Lawfare Archive: Eric Adamson on the NATO Summit

Summary

Summary of "The Lawfare Podcast: Lawfare Archive – Eric Adamson on the NATO Summit"

Episode Title: Lawfare Archive: Eric Adamson on the NATO Summit
Release Date: June 22, 2025
Hosts: The Lawfare Institute
Guest: Eric Adamson, former Project Manager at the Atlantic Council and Swedish Defense Policy Analyst

---

1. Introduction

In this episode of The Lawfare Podcast, hosted by Benjamin Wittes, Eric Adamson joins the discussion to provide an in-depth analysis of the recent NATO summit held in Vilnius, Lithuania, on July 14, 2023. The conversation centers around Sweden's accession to NATO, the lingering dispute with Turkey, and the ongoing challenges regarding Ukraine's potential membership.

2. Sweden's NATO Accession and Turkey's Opposition

Eric Adamson begins by highlighting the significant achievement of Sweden nearing NATO membership, despite prolonged Turkish opposition.

“We can definitely say that NATO won. Truly Sweden will make a large contribution to the security of the alliance as a whole.”
— Eric Adamson [04:53]

The process, which spanned over a year, culminated in Sweden receiving a "green light" from NATO. However, Turkey has yet to ratify the accession, citing parliamentary sessions that will resume in October, leaving the final approval pending.

3. Sweden's Military Capabilities and Contribution to NATO

A key factor in Sweden's successful bid was its robust military-industrial base and advanced defense technologies.

“Sweden has a large military industrial base that is highly modern... the Saab Gripen... is a highly modern Swedish fighter jet that is completely interoperable with NATO.”
— Eric Adamson [08:24]

Sweden's maritime capabilities, including specialized submarines and corvettes designed for the Baltic Sea, are expected to significantly bolster NATO's collective security in the region.

4. Sweden's Shift from Neutrality

Sweden's decision to join NATO marks a historic shift from over two centuries of military non-alignment. Eric Adamson explains that this transition was gradual, influenced by changing geopolitical landscapes, especially post-Cold War.

“It was a series of many small steps that brought Sweden closer to NATO over several decades... Sweden truly sought out the closest possible relationship to NATO without actually joining until now.”
— Eric Adamson [10:22]

The Russian invasion of Ukraine served as a catalyst, culminating in Sweden aligning more formally and militarily with Western nations.

5. NATO's Failure to Set Path for Ukraine's Accession

While Sweden's accession progressed, the summit revealed a significant setback: the lack of a clear pathway for Ukraine's membership in NATO. Eric Adamson discusses the palpable disappointment among delegates.

“There was a palpable sense of disappointment in Vilnius... NATO will be in a position to offer an invitation when conditions are met and allies agree, which is very vague.”
— Eric Adamson [15:20]

Despite this, practical steps are being taken to support Ukraine, such as defense procurement agreements and expertise sharing, indicating a proactive approach compared to the stagnation seen post-2008.

6. Political Consensus in Sweden Regarding NATO Membership

The journey towards NATO membership in Sweden involved significant political debates and shifts in public opinion. Eric Adamson notes that while some political parties initially opposed the move, a broad consensus has emerged in light of the new security climate.

“There are political parties that are formally opposed to NATO membership, but they're also recognizing the fact that Sweden will be a NATO ally... a broad consensus amongst the major parties that Sweden is best defended within NATO.”
— Eric Adamson [28:04]

This consensus encompasses major political factions, including those that were previously skeptical about NATO, acknowledging the enhanced security benefits of alliance membership.

7. Turkey-Sweden Relations and Future Implications

A central theme of the summit was resolving the tensions between Turkey and Sweden. Turkey's primary concern revolves around terrorism and the activities of the PKK within Sweden. Eric Adamson explains the accommodations Sweden has made to address these issues without compromising its legal standards.

“Sweden will not extradite anyone that they would fear for their safety in Turkish hands. And there wouldn't be any sort of retrials for people who Turkey claimed were terrorists.”
— Eric Adamson [36:56]

Sweden has strengthened its anti-terrorism laws and cooperates with Turkish authorities, assuring that Swedish legal processes remain robust and independent.

