Studio Försvarsmakten: Natointegration och fortsatt satsning - Försvarsmakten växer

Hör chefen för operationsledningen, Carl-Johan Edström, om den fortsatta integrationen i Nato.
Vi reder också ut processen kring det nya försvarsbeslutet och det nya budgetunderlaget tillsammans med Bo Berg, stf chef för försvarsstabens genomförandeenhet. Dessutom ÖB Micael Bydén om vikten av att växa fort, men också på riktigt.

[@The_Swedish_Knight]

Har en fråga. Kan man välja vart man ska vara i landet. Jag skulle vilja vara i boden men jag bor just nu när jag går i gymnasiet i Stockholm. Men jag kommer nog ansöka till försvaret efter jag har gått klart gymnasiet.

[@forsvarsmakten]

Hej! Tyvärr kan du inte välja var i landet du blir placerad. Däremot får du önska 3 befattningar under din mönstring hos Plikt- och prövningsverket.

[@The_Swedish_Knight]

@@forsvarsmakten okej tack då vet jag.

[@JaffaGaffa]

Intressant. Skulle verkligen vilje se mer information/videos om integrationen i Nato, här hemma, och i de gemensamma områden där länder delar förmågor kring yttre territorium

[@kjell-oh7ez]

Får Carl-Johan fortfarande flyga Gripen?

[@KLGW68]

Hej hej

[@Feelssomfan]

Tjena tjena

[@AquisQuerquennis]

According to the Norwegians, the Swedes have 3 years to prepare in depth. That means a lot of money, tens of thousands of recruits, and trenches, a lot of trenches.

[@95spades]

Lots of trenches seems a bit excessive, seeing as a hypothetical frontline would be in Finland at its closest, don't you think? Swedish defence in depth in the NATO context means warding off incursions by sea and air, and ensuring functional logistics between the Atlantic and Finland/the Baltic countries together with Norway and NATO countries with access to the Baltic sea. Swedish ground forces would man Finnish trench lines though.

[@AquisQuerquennis]

@@95spades This is just a personal opinion or, as is popularly said, an armchair general, but here it goes.
More "individual" trenches that allow jumping from one position to another and specific obstacles to cover from aerial threats. Urbanized Sweden is basically flat. At one point the Chinese can help attack the Russian troops with ground troops and the depth is no longer as obvious as before. Europe's southern flank has aggressive enemies with unspoken territorial desires. And the Trojan horse facing Greece is an open door against the southeastern flank. Logistics in a large-scale war will depend incalculably on each country. You just have to look at what European arms companies have done and continue to do. And maritime interdiction is not based on World War II submarines. I imagine the United States concentrating most of its naval resources in the Pacific. Huge arsenals are needed and hundreds of thousands of recruits that do not exist. Against millions of soldiers, the only effective thing is the unspeakable chemical and biological agents, not the ultra-high-powered explosives; or an equivalent number of infantry. When Russia and China mobilize millions of men, then...

[@matso3856]

@@AquisQuerquennis "I imagine the United States concentrating most of its naval resources in the Pacific" This is exactly why we need stronger navy and airforce , followed by army and not trenches but solid bunkers for civilian use. Trenches wont save from airborne agents or even drones , also if russia mobilize onto towards west only lets see how long China will wait before they adjust thier borders inside Russia.

[@AquisQuerquennis]

@@matso3856 You are right about a larger naval and air force. However, the concept of a trench or obstacle is not that of the First or Second World Wars. Infantry survivability increases when they can place obstacles between themselves and all types of munitions, guided or unguided. It also forces the enemy to conquer or at least recognize positions where infantry could be waiting for them. It slows down their progress, forces them to use more strength. However, that phase can only be to prepare a counteroffensive. That's why I say that the infantry is the queen of the battlefield. And regarding civil defense, I don't think that in Europe there is any country prepared for something like a conflict of those proportions. If they use chemical or biological agents in a war situation, I cannot imagine anything realistic. In Europe there is not even a strategic reserve of medicines and the like, as there is in the US. And as for the Chinese, they think big and the Russians cannot afford it, but if they find themselves on the ropes it would not be It is strange that the Chinese accepted control of some areas of Europe with their military forces. Russians don't think big but they are very patient and can accept something like that for as long as it is useful to them.

[@AquisQuerquennis]

@@matso3856 In any case, when you mention how important it is to have protection for the population, it indicates what the path to follow should be for almost everything.

[@erille10]

Hur gäller de materiel som getts till Ukraina angående de stridsvagnar och stridsfordon som vi har gett bort?
Kommer man ersätta de stirdsvagnar och stridsfordon 90?

[@forsvarsmakten]

Hej! Det tillverkas ny materiel till Försvarsmakten löpande. Du kan läsa mer om beställning av nya Stridsfordon 90 på FMV:s hemsida www.fmv.se/aktuellt--press/aktuella-handelser/fmv-bestaller-nya-stridsfordon-90/

[@Austrveg]

Om NATO attackerar ett land, behöver Sverige då delta?

[@Kingkrock]

Nej

[@apple3505]

@@Kingkrock Jo, men det innebär inte marktrupper utan det kan vara pengarstöd eller skicka vapen

[@katarabo]

Svenskar kan skickas hela vägen till taiwanesiska stränder

[@matso3856]

@@apple3505 Nej , se Falklands kriget mellan Britterna och Argentinarna

[@Nerezza1]

Tror du menar "om en NATO medlem attackerar ett land". Nato är en försvarsallians, inte en offensivt fördrag.