Background Guides Introduction

Hey there! It's Timothy.

Now we get into the fun stuff. It's no longer your first conference.

Hopefully by now, you would've gone to quite a few conferences and bagged quite a few prizes.

Now, it's your time to chair. You've just got your first chairing acceptance mail and you're on cloud nine (at least, I was!).

Now, you have to do the painful work all chairs have to endure: writing a background guide/pre-conference guide.

I hope the background guides that me and my brother wrote help you in journey. These background guides should hopefully give you an idea of how a BG should be written and what are the pitfalls you should avoid. 

Happy reading! =)

Background Guide 1

Context: This was the backgound guide for the second agenda for the conference referenced in BG 2.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agenda 2

Introduction To The Agenda

NATO is the foundation of both Europe’s collective defense and international security architecture. Established in 1949, it has transformed with every single geopolitical development, whether it is dealing with the Cold War, the Russia-Ukraine situation, or other global state and non-state actor threats.

Its primary aim is that the seventeen members will achieve collective security through peace, defense, military readiness, political unity, strategic deterrence, and crisis management. With the rise of more sophisticated global threats, NATO seems to have redefined strategy on how its member states develop military assets and strategies to achieve the purpose of Allies Goals and Guarantors.

As the leading military power of NATO, the US has significant influence in setting the direction of the Alliance with its operational and finance strategies. The US still puts resources to ensure that NATO focuses on emerging issues, such as cybersecurity, hybrid warfare, and intra-state wars. At the same time, there are newer challenges that come with the growing defense spending by some member states, like Sweden.

This multiplies the problem the US has to manage: How to ensure that the enhancement of individual member state’s capabilities remain integrated within the strategies of NATO as a whole and do not fragment the Alliance?

Key Terms

• Collective Defence - NATO’s foundational principle where all member states, guided by the U.S, defend each other to ensure mutual security and stability across the alliance.

• Strategic Deterrence - The calculated use of military power, particularly through NATO’s forces and U.S. leadership, to discourage any potential aggression from adversaries like Russia or other global threats.

• Military Sovereignty - The right of NATO members to independently enhance their military capabilities, while ensuring their efforts align with the broader goals and responsibilities of the alliance.

• Operational Integration - The seamless incorporation of individual member states' military advancements into NATO’s unified operational framework, ensuring all forces work in concert during joint missions.

• Geostrategic Tensions - The growing political and military frictions between NATO and its adversaries, particularly in regions of strategic interest, which require constant adaptation of NATO’s military strategy.

• NATO Enlargement - The process by which NATO welcomes new members, adjusting its strategic focus and expanding its influence, particularly in regions where security is fragile or contested.

• Defence Posture - The collective and individual strategies that NATO adopts, often driven by U.S. leadership, to adapt to emerging global threats and ensure the alliance’s readiness in a shifting geopolitical landscape.

• Military Redundancy - The potential risk of duplicated military efforts within NATO if individual member states pursue independent military enhancements that don’t fully align with the alliance’s coordinated plans.

• Force Alignment - Ensuring that all members’ military developments are in sync with NATO’s collective defence objectives, avoiding any discrepancies that could undermine the alliance’s cohesion.

• Regional Power Projection - NATO’s ability, particularly under U.S. leadership, to project military strength and influence in key regions, ensuring stability and responding to emerging threats in real-time.

• Internal Fragmentation - The challenge of maintaining unity within NATO if member states pursue independent military strategies that do not fully integrate with NATO’s collective goals and operations.

• Integrated Military Strategy - A strategy where each member’s military efforts complement NATO’s broader defence initiatives, strengthening the alliance’s collective ability to respond to external threats.

• Joint Exercises - NATO’s regular coordinated military drills that enhance the interoperability and cooperation of its member states, ensuring that all forces are prepared to act together in defence operations.

• Force Multiplier - The idea that the military advancements of individual NATO members act as a force amplifier, enhancing the alliance’s overall deterrence and operational capability against global threats.

