'NATO gives high marks to Swedish military'

Tabnabs

Interesting to see what it takes to be a truly 'neutral' country

Sweden's defence capabilities would allow it to independently defend itself against all but the most severe attacks, according to an analysis by NATO, which also found that Sweden's Armed Forces served as a strong deterrent against potential attacks.

The positive review of Swedish military capabilities comes from NATO's Planning and Review Process (PARP), which looked at Sweden's defence capabilities as a part of the country's participation in NATO's Partnership for Peace (PfP), which began in 1995.

"Even if the Armed Forces in extreme cases will still need to be dependent on a mobilisation of reserves, with support from the Home Guard, Sweden's newly developed functional combat forces have an operative capacity and combat competence which would in the first instance deter an attack and if that failed can defend the country against all but the most determined and drawn-out attacks," concluded NATO, according to a document published by the Swedish Defence Ministry.

"When it comes to national defence, Sweden's land (including the Home Guard), sea, and air combat forces, with support of the Armed Forces logistics organisation, maintain a significant capacity for an independent and coordinated action without support from others."

Speaking with Sveriges Radio (SR), Swedish defence minister Sten Tolgfors referred to the results of NATO's review as "unbelievably high marks" for the new Swedish defence model.

The report is based in part on a future constellation for Sweden's Armed Forces set to be put in place starting in 2014.

Despite the overall positive review from NATO, Fredrik Lindvall, a security analyst with the Swedish Defence Research Agency (FOI), told SR the review is line with the defence and security policy Sweden has had for the last 20 years which presupposes a reliance on other nations.

According to Tolgfors, Sweden's move to voluntary recruitment of soldiers remains a challenge, something which NATO also points out in its review.

"It's the main challenge ahead of us but we can also point out that so far we've had ten applicants per vacancy in the new basic military training for new volunteers," he said.

source

seanmacc

There's no love lost between the Irish defence forces and the Swedes. Back in 2005 the two forces were serving together on the peace keeping mission in Liberia. A public order training exercise was executed by both sides in which they both took turns playing enemy. The Irish forces followed the guidlines when they took up their batons and shields when they went 1st. The next day when the Swedes had their turn and the Irish played enemy the Swedes went totally over the top causing multiple injuries. (some of which had a couple of the lads in the infirmiry for a couple of days)

The relationship of co-operation on that particular tour broke down totally.

arybvtcw0eolkf

seanmacc wrote: »

There's no love lost between the Irish defence forces and the Swedes. Back in 2005 the two forces were serving together on the peace keeping mission in Liberia. A public order training exercise was executed by both sides in which they both took turns playing enemy. The Irish forces followed the guidlines when they took up their batons and shields when they went 1st. The next day when the Swedes had their turn and the Irish played enemy the Swedes went totally over the top causing multiple injuries. (some of which had a couple of the lads in the infirmiry for a couple of days)

The relationship of co-operation on that particular tour broke down totally.

Where are you getting that from?.

seanmacc

Otis Huge Panda wrote: »

Where are you getting that from?.

My brother (then a Corporal) and two of my mates who were there at the time (Both Privates). The complaints went right to the top about the incident but in the interest of future co-operation no action was taken. Many of the Swedes who were there were on extended National Service and just plain didn't want to be there.

arybvtcw0eolkf

seanmacc wrote: »

My brother (then a Corporal) and two of my mates who were there at the time (Both Privates). The complaints went right to the top about the incident but in the interest of future co-operation no action was taken. Many of the Swedes who were there were on extended National Service and just plain didn't want to be there.

In that being the case its very wrong of you to say;

There's no love lost between the Irish defence forces and the Swedes.

Not once have I heard mention of this incident, and I'm in a position to have heard it.

We continue to enjoy excellent relations with the Swedes despite whatever hearsay and ball hops you like to repeat.

Avgas

Tabnabs wrote: »

Interesting to see what it takes to be a truly 'neutral' country

And like you believe this stuff? This is political optics NOT hard nosed military analysis.

