Despite Sweden’s need for Turkish support in its NATO membership bid, Sweden permitted a protester to burn a Quran outside of a Mosque in Stockholm. Though Turkey may further delay Sweden’s bid, it seems Stockholm is destined to join the alliance, even if its success does not come at the upcoming Vilnius Summit.
Even without membership, Sweden is vying for NATO’s protection. Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson recently announced that his country will allow NATO troops to operate within its borders. Despite Sweden’s robust defensive agreements, gaining an elevated alliance with the United States seems to be the nation’s goal. But instead of turning Sweden into yet another U.S. security burden, a growing military alliance should prompt a rethink of what the U.S. commitment looks like.
Membership in NATO would grant Sweden an Article V defensive pact with the United States - making the partnership as strong as they get. But the United States should carefully consider whether a conventional military obligation to Sweden is in its best interest. A full commitment to Swedish security should not absolve Sweden of its responsibility to protect itself, like the rest of Western Europe.
Sweden’s geographic area is already contentious between Europe and Russia. Since the war in Ukraine began, the Russian military has conducted naval exercises meant to intimidate Baltic countries, threatened “countermeasures” at the Finnish-Russian border, and sent fighter jets into Swedish airspace.
An increased American military presence in Sweden would be an easy path to escalation - harming both European security and gambling with the security of American military forces in the region.
Imagine Russian fighter jets entering Swedish airspace with an American military presence in the same area. The scenario isn’t a stretch - after having NATO membership for just a few months, American troops may soon deploy to the Finnish-Russian border. American servicemembers in one more country experiencing territorial spats with Russia just creates another opportunity for escalation.
Russia’s aggressive behavior on its own demonstrates that American and NATO expansion near its borders may only increase Europe’s security needs. In response to Eastward NATO expansion after the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia retaliated with aggression in Georgia and Ukraine even before 2022. A larger American military presence closer to Russian borders may prolong Russian aggression in Ukraine or elsewhere, creating even more defensive needs for Europe.
Furthermore, Russia has proven its conventional threat to be of a limited nature. Fighting in Ukraine has exposed the Russian military’s weakness—and that’s not to mention that Moscow struggles to control its own mercenaries who have done some of the fiercest fighting in Ukraine. Washington’s partners in Europe have the ability to deter Russian aggression—but they have no real reason to take more responsibility as long as the U.S. is willing to fight on their behalf.
Even without official membership, Sweden still closely cooperates with NATO. NATO classifies Sweden as an “enhanced security partner,” due to joint military exercises and foreign missions with Swedish troops. Coordinated “regional assessments” and “analysis” have been coupled with “interoperability” initiatives between NATO and its partners like Sweden. These alliances are a clear sign that Sweden is already capable of protecting itself with the support of its allies.
While American politicians continuously debate the merits of larger or smaller arms shipments, a commitment to defending Sweden is a much more extreme future. Sweden’s lesser contributions coupled with its existing alliance structure is a sign that it may not pull its weight in NATO without change.
Despite Western Europe’s military linkages, the United States has given the EU’s neighbor, Ukraine, security assistance valued at $40 billion since the war began while the U.S. faces no conventional military threat. While Sweden has given Ukraine military aid as well, its borders are thousands of miles closer to the war itself and it has experienced direct Russian military hostilities in the past. Its efforts should be proportionate to the threats it faces, as should those of the United States.
With Swedish NATO membership, European members of the alliance will have yet another official ally close to Russia’s borders, a tactic they may determine to have merit. But the United States has different interests: it should not stretch its military commitments further as its allies put in disproportionately little effort into their own defense on their own continent. The United States should not sacrifice and provoke just to help nations already capable of defending themselves.
As the upcoming NATO summit in Lithuania presents an opportunity to consider real reforms to the alliance, American leaders should keep the national interest top of mind.
Zachary Weiss is a political risk analyst living in Tbilisi, Georgia. He has conducted research concerning foreign and domestic politics in the Balkans, Caucasus, and Central Asia. Weiss holds a B.A. from Colorado College, where he double majored in Political Science and Russian and Eurasian Studies.