• NATO Command Structure - The centralized leadership and decision-making process within NATO, driven by the U.S., ensuring that all member states can operate cohesively and efficiently, despite national differences in military capacity.

Key Issues

• The main issue at play here is when (and not if) the U.S.A’s primary support is removed due to hostilities from the current administration or a demand for a payable service model by the U.S.A (where the E.U., NATO and Japan are basically forced to pay for protection), how would NATO adapt to this new reality? Is NATO prepared for the eventuality of the U.S.A backing out of the alliance in its own self-interests and leaving Europe to fend for itself in the case of war, or would they collapse like a house of cards?

• The U.S.A’s foreign policy has completely upended the Biden administration’s viewpoint on international affairs, with the current administration cozying up to Russia, the sworn arch-enemy of NATO (and the reason as to why it was formed). If Trump continues his courtship of Russia, how should NATO adapt in terms of relations with Russia? Stand up to the U.S.A or meet the lion in his den?

• The last tenement of the U.S.A’s foreign policy that we’d like to touch upon is the elephant in the room: tariffs. Trump’s ‘favorite word in the dictionary’ is the least liked word of the E.U, which comprises a heavy majority of NATO? How will NATO adapt to this new reality where the most integral part of their alliance attacks their members? What response should NATO deliver to the sweeping tariffs without destroying the alliance?

Major Stakeholders

1) United States of America:

As the largest military force within NATO, the United States holds a pivotal role in shaping the alliance’s policies and strategic direction. The U.S. provides substantial resources, technological superiority, and military leadership, underpinning NATO’s defense structure. The U.S. is integral to NATO’s presence in regions such as Eastern Europe, where it spearheads deterrence measures against Russian aggression. Furthermore, its influence extends to shaping NATO’s global defense posture, aligning the alliance’s capabilities to meet a diverse range of security challenges, from conventional warfare to counterterrorism operations.

2) United Kingdom:

The United Kingdom remains a cornerstone of NATO’s military and strategic frameworks. Its well-established defense capabilities and its geographic positioning in Northern Europe make it an indispensable player within the alliance. Beyond contributing significant forces and resources, the UK is active in shaping NATO’s response to emerging geopolitical tensions. The country’s ongoing commitment to NATO’s nuclear deterrence and its operations across various theaters, particularly in the Middle East and Europe, highlights its central role in maintaining NATO’s operational readiness and strategic cohesion.

3) Germany:

Germany, Europe’s largest economy, holds significant influence within NATO, particularly in shaping the alliance’s policies on European security and defense. Its contributions to NATO’s military capacity are substantial, particularly in the realms of logistics, troop deployments, and intelligence-sharing. As NATO continues to respond to the challenges posed by Russian aggression in the Baltic and Eastern Europe, Germany’s military strategies are key to ensuring NATO’s unified defense posture. The nation’s commitment to NATO’s operations, alongside its role in EU defense initiatives, underscores its dual responsibility in both regional and global security frameworks.

4) France:

France’s military capabilities are crucial to NATO’s overall strength, especially in global operations such as those in Africa and the Middle East. Though France has pursued a somewhat independent defense strategy at times, maintaining its own nuclear deterrent, it remains a core member of NATO. Its strategic interests, particularly in regions like the Sahel, shape NATO’s broader operational goals. France is also an influential voice within NATO, ensuring that the alliance remains responsive to the security challenges of the modern world, from counterterrorism to regional conflict resolution.

5) Poland:

Poland plays a critical role in NATO’s defense posture, particularly in light of its strategic location along the eastern flank of the alliance, bordering Russia and Belarus. In recent years, Poland has significantly enhanced its military capabilities, aligning them closely with NATO’s broader deterrence and defense strategies. Its strong commitment to NATO’s collective defense framework is especially evident in its contributions to NATO’s efforts in maintaining security in Eastern Europe and the Baltic region. Poland’s role is indispensable in ensuring NATO’s ability to respond quickly and effectively to emerging threats in Europe.

