Sweden’s supreme general on looking at Russia and responding to an invasion of Ukraine
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, General Micael Bydén, recently met in person with the President of the United States Joint Chief of Staff, General Mark Milley, to discuss the threat posed by Russia’s military build-up on Ukraine’s border.
In an interview with Defense News on December 15, Bydén said that this and future visits to Washington are part of Sweden’s efforts to deepen international defense cooperation. He also visited Marine Corps Base Camp LeJeune in North Carolina, weeks after US and Swedish naval units practiced seizing maritime terrain in the Stockholm archipelago.
Sweden borders the Baltic Sea – a body of water that also borders Russia. The Northern European nation is not a member of NATO but works closely with the Alliance. Like others in Europe, Sweden strengthened its defense budget after Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014, and the government continues to deepen pan-Nordic defense co-operation.
This interview was edited for length and clarity.
What was your message to General Milley, and what progress did you make during the meeting?
In our region, it is no secret that Russia is the challenger [factor] and has been so over the years. There was a clear indication of its operations in 2014, and operations in Crimea continue. It is still a war going on in south-eastern Ukraine, and what is happening now around Ukraine is of course in focus. So that was a matter of course.
We work with sharing information regularly, on the information side, and it is important to understand what is happening. So in terms of unit numbers and capacity, we share the same view, and the discussion and the big question would be: What would be [Russia’s] Next step? When would the next step be? Why? [Essentially an] assessment of what is happening.
We have different perspectives, which is good. It’s not just Ukraine right now – we see things in a bigger perspective. It starts in the Arctic, which we share with our neighboring countries, not least Finland and Norway. So we talked about it [as well as the] The Baltic Sea, Ukraine, the Black Sea, all the way down to the Middle East and Africa. There are a variety of challenging developments right now around the world, and these are interconnected in one way or another.
What is your assessment of Russia’s strengths and intentions? How close are we to seeing a military confrontation?
The military confrontation has been there since 2014. One should never underestimate a country that has now built up its capabilities over time. Listen to their rhetoric, listen to their communication. It is obvious that they have ambitions. They also protect their long-term interests. If we are now close to some kind of major operation, I would not enter into that discussion. But that’s really the question right now, and that’s why it’s so important to talk to our partners.
If there has been a military confrontation all along, what is the most disturbing thing you see that is different?
We never took our eyes and ears out of Russia – not even when times were different and we [had more optimistic views]. We have a good understanding of what abilities they have. But the question will always be: What would the next step be, and why? They have proven [they will] use their military capabilities to achieve their goals and objectives.
One should not be surprised if they act, but what would the plot be? It is really difficult to be very clear and 100% sure. This is the tricky question.
How would Sweden react if Russia invaded Ukraine?
At a politically high level in Sweden, support for Ukraine has existed over time. What is happening in Ukraine will definitely affect security in Europe. So it’s bilateral; the support is very clear. What we have done has been under the umbrella of unification, so it is multilateral, under the umbrella of the Canadians. It would be education, it would be advisory, that support down to the internship level. We would continue on; we would probably add more in that direction. There is clear support from the Swedish side to Ukraine, whatever happens.
What is your confidence in the Western response, especially the United States and NATO?
When I spoke to General Milley yesterday [Dec. 14], I also expressed my appreciation for the very clear support they have given us – which means sharing information, sharing their opinions – because it has been very transparent and transparent.
Sweden recently got the Patriot air defense system. What ability does it provide? What is the timeline beyond the first handover?
We took delivery from our procurement agency a few weeks ago, so now it is in the possession of the Armed Forces. We’re leaving [initial operational capability] to [full operational capability] in line with our plans. Our procurement of the Black Hawk helicopter was another that met the requirements in terms of time, economy and capability. We will continue to work very closely with the US Army in this case.
[The Patriot is] very promising, and it will add tremendously to our capabilities when it comes to air defense. We had a different system before, but it’s from the 1960s, so this opens up a new way of working.
What is driving the planned 40% increase in Sweden’s defense spending? Is it linked to Russia’s latest activities?
A general response would be “regional security”, and it would be very focused on Russia and what Russia has done over time: 2018, Georgia; and in 2014 the illegal annexation of Crimea and start a war in southeastern Ukraine. It is a mixture of a first world war and a more modern warfare with advanced features. At the political level, I have the mandate and the budget. The political administration has done its part. Now it’s up to me to deliver, and I welcome that. After years of decline, we are now building.