Additionally, Sweden committed to supporting Turkey's renewed interest in joining the European Union, although specific agreements remain to be solidified.

“Sweden perhaps opening a door for Turkey, just like Turkey and NATO had the open door for Sweden.”
— Eric Adamson [41:03]

8. Conclusion

The NATO summit in Vilnius marked a pivotal moment for Sweden's security policy and its relationship with NATO and Turkey. While Sweden's accession is a significant victory for the alliance, the unresolved status of Ukraine's membership highlights enduring challenges within NATO. Eric Adamson emphasizes the importance of continued cooperation and practical support for Ukraine, advocating for its eventual inclusion to ensure long-term European and transatlantic security.

“There is unanimity around that, that Ukraine belongs in NATO and that will only contribute to European security and transatlantic security.”
— Eric Adamson [26:24]

The episode underscores the complexities of international alliances and the delicate balance of national interests, legal standards, and geopolitical strategies that shape them.

---

This summary provides an overview of the key discussions and insights shared by Eric Adamson during the NATO summit analysis on "The Lawfare Podcast." For a more comprehensive understanding, listening to the full episode is recommended.

Transcript

[Benjamin Wittes]

The following podcast contains advertising to access an ad free version of the Lawfare Podcast. Become a material supporter of [e-mail] lawfare that's patreon.com Lawfair also check out Lawfare's other podcast offerings, Rational Security, Chatter, Lawfare, no Bull and the Aftermath.

[Heather]

Heather is a nurse practitioner from UnitedHealthcare.

[Eric Adamson]

We meet patients wherever they live.

[Heather]

During a house call, she found Jack had an issue.

[Eric Adamson]

Jack's blood pressure was dangerously high.

[Benjamin Wittes]

It was 217 over 110.

[Heather]

So they got Jack to the hospital and got him the help he needed.

[Mary Ford]

He had had a stent placed in.

[Eric Adamson]

His heart, preventing a massive heart attack. If it wasn't for my guardian angel.

[Benjamin Wittes]

I wouldn't be here.

[Heather]

Hear more stories like Jack's at unitedhealthcare. Benefits, features and or devices vary by plan, area limitation and exclusions apply.

[Maya]

Picture this you're halfway through a DIY car fix, tools scattered everywhere, and boom. You realise you're missing a part. It's okay because, you know, whatever it is, it's on ebay. They've got everything. Brakes, headlights, cold air intakes. Whatever you need. And it's guaranteed to fit. Which means no more crossing your fingers and hoping you've ordered the right thing. All the parts you need at prices you'll love. Guaranteed to fit every time. Ebay Things people love.

[Mary Ford]

I'm Mary Ford, intern at Lawfare, with an episode for the Lawfare Archive for June 22, 2025. Last week, President Trump left the G7 summit without meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. President Trump's hurried exit came after commenting that it was a mistake to boot Russia from a group of eight, intensifying concerns over a greater rift in the US Ukraine relationship as leaders prepare to convene on Tuesday for this year's NATO summit, questions lingo over the fate and terms of a US Brokered peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine. For today's Arxiv episode, I selected an episode from July 14, 2023, in which Lawfare Editor in Chief Ben Wittes sat down with Eric Adamson, a former project manager at the Atlantic Council, to discuss the NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, where the big news was that Sweden had a clearer path to NATO accession while Ukraine was still on the outs.

[Benjamin Wittes]

I'm Benjamin Wittes and this is The Lawfare Podcast. July 14, 2023 the NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, just wrapped up and the big news is that Sweden is in and Ukraine is not. Joining me in the Virtual Jungle studio from Warsaw is Eric Adamson of the Atlantic Council and the Swedish Defense Association. He is a Swedish defense policy analyst who observed the NATO summit and joined me to discuss the two big things that happened. The Swedish resolution of the dispute with Turkey that impeded Swedish NATO accession until now and the frustrating failure of NATO to set a path for Ukrainian NATO membership. We talked about the dispute between Sweden and Turkey and the nuanced manner in which it was resolved. We talked about whether the Ukrainians being too demanding and should be more grateful for Western support. And we talked about what the specific areas are in which Sweden will contribute to NATO's capabilities. It's the Lawfare podcast, July 14th. Eric Adamson on the Naito summit. So Eric, I want to start with Sweden because particularly for in terms of the actual change to NATO, this is the biggest news of the summit. Who won here, Sweden or Turkey?