6) Turkey:

Situated at the crossroads of Europe and Asia, Turkey’s geographic position gives it strategic importance within NATO. Turkey’s role in securing critical regions like the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean, particularly in relation to counterterrorism and military presence, has made it a key ally. Despite occasional divergences in military strategy, Turkey’s contributions to NATO’s collective defense, including its strategic military assets and regional military initiatives, are vital in maintaining the alliance’s cohesion and operational effectiveness.

7) Canada:

Canada plays a fundamental role within NATO, contributing to both global peacekeeping missions and regional defense strategies. Although geographically distanced from some of NATO’s most immediate threats, Canada remains a staunch supporter of NATO’s collective defense framework. Its participation in joint military operations, its commitment to peacekeeping, and its significant role in Arctic defense highlight Canada’s contribution to NATO’s global security objectives. Canada’s involvement ensures that NATO maintains a comprehensive and integrated defense approach across all operational domains.

Previous Solutions

• One solution that is already in practice (which if forcibly implemented, could save NATO a lot of pain) is by mandating that all member states pledge that a certain percentage of a country’s GDP be spent on militarization (a.k.a burden-sharing). The idea is to kill two birds with one stone: increased spending will inadvertently prepare all member nations in case of a war (because, a war on one is a war on all) and recently, this has also been used as a means to pacify the U.S.A’s ever-shifting demands as Trump’s new foreign policy inches towards European self-reliance rather than shifting the momentous burden of defense on the USA. Admittedly, NATO is playing a very delicate balancing act in this regard, trying to maintain the 2% commitment with each of the states, whilst trying to ignore the 5% target set by Trump.

• NATO has kept the door open to negotiations with Russia much to the members’ consternation. While this might sound conflicting, this is actually a silent adaptation that NATO has instituted as a result of the U.S.A trying to settle relations with Russia. They have even previously considered Russia as a partner, but due to the Russ-Ukrainian war, they have now severed ties with Russia although there are still signs that NATO might try to reconcile with Russia in the wake of the new reality that the U.S.A is openly courting Russia. As of today, that’s a little bit strained based on the Russian missile attacks on Ukraine (which Trump condemned), but we could overall see a slight pivot which is the uncomfortable truth NATO must keep in mind.

• The ghastly reality of a changed U.S.A has kept a 3rd option on the table for NATO: slowly split from the U.S.A. While this might not work on paper, it might (and is already) work in principle. When the U.S.A’s pipeline runs dry, the E.U. has no other choice but to fend for itself and arm themselves. This inevitably leads to a dis-illusioned E.U. having to break away from the U.S.A and make their own choices. This has already happened, with the rift deepening with Trump’s comments on the E.U. and his steep tariffs. In return, the E.U. has issued similar counter-tariffs, which has definitely made this “improbable scenario” the reality of our world.

Possible Solutions

[NOTE: These solutions are based off a few papers and books by Chris J. Dolan, an assistant professor for homeland security and public policy at Penn State. Read both of his books published in 2023 and his research papers to have a brilliant disposition of the agenda.]

• Increasing internal cohesion amongst the bloc will go a long way to reigning in the effects of U.S.A’s foreign policy. The reason why Trump spooks out NATO is because each member state has nothing to fall back on. The U.S.A has proved to be an unreliable partner, and the constant bickering within NATO (with France and Britain squalling about differing ideals on how NATO and the E.U. should go forward in the face of Trump to Viktor Orban and Erdogan constantly opposing efforts to unite in the face of Putin) has not given anyone sweet dreams. Consolidating the bloc would fix all the issues and help with throwing around weight in order to stack up against Trump.

• Send an olive branch to Trump. At the end of the day, to strategically adapt to the new administration’s changing tunes, you need to give and take (that’s diplomacy in a nutshell.) Negotiate figures with the U.S.A (example: reduce the tariffs on Europe but marginally increase the % amount of military spending to 2.5/3%) and appease Trump. I guess there is something we can learn from Putin after all.