1. NATO would love Sweden to formally ditch the neutrality tag-hence the charm offensive.
2. Sweden's conservative government and most of the defence industrial complex would like to ditch neutrality and integrate even more closely with NATO/US...but domestic public opinion is iffy.....this is part of a charm offensive...
3. The positive rating by NATO is very political because the Moderate led government has imposed massive changes on the structure of Swedish defence forces with the focus is on you guessed it...expeditionary out of area operations capability...which means Swedish operations in the middle east, africa, etc. The Swedes are very good soldiers and their gear is top notch...NATO would gain a very useful player...as is currently happening viz Swedish Gripens over Libya doing recce.

These changes reduce the scale of the Swedish land forces, they reduce their ability to absorb attritional attacks in scale and depth.....they involve significant funding cuts....they have a spending freeze until 2014.......which is a cut given they have to retool to become more expeditionary......a switch to a smaller core of volunteer professionals......and ....a focus away from Sweden's core security problem...which is and always has been RUSSIA. The Russian threat is just assumed to be 'remote'........in these scenarios.......

Ask the Georgians about Russian willingness and ability to use force. Russian forces have learned a lot from Georgia 2008, and spending and modernisation of their forces is moving ahead. The Swedes are way ahead of them on a tech basis, but the Russians have brawn, robustness and sheer ability to absorb attritional losses if they really really want to employ force.

The Russians are not likely to initiate any violent action against Sweden or Finland....that seems like a mad fantasy......at least today or anytime soon...but 10 or 20 years from now who can say what the politics of the wider Arctic and Baltic will look like? The scope for a clash between Russia and Estonia/NATO is weak today ....but possible, just to give one instance.

However, if a conflict with Russia (however unlikely today) did kick off Sweden would need mass land and coastal defences ...not expeditionary units that can plug into a US network......equally if they do join NATO....then any conflict involving Estonia, the future of Belarus, Khalingrad, etc. will automatically involve them on their own doorstep. Lots to think about.

In this context turning the Swedish defence forces into a clone of the British Armed forces (a high quality expeditionary ally of the USA) is far from sensible.....or the most obvious thing to do.......like other western countries they simply can't afford a large and high tech military...so it'll be a smaller one....struggling to do more.

Gripen

Avgas wrote: »

[QUOTE=Tabnabs;

The Russians are not likely to initiate any violent action against Sweden or Finland....that seems like a mad fantasy......at least today or anytime soon...but 10 or 20 years from now who can say what the politics of the wider Arctic and Baltic will look like? The scope for a clash between Russia and Estonia/NATO is weak today ....but possible, just to give one instance.

However, if a conflict with Russia (however unlikely today) did kick off Sweden would need mass land and coastal defences ...not expeditionary units that can plug into a US network......equally if they do join NATO....then any conflict involving Estonia, the future of Belarus, Khalingrad, etc. will automatically involve them on their own doorstep. Lots to think about.

Avgas,you've just contradicted your stance in the thread on lack of naval and air defence in Ireland. If Russia went for Sweden in 20 years Ireland would be effected and as a mature state we coudn't do a DeValera Neutrality on it. Yet you make the case for Sweden to cover their National defence. What's your story?!

Avgas

Gripen wrote: »

Avgas wrote: »

Avgas,you've just contradicted your stance in the thread on lack of naval and air defence in Ireland. If Russia went for Sweden in 20 years Ireland would be effected and as a mature state we coudn't do a DeValera Neutrality on it. Yet you make the case for Sweden to cover their National defence. What's your story?!

Hmmmm...maybe I have. On the other hand what I've been banging about is that the logic of 'expeditionaryness' is a seen as a dangerous panacea and it makes European armed forces lose sight of their major strategic environment...in the Irish case our core security problem was and is INTERNAL and I've posted that the major justification for our DF is internal and connected to the long term uncertain future of Northern Ireland, and UK commitment to the same. Indeed the long term future of the UK cannot be taken as a given. We all assume and hope whatever happens does so by consent and peacefully...BUT if it doesn't....the word "spillover" comes to mind. Then we will need NOT a single expeditionary battlegroup that can play with high tech toys and plug into French/NATO C3I networks or whatever....we will need our own capabilities on the ground..........and that could look like many many infantry battalions that can do high intensity public order and related (I'm talking worst case scenarios)......and I've indicated how I think this speaks about the strategic importance of our RESERVES (the ability to expand our DF to 30,000+ ground effectives within a period of say 18-36 months). Unfortunately from another thread i gather the RDF are sadly viewed as a joke by most PDF types. I had thought quality was more patchy and that there is a serious core around which a viable RDF could be built.