[Eric Adamson]

Well, we can definitely say that NATO won. Truly Sweden will make a large contribution to the security of the alliance as a whole. And this has been a long process. It's been going on for over a year now. And you know, in the end it was inevitable that Sweden would join. It was just a matter of time. Sweden is a highly capable partner. But Turkey at the end of the summit said we cannot ratify just yet. Parliament will soon be out of session. So we still do have to wait until October when the Turkish Parliament reconvenes. So it will be quite, perhaps not quite as a relaxing summer as many Swedes had hoped, but this is just a matter of time and a new agreement was signed and we're still, we're working towards it, but we got the green light.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Yeah. And so I'm interested in the Swedish reaction to the long Turkish opposition. It was obviously somewhat unexpected. How was this taken in Sweden and what are the longer term implications for Swedish Turkish relations?

[Eric Adamson]

So this has been very much a two way street. And particularly in the weeks leading up to the summit, we saw both Swedish public opinion shifting and also the understanding from the Swedish side about Turkey's security concerns. So the former foreign minister An Lin said just last week, well, we actually hadn't taken the terrorism concerns of Turkey as seriously as we should have in the past. And on the public side, we've had a series of Quran burnings in Sweden and freedom of speech is somewhat of a Holy Grail itself within Sweden, much like in the United States. But even there we saw public opinion shift to. Now a majority of the Swedish public thinks, well, maybe it shouldn't be allowed to burn religious books. So Sweden has come A long way, as has Turkey in understanding one another and where they're coming from. And that's how we got to the summit in Vilnius where a new agreement was signed where Sweden and Turkey will continue to work on combating terrorism. A new format at the minister level has been established between Turkey, Sweden and NATO to make sure that work will continue on this and taking everyone's security concerns seriously.

[Benjamin Wittes]

So you mentioned earlier, and everybody kind of mentions as a sort of obligatory matter when discussing Sweden and NATO, that Sweden has a highly capable military and you know, has a sort of unusual set of capabilities and sophistications to bring to the table in joining NATO. Talk a little bit about that. What is the, you know, what, what is the unique strengths or the unusual strengths of the Swedish military in joining NATO?

[Eric Adamson]

So Sweden has a large military industrial base that is highly modern. And just to give a few examples, we have the Saab Gripen or the Gripen, which is a highly modern Swedish fighter jet that is completely interoperable with NATO and it is already used by the Czech Republic and Hungary. So there are NATO nations already flying this plane. We also have submarines which are specifically designed for the Baltic Sea and Baltic conditions. And we have highly advanced other maritime capabilities with our corvettes. So this will contribute both in the air and underwater and on the surface to Baltic security and NATO's collective security. And that's what our Baltic partners are really looking forward to. Whereas the Baltic Sea perhaps was once once a buffer to Russia, it is now going to be a strategic link between Sweden and the Baltic states and the rest of the alliance.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Sweden's long term neutrality was, I think, something like 200 years old. It has a really long history. Talk a little bit about how Sweden got from that sort of strategic orientation, which survived the whole Cold War, which survived World War II, to looking at the Russian military invasion of Ukraine and saying it is actually time for us to align formally and militarily, not just philosophically and and economically with the West.

[Eric Adamson]

Sure. So when we hear that Sweden is ending 200 years of military non alignment and we say military non aligned because Sweden isn't neutral politically in any sense. It was clearly aligned with the west and was a member of the European Union. But when we hear 200 years suddenly changing, well, it was actually a series of many small steps that brought Sweden closer to NATO over several decades since the end of the Cold War. Sweden truly sought out the closest possible relationship to NATO without actually joining until. Until now, until February 24, 2022.

[Benjamin Wittes]

And is that, is that different from Finland or, or was that a kind of a sort of the posture of the Nordic non aligned nations as a.

