Editor's Foreword

116 ThE MiliTary BalancE 2010
of Rosomak 8×8s to 48, cancelled its participation in
NATO’s Alliance Ground Surveillance programme,
and withdrew from international operations in
Lebanon, Syria and Chad. By late 2009, however,
following public criticism of the Defence Ministry by
Polish Land Forces Commander General Waldemar
Skrzypczak over the delayed delivery of equipment
to Polish forces in Afghanistan, the prime minister
released around z1bn (US$350m) for urgent equipment
needs. Among the items being procured are
five new helicopters (probably Mi-17 transports), 60
mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles and two
mid-range unmanned aerial vehicles.
NON-NATO EUROPE – DEfENCE
ECONOMICs
With few exceptions, most countries in non-NATO
Europe have experienced the full force of the global
recession. Among the advanced economies, Ireland
was the most high-profile victim, but other countries,
including Austria, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland,
all experienced significant economic contraction as
the consequences of the banking crisis proved to be
more serious than first expected. However, it was
among the Commonwealth of Independent States
(CIS) countries that some of the most dramatic reversals
of economic fortune occurred. Countries such as
Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia and Moldova were badly
hit as three major shocks appeared simultaneously:
the financial crisis itself, which greatly curtailed
access to external funding; slumping demand
from advanced economies; and the related fall in
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
commodity prices, notably for energy. Commenting
on developments, the IMF suggested that although
many CIS economies were better positioned to
weather the crisis than they were in the aftermath
of Russia’s 1998 debt default, the economic fallout
would nonetheless be severe and that CIS growth
in 2009 would be the lowest among all emerging
regions. Indeed, such were the problems experienced
by Belarus, Armenia and Ukraine in accessing
external financing that they were eventually forced
to turn to the IMF for financial assistance.
Although the government’s fiscal position deteriorated
during 2009, Sweden pushed on with its
long-standing military-reorganisation programme,
driven by events elsewhere in the region that appear
to have halted the decline in military spending. The
armed forces ‘New Defence’ plan was first revealed
in 1999 and outlined the most extensive reform
programme in the history of the country’s military.
Central to the plan was a switch by Sweden’s armed
forces from a traditional structure geared toward
territorial defence to a force comprising smaller,
more flexible units capable of undertaking overseas
peacekeeping missions with allied nations, primarily
under a UN mandate. This has resulted in significantly
reduced personnel levels and cuts in defence
expenditure. In 2000, defence spending amounted
to 2.0% of GDP, but by 2008, in line with the New
Defence programme, Sweden had reduced its
defence budget to just 1.4% of national output. This
dramatic cut in the defence outlay has led to clashes
between the government and Ministry of Defence,
which has regularly claimed that it is increasingly
Table 16 Non-NATO Europe Regional Defence Expenditure as % of GDP
% of GDP
1.45 1.39 1.33 1.29 1.26 1.19 1.14 1.15 1.19 1.15
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year