Sweden is now going down the road of actively dismantling one of the best reserve mobilization and training systems in the world to pay for adventures in Libya and Astan or wherever next. I happen to think that is dumb.

Many people inside our own DF and obviously the Swedish DF as well as BA think...'unless its out of area, expeditionary, or something like that' its just irrelevant crap we don't need or want. The culture is becoming fixated on a 'fire brigade' concept of armies. Western armies may as a result be losing a core focus on winning and fighting major wars over large amounts of land or sea near their homes against sophisticated big-state adversaries like Russia/Iran/China (delete as appropriate). That big state/war-fighting role is NOT very relevant for us, but the issue of the balance between domestic territorial defence and planning for unlikely doomsday scenarios versus immediate and urgent overseas PK ops such as the Darfur mission, very much is.

The question of whether we join NATO is boring and in many ways now irrelevant. We can functionally co-operate with them up to 75% of what we need and are able to afford. We don't need Article 5. Ditto for any EU equivalent force. Co-operating with other states, even up to the level joint deployment for Petersberg/PK tasks is no big deal and for economic reasons will simply have to happen. It does not change our vague neutral status. And if the whole EU thing comes apart (quite possible but I think improbable...at least for now)...then obviously simple realpolitik is that we would have to gravitate towards closer military co-op with the USA (assuming their not insolvent like us :rolleyes:) for procurement, training and yes, PK ops.

A religious doctrine of neutrality will not work. It didn't in 1941, 1943 or 1949. If the US army want to do war games in the Curragh, I say: cool. Invite the whole 82nd airborne to drop in. But that doesn't mean we should rush to join a NATO that doesn't know its limits or what its for anymore. Ditto co-op with the EU and the French.....pragmatically we cannot do demanding overseas PK without them...so we should.....BUT keep a focus on our residual domestic security needs and posture as well.

What I'm more interested in the less glamorous issue of national defence and security proper...which is a residual "rainy day" concern...but one that needs very distinctive planning and resources.

If tomorrow morning we based an entire battalion over in France and had a fully integrated standby PK brigade with French/EU gear, etc. It would be fine by me and just about legally manageable with our definition of neutrality. What it would not do is anything much for a (very unlikely) situation where Belfast was in flames (again) and the UK decided not to deploy forces (for whatever unlikely reason).....if an EU or UN PK force could not be agreed to deploy.....a bit far fetched.....yes....but the future is unknown .....and what would we do, where, when and how ...and with what forces and capabilities in the event of something like this?

Gripen

Avgas wrote: »

Gripen wrote: »

Avgas wrote: »

Avgas,you've just contradicted your stance in the thread on lack of naval and air defence in Ireland. If Russia went for Sweden in 20 years Ireland would be effected and as a mature state we coudn't do a DeValera Neutrality on it. Yet you make the case for Sweden to cover their National defence. What's your story?!

Hmmmm...maybe I have. On the other hand what I've been banging about is that the logic of 'expeditionaryness' is a seen as a dangerous panacea and it makes European armed forces lose sight of their major strategic environment...in the Irish case our core security problem was and is INTERNAL and I've posted that the major justification for our DF is internal and connected to the long term uncertain future of Northern Ireland, and UK commitment to the same. Indeed the long term future of the UK cannot be taken as a given. We all assume and hope whatever happens does so by consent and peacefully...BUT if it doesn't....the word "spillover" comes to mind. Then we will need NOT a single expeditionary battlegroup that can play with high tech toys and plug into French/NATO C3I networks or whatever....we will need our own capabilities on the ground..........and that could look like many many infantry battalions that can do high intensity public order and related (I'm talking worst case scenarios)......and I've indicated how I think this speaks about the strategic importance of our RESERVES (the ability to expand our DF to 30,000+ ground effectives within a period of say 18-36 months). Unfortunately from another thread i gather the RDF are sadly viewed as a joke by most PDF types. I had thought quality was more patchy and that there is a serious core around which a viable RDF could be built.

Sweden is now going down the road of actively dismantling one of the best reserve mobilization and training systems in the world to pay for adventures in Libya and Astan or wherever next. I happen to think that is dumb.