[Eric Adamson]

Group it was similar to Finland. Whereas Finland did have a so called NATO option, the option to join NATO if they so chose. Sweden, joining NATO was still very much a political hot potato in many ways. And even during the accession, prior to the lead up of deciding to join was a much more political process and political debate than perhaps Finland, which took a much more pragmatic stance. And it was Finland that was driving this whole process. Sweden and Finland would never join separately, but it was always assumed Sweden being the bigger partner, the bigger country that would be leading this process. But in fact it was Finland that really took the initiative, somewhat to Sweden's surprise, which is what really pushed Sweden to also join. Because joining separately was just never an option and it was always going to be hand in hand. And we were going hand in hand for a very, very long time. Finland joined first and we're coming in right after them now.

[Benjamin Wittes]

All right, so I actually interrupted you. You were talking about the evolution and the, the many steps to it, this being the final one from an American perspective. We didn't see some of the, you know, you had to be pretty deep in the Atlantic alliance conversation to see any of the other incremental steps, but walk us through them. Sweden famously neutral in, in the Cold War. What are the incremental developments that brought us to a situation where they could join NATO and yet already have fully interoperable aircraft?

[Eric Adamson]

Well, even during the Cold War Sweden gave the perception that it was neutral, but it was always quite clear that it was on the side of the United States. And Sweden was very good at maintaining security cooperation, perhaps a bit under the table. Even during the Cold War. Whether it was intelligence sharing, Sweden even had somewhat of a self declared policy of being under the United States own nuclear umbrella. Sweden did have its own nuclear program up until the early 1970s, which we, we got rid of for various geopolitical reasons. But even then during the Cold War, Sweden was solidly within the West. And now in the post Cold War era, Sweden both amongst with other NATO allies such as the United States and Norway have created a series of defense cooperation agreements in the Nordics, particularly between with Finland and Norway and Denmark joint defense planning. But there were always certain barriers as non NATO members when it came to, well, defense planning and also intelligence sharing. We were close, but there was always a barrier. By being non aligned and now joining NATO, those final barriers between fully integrating disappear.

[Benjamin Wittes]

All right, so the, the big Success of the summit is Sweden, or at least getting Sweden and Turkey's executive leadership on the same page. The big failure of the summit, it seems to me, is of having Ukraine and the NATO leadership on the same page as to Ukraine's ultimate accession. Talk about that. What was the atmosphere at the summit with respect to Ukraine's apparently quite reasonable search for a timeline of entrance on a path to accession and the resistance it received, particularly from the Biden administration?

[Eric Adamson]

Yeah, so there was a palpable sense of disappointment in Vilnius. Part of that perhaps was expectations, management of what was realistic. And there was the quite odd formulation of NATO will be in a position to offer an invitation when conditions are met and allies agree, which is very vague. On the other hand, the Ukraine NATO Council was established which plans to take concrete steps in bringing, taking practical steps in bringing Ukraine closer to NATO membership. And so while the language on paper might not seem a whole lot different than 2008, is Ukraine actually any closer to be receiving an invitation? There are practical steps that are actively being taken, which is different than post 2008 where not a whole lot happened. Now there is active push from allies and just to name one Swedish example, Sweden and Ukraine at the summit signed a defense procurement agreement which will help Ukraine increases capabilities of purchasing military equipment from Sweden. It's working on practical matters, it's working on expertise and also just helping Ukraine develop the competencies to buy the military equipment it needs now and in the future. So this is just one example of a practical step that is being taken to bring Ukraine closer to the alliance, perhaps changing those conditions actively. So NATO, NATO is a has agency here and can take those steps.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Do you have a sense of, other than the American administration which feels cautious about Ukraine accession for reasons of escalation? You know, we know that the, the Turkish government, partly by way of drawing a clear contrast with its position towards Sweden, very publicly welcomed the idea of Ukrainian membership. Do you have a sense of how the different NATO countries are arrayed on this question? Is the Biden administration speaking for the majority of the countries when it says, hey, we're not ready for this yet, we don't want to draw Ukraine into, into the alliance at a time when it's in an active shooting war with, with, with Russia, as that would presumably obligate Western or other alliance members to participate in the conflict more directly, or is this a situation where the, the Biden administration is really holding back the rest of the alliance? Where are the other big members on this question?

