This piece of Swedish commentary critiques a television interview of Sweden’s new Supreme Commander, Michael Claesson, during the annual ”People and Defence” conference. The author, Johan Croneman, expresses dissatisfaction with the interviewer’s aggressive approach, arguing that a less combative style would have yielded more insightful responses from Claesson regarding his perspective on the job, warfare, and national preparedness. Croneman raises a pertinent question: How does the Supreme Commander view war as a political solution? He laments the missed opportunity to delve into the deeper, more human (and inhuman) aspects of war’s inherent madness. This, he argues, is a conversation that needs to happen urgently, though perhaps not necessarily within the confines of a short television interview.
While Croneman acknowledges that Claesson’s demeanor did not necessarily humanize the concept of militarism, he appreciated the Supreme Commander’s measured responses to the interviewer’s persistent attempts, spanning over 17 minutes, to implicate Russia in recent incidents of cable damage in the Baltic Sea. Claesson advocated for a thorough investigation, gathering evidence and forming conclusions based on substantiated facts, a principle Croneman commends. The Supreme Commander’s description of the Baltic seabed as a ”spaghetti” of cables, prone to various forms of breakage not necessarily attributable to sabotage, resonated with Croneman. He agreed with the need for careful examination of patterns and unusual vessel activity before jumping to conclusions. The author further highlights the complexities of attributing blame, hinting that not every incident is a deliberate act of sabotage.
The interview also touched upon the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, eliciting Claesson’s thoughts on potential solutions. While not entirely explicit, Claesson firmly rejected any negotiated settlement based on the current military situation on the ground, arguing that such an outcome would legitimize and embolden what he termed Russia’s ”neo-imperialism.” He warned that a status quo agreement in Ukraine could free up Russian troops for further offensives against other targets, implicitly suggesting the Baltic states, Poland, Finland, Sweden, or Moldova. This characterization of Russia as an aggressively neo-imperialist state with expansive military ambitions within the existing EU, says Croneman, warranted further exploration by both the interviewer and the Supreme Commander. Unfortunately, this opportunity was lost.
Croneman criticizes the interviewer for dwelling extensively on the cable incidents, likening his approach to spending nearly 20 minutes ”underwater” in the Baltic Sea without making any progress towards his goal of eliciting a direct accusation against Russia from Claesson. He feels the focus on pinning blame detracted from a more meaningful discussion on the broader geopolitical implications of Russia’s actions and the potential threats to regional stability. The narrow focus on the cable incidents, according to Croneman, prevented a deeper exploration of Russia’s potential motives and its wider ambitions in the region. The author feels that the interviewer missed a crucial opportunity to engage in a more substantive discussion about the complex dynamics at play.
The author then shifts to his personal experience during military service, recalling the diverse range of personalities he encountered amongst his superiors – from war hawks and those with quasi-fascist leanings to individuals on the far left. He recounts an incident during a training exercise where a loud noise triggered an epileptic seizure in a fellow soldier. While the author and others rushed to assist, their commanding officer froze, paralyzed by the event. This incident led to widespread doubt among the soldiers about their commander’s ability to lead effectively in a real combat situation.
This anecdote serves as a bridge to Croneman’s concluding point: the absence of voices in the media who advocate for peace and actively work to prevent war. He yearns for perspectives that explore the true nature of war – its inherent horrors and devastating consequences – regardless of which side one supports or what uniform one wears. He emphasizes the need for a more nuanced and critical discourse around war and its avoidance, rather than a focus on military preparedness and assigning blame. Croneman reiterates the need to move beyond the rhetoric of war and delve into the human cost of conflict, a perspective he feels is sorely lacking in current media discussions. He closes by calling for a more profound exploration of the human cost of conflict and a stronger emphasis on pursuing peace.