• This ties into the first point very well: Attack as one. It’s not enough to just agree or consent to everything. Counter Iran, North Korea and Russia with everybody on the same page. There’s no point trying to flex unity when half the bloc doesn’t hold with you on a certain issue.

QARMA (Questions A Resolution Must Answer)

• How will NATO prepare for the eventuality of the U.S.A backing out of the alliance, especially in the case of war? (Detail specific measures on how the E.U. can arm and economically strengthen itself before the crutch of the U.S.A falls apart?)

• Will NATO continue to negotiate with Russia (starting with a Ukrainian peace deal)? If yes, under what terms will NATO negotiate?

• How will NATO collectively react to Trump’s tariffs? And if so, are there any listed measures to form an independent European economy that isn’t heavily reliant on the U.S.A?

• Will NATO stick to the 2%-of-GDP military spending rule, amend it to 5% to appease the U.S.A, or will they meet somewhere in the middle? If so, how much and are they willing to increase their debt ceiling to cover the additional costs (i.e., how will they finance it?)

• If (under any circumstance) NATO is to split apart, will the alliance be kept intact minus the U.S.A, or will there be a fragmentation into small bi-lateral agreements?

Bibliography

• https://www.cfr.org/blog/transition-2025-us-foreign-policy-eve-disruption

• https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/07/strategic-change-us-foreign-policy?lang=en

• https://www.specialeurasia.com/2025/02/24/us-nato-ukraine-trump/

• https://www.csis.org/analysis/transatlantic-alliance-age-trump-coming-collisions

• https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/nato-article-5-collective-defense-trump-rcna196981

• https://www.cato.org/commentary/donald-trumps-mission-impossible-making-europe-pay-their-own-defense

• https://tdhj.org/blog/post/trump-administration-nato/

• https://tdhj.org/blog/post/author/chris-j-dolan/

• https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0lzxz7kg4wo

• https://www.vox.com/world-politics/404139/nato-trump-article-5-europe-russia

• https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_50090.htm

Background Guide 2

Context: This background guide was written for the first conference I head chaired (if you will). Promotions are great! :)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agenda 1

Letter From The Dias

Greetings, delegates!

We’re the chairs of the NATO committee and we’re delighted to welcome you to the NATO committee at MUN@DPSD ‘25! This conference provides a platform for all of you to fight for the values you believe in and helps you to articulate your stance even though it sometimes means playing against yourself.

We hope that this conference leaves you with a small impression of how the United Nations works: the good, the bad, the ugly, and everything in between. Our world is besieged with many issues, and we hope that this simulation gives you hope that all is not lost.

For first timers, we know it might be daunting as to all that you will hear and see in committee, from preparing position papers, researching your foreign policy and allies, having words like ‘caucus’ and ‘motions’ thrown at your face, to practicing your opening speech. Know this: we’re always a text away. Message or speak to any of the three of us if you have any questions at all and we’ll be happy to help.

For seasoned MUNers, you probably already know the ropes. Help your first-timers and play fair. Don’t be nasty or unsportsmanlike and always uphold the principles of diplomacy. Trust us, you’ll thank yourself later for it.

Regardless, we have no doubt that you all will put your best foot forward and that you’ll have fun at the conference and make the most out of this conference.

This guide should only be the starting point of your research, something like an appetizer to a seven-course meal. We do expect your research to be more in-depth and specific to your country rather than generic philosophical platitudes. Stick to your country’s stance and you’ll be fine.

Well, that’s all from our side. Prepare well, research well, and give it your best shot on the 9th of May!

Warmest regards,

Timothy, [redacted], and [redacted]

Introduction To The Committee

NATO, founded on April 4, 1949, is an alliance that defends, protects and ensures the political freedom and military strength of its member countries.

It has approved democratic practices which enables members to defend their trust and prevent them from blaming each other. After a conflict, members are able to work together in defense and security matters.