[Eric Adamson]

I think that is the big divide within NATO of the appetite for taking some risk on Ukraine and how escalation is viewed and the risk of escalation. So you have the one camp which was actively saying during the summit, we cannot succumb to Russian nuclear blackmail and we should also remind Putin that we also have nukes. So in some ways seeing this as an empty threat from the Russian side because the west and NATO also has deterrence, then there are other nations which aren't willing to take that risk. And see, offering Ukraine NATO membership now would drag NATO into direct conflict with Russia. And I don't think anyone is advocating or not. Many are advocating to give Ukraine NATO membership now, but it is a matter of when. Everyone agrees, yes, Ukraine should join, but how? And when?

[Benjamin Wittes]

And is this a neat Eastern European countries minus Hungary versus Western Europeans countries and the United States which are more cautious or is it more scattered than that?

[Eric Adamson]

I think he could draw rough contours around an east west divide, which is also understandable and especially from a Ukrainian perspective. Essentially the worst has already happened. And there was some criticism of Zelensky coming into the summit of his brusque nature, but he's coming from an environment where missiles and rockets are falling on his citizens every day. And there is a sense of urgency and that urgency is perhaps not sensed as much the further west you go within the alliance.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Yeah, so I noticed that the, a member of the current British government basically said we want to hear some gratitude from, from Ukraine rather than just more, more, more and sort of criticizing what we don't do. To what extent was that a sentiment in Vilnius and to what extent should I understand that as a, a kind of, you know, the sort of thing that politicians say in their, in their own capitals for domestic consumption. But it's, you know, in Vilnius everybody understands that Zelensky's job is to say thanks, but more and not really to emphasize the thanks part.

[Eric Adamson]

So it was very clear. And Vilnius, the amount of gratitude that Europe was expressing towards Ukraine for not only defending Ukraine and Ukrainians, but also defending Europe and our democracies. Ukraine is under a very different circumstance with rockets and missiles raining down on them. So they have a different sense of urgency. And perhaps they don't think about saying thanks in that moment, but it really isn't upon them to give thanks either. It's in all of our interests, both for Ukraine and Europe to do all we can to support Ukraine and make sure that Ukraine can win. I can understand perhaps from some European publics, and this might be what the Brits were hinting at is we are doing a lot and we are doing this for you and for us, but maybe a thank you from every now and then would be appreciated. These are minor frictions and a matter of communication, but no one can have any doubt that both sides are equally thankful for everything that they were doing together.

[Sim]

Hi folks, Letting you know that this podcast is sponsored by Guardian Bikes. Are you looking for a smarter way to teach your kid to ride a bike and support American jobs at the same time? Most kids bikes are heavy, clunky and hard for kids to control. Guardian Bikes is changing that. Assembling bikes right here in the USA with plans for full US Manufacturing in the next few months. It's a commitment to higher quality and American craftsmanship you can trust. Each bike is lightweight, low to the ground and built to help kids learn to ride faster, many in just a day with no training wheels needed. And here's the real game changer. Guardian's patented SureStop braking system. One lever stops both wheels, giving your child more control and faster stops and preventing those scary head over handlebar accidents. It's so easy even a 2 year old can do it. If you're ready to support American jobs and keep your kids Safe, head to guardianbikes.com today. You'll save hundreds compared to the competition. When you join their newsletter, you'll get a free bike lock and pump, a $50 value. That's guardianbikes.com built in the USA, made specifically for kids.

[Heather]

Heather is a nurse practitioner from UnitedHealthcare.

[Eric Adamson]

We meet patients wherever they live.

[Heather]

During a house call, she found Jack had an issue.

[Eric Adamson]

Jack's blood pressure was dangerously high.

[Benjamin Wittes]

It was 217 over 110.

[Heather]

So they got Jack to the hospital and got him the help he needed.

[Mary Ford]

He had had a stent placed in.

[Eric Adamson]

His heart preventing a massive heart attack. If it wasn't for my guardian angel.

[Benjamin Wittes]

I wouldn't be here.

[Heather]

Hear more stories like Jack's at unitedhealthcare.com benefits, features and or devices vary by plan, area limitation and exclusions apply.

