
Per Tengblad
Don’t get me wrong, I quite agree. It’s really about balancing short term and long term; to plan a long term defence that can react to short term changes. A defence that takes into account the fact that it takes time to build up a military and the fact that the political landscape changes rapidly. However, Sweden has concentrated too much on the hear and now and not on the long term future. Thus, when things changed rapidly, they find themselves caught out. As they say in Scotland; ”those who have no arms in time of peace, have no arms in time of war”.
All the measures you mentioned are a step in the right direction, given the poor situation to start with. Although, in all this, I think we still see the traditional treatment of the Home Guard as a poor cousin form the country. Whereas, there is a great deal of potential in the Home Guard for contributing significantly (and at a reasonable cost) to the defence of Sweden (think of the Army Reserve in the UK). That is a badly managed and unindustrialised resource at the moment.
I fully agree to statement ” I think we still see the traditional treatment of the Home Guard as a poor cousin form the country. Whereas, there is a great deal of potential in the Home Guard for contributing significantly (and at a reasonable cost) to the defence of Sweden”.
The Swedish defence comitte has several good proposal for better equipment and enlargement which is costeffective.
BR
jan-olov
Very good point on the Home Guard.
There still are a lot of fairly well trained, even if a few years ago, conscripts available also for the more technical parts of a potentially expanded Home Guard.
As an example the old closed down anti aircraft regiments can probably still supply 35-70 years old soldiers that could mann missile defense on Gotland and in Stockholm and Blekinge.
To the tanks that are standing on Gotland there could be added a similar number to be manned by old conscripts from P18 (old Gotland armored Regiment) Etc. Etc.
To activate a high end of the Home Guard is a brilliant first step to re-start a limited conscript army.
Per Tengblad
That’s a good start! It has always struck me as odd that Sweden will take in people of the street, train them and then give them tanks and missiles but when they have done their time and move over to the Home Guard, suddenly, they are not fit to have such weapons!
Using old (not so old) conscripts could give the Swedish defence a serious boost very quickly and will little extra cost. Then we come to keeping that going (long term planning), especially if we keep the GMU model. It is quite possible to maintain skills and build up new skills within a part time defence force but I don’t think Sweden can do that with the current model of training (or lack thereof) in the Home Guard. We would need new think for that.