The views expressed in this post are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Open Nuclear Network or any other agency, institution or partner.
Let us for one moment imagine that the UK government decided to leave the EU, without ever calling for a referendum. Such a move would have been rightly criticised as one of the gravest subversions of democratic processes the modern western world has ever seen.
In the early afternoon of the 11th of March, I wonder what must have been going through the minds of the many Swedes who looked up at the sight of two U.S Air Force B-52H nuclear bombers, conducting a low-pass flyover Stockholm, flanked by two Swedish JAS 39 Gripens. This flyover marked the first anniversary of Sweden’s rushed accession to NATO, having joined the self-professed ‘’nuclear alliance’’ in 2024.
We actually do not have to wonder what Swedes thought about the flyover. When SVT (Sweden’s national broadcaster) uploaded a TikTok of the flyover, over 500 thousand people viewed it. Here’s a sample of what Swedes thought about the flyover (translated into English):
“Would have died on the spot if I saw it without knowing why they flew”
“Sweden is unfortunately a Dictatorship. No one asked us if we wanted to join NATO.”
“That is an attack on Sweden”
“Well, then we have sold our country to the lunatics in the United States. Great work”
“The symbolism is sick, total humiliation and submission! Foreign powers should not fly with their bombers over Stockholm! SWEDEN OUT OF NATO! We do not belong in a war alliance filled with war criminals!!”
“Scandal that the armed forces do not defend Sweden against the invaders. They rather seem to betray Sweden and help them”
And similar comments expressing surprise, fear, betrayal, disgust and bewilderment keep coming…hundreds of them. Of the 650 comments, only a handful expressed support for Sweden’s NATO membership. It is worth noting this sample of comments represents a subset of the Swedish population that uses TikTok – with the average user being relatively younger than the general population. It appears that Swedes, especially the younger ones, are only beginning to appreciate the implications of their government’s decision to join a nuclear alliance. This expeditionary squadron performed the low-pass flyover of Stockholm, shortly after practicing a drop of live guided bombs at a Swedish weapons range, earlier that afternoon.
The Securitisation of Stockholm
Sweden's rapid accession to NATO in 2024 was finalised through a rushed parliamentary procedure that boycotted a public referendum. At the time, immediate accession was (understandably) framed as a necessary response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In hindsight, however, this decision to boycott public accountability, reflects a crisis-driven policymaking failure that prioritised speed over democratic inclusion.
Then prime minister Magdalena Andersson dismissed intense calls for a referendum, claiming that national security issues were too sensitive for public debate. "I don't think it is an issue suitable for a referendum," she argued, citing confidentiality concerns around national security. However, unlike neighbouring Finland and its ‘advisory referendums’, Sweden has more frequently trusted its citizens with complex decisions: joining the European Union in 1994 and adopting the Euro currency in 2003 were both put to referendums. Even nuclear energy was debated publicly and democratically decided upon in 1980. These decisions are significant in Sweden, as its constitution provides for binding referendums. Why then was NATO membership – a decision with profound nuclear implications – deemed unsuitable for democratic consent?
In the immediate aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, public opinion in Sweden shifted rapidly, with polls indicating support for NATO membership rising from 51 per cent to 57 per cent within weeks. The Swedish Public Opinion Research Institute called this shift, “the largest and fastest shift in public opinion that has ever been measured in Swedish history". This was well known at the time, with numerous media outlets immediately reporting on opinion polling indicating support for NATO accession. With such strong margins, it would have made sense for the government to legitimise these numbers in a referendum.
Of course, there was always the possible risk that calling a referendum on NATO accession would have made Sweden ‘’vulnerable’’ to influence campaigns from Russia. Finland’s then President Sauli Niinisto also expressed similar concerns of Russian meddling. However, fears of possible external influence are flimsy justifications for suspending democracy in what are by many accounts, the top three most stable democracies on earth. At least in Finland, citizens were formally pressuring their parliamentarians to apply for NATO membership. There were at least three highly successful citizens initiatives in Finland that were ostensibly pro-NATO and the overwhelming parliamentary majority vote in Helsinki was definite.