[Maya]

Hey, it's Maya and Sim from the Girls that Invest podcast. If you are an IT or security pro, you know managing devices, identities and applications can feel overwhelming and honestly risky. That's where Trelica by1Password comes in. It helps conquer SaaS, sprawl and shadow it by discovering every app your team uses, managed or not. With pre built app profiles you can assess risk, manage access and even optimize your software spend. Plus it simplifies onboarding, offboarding and compliance all while cutting costs by eliminating unused licenses. Take the first step to better security for your team. Learn [e-mail] CP special offer this is.

[Heather]

A mini meditation guided by Bombus. Repeat after me. I'm comfy. Comfy. I'm cozy. Cozy. I have zero blisters on my toes. Blisters. And that's cuz I wear Bombus the softest. Socks, underwear and T shirts that give back. One purchased equals one donated. Now go to bombus.com acast and use code acast for 20% off your first purchase. That's B O M-S.com acast and use code Acast at checkout.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Yeah, I mean I, I just think if you asked British defense officials or politicians two years ago whether they would make the investment that they've made in financial terms and expenditures to destroy the Russian military, they all would have lined up to do it. And so I'm not sure that gratitude to them or to us is the right framework. I think the right framework is countries acting in their interests cooperatively. And part of their interests are values, affinities. But part of their interests are, you know, this is a really good deal for everybody concerned, and I mean Iran, except the Ukrainians who are getting, you know, their country destroyed. But for everybody who's investing in the defense of Ukraine, it's an incredible investment.

[Eric Adamson]

Of course, and it's something about 5% of US military spending. And to spend 5% of your military budget to destroy the Russian military's capacity and capability to wage war long in the future, that's a pretty good deal. But it also must be said that even if Russia is tied down currently, and it's certainly the Swedish perspective, that Russia is a long term threat and we cannot disarm and take down our guard even when this war is over. And that's why it's doubly important to have Ukraine within NATO to prevent this from ever happening again. And there is unanimity around that, that Ukraine belongs in NATO and that will only contribute to European security and transatlantic security.

[Benjamin Wittes]

So you mentioned earlier changes in Swedish public opinion vis a vis Turkey. I want to zoom that out a little bit and talk about Swedish public opinion vis a vis NATO more generally. As you mentioned, the accession process was more politically contentious in Sweden than it was in Finland, where it seemed like a flip, had a switch had been flipped and all of a sudden everybody now supported joining NATO. In Sweden, it was a little bit more complicated. Has that resolved itself? How are the major political parties? Are any of the major political Parties opposed to this step or is this now become a matter of political consensus in Sweden?

[Eric Adamson]

So there are political parties that are formally opposed to NATO membership, but they're also recognizing the fact that Sweden will be a NATO ally. And once that is a reality, well, they also have to adjust and adapt to the new reality. And many of the political parties are going under a learning process and realizing, oh, NATO is also not just a military alliance but a political alliance. And if we can influence NATO's policy, pushing Swedish foreign policy and upholding Swedish values within the alliance, then that is something we could take an active role in. And that's even some of the more NATO critical or skeptical parties that are having that realization. So it was as you, as you note, quite a political debate because it was such an identity issue. Sweden's identity was that of a neutral or military non aligned nation. And that's how Sweden was best defended by maintaining political, military, non alignment. But the reality changed new security climate in Europe and there was a broad consensus amongst the major parties that Sweden is best defended within NATO.

[Benjamin Wittes]

So in the United States, as you know, NATO skepticism is largely confined to the far left and the Trumpist right. That is there's a historical left suspicion of, of any overseas military commitments which the left has historically seen as imperialistic. And then there is a, a kind of right populist opposition to, you know, sort of committing to spill blood and treasure on behalf of Europeans. What is the political valence of the Swedish NATO opposition? Is this a left thing, a right thing? Historical we've always been non aligned thing? What do the NATO skeptical groups have in common?

