The militarisation of Baltic islands: “The language makes it seem natural”

“The islands are primarily described as resources or military infrastructure, not as the home of people and ecosystems. Gotland, for example, is referred to as an ‘unsinkable aircraft carrier’,” says Sanna Strand, who has a doctorate in peace and development studies and is a project researcher at Södertörn University.

How did the invasion of Ukraine change things?

When Sanna Strand and her colleagues Christine Agius and Emil Edenborg submitted their research application, Sweden and Finland had not yet joined NATO, but the decisive shift in the islands’ role had already taken place.

“Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine changed conditions in the Baltic Sea region. NATO membership does play a role, but the major transformation occurred in February 2022,” she says.

For Gotland, NATO’s plans entail its inclusion in the defence of the Baltic states. For Åland, there are growing concerns that the island’s demilitarised status weakens the alliance. The effects of this are still difficult to assess.

When military establishment clashes with local needs

Military investment is often presented as a driver for local development and economic growth. However, the project’s research presents a more complex picture.

“We have seen how the military’s re-establishment on Gotland has also resulted in major conflicts of interest, slowing investments in housing construction, schools and renewable energy. That aspect is rarely discussed in the national debate,” says Strand.

At the same time, there is growing societal and political pressure on Swedes in general, and Gotlanders in particular, to demonstrate willingness to defend their country and participate in total defence. This means that many residents find it difficult to express any criticism of the military build-up and its local effects.

Why a feminist perspective?

The project’s theoretical framework is based on a feminist perspective on security. It does not take a position for or against militarisation, instead it analyses how political narratives are formed.

“We approach this by regarding security policy as precisely that – policy – rather than a collection of natural laws. Meaning there is nothing in the nature of human beings, the state or the international arena that unconditionally requires military armament. However, people act and express themselves in ways that often make it seem like the only option,” says Strand.

Imagery that makes militarisation seem natural

The book chapter that is now under publication specifically investigates how visual metaphors and imagery reinforce the arguments about Gotland and Åland.

“When people say that Sweden was caught with its ‘pants down’ after the Gotland’s demilitarisation, disarmament becomes something embarrassing and irrational. Language transforms difficult considerations into obvious conclusions,” say the researchers.

However, the relationship between language and rationality is not static - for Åland, demilitarisation still primarily appears to be a reasonable and logical choice in uncertain times.

How the study was conducted

The researchers have conducted a document analysis of NATO material, thinktanks and the Swedish, Finnish, and international media from the period 2014–2024.

The project demonstrates how language use shapes which potential courses of action are imaginable in security policy.

“The words we use influence what we can conceptualise. We hope to contribute to broadening the discussion, even at a time when so much feels uncertain,” says Strand.