In contrast, parliamentarians in Stockholm were starkly divided on the NATO accession issue. The Green and Left party were opposed to accession, with the Left party calling for a referendum. It took a number of internal dialogues for The Social Democratic Party to drop its initial opposition to NATO and to conclude that they would accede to NATO if Finland also joined. And interestingly, the Social Democratic Party maintained their opposition to any NATO nuclear weapons being stationed on Swedish soil. A Swedish referendum on NATO membership would have permitted broad campaigns seeking to consult with a clearly divided populace on the security, economic and societal benefits and pitfalls of NATO membership. The Swedish elite chose to latch on to the urgency and clarity of the Finnish debate, instead of formally consulting their public by way of referendum. When the stakes are this high, opinion polls cannot be portrayed as a substitute for a referendum.
The rushed accession process left critical questions unanswered: Would Swedes knowingly accept becoming potential targets in a nuclear conflict? Would they willingly sacrifice their 200-year commitment to military neutrality?
The consequences of this rushed accession are now becoming evident. NATO membership does not merely entail conventional military cooperation; it also involves nuclear obligations through NATO's Nuclear Planning Group protocols. Sweden now faces the possibility of hosting nuclear logistics infrastructure or even nuclear weapons themselves during wartime.
This is not theoretical speculation: prime minister Ulf Kristersson has explicitly refused to rule out hosting nuclear weapons on Swedish soil under certain conditions – contrary to the Social Democratic Party’s wishful opposition to NATO nukes on Swedish soil.
It is particularly symbolic that the NATO flyover of March 11, was made by iconic B-52H nuclear bombers – how else would NATO remind Swedes that they are now under a nuclear umbrella?
NATO’s promise – security or vulnerability
Whatever sense of security that NATO umbrella initially provided, is rapidly fading. President Donald Trump's return to power has fundamentally altered America's commitment to European security, suggesting European NATO members spend up to five per cent of GDP on defence as the price of US protection. It is a trend experts have identified as Trump’s transactional "MAGA Carta" doctrine, which explicitly rejects strategic altruism. Trump even openly stated that he would not defend allies failing to meet these spending targets, encouraging Russia to "do whatever the hell they want" to non-compliant NATO countries. This transactional approach casts doubt on Article 5 –the very cornerstone of NATO's collective defence – and exposes Sweden to unprecedented strategic vulnerability.
Sweden's current defence budget stands at SEK 138 billion annually (2.4 per cent of GDP). To meet NATO’s proposed (and relatively modest) threshold of 3.5 per cent, Sweden would need an additional SEK 65 billion each year – equivalent to its entire police and prison budgets combined. Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson admits this might force painful austerity measures affecting schools, healthcare and social services – a price Swedes never explicitly agreed to pay.
Moreover, Trump's pivot toward rapprochement with Vladimir Putin further undermines NATO's credibility. Recent US-Russia negotiations excluded European allies entirely; Trump even suggested Ukraine bears responsibility for Russia's invasion. Sweden's reliance on American security guarantees now appears dangerously misplaced: Trump openly questions whether NATO allies would defend America if roles were reversed. Would they?
In response to Donald Trump’s failure to recognise Russian aggression, former prime minister Carl Bildt, now says “much of what NATO stands for risks going up in smoke” and questions if the US will “come to the defense of the Baltics or other vulnerable NATO members?”
In this context, Friedrich Merz's recent proposal for Germany to seek nuclear sharing arrangements with France and Britain underscores Europe's growing insecurity about American reliability. Ahead of German elections last month, Merz stated “We need to have discussions with both the British and the French – the two European nuclear powers – about whether nuclear sharing, or at least nuclear security from the UK and France, could also apply to us”. Yet, Merz’s anxiety reveals precisely why Sweden’s rushed accession is not proving to be the silver bullet to placate Swedish security concerns, at least right now. Neither France nor Britain possesses sufficient nuclear capabilities or political willpower to replace America's extended deterrence umbrella effectively, if Trump withdraws from NATO. The combined Franco-British arsenal totals just over 500 warheads compared to Russia's over five thousand – an imbalance that cannot credibly deter Moscow’s aggressive strategy.