Many people inside our own DF and obviously the Swedish DF as well as BA think...'unless its out of area, expeditionary, or something like that' its just irrelevant crap we don't need or want. The culture is becoming fixated on a 'fire brigade' concept of armies. Western armies may as a result be losing a core focus on winning and fighting major wars over large amounts of land or sea near their homes against sophisticated big-state adversaries like Russia/Iran/China (delete as appropriate). That big state/war-fighting role is NOT very relevant for us, but the issue of the balance between domestic territorial defence and planning for unlikely doomsday scenarios versus immediate and urgent overseas PK ops such as the Darfur mission, very much is.

The question of whether we join NATO is boring and in many ways now irrelevant. We can functionally co-operate with them up to 75% of what we need and are able to afford. We don't need Article 5. Ditto for any EU equivalent force. Co-operating with other states, even up to the level joint deployment for Petersberg/PK tasks is no big deal and for economic reasons will simply have to happen. It does not change our vague neutral status. And if the whole EU thing comes apart (quite possible but I think improbable...at least for now)...then obviously simple realpolitik is that we would have to gravitate towards closer military co-op with the USA (assuming their not insolvent like us :rolleyes:) for procurement, training and yes, PK ops.

A religious doctrine of neutrality will not work. It didn't in 1941, 1943 or 1949. If the US army want to do war games in the Curragh, I say: cool. Invite the whole 82nd airborne to drop in. But that doesn't mean we should rush to join a NATO that doesn't know its limits or what its for anymore. Ditto co-op with the EU and the French.....pragmatically we cannot do demanding overseas PK without them...so we should.....BUT keep a focus on our residual domestic security needs and posture as well.

What I'm more interested in the less glamorous issue of national defence and security proper...which is a residual "rainy day" concern...but one that needs very distinctive planning and resources.

If tomorrow morning we based an entire battalion over in France and had a fully integrated standby PK brigade with French/EU gear, etc. It would be fine by me and just about legally manageable with our definition of neutrality. What it would not do is anything much for a (very unlikely) situation where Belfast was in flames (again) and the UK decided not to deploy forces (for whatever unlikely reason).....if an EU or UN PK force could not be agreed to deploy.....a bit far fetched.....yes....but the future is unknown .....and what would we do, where, when and how ...and with what forces and capabilities in the event of something like this?

interesting points, the key thing is though like you said, the future is unknown so capabilities must be maintained and expanded. As for Internal security, many functions currently carried out by the PDF are holding it back and are effectively civilian functions abroad.

Gripen

Avgas wrote: »

Gripen wrote: »

Avgas wrote: »

Avgas,you've just contradicted your stance in the thread on lack of naval and air defence in Ireland. If Russia went for Sweden in 20 years Ireland would be effected and as a mature state we coudn't do a DeValera Neutrality on it. Yet you make the case for Sweden to cover their National defence. What's your story?!

Hmmmm...maybe I have. On the other hand what I've been banging about is that the logic of 'expeditionaryness' is a seen as a dangerous panacea and it makes European armed forces lose sight of their major strategic environment...in the Irish case our core security problem was and is INTERNAL and I've posted that the major justification for our DF is internal and connected to the long term uncertain future of Northern Ireland, and UK commitment to the same. Indeed the long term future of the UK cannot be taken as a given. We all assume and hope whatever happens does so by consent and peacefully...BUT if it doesn't....the word "spillover" comes to mind. Then we will need NOT a single expeditionary battlegroup that can play with high tech toys and plug into French/NATO C3I networks or whatever....we will need our own capabilities on the ground..........and that could look like many many infantry battalions that can do high intensity public order and related (I'm talking worst case scenarios)......and I've indicated how I think this speaks about the strategic importance of our RESERVES (the ability to expand our DF to 30,000+ ground effectives within a period of say 18-36 months). Unfortunately from another thread i gather the RDF are sadly viewed as a joke by most PDF types. I had thought quality was more patchy and that there is a serious core around which a viable RDF could be built.

Sweden is now going down the road of actively dismantling one of the best reserve mobilization and training systems in the world to pay for adventures in Libya and Astan or wherever next. I happen to think that is dumb.

