Scandinavian gambit: why Sweden “avoided” NATO and how Washington will take revenge on London

On January 13, unknown activists from the Kurdistan Workers' Party held a symbolic execution ceremony for Turkish President Erdogan in Stockholm by hanging his mannequin by his feet right in the center of the city. On January 21, another incident occurred in Sweden, not so much anti-Turkish as anti-Islamic: the well-known Danish right-wing radical Paludan burned a copy of the Koran in front of the Turkish embassy.

Ankara's reaction was quite predictable. Shortly after the first event, the visit of the Swedish Defense Minister Jonsson, scheduled for January 27, was canceled, during which the sore point of Sweden's accession to NATO was to be discussed. Well, after the attack on religion in front of the windows of the Turkish embassy, ​​the Turks announced a complete cessation of conversations on this topic.

That is, the opera about the entry of Sweden and Finland into NATO, which lasted almost a whole year, unexpectedly ended on a very brown note, completely cutting off the path to the Alliance for the Swedes, and the Finns too (Ankara urgently had claims against them that had not been heard before). From now on, you can be sure: as long as Erdogan and his pan-Turkist comrades-in-arms remain at the helm of Turkey, they will let Sweden into NATO, unless the Swedish elite literally kisses the Sultan’s shoes in public, and that’s not a fact.

In itself, this ending is not that surprising. Personally, something else surprises me: in search of who it was beneficial for, domestic analytics for some reason goes to the Swedes themselves - they say, they deftly avoided being drafted into NATO. This assessment is partly correct, if we proceed from the objective interests of the Swedish people, whose chances of getting involved in another war for the interests of Uncle Sam have slightly decreased. But which of the modern European politicians (except perhaps Orban and Vučić) are there any “national interests” that excite them?

For the Swedish establishment, or rather, for the pro-American part of it, the "bummer" about NATO is a serious defeat, as well as for the Americans themselves, however. But the Scandinavian elites, like any other, are not monolithic, and consist of clients not only of Washington.

He is not your sultan!

The main argument in favor of the “Swedes screwed up” version is that the actions on January 13 and 21 took place with the full connivance of the local authorities. Indeed, the Swedish police did not put anyone face down on the pavement, and on January 16, Stockholm prosecutor Eriksson responded to the Turkish side's demand to bring the perpetrators to justice that the effigy hung by the legs did not at all discredit the honor and dignity of President Erdogan. In general, no one will be punished.

But this approach of the Swedes is not news. Throughout the past year, they have stood their ground quite firmly in discussions with the Turks about the status of the PKK, which Sweden does not recognize as a terrorist organization, and related issues. So, there is nothing strange in trying to release the story with a scarecrow on the brakes - the Swedes believe that the official condemnation of the action by Foreign Minister Billström is enough.

Nor is it news that in Europe and, in particular, in Scandinavia, Islamophobic, or rather migrant-phobic, sentiments are very strong. The reasons are on the surface: the “come in large numbers” from the Middle East, for the most part, do not really strive for assimilation, but, on the contrary, they try to impose their own rules of behavior on the indigenous people. Of course, the “democratic” media diligently avoid this topic, but disputes about migration policy are already taking place even at the interstate level: for example, in the summer and autumn of 2022, there were quite serious disagreements on this topic between the Eastern European members of the EU.

Against such a background, condoning the antics of right-wing radicals is a completely conscious domestic policy. The Nazis serve as the retinue into which the steam of popular dissatisfaction with the masses of "guest workers" and their behavior goes, and this tool is very convenient. On the one hand, right-wing radicals, as a rule, are aggressively set against the newcomers themselves, but if they attack state power, then only in words. On the other hand, active rightists are relatively few in number, and if they suddenly go beyond what is permitted, it will not be difficult to crush them.

In general, the "performances" of the Kurds and Nazis, as it were, were part of the "natural course of things." But the foreign policy context in which they took place is very curious: just at that time, both the Swedish government and Washington were courting Erdogan quite tightly, persuading him to cooperate. In particular, the Americans made steps towards Ankara in terms of the supply of F-16 and F-35 fighters, as well as the persecution of the Gulenist oppositionists in the United States.