[Eric Adamson]

So the far right Sweden Democrats were opposed to NATO membership, but funnily enough, it was their flipping on the issue which gave the Parliament a majority in favor of NATO membership. And the parties that were opposed were the far left party and the Greens. And the Swedish Greens are very different than say the German Greens. The Swedish Greens are much more towards the left as opposed to the Germans who are a little more centrist. But as I mentioned, even they are now coming to the realization that they are waking up in a new reality and will have to work within a new NATO framework. When the application was first being discussed, it was the Social Democrats that were in large part opposed. But they changed and had internal discussions within a matter of weeks, which was quite a amazing turnaround in such a short amount of time. That said defense issues and reducing defense spending and cashing in on the peace dividend, that is something that all political parties in Sweden had done and now everyone realizes that that was a mistake in the post Cold War era to de arm and reduce military spending. But now there's bipartisan consensus across the board that Sweden needs to increase its defense spending and increase its security. Just how to do that within NATO or outside of NATO was the sticking point at that time during the beginnings of the accession process.

[Benjamin Wittes]

So it's fair to say that the Swedish opposition to NATO membership roughly tracks the American one. That is, there's a. There's a far left component to it and a far right component to it. And the arguments, though, particular to the Swedish situation are kind of similar to the ones that Americans are familiar with.

[Eric Adamson]

Yeah. And it's not black and white. And Swedes are also. And Europeans generally are acutely aware of the domestic situation in the United States. And I think that's not something that all Americans realize is how closely Europeans are watching the domestic political climate in the United States and what it would mean. We're a great spectator sport if there was a change in administration or even if the US really focuses a whole lot more on China. That is quite a discussion here. How can European allies show that they're also contributing to defense in the Pacific? And how do we do that best at conversations being had in Sweden and across Europe?

[Benjamin Wittes]

So let's go back to Turkey for a minute. My understanding of the Turkish Swedish dispute that led to this standoff was that it caught Sweden very much by surprise. You mentioned that there have been accommodations reached, or at least verbal understandings reached. Describe for us the what we know about the specific accommodations that Sweden has made to Turkey's concerns and how these things will be dealt with in the future, other than verbal, you know, assurances that we take terrorism seriously.

[Eric Adamson]

Right. And that has been Turkey's sticking point, that they want to see Sweden begin implementing the measures that were agreed to in the Tripart Memorandum between Sweden, Finland and Turkey at the Madrid summit. And there has been movement. Sweden had actually changed its constitution that just took effect in June that would strengthen its terror laws to combat terrorism. And the first case was tried shortly before the Vilnius summit. A man was convicted for financing the pkk, and he will be sentenced or has been sentenced to four and a half years in jail with a possible extradition to Turkey at the end of that sentence. So that is one very concrete step that has been taken to really show that Sweden is taking Turkish terrorism concerns seriously, particularly as a. In regards to the pkk.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Sweden has a fairly substantial Kurdish community. How has it reacted to this shift in. In Swedish policy? By way of accommodating their kind of historic enemy.

[Eric Adamson]

Sweden, by its own admission, says that they did not take the terrorism concerns as in regards to PKK seriously enough. And this is perhaps just coming to a better understanding of Turkey's own security climate. And Foreign Minister Bilstrom made mention that, well, this is actually in Sweden's interest to take this more seriously and cooperate with Turkish authorities, between Turkish and Swedish police, because there are people in Turkey who are conducting operations for organized crime in Sweden. And Sweden has also come to this realization that this is actually a good thing for Swedish security as well.

[Benjamin Wittes]

But Turkey is, among other things, famous for using terrorism concerns as a mechanism of political repression, particularly involving Gulenists, but also involving Kurds. And I'm curious whether there are concerns that, you know, taking this more seriously could end up meaning allowing Turkey to use the Swedish legal system to go after its political enemies in, you know, abroad, much the way it, you know, has tried to pressure the United States over time to. To go after Gulen and his followers, to go after people it merely alleges to be Gulenists.

[Eric Adamson]

And this is a hard red line for Sweden and something that they've made very clear to the Turks that Sweden is a rule of laws. We have due process, and we won't. Sweden will not extradite anyone that they would fear for their safety in Turkish hands. And there wouldn't be any sort of retrials for people who Turkey claimed that were terrorists, but it already undergone a court case in Sweden. So upholding Swedish due process, the rule of law, and also safety concerns is something that Sweden will not budge on. And this is why these conversations were so difficult, because Turkey was asking of Sweden something that it legally could not do and would not do.