NATO’s main claim to fame is found within: alliances built under political and military collaboration guarantees that members’ defense and security is established. Politically, NATO countries work under cooperation based on common beliefs of basic freedoms, rights, democracy, the rule of law, and human rights.

This links Europe and North America while strengthening transatlantic ties. Decisions made under NATO are optional and so gained by reaching a mutual agreement. This guarantees equal strength and fairness of impact in any policy or decision made by the alliance.

By working together like this, NATO creates balance, cohesion, and unity in the entire Euro-Atlantic zone.

NATO’s priorities were looking out for dangers coming from the Soviet Union during the Standoff period and still is one of the focuses. Recently, they also added being active against terrorism, cyber threats, and renewed state aggression.

These newly listed threats are especially noticeable whenever Russia is involved, such as when they forcefully took Crimea in 2014, and started violently invading Ukraine in 2022 thus changing the previously accepted and assumed regulations of European security.

Introduction To The Agenda

Since Sweden became a full member of NATO on 7 March 2024, it has shown serious proposals with the objective of strengthening its military power, yet simultaneously for the general purposes of NATO's unity and collective defence.

Possessing a balanced view of the problem reveals a twofold impact. In one way, Sweden has actively developed its military capability independently, maintaining a commitment to the building of its national security framework. Conversely, these efforts have generated some implications regarding Alliance solidarity. Sweden has traditionally responded to security needs using diplomacy as well as a policy of military neutrality, maintaining a delicate balance between political restraint and military capability.

Sweden's membership represents a shift from neutrality to collective defence according to NATO's strategic interests in the Baltic region. While others think that Sweden's standalone military development will raise the overall capabilities of the Alliance, other people think too many national additions would lead to strategic malalignments or redundancy. More particularly, independent military strategies sometimes might not merge seamlessly into the broader command and control structures within NATO.

Moreover, Sweden's dedication to high moral principles and adherence to international standards in the conduct of war is a good example in the Alliance. Whereas other countries have not been able to live up to United Nations standards of military conduct at all times, Sweden has not only developed its own defence technology but has also provided invaluable assistance to allied nations, allowing for effective joint military action. This is a policy that supports the values-based framework of NATO and promotes mutual confidence among member states.

But the endemic political problems, not least the reconciliation of national sovereignty with collective decision-making, remain. To be truly fortified by Swedish contributions, the cohesion of NATO will require sustained attempts at harmonization, transparency, and interoperability. Sweden's new role requires it to reconcile not just the requirements of autonomous military innovation but also the requirements of collective solidarity.

Lastly, Sweden's autonomous defense upgrades are both opportunities and threats to the unity of NATO. Properly managed, Sweden can serve as a bridge between innovation and integration within the Alliance while further uniting NATO in an increasingly changing security environment.

Key Terms

• Strategic Autonomy - Sweden’s pursuit of independent defense capability, aimed at reducing reliance on foreign powers while still contributing to collective security.

• Collective Defense (Article 5) - A NATO principle binding all members to mutual defense, raising questions about Sweden’s readiness to fully engage as a new member.

• Swedish Armed Forces (Försvarsmakten) - Sweden’s military organization, currently undergoing rapid expansion and modernization to align with NATO standards.

• NATO Integration - The harmonization of Sweden’s defense doctrine, logistics, and operations with NATO structures, essential for alliance effectiveness.

• Nordic Defense Cooperation (NORDEFCO) - A regional defense partnership involving Sweden and neighboring Nordic countries, complementing NATO while promoting regional autonomy.

• Defense Interoperability - The technical and operational compatibility of Swedish forces with NATO allies, crucial for joint missions and rapid deployment.

• Force Projection - Sweden’s capacity to deploy forces abroad, contributing to NATO deterrence and rapid response efforts in the Baltic region.

• BALTOPS (Baltic Operations) - An annual U.S.-led NATO maritime exercise in the Baltic Sea in which Sweden has participated, enhancing readiness and integration.

