Swedish military doctrine was (and I expect remains) that: a) it is impossible to prevent the enemy from attempting an attack; b) we can make it as painful as possible to them, and our goal is to repel the invader from Swedish soil within days; and c) we will immediately mobilize all resources in the country to fight back, bringing hundreds of thousands of soldiers into their pre-assigned positions within 24 hours, abandoning all economic activity for the sake of total defense, so that whatever the enemy thought was a benefit in attacking Sweden, it will have been completely nullified.

Switzerland had a similar doctrine, and communicated it explicitly to potential invaders in the 20th century: try to invade the country and we will destroy all means of transportation in the plains, withdraw the army into mountain fortresses (e.g. air bases literally built inside mountains with tunnels serving as landing/take-off strips), and keep attacking you until the ends of time. Also, Swiss men keep their military rifles at home, with sufficient munition to fight their way to their assigned base in case of war.

It is interesting that neither country has been attacked over the last several hundred years, even while surrounded by fighting parties during WW II. I think armed neutrality is a beautiful thing.

This is common within pacifist countries.

In Switzerland during WW2 nobody in the Federal Government (not even the head of the military) had the formal authority to surrender the country.

Citizens were instructed and trained to regard any news of Switzerland surrendering as propaganda.

> That seems like a rather dangerous philosophy.

Well, it's dangerous to your population once you are attacked, especially by a superior enemy, but it's also a deterrent to attack in the first place. The net cost or benefit depends on a fairly complex balancing of concerns.

Indeed. Reminds me of Japan's Emperor's broadcast announcing the surrender of Japan, and the confusion/internal opposition that surrounded it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewel_Voice_Broadcast

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/d/do...

I'd say it's a deterring statement and/or a way to boost confidence in the population, not something they would hold on to if it really came to it.

So you'd rather their philosophy be to bend over and accept Russia? If that was there philosophy, Russia would already be there...