[Benjamin Wittes]

It's an interesting problem for the Turks because they have this, like, one point of leverage, which is the accession process. But then after that, you know, it's not. It's not clear what. What additional points of. Of pressure they have with respect to this. You know, you. You've described the Swedish reaction to. To Turkey as a sort of a learning process that has caused a lot of Swedes to take Turkish concerns more. More seriously. Is there also anger at the Turks for. Or at the. At the Erdogan government for the sort of obstreperousness with which Turkey has exercised its muscle here?

[Eric Adamson]

I wouldn't call it anger, but I would say amongst the Swedish public, this was certainly why there was so much resistance to seemingly caving into Turkish demands and who many people in Sweden perceive as a dictator, or at least an authoritarian. And that's why Sweden, rightly so, took a very principled stance on, not just principle, but legal stance on some of these issues. That Sweden has its own interest, that it will not just simply cave to, to Turkey and Erdogan's demands. And it wasn't anger, but it was a certain sense of perhaps pride in the Swedish system. And that was something that was non negotiable and needed to be protected and to be stood up for. And that's why this process did take such a long time. But in the end, Swedish succession, as I mentioned at the start, was inevitable because it was in Turkey's interest as well to let Sweden into the alliance.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Finally, Sweden made one additional commitment here, which was to support at some level anyway, Turkey's renewed interest in joining the eu, which seemed to come out of left field right at the end. What do we know about what Sweden committed itself to to here? And how consequential do you think that will be?

[Eric Adamson]

This is from the Turkish perspective, righting a historical wrong. The EU accession process was put on hold after the attempted coup and the circumstances around that were, were quite murky. And this is a once in a lifetime opportunity, Swedish accession to NATO for Turkey. And of course they're going to take full advantage of it and get everything that they can in this moment and use every source of leverage to right perceived wrongs in the past. And nothing concretely was agreed to. It was reopening the process and supporting Turkey in its movement towards the European Union. And those are huge numbers of lists, a huge list of items that need to be fulfilled in order to do so, perhaps even more so than NATO. So Sweden perhaps opening a door for Turkey, just like Turkey and NATO had the open door for Sweden.

[Benjamin Wittes]

We are going to leave it there. Eric Adamson, thank you so much for joining us.

[Eric Adamson]

Thank you so much for having me.

[Benjamin Wittes]

The Lawfare podcast is produced in cooperation with the Brookings Institution. Our audio engineer is the one and only Kara Shillin of Goat Rodeo. Hey folks, if you are not yet a material supporter of Lawfare and you listen to an ad on this podcast, I have an offer for you that will just dazzle you. You can come into the light and be a person who supports Lawfare and you can get rid of that ad on one in one shot. Go to patreon.com lawfare and become a material supporter. You know it is a federal crime to provide material support for terrorism. And now it's a crime in Sweden too. It is not a crime to provide material support for podcasting in Sweden. In fact, it is a virtue. So go do it. The Lawfare Podcast is edited by Jen Patya Howell. Our music is performed by Sophia Yan. And as always, thanks for listening.

[Heather]

Skin care experts and dermatologists have often touted the benefits of indoor humidity as essential for healthy, glowing skin. But did you know dry air? Can skin start to harm your skin in as little as 30 minutes? For years, many people have relied on humidifiers for better skin, sleep and overall wellness. But traditional models bulky, mold, prone and difficult to maintain. That's where Canopy Humidifier comes in. Recommended by leading dermatologists, Canopy is a completely reimagined humidifier designed to elevate any space, offering the ultimate in skincare and wellness benefits. Canopy's clean moisture combats dryness, dullness and and fine lines while strengthening the skin's barrier and boosting the effectiveness of topical skin care products. With its sleek design, Canopy is the cleanest and easiest humidifier on the market. With its unique technology, cleaning is as easy as popping it in the dishwasher. Go to getcanopy.co to save $25 on your Canopy humidifier purchase today with Canopy's filter subscription. Even better, use code podcast at checkout to save an additional 10% off your canopy purchase. Your skin will thank you.