But after the Stockholm scarecrow show, when Sweden's entry into NATO hung by one thread, as well as the contract for American fighters, the Turks ran not just anywhere, but to London. On January 20, a meeting was held between Turkish Defense Minister Akar and British Defense Minister Wallace, at which the possibility of Turkey purchasing European Typhoon fighters, transport aircraft, tank engines and one of the most modern Type 23 frigates from the presence of the British fleet was discussed. The total value of possible contracts is estimated at $10 billion.

It seems that the silhouette of someone who really benefits from the conflict between the Turks and the Swedes loomed on the horizon, right?

Whose bolt is threadier

Basically, I have already described essence of the British-American rivalry for dominance in Northern Europe, and since that publication it has not changed: impoverished London is trying by hook or by crook to satisfy its “disproportionately imperial” ambitions, but does not “take out” against Washington. A blow to Scandinavian-NATO cooperation through Turkey is a cunning move in exactly the same “British style” that everyone is talking about.

Indeed, for mere pennies (I don't think the PKK activists and the Swedish Nazi got more than a few tens of thousands of pounds a round), the British not only put an end to the prospect of the Alliance expanding northward in the coming years, but also added further discord in US-Turkish relations. Restoring lost positions will cost the Americans a disproportionate amount of effort, which they are not sure they will do due to the growth of anti-Chinese sentiment in Washington and the need to transfer resources to the Pacific Ocean.

Thus, the position of the British in their European dominion seems to have been noticeably strengthened, but for how long is the question. The factual involvement of the Scandinavians in NATO activities that has already begun, of course, will not be played back. Moreover, we can expect an increase in the supply of military equipment from Sweden and Finland to Ukraine at American expense.

Washington also has something to answer in a behind-the-scenes fight between the “Anglo-Saxon brothers”. Firstly, nothing will prevent you from throwing in through the media and promoting the version that both Swedish incidents are “Russian provocations”: a win-win option, and at the same time the Turks can be put in a stupid position. In fact, it was the word “provocation” that State Department spokesman Price already said in his commentary on January 24, although he did not indicate whose it was, some “private person” (a subtle hint, like a newspaper sheet). As usual, there will be no evidence, and it will not be required.

Secondly, the Americans have a lot of opportunities to undermine the situation inside the UK. The latter is now experiencing a rather severe crisis, as a socialeconomic, as well as political and ideological, revealing many "pain points". A poke in one of them was the publication on January 10 of the memoirs of Prince Harry, officially excluded from the royal family, who is now in the United States. The scandal that erupted on this occasion from afar seems like a showdown between the “stars” from the bohemian party, but for the British, the revelations of the “former prince” were a shock and a serious blow to the authority of the monarchy.

In addition to the crisis of the state, the British still have a lot of problems: the mass strike movement, the Irish question, Scottish separatism, the migration crisis. The Americans, on the other hand, have rich experience in organizing “color revolutions”, and on much more solid and calm grounds. There is an opinion that if London does not back down from its ambitions, then we may well become witnesses of the "storming of Buckingham" in the foreseeable future.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. calligrapher Lev_Nikolaevich (Dmitriy) 27 January 2023 20: 02
    While the British are playing the first fiddle in the anti-Russian Euroconcert, the states will not touch them.
  2. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 28 January 2023 08: 26
    That is all nonsense.
    Petty solitary anti-Slamists can do little to influence, just flicker in the media
    And in other media articles it is written that Sweden is rushing and rushing to NATO, successfully solving working issues ...

    And what is described here is a working trade for "bread" buns.
  3. The comment was deleted.
  4. Anton Kuzmin Offline Anton Kuzmin
    Anton Kuzmin (Anton Kuzmin) 29 January 2023 12: 28
    The article is not bad, but the topic is not disclosed from all sides.
    See the article "To NATO: Sweden and the Saimaa Canal." https://trymava.rf/?p=40535

    In fact, there were fears that Sweden would generally destroy NATO from the inside (link to source - inside the article by link)
  5. Flight Offline Flight
    Flight (voi) 1 February 2023 20: 42
    I think that everything is going to kick the Turks from NATO, they have a better option.