Many people inside our own DF and obviously the Swedish DF as well as BA think...'unless its out of area, expeditionary, or something like that' its just irrelevant crap we don't need or want. The culture is becoming fixated on a 'fire brigade' concept of armies. Western armies may as a result be losing a core focus on winning and fighting major wars over large amounts of land or sea near their homes against sophisticated big-state adversaries like Russia/Iran/China (delete as appropriate). That big state/war-fighting role is NOT very relevant for us, but the issue of the balance between domestic territorial defence and planning for unlikely doomsday scenarios versus immediate and urgent overseas PK ops such as the Darfur mission, very much is.

The question of whether we join NATO is boring and in many ways now irrelevant. We can functionally co-operate with them up to 75% of what we need and are able to afford. We don't need Article 5. Ditto for any EU equivalent force. Co-operating with other states, even up to the level joint deployment for Petersberg/PK tasks is no big deal and for economic reasons will simply have to happen. It does not change our vague neutral status. And if the whole EU thing comes apart (quite possible but I think improbable...at least for now)...then obviously simple realpolitik is that we would have to gravitate towards closer military co-op with the USA (assuming their not insolvent like us :rolleyes:) for procurement, training and yes, PK ops.

A religious doctrine of neutrality will not work. It didn't in 1941, 1943 or 1949. If the US army want to do war games in the Curragh, I say: cool. Invite the whole 82nd airborne to drop in. But that doesn't mean we should rush to join a NATO that doesn't know its limits or what its for anymore. Ditto co-op with the EU and the French.....pragmatically we cannot do demanding overseas PK without them...so we should.....BUT keep a focus on our residual domestic security needs and posture as well.

What I'm more interested in the less glamorous issue of national defence and security proper...which is a residual "rainy day" concern...but one that needs very distinctive planning and resources.

If tomorrow morning we based an entire battalion over in France and had a fully integrated standby PK brigade with French/EU gear, etc. It would be fine by me and just about legally manageable with our definition of neutrality. What it would not do is anything much for a (very unlikely) situation where Belfast was in flames (again) and the UK decided not to deploy forces (for whatever unlikely reason).....if an EU or UN PK force could not be agreed to deploy.....a bit far fetched.....yes....but the future is unknown .....and what would we do, where, when and how ...and with what forces and capabilities in the event of something like this?

interesting points, the key thing is though like you said, the future is unknown so capabilities must be maintained and expanded. As for Internal security, many functions currently carried out by the PDF are holding it back and are effectively civilian functions abroad.

OS119

Avgas wrote: »

...and with what forces and capabilities in the event of something like this?

good points well made, its reasonable to suggest that a small, razor sharp combined arms force that has been doing nasty things to nasty people in ****holes all over the world isn't actually going to be much use when you need umpteen thousand Gardai+ to deal with an explosion of civil disorder and terrorism rising to low-order insurgency in an environment where the use of Artillery and airstrikes is frowned upon.

the problem is that if you develop a 'Gardai+' defence force - one that is great for MACP - you get a force which is bog all use for anything else, and indeed might even fail at its prime task, for exactly the same reasons as the current RDF is failing (a 3 Bde reserve force, heavy on infantry, with no external commitments - sound familiar?).

the fundamental point about a military force is that it has to be a 'whack-a-mole' force - it must be capable of doing high-end conventional warfare, and be capable of doing MACP on home territory, and everything inbetween.

if i take all the warry kit from 7 Armoured Bde i can use the Bde in MACP - they may not be brilliant, and they have problems switching from 'break everything and kill everyone' mode, to 'be nice so that old ladies make you cups of tea' mode, but they will manage. if i take 5000 firearms trained coppers and put them in Kajaki they'll achieve very little and suffer a 50% casualty rate in 2 weeks.

Avgas

OS119, you raise valid issue re the auld sod here, but for now back to the OP, I might come back to your points in another rant/post.

What the Swedes are doing is basically reducing most of their mechanized field army, and storing most of it.

BA are doing some of the same.

They are going from 15 maneuver brigades and 100 odd support and specialist battalions to just 7 maneuver battalions and 14 support battalions. Another source says 8 mechanized battalions and 19 support battalions are the basic force, which can be mobilized into a two brigaded divisional structure (see: http://www.armedforces.co.uk/Europeandefence/edcountries/countrysweden.htm

Maybe I'm wrong here and I'll gladly stand corrected.

The Swedish equivalent of the TA (our RDF but on steroids), their Home Guard will be axed from 42,000 to 22,000. Some of these will qualify for overseas PK missions (something we should consider routine for qualified/attending RDFs)

These smaller units will be supposedly deployable within a week (yeah right), have greater precise fires (but not many because of the price tag), be ‘digitized’, etc.

