Därför ska vi ha ett försvar

Abstract

Why we shall have a defence

Sweden is now a member in NATO. How are we to handle the challenges, in perspective of a somewhat modified application I performed in 2012 on the analysis Scheme made by professor Hans F Petersson in his dissertation in 1964: Power and International Order. An analytical study of four schools of thought and their approaches to the war, the peace and a post-war system 1914–1919. Now I have brought my analyses into 2024. Today a right-wing authoritarian school of thought is expressed by Putin and his dictatorial policies versus Ukraine and in Russia itself. A second school is conservative and liberal ideas surrounding the Great Powers in the world; they tend to be and strive for an oligarchy into international affairs. They are labelled moderate by Petersson. His next school of thought are the radical; democrats promoting an evolutionary democratization of the world and be it rule based by international organisations. In his original Petersson labelled the fourth school revolutionary. A hundred years ago the then communists were. Today I pick terrorism, not least Muslim based, striving for world dominance. NATO membership for Sweden is founded with radical thoughts. Sweden will no longer have separate commandsystems for defence. Swedish based arms industry will operate easier with other NATO countries. It can be viewed as an element of a small great power’s moderate thinking. Versus the imperialistic authoritarian believe system in Russia, priorities in democracies have to be defence. As goes for terrorism from September 11, military operations seem mostly to have failed. But they cannot be completely disregarded. Most of anti-terrorism have however to be managed by police, courts and prisons, but surely also in schools and families’ interventions.