For most Americans, the war in Ukraine takes on a distant hue that makes it easy to talk about in broad terms. For some, distance makes the war easier to dismiss.
To many people in Europe, however, it’s a much more vivid and constant worry.
I just returned from another two-week stay in Sweden, my third within the last 12 months. My wife and her siblings are inheriting property there.
Each time I have visited, Ukraine has been top-of-mind in the media and in casual conversation, in ways that conveyed an emotion Americans have a hard time feeling thousands of miles away. This time was no different.
To many people in Europe, however, it’s a much more vivid and constant worry.
I just returned from another two-week stay in Sweden, my third within the last 12 months. My wife and her siblings are inheriting property there.
Each time I have visited, Ukraine has been top-of-mind in the media and in casual conversation, in ways that conveyed an emotion Americans have a hard time feeling thousands of miles away. This time was no different.
“Russian plot: ‘Gotland target for nuclear weapons’” was a blaring headline less than a week ago in Expressen, a national daily newspaper I bought off the stand. Gotland is Sweden’s largest island, located in the middle of the Baltic Sea. It has been a tourist destination for many years, and it contains some of the nation’s most intriguing archeological finds (in 1999, the world’s largest collection of Viking silver treasure was discovered in a farmer’s field).
It’s also important militarily, and even more so since Sweden joined NATO earlier this year. Sweden has plans to put more advanced missile defense systems and military equipment on the island.
So when Russian military expert Vladimir Prochvatilov wrote on a Russian website that Gotland would become "target number one" for a Russian nuclear attack in the event of a war with NATO, it got people’s attention.
“It would be better for Sweden to remain a neutral country and for the island of Gotland to remain a tourist mecca, a historical museum and a nature reserve, than to become the number one target for Russian nuclear missiles,” Prochvatilov wrote.
More jarringly, he said, “The hopes of the Swedish authorities that in the event of a direct military conflict with Russia this small country will be able to avoid the total destruction of its mainland infrastructure and mass deaths of the population are illusory.”
At the start of such a war, Russia would launch nuclear weapons at Sweden “to prevent NATO cruise missile strikes on ships of the Baltic and Northern Fleets.”
In response to this, Expressen quoted an associate professor of war science at the Norwegian Defense University, who labeled it a scare tactic, or "diplomacy of intimidation," aimed at getting Sweden to rethink its plans to militarize the island.
Reports such as these are jarring to a nation that managed to escape any conflict in either world war, and that hasn’t fought a war at all since 1814. But they also are evidence that Sweden’s decision to join NATO, and its plans for Gotland, are the right tactics.
Russia is clearly concerned. A separate story in Expressen said a Russian TV station had devoted considerable time to the militarization of Aland, a Finnish island not far from Gotland.
But perhaps more jarring than these reports are the recent statements of Sweden’s own government and military leaders.
At a conference earlier this year, Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson urged people to prepare to defend themselves “with weapons in hand and our lives on the line.”
The nation’s supreme military commander, Gen. Micael Byden, showed photos of destruction and death in Ukraine that were projected against the backdrop of a snowy Swedish field. He asked, “Do you think this could be Sweden?”
Once again, as in earlier visits, the people I spoke with expressed strong support for Sweden joining NATO.
They also expressed worries over whether Americans, and especially politicians, were as committed to keeping Europe free as they are.
On that score, recent opinion polls, such as one by the University of Maryland and SSRS, showed that support for the U.S. staying the course in its support for Ukraine is surprisingly strong. A report on the poll by the Brookings Institution said that, when asked how long the U.S. should continue military aid, 48% said as long as necessary, with another 39% saying one to two years.
When broken out by political persuasion, the poll found 37% of Republicans saying as long as necessary, with 53% saying one to two years.
This, despite statements by Donald Trump and J.D. Vance in opposition to further military aid.
For those who inevitably will ask, Sweden already spends 2.2% of its annual budget on its military, including an air force that long has been one of the strongest in Europe. That qualifies as exceeding the NATO target level of 2%.
Swedes no doubt would be comforted by the poll results. As I said after earlier visits, defense against Vladimir Putin is not a theoretical exercise for them, as it often seems to be in this country.
From what I know of history, the same could have been said for the way many Americans felt about belligerent countries before the outbreak of WWII.
It’s also important militarily, and even more so since Sweden joined NATO earlier this year. Sweden has plans to put more advanced missile defense systems and military equipment on the island.
So when Russian military expert Vladimir Prochvatilov wrote on a Russian website that Gotland would become "target number one" for a Russian nuclear attack in the event of a war with NATO, it got people’s attention.
“It would be better for Sweden to remain a neutral country and for the island of Gotland to remain a tourist mecca, a historical museum and a nature reserve, than to become the number one target for Russian nuclear missiles,” Prochvatilov wrote.
More jarringly, he said, “The hopes of the Swedish authorities that in the event of a direct military conflict with Russia this small country will be able to avoid the total destruction of its mainland infrastructure and mass deaths of the population are illusory.”
At the start of such a war, Russia would launch nuclear weapons at Sweden “to prevent NATO cruise missile strikes on ships of the Baltic and Northern Fleets.”
In response to this, Expressen quoted an associate professor of war science at the Norwegian Defense University, who labeled it a scare tactic, or "diplomacy of intimidation," aimed at getting Sweden to rethink its plans to militarize the island.
Reports such as these are jarring to a nation that managed to escape any conflict in either world war, and that hasn’t fought a war at all since 1814. But they also are evidence that Sweden’s decision to join NATO, and its plans for Gotland, are the right tactics.
Russia is clearly concerned. A separate story in Expressen said a Russian TV station had devoted considerable time to the militarization of Aland, a Finnish island not far from Gotland.
But perhaps more jarring than these reports are the recent statements of Sweden’s own government and military leaders.
At a conference earlier this year, Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson urged people to prepare to defend themselves “with weapons in hand and our lives on the line.”
The nation’s supreme military commander, Gen. Micael Byden, showed photos of destruction and death in Ukraine that were projected against the backdrop of a snowy Swedish field. He asked, “Do you think this could be Sweden?”
Once again, as in earlier visits, the people I spoke with expressed strong support for Sweden joining NATO.
They also expressed worries over whether Americans, and especially politicians, were as committed to keeping Europe free as they are.
On that score, recent opinion polls, such as one by the University of Maryland and SSRS, showed that support for the U.S. staying the course in its support for Ukraine is surprisingly strong. A report on the poll by the Brookings Institution said that, when asked how long the U.S. should continue military aid, 48% said as long as necessary, with another 39% saying one to two years.
When broken out by political persuasion, the poll found 37% of Republicans saying as long as necessary, with 53% saying one to two years.
This, despite statements by Donald Trump and J.D. Vance in opposition to further military aid.
For those who inevitably will ask, Sweden already spends 2.2% of its annual budget on its military, including an air force that long has been one of the strongest in Europe. That qualifies as exceeding the NATO target level of 2%.
Swedes no doubt would be comforted by the poll results. As I said after earlier visits, defense against Vladimir Putin is not a theoretical exercise for them, as it often seems to be in this country.
From what I know of history, the same could have been said for the way many Americans felt about belligerent countries before the outbreak of WWII.
RSS Feed