It all seems better, more for less, but there is no getting away from it being a much smaller force. The mass reserves to sustain those old brigades are being basically done away with, and the assumption is ‘if we need to reactivate a larger land mechanized army (because of the Russians) we’d have plenty of time to get it together’.

Unfortunately, that, like many assumptions, may be wishful.

Mechanized warfare skills atrophy. Its a highly specialized type of warfare, not the basic skill set. The IDF learned this in 2006 when some of their supposedly frontline Tankys ran into basic problems and errors (e.g. procedures to deal with track shedding under fire were not revised leading to one particular problem). In the Swedish terrain it also changes to become something a bit different.

You should train and deploy forces for how you might have to fight (not just the fights that are most probable, but the unlikely ones that matter the most).

If Sweden ‘forgets’ how to do large scale land mechanized warfare as part of a wider arctic and littoral battle that means it has simply turned its back on a core skill and a core job they simply must be able to do. The only serious expeditionary operation they should be considering is one in Finland or in the Baltic states against....you know who.

That is one reason why in 2007 their decent defence minister actually resigned when faced with billions of Kroner in cuts.

Interestingly the scale of the 2007 cuts is more or less the same as what they are spending on 15 new Blackhawks, which are optimized to integrate with the US on overseas operations.

They may well be also the best chopper out there and better than the mix of NH90s/A109s which they were getting/have gotten......but is having 15 fancy choppers, optimized for hot’n’high in A’stan, and which are very different from other choppers already in the inventory, really an example of a Swedish defence priorites and good procurement?

The money might well be better spent on making sure the ethnic Russian population of Estonia are suitably placated: a free Volvo for everyone?:rolleyes:

One commentator on Sweden new model army:

“In Sweden the abolition of the traditional army didn’t come from pacifists, but was recommended by officers enthused by the American idea. An air force man, General Wiktorin, who became Supreme Commander of the Swedish Armed Forces in 1994, struck the first blows against the army divisions. And since the end of the Cold War was a time of optimism, political parties, from left to right, all agreed on cutting military expenditure. The top priority was to reduce the state deficit.”
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/specials/guest_authors/The_collapse_of_the_Swedish_army_.html?cid=29089236


Oh and the last word must go to the boss man presiding over all of this:

Gen. Goranson (supreme cmdr Swedish DF) predicts that the future Swedish military will be “more expeditionary, more flexible and available with developed skills in a comprehensive approach.” Interoperability will be improved, as will the capacity for greater civil-military cooperation.He compares the Swedish military transformation to that of U.S. forces. The general served as an attaché in the United States before, during and after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and he witnessed firsthand the U.S. Army’s transformation into a more flexible, brigade-centric force. Gen. Goranson states that Sweden is adopting some of that concept to create a more expeditionary force that is ready to respond to modern threats as they emerge.“The nature of today’s and tomorrow’s threats is very often without borders, to which we need to adapt,” the general declares.
http://www.afcea.org/signal/articles/anmviewer.asp?a=2528&print=yes


Translation: The good general has spent too long around the beltway and listening to US ‘transformistas’. He forgets geography and history. Russia is no longer the big worry but whatever Pashtun tribe in Helmand is pissed off with some issue or other is now the new ‘strategic’ concern for Sweden. Yeah right. Flexible = smaller numbers will be expected to do everything, which means globs of money will be thrown at whatever operation is current, while the overall spend gets stretched. The rest, other missions, will be left to atrophy. Also compare the Brigade centric force rhetoric with the reality of a battalion level force that is emerging.....and the reference to threats without borders is a complete joke. Most dangerous non-state actors (Hezbollah) cannot do their day job with state support (Syria and Iran). Its states making war on other states that remains the ‘big show’ to really worry about.

For Sweden their worry should be all about borders; the border between Belarus and Russia, and whether Belarus remains in the long term an independent state; the status of ethnic Russians ‘trapped’ within the Borders of NATO/EU members Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, oh and the borders of the Kaliningrad Oblast which remains firmly Russian territory and the HQ of their Baltic fleet. That is a mere 550km from Stockholm and pointed right at the southern Swedish coast. St. Petersburg is about 700km away.

You can’t transform geography.