It is a combination of investment in labor and modernization. What will it look like?
Five new army regiments, one air wing. We inaugurated three regiments in the autumn.
What we call the “wartime organization” would be about 55,000 people. By 2025, we will be at 80,000; and in 2030, more or less 100,000. Most would be conscripted after the reintroduction of the conscription system in 2018. It is gender neutral, it is very positive. We have 100,000 young women and men every year, and right now we are taking about 5% of them – 5,500 this year, which will go up to 8,000 in 2024.
New abilities would also come. What we need to develop would be under headings like “cyber”, so we started the cyber training for soldiers, but it must also be supplemented with new technology. We will hopefully sign an agreement with the United States in the spring on space. Other areas include electronic warfare and artificial intelligence. We do not have contracts for everything, but we have plans and now it is high time to go from plans to acquisitions.
What’s coming soon?
We had plans to acquire GlobalEye [airborne early warning and control aircraft] after 2025, but we will now do it sooner because it will increase our capacity significantly. With Saab 340 [aircraft], it’s hard to maintain and it’s a bit slow, but a new platform and new sensor will definitely be a game changer for us. Both fighter planes and submarines are on contract and will be delivered during this five-year period until 2025. Submarines [are coming] over the next five years.
What are the consequences of Finland’s decision to buy the F-35 fighter jet after Sweden pressed Gripen?
Finland is our closest partner. The relationship we have now, we have not done anything similar in modern times. We have plans to fight together beyond peacetime, pending political decisions. I was hoping for a different result, but I fully respect the Finnish decision, and the process has been very thorough. My counterpart and I have agreed that this will not affect our cooperation because it is too important right now that we just continue as we have done. A combat system like the F-35 will of course add to our common capability.
How has Sweden deepened the security cooperation agreements?
With Finland, it goes without saying, and we started a few years ago. What it’s about is trust between individuals at all levels, and we are there. Regionally, we have a trilateral agreement with Finland, Norway and Sweden based on our joint responsibility in the Arctic. We have a new trilateral agreement with Norway, Denmark and Sweden that protects the major ports in the western part of our country. In other respects, we work very closely with all countries around the Baltic Sea.
With the UK and France, we took some steps, including in Mali together with special forces.
I could not be clearer: the United States is one of the most important bilateral collaborations [setups] we have. We also have very important trilateral ties with Finland and the United States
We are part of the British led Joint Expeditionary Force. From a political level, there is no limit here – from declarations of intent to memoranda of understanding.
How long has the intelligence relationship with the United States existed? Is it deepening in view of the current situation with Russia?
I was an attaché [in the United States] 20 years ago, from 1999 to 2002. Relations and cooperation were then built on research and development, acquisitions and procurement – on the part of the defense industry. Intel has always been there at levels I can not talk about, and I probably do not know everything about it. But it has been very important because we are where we are, we see things and it is easier for us to follow developments here.
The collaboration today is very operational, so now it’s exercises, it’s training, it’s collaborating. Training today is very close to the business. You can decide the time and place where you will run an exercise, which will definitely affect an operational level or operational outcome. It has been a very interesting path from 20 years until now, and it is very promising. We’re looking again [approaches in] certain areas: common fires, combine new technologies, make sure we can communicate securely. There can be many things.
Offer some insights into Russia’s attitude to warfare, both in Crimea and the recent merger of troops.
There are modern possibilities and modern technology such as electronic warfare and unmanned platforms. I went to the trenches to see the villains over there.
They are experts in what they call “non-linear warfare” – as others would call “hybrid warfare.” It can be military, diplomatic or economic. They know exactly how far they can go before [passing a threshold that would lead to traditional conflict]. It can also be information activities, advocacy activities, cyber attacks that are constantly happening; the challenge here would be attribution. They are ready to use their military assets and they take the chance while it is there. As long as it is in line with their interests – to become a great power again, to protect their territory – they are capable and capable and ready.
Is the Western world ready if it comes to that?
We are more ready today than we were just a few years ago. We are more aware [and focused]. If we are ready to take action if things happen, [time will tell].
Back to my visit here: Having a very good dialogue with one of my most important counterparts is not only a good start – it is a good place to work from.
Joe Gould is a congressional and industry reporter for Defense News, covering defense budget and policy issues at Capitol Hill, as well as industry news.