Defence and security policy is a world of its own in the Swedish democracy. The developed in consensus by politicians of different colours with deep knowledge and close contacts with the defence industry and the generals.

from The sweden democrats out to the Left. Unity is a strong signal to the outside world. Yet it has gone very wrong. Or maybe because, among others.

What has happened since the turn of the millennium, the Swedish national defence carefully fitted down. Nevertheless, it is not possible to find a clear political decision to do just that.

Read more: defence spending can be increased by at least 50 per cent

the Idea was to pull down the Swedish defence, and think over the needs of the future, when the world was peaceful and quiet. There would be a high state of readiness to quickly build up a modern defense, when the situation in the area became otäckare.

Instead, it was emptied, and the latter element was dropped when mobiliseringsförråden. From the year 2005, there were no förbandsstruktur or krigsplanläggning remain in Sweden. The civil defense with their sjukvårdstält, evacuation plans and food supplies were destroyed, sold or given away.

the process in his book ” Peace illusions: the Swedish national defence of the decline and fall”. He calls the analysis that försvarsbesluten rested on ”a hard to match series, at times, astonishing miscalculations”.

the World was described as a political majority wanted to see it. Light and practical enough just enough expensive to be able to respond.

back in 2005, president Vladimir Putin, that the collapse of the Soviet union is the 1900-century’s greatest geopolitical catastrophe. Russia began to renovate in earnest after the Georgienkriget 2008. But Swedish defence spending continued to fall.

Sweden wagered mainly on international military intervention, as in Afghanistan and Libya.

Libyeninsatsen helped to create a largely lawless country. The larger and prolonged military operation in Afghanistan were not as expected.

of försvarspolitikernas decision not more conciliatory. Take, for example, helicopter 14, which was ordered in 2001 and delivered the first ten years after the promised date. It is to this day not fully useful. Now, it costs over sek 200,000 an hour to fly, and is still not fully equipped for anti-submarine warfare.

Before christmas came the state Treasury with a review: ”We believe that parliament, the government and the armed Forces have brought the risks and uncertainties in planning. The armed forces therefore need to each year, managing a planning that exceeds the agency’s appropriations. This has led to the Defence forces, the periodic need to move, reduce and delete the planned actions and activities.”

we are Now planning the defense for a 50% increase of defence spending to the year 2025, up to 1.5 percent of GDP. You have to go back to the 60th century to find a similar armament (but even then not increase as much).

the only thing that the political parties have to deal with. The increase in the proportion of children and older people in the population requires increased investments in health, education and care. The increase in violent crimes require big bets on the judicial system.

And it is the government and parliament to prioritise and fund the whole thing. Thus those who now outbid each other in how much income taxes should be lowered.

the Question is if försvarspolitikerna now, once again, will unite across party lines on the 50-percent growth, finance minister Magdalena Andersson has not yet been heard of in the question.

Unity can, of course, vouch for the sterling work and a signal to Russia and partners in the world. But also that no opposition will say against it this time either if this food will be underfunded and ineffective.

How should we citizens be able to know that the new billions are added on a modern system that will work for you and the staff going to recruit and retain?