Colonel Douglas Macgregor: Sweden Should Stay Away from the Military DCA Agreement

Retired Colonel Douglas Macgregor was interviewed by Swedish "Freedom News"

publicerad 23 maj 2024
- Kristoffer Hell
Colonel Douglas Macgregor
Retired U.S. Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor

After the Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson’s speech to the nation on Sweden’s public broadcasting channel 1 (SVT1) on May 13, 2024, US Colonel Douglas Macgregor has a message for the Nordic countries: American nuclear weapons can be brought in without the Swedish government being informed or able to stop it.

According to the agreement, the U.S. not only has the right to use nuclear weapons on Swedish territory for defense but also as a platform for American offensive attacks against any country in the world, not just Russia. The DCA agreement is the same kind that Germany and Japan were forced to sign after losing World War II.

Macgregor is a decorated war hero and military affairs expert commentator. In 1991, during the Battle of 73 Easting in the Gulf War, he distinguished himself as a world-class cavalry officer when the unit he led destroyed 70 enemy tanks and trucks in 23 minutes without losing one of their own.

The transcript is linguistically improved.

Douglas Macgregor:

“This is not just a purely regional agreement that prefaces or at least is predicated on the notion that you are attacked, and then we come and help.

The idea is that you now have a state of readiness in the United States Armed Forces that will be placed in your country, ready to pull the trigger and go to war essentially without much consultation. If any is against Russia, I would think this is a very dangerous document.

The model for these agreements was really the treaties that we reached with Germany and Japan, who had lost a major war, had little ground to stand on, and essentially signed pretty much whatever we put in front of them.

You are now essentially hostage as a nation to whatever the United States does or does not do against almost any enemy anywhere, not just Russia, but potentially any adversary.

If you read [the DCA agreement] carefully, [it says] we have unobstructed access to all 17 bases.

There’s nothing in there that prevents us from bringing in nuclear weapons or any other advanced weapon system that we may develop.

In the meantime, this means that Sweden can be used as a launching pad for an attack against Russia or again against anyone with whom the United States ends up in conflict.

If I were Swedish, I would not support it.”

What could unleash a war?

“There are all sorts of scenarios that could lead to conflict, you know, incidents inside the Arctic Circle, competition, conflict over access to resources.

And then there were events that happened, perhaps in the Black Sea, the Mediterranean, or even in the Pacific, that led to a confrontation between the United States and Russia, China, or someone else.

And suddenly your bases are being used as a point of delivery for weapons, weapons of some kind missiles, tactical ballistic missiles, data, ballistic missiles, and so forth.”

How big is the military threat from the Russian Federation?

“I don’t see an existential threat from Russia to Sweden. I think this is a huge lie.

They [the Russians] simply want Ukraine to be neutral. They don’t want a state on their border that is armed to the teeth with weapons pointed at them.

We [the United States of America] are interested in provoking Russia, literally from Finland all the way to Armenia.

This is catastrophically stupid and unnecessary.

And that’s something that the Swedes need to think about. I certainly hope that your parliament will debate this matter very thoroughly before they effectively sign on for it.”

The Swedish reporter Viktor Eriksson asks in his recent video interview with Macgregor what possibilities the Swedish government would have to stop the import of American nuclear weapons into Sweden if it were to find out.

“The notion that you would have veto power over anything that we might do on your national soil is ludicrous, and that’s just not going to work. As soon as you agree to allow a foreign army to march across your territory, you have already surrendered some of your sovereignty.”

How destructive would a nuclear war be?

“We’ve looked at what could happen in a nuclear exchange between, say, Russia and the United States. And we’ve concluded that in the first hour, 90 million Americans would die.

You’ve got to sit down and understand the world is much smaller now and decisions are made in seconds, weapons are launched and reach their targets in minutes. So if you don’t have control of what’s on your soil, you’re at a very great risk because you’ve essentially abdicated responsibility for your own national security to a foreign power.”

The maps below show how the Swedish government, as a result of its decision to join NATO and enter a DCA treaty with the US, will upset the military balance (with respect to nuclear weapons) between 2022 and 2024.

US and NATO nukes in Europe 2022. Image: K. Hell
US and NATO nukes in Europe 2022. Image: K. Hell



US and NATO nukes in Europe 2024. Image: K. Hell
US and NATO nukes in Europe 2024. Image: K. Hell

What is NATO’s agenda for permanent expansion?

“This is a last-ditch effort by this ruling class to do two things. First of all, maintain conditions of conflict and hostility towards Russia, which they deem as indispensable to their continued political dominance.

Secondly, they are subjugating you to their will. All of these people in Stockholm, Brussels, London, Washington, Paris, and Berlin are united in a purpose to reshape Europe according to their views, values, and principles.

And I think most Europeans have figured out that they don’t necessarily subscribe to these values.

You know, Swedes actually like Sweden; they want it to stay Swedish. The same thing is true in Norway, England, Scotland, and Wales. But the governments don’t care about that. Refashioning you into an amorphous mass of sedated consumers with no real national identity or purpose seems to be the end state.

The map below shows how aggressively NATO has expanded in Europe since 1998.

Map by K. Hell
Map by K. Hell

Whose agenda is it?

“You are ruled by a class of people very similar to the people that rule us in Washington. We’ve lost control of our lives to this ruling class. Now, who are these people, what we call them? Globalists? Neoconservatives.

You can come up with any number of different terms. Still, there are people who think that they have a monopoly on wisdom, truth, and understanding and that we are incapable of making decisions in our own interest. Hence, they seek to brush aside any democratic forum that might expose their agenda to public scrutiny.

In other words, they try to use executive orders and edicts to effectively remove from our populations, our electorates, the option of deciding for themselves.

This is a very anti-democratic authoritarian class, and as long as it rules in Europe and the United States, we are going to remain at war with any number of different nations.

So the ruling class, to be blunt with you, needs to be removed. Now, it would be nice to do that at the ballot box. I don’t know if that’s gonna work. I sincerely hope so.”

Macgregor on the future of NATO:

“Sacred cows are never slain; they simply vanish. I think NATO is a sacred cow that over the next few years will simply vanish.”

Macgregor concludes by advising Swedes to find out what unknown classified parts of the DCA agreement their government has not disclosed. These classified parts could specifically pertain to nuclear weapons and when and how they are planned to be used.

“As a Swede, I would want to look into that. I would want to know what is not public and find out what’s in it.”



Du kan stötta Newsvoice via MediaLinq