• Swedish Defence White Paper 2025 - A strategic document outlining Sweden’s long-term defense goals, including increased spending, modernization, and NATO cooperation.

• Hybrid Warfare - A strategy involving cyberattacks, disinformation, and irregular tactics, prompting Sweden to bolster national and alliance-based resilience.

• Wales Summit Pledge (2014) - A NATO commitment to increase defense spending to 2% of GDP, which Sweden has informally aligned with in its military buildup.

• PfP (Partnership for Peace) - A NATO program that fostered cooperation with non-member states, serving as Sweden’s main channel for engagement before full membership.

• Host Nation Support Agreement (Sweden–NATO) - A 2016 agreement enabling NATO forces to operate in Sweden during exercises or crises, laying the groundwork for deeper integration.

• Joint Military Exercises (e.g., Aurora, Cold Response) - Large-scale, multinational drills in which Sweden trains with NATO allies to build cohesion and test operational readiness.

• Strategic Cohesion - The alignment of member states’ political and military goals within NATO, potentially strained if Sweden acts too independently.

Timeline

You might have noticed (if you're a careful reader) that I've not included any timelines in most (if not all) my background guides. The reason is that most of the timelines are photos, and Blogger is horrible at structuring photos to like an actual background guide. That's the reason why.

Key Issues

There are three key issues that we face when evaluating the implications of Sweden’s military enhancements on NATO’s cohesion:

• This can lead to better defense in the northern region of Europe and basically restrict Russia from invading other European countries (which can especially help NATO, considering that Sweden can help with naval missions against Russia as it surrounds the Baltic Sea) but it could lead to a huge mismatch in goal-setting across NATO. Why? Sweden (as a developed country) can pressurise NATO into spending more on militarization (Trump can use them as a chip to force NATO) which could be a curse in disguise.

• Sweden was one of the last remaining countries that exercised absolute neutrality ever since World War 2 (and even before that), and now that’s been thrown right out of the water. Here’s the other issue at play: there’s no scope for diplomacy in Europe at this point because virtually every single country is polarized and is part of the NATO or the Russian ‘camp’ if you will. By dropping neutrality, Sweden wishes to protect itself, but now loses its immunity to conflict by joining NATO, making it fair game for Russia and further fueling Putin’s conspiracy theories of him attacking Ukraine because NATO was encroaching upon his borders.

• Suppose (theoretically) Sweden were to be invaded by Russia via the Baltic Sea. A major part of NATO’s defense has disappeared (or at least will now come with a bill from Uncle Sam), and we’ve seen the consequences in Ukraine. Since NATO is not in a financial position to help anyone in the case of war (because of the U.S.A backing out and NATO having crippling debt and economic issues in powerhouses like Germany and France), will Sweden actually get the help it needs in the case of a war? Adding an extra member increases the burden for NATO to defend itself, especially in the case of defending vulnerable countries like Sweden and Finland.

Major Stakeholders

1) Sweden:

Sweden’s 2024 NATO accession ended over 200 years of military non-alignment. It has since rapidly modernized its armed forces, focusing on airpower, cyber defense, and readiness, aiming to strengthen NATO’s northern flank amid rising Russian threats. While its enhancements boost regional deterrence, Sweden must balance alliance coordination with its traditionally independent defense culture. Its integration will serve as a critical test case for how a new NATO member contributes to collective security without straining alliance cohesion

2) United States:

As the leading military power within NATO, The U.S. considers Sweden's entry into NATO and its military expansion as a strategic advantage, boosting deterrence in both the Arctic and Baltic regions. Washington backs Sweden’s defense initiatives while stressing the importance of alignment with NATO frameworks for ensuring interoperability. Although the U.S. supports burden-sharing, it is cautious of unilateral moves that may undermine alliance unity. Sweden's integration should strengthen NATO cohesion and add significantly to collective defense strategies, particularly in light of rising Russian aggressiveness and heightened expectations on U.S. global responsibilities.