It is therefore not surprising that Swedish policymakers are scrambling for a sense of security once more. After all, Sweden literally shares a sea border with Russia. In this new scramble for security, policy analysts are now openly suggesting that Sweden rapidly form a Nordic nuclear weapons union. Taking Germany’s nuclear weapons proposal into account, Christian Democrats on Swedish Defense and Foreign Affairs Committees are already suggesting innovative ways to finance the expansion of French and British nuclear weapons programs. That Europe now needs more – many more – nuclear weapons, is no longer taboo to say out loud.
The cost of haste: where Sweden stands now
As things stand, Sweden now finds itself doubly compromised: tied into NATO’s nuclear infrastructure without genuine democratic consent and dependent on increasingly uncertain American guarantees. The government’s refusal to hold a referendum silenced critical voices at precisely the moment when open debate was most needed. As Anna Sundström from Stockholm’s Olof Palme International Centre laments: "It was perceived totally naive to talk about peace… If you criticise NATO, you’re automatically pro-Russian".
Yet, Sweden’s NATO obligations raise other societal questions that the public should have had a say in – including Totalförsvarsplikt (total defence duty). Revived in 2017, totalförsvarsplikt mandates military service for its citizens from age 16-70 in the event of war or the threat of war. However, citizens who must live decades under these obligations had no voice in deciding whether their country entered the risky game of nuclear deterrence, by joining a nuclear-backed alliance.
Swedes deserve clarity about what their obligations entail under NATO membership; they deserve transparency about how defence spending hikes will impact social welfare; above all else, they deserve an honest reckoning about whether aligning with an alliance led by an unpredictable partner like Trump genuinely enhances their security – or merely trades one set of vulnerabilities for another.
Olamide Samuel leads network and engagement initiatives at Open Nuclear Network (ONN), a programme of PAX sapiens. Olamide manages ONN’s network and engagement initiatives such as the Creative Coalition, a dynamic network of aligned non-governmental organisations which creates and executes bespoke engagement strategies to reduce nuclear risks. Before joining ONN, Olamide served as Special Envoy of the African Commission on Nuclear Energy AFCONE. Previously, Olamide led the European Leadership Network’s ‘Protecting the Non-Proliferation Treaty‘ programme during his Policy Fellowship. Olamide completed his Postdoctoral research as a Research Associate in Nuclear Politics at the University of Leicester, and was a Senior Teaching Fellow at SOAS University of London. While at SOAS, Olamide lectured in the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy, teaching MA courses on International Security, and Diplomatic Practice. In addition, Olamide led the university’s global nuclear disarmament programme, SCRAP Weapons, from 2019 to 2021. He led the programme’s efforts to strengthen arms control diplomacy at the United Nations and African Union. Olamide holds a PhD in Security and Intelligence (2019) and an MA in Security, Intelligence and Diplomacy (2015), both from the University of Buckingham’s Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies (BUCSIS). He also holds a B.ILD in International Law and Diplomacy, from Babcock University (2009). Olamide spends his free time as a hyperrealist artist, using graphite, charcoal and other mediums to create artistic impressions. Olamide is the co-author of two books, Open Source Investigations in the Age of Google (2024) and The Global Third Nuclear Age (2025). He is also the author of numerous academic articles and opinion pieces relating to international security, nuclear non-proliferation, and open-source investigative methodology, featured in outlets including Al-Jazeera, The BBC, France 24, allAfrica, ChannelsTV and more, where he regularly comments on security and defense issues. His academic writing has been published in the Review of International Studies and he co-authored “Justifying Attacks on Nuclear Facilities” which was the most read article of 2024 in The Nonproliferation Review. With President Mary Robinson of The Elders, Olamide featured in the documentary, Solutions to Existential Threats which was viewed over a million times in its first month.
Contact: osamuel@paxsapiens.org