3) Finland:

Finland, like Sweden, has a complex historical relationship with both Russia and NATO. Since 2023, Finland, a member of NATO, views Sweden's military enhancements and membership as essential for regional stability. The two countries have historical connections, comparable threat views, and strong defense collaboration, especially in the Baltic area. Finland backs Sweden’s modernization efforts while emphasizing the importance of coordinating with NATO to prevent overlap. Based on its integration experiences, Finland promotes strategic alignment to guarantee that Nordic capabilities enhance the alliance while avoiding operational inefficiencies or redundancies. 

4) Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania):

The Baltic States are strong proponents of Sweden’s NATO entry and military enhancements, viewing them as essential to reinforcing the alliance’s eastern flank. They welcome Sweden’s advanced air and naval assets, which improve Baltic Sea security and deterrence against Russia. While encouraging independent capabilities, the Baltics urge Sweden to ensure full NATO interoperability and strategic alignment. They stress collective planning and integration to avoid duplication and ensure all members contribute effectively to regional defense.

5)Turkey:

Turkey initially delayed Sweden’s NATO accession over security concerns related to Kurdish groups but approved it after negotiations. Ankara supports Sweden’s military buildup but emphasizes alignment with NATO’s political and strategic priorities. Turkey remains cautious about Sweden’s stance on Kurdish issues and any unilateral defense initiatives. It seeks assurance that Sweden’s contributions will not disrupt NATO unity or decision-making, viewing cohesion and mutual respect for national security concerns as essential to effective alliance functioning.

6) United Kingdom:

The UK strongly backs Sweden’s NATO membership and military advancements, viewing them as key to bolstering northern European defense, especially in the face of Russian threats. It highlights Sweden’s strengths in technology and cyber defense and encourages closer intelligence-sharing and joint operations. However, the UK stresses the need for Sweden’s upgrades to integrate seamlessly with NATO frameworks to prevent fragmentation. It supports Sweden’s active participation in exercises and planning to reinforce alliance unity and regional stability.

7) Germany:

Germany plays a pivotal role in European security and NATO’s overall cohesion. Germany welcomes Sweden’s NATO membership and views its military enhancements as a valuable addition to European security. It emphasizes coordinated planning and NATO alignment, especially in modernization, cybersecurity, and energy security. Berlin is cautious about the creation of parallel structures that might undermine alliance coherence. While supporting Sweden’s increased defense spending and readiness, Germany advocates for integrated efforts to ensure Sweden complements NATO’s strategic objectives and strengthens the alliance’s collective resilience against external threats.

8) France:

France, a key NATO member and strong proponent of European strategic autonomy, supports Sweden’s military enhancements as a step toward strengthening both NATO and European strategic autonomy. It values Sweden’s contributions in the Arctic and technological sectors but stresses integration into NATO’s collective defense plans. France, while backing independent European defense capabilities, encourages Sweden to avoid isolated initiatives. Paris promotes cooperation in intelligence, cybersecurity, and joint training, viewing Sweden as a key partner in reinforcing NATO’s northern defenses and ensuring long-term regional security.

9) Hungary:

Hungary acted as a key barrier to Sweden’s NATO accession, delaying ratification until March 2024 due to political tensions and perceived Swedish criticism of Hungary’s democratic record. Despite pressure from other allies, Budapest leveraged its position to assert political influence within the alliance. While it ultimately approved Sweden’s membership, Hungary’s actions raised concerns about internal NATO cohesion. Although Hungary supports collective defense, its approach underscores how domestic politics can complicate alliance expansion and effect unity in times of strategic transition.

Previous Solutions

As this is a more recent development, there’s not much past action per se (except for the last year or so), so we’ll work with what we have in front of us.

• According to a WSJ video report released last month, the island of Gotland is arming for war as it’s in the middle of the Baltic Sea and within close firing. In this case, Sweden is acting proactively to their capacities by opening bomb shelters and training for aerial and naval attacks. This is frankly all they can do, and it’s good that they’re doing it right now instead of when a war starts (like Ukraine).

• The Swedish government has decided to increase the military budget to 2.6 percent of GDP by 2028. Furthermore, by 2030, they plan to increase the number of conscripts to 10,000 and to have a standing force of four brigades. In 2027, the budget for military research will increase by 50% to 1.6 billion SEK, which is a good sign and well exceeds NATO’s target of 2% per member state.

• As we mentioned Gotland earlier, this place is of strategic importance to the Baltic Sea as whoever controls this island virtually controls how the Baltic Sea functions. Russia has (allegedly) cut underwater communication lines to sabotage communication, which goes to show how close Russia will go to provoking countries. Sweden is desperately trying to defend this island as historically, this has been the epicentre of Russo-European conflicts in the Baltic sea. Sweden’s military enhancements have glued together NATO’s naval support.

• Just keep pushing on with Sweden’s current trajectory. Even though it’s a difficult pill to swallow, the fact of the matter is that Sweden is leading the way for a long-considered looming horror (which is actually reality right now): the U.S.A’s help is never infinite. NATO will never be the same again, agreed. But, NATO cannot simply fold up and shut shop because that would signal to Putin that the house is divided and that he can do all that he wants with Europe (ultimately, forming a sort of pseudo-Soviet Union). The U.S.A virtually abandoning the bloc is a blessing in disguise of sorts because (as Sweden is finding out and Europe eventually will the hard way), self-defense is the only real form of defense. You can’t just blindly rely on your allies, but you must also ‘keep your powder dry’ as Oliver Cromwell once said.

• Other countries might wish to replicate Sweden’s model by arming and preparing the weakest, most vulnerable, or most likely-to-be-attacked places of their places (especially for countries bordering Russia like the Baltic States, Poland and the like) before arming the rest of the country. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine took place in areas where Ukraine was weak (like Donetsk or Luhansk). This in itself could solidify NATO as each country takes responsibility. Sure, this could lead to an arms race (and rattle Russia in the process), but the whole point of this exercise is to have a deterrent force and try to make up for the U.S.A’s lack of participation. Maybe the U.S.A will intervene if Europe is adequately prepared instead of entirely delegating the responsibility over to the U.S.A.

QARMA (Questions A Resolution Must Answer)

• Should other countries follow Sweden’s militarization model? If NATO feels so, to what extent can they replicate Sweden’s model?

• Should the overall NATO mandate of 2% (of a member state's GDP) be increased to 2.5% (inspired by Sweden) with a contingent clause giving economically-struggling members a right to continue with the previous 2% of GDP military spending rule?

• What would a coordinated NATO response look like if Sweden were next in line for a naval confrontation in the Baltic Sea?

Bibliography

• https://www.government.se/government-policy/sweden-in-nato/history-of-sweden-and-nato/%C2%A0

• https:/www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52535.htm%C2%A0

• https:/www.wilsoncenter.org/article/partner-ally-swedens-first-year-nato%C2%A0

• https:/www.chathamhouse.org/2024/02/sweden-brings-benefits-nato-accession-delay-raises-difficult-questions%C2%A0

• https:/www.csis.org/analysis/swedens-evolving-relationship-nato-and-its-consequences-baltic-sea-region

• https:/www.cfr.org/in-brief/how-nato-will-change-if-finland-and-sweden-become-members%C2%A0

• https:/www.defmin.fi/en/areas_of_expertise/international_defence_cooperation/defence_cooperation_between_finland_and_sweden

• https:/www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52060.html

• https:/www.government.se/government-policy/sweden-in-nato/

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tz3Lz-SVDuQ

• https://www.wsj.com/video/swedens-chief-of-defense-on-trump-nato-and-ukraine/B8AFAA79-5ED1-489D-9804-62389D310EC6?utm_source=Gotland&utm_medium=Endscreen&utm_campaign=Gotland

• https://www.jstor.org/tc/accept origin=%2Fstable%2Fpdf%2Fresrep17616.pdf&is_image=False