The aim of the present study is to explain what where the driving forces behind the development of antisubmarine warfare skill on Swedish sea operational helicopters during the time 1980-92. The study is done by using two different perspective, based on Graham Allison scientific explanation models found in his book Essence of Decision. In the study the perspectives are named “rational actor” and “governmental politics”. The purpose is to investigate if respective model can explain the development of antisubmarine warfare skill on Swedish helicopters during the previously mentioned timeframe. The result of the study is that by using the rational actor perspective the development of anti submarine warfare can be explained in a large extent. The study proves that there were a well-defined threat and that consensus was that this threat would be met i.e. with anti submarine warfare resources. It cannot be demonstrated that the helicopter and the development of its anti submarine warfare capability was the single most suitable option. By using the model governmental politics, the development is not significantly explained because no internal differences of large extent have been demonstrated. The model contributes rather to illuminate the actors and factors that shaped their actions. If the models are used as complement to each other a wider perspective of what has happened is shown, but the explanation is not strengthened. / Syftet med uppsatsen är att studera de drivkrafter som låg bakom utvecklingen av den svenska ubåtsjaktförmågan på sjöoperativ helikopter under tidsperioden 1980-92. Studien genomförs med hjälp av två perspektiv vilka är baserade på Graham Allisons samhällsvetenskapliga modeller, och dennes bok Essence of Decision. I arbetet benämns perspektiven rationell aktörsmodell respektive maktspelsmodell. Ambitionen är att undersöka om respektive modell kan förklara utvecklingen av ubåtsjaktförmågan på sjöoperativ helikopter under nämnda period. Resultatet av studien är att med hjälp av den rationella aktörsmodellen kan bakomliggande drivkrafter till utvecklingen av ubåtsjaktförmågan i stor utsträckning påvisas. Studien påvisar att det fanns ett väl definierat hot samt att enighet rådde att detta hot skulle bemötas, d.v.s. med ubåtsjaktresurser. Dock kan inte påvisas att helikopter och utvecklingen av dess ubåtsjaktförmåga var det enskilt lämpligaste alternativet. Med hjälp av maktspelsmodellen kan orsakerna till utvecklingen inte nämnvärt förklaras eftersom inget maktspel av större omfattning har påvisats. Den senare modellen bidrar snarare till att belysa aktörer och faktorer som formade deras agerande. Nyttjar man modellerna som komplement till varandra ges en bredare bild av skeendet men förklaringen av bakomliggande faktorer stärks inte.

The strategic decision-making mechanisms a state has at its disposal to shape and develop its military means of power are complex. Perceptions of the outside world may be particularly problematic because perceptions of threats change. Political decisions which aim to create robust and long-term security strategies where several factors must be taken into account that are largely determined by the interests of other actors can be difficult to understand and explain. The investment in defence set out in Swedish Defence Bill 2020 is a paradigm shift from reducing to enlarging the armed forces This involves a continued investment into a dedicated professional defence, but in combination with conscription, new establishment of regiments, more military units and increased materiel investment. The purpose of this study is to, examine the driving forces and explanatory factors linked to this paradigm shift, where political decisions to enlarge the military are in focus and examined using Graham Allison and Philip Zelikow's three theoretical perspectives on strategic decision-making. The results of this study clearly show that the dominant driving force for the re-expansion of Sweden's defence capability was the deteriorating external situation, which was evident in terms of all three theoretical perspectives. It is also possible to see traces of other driving forces in the bill, such as long-termism, sustainability and the degree of detailed control of the Armed Forces, which demonstrates the complexity of political decision-making about the creation of military power.

This master thesis deals with the driving forces and perceived benefits that form the basis for Sweden's accession to the defence cooperation Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF). Since Sweden is already involved in a number of different defence and security collaborations, the question arises for what value another cooperation should be entered, and why JEF is considered appropriate.  With Russia's annexation of Crimea, there was a crucial change in the close environment which created a security policy situation that has put more focus on Northern Europe and the Baltic Sea region. This caused a need for new cooperation strategies in which Sweden together with others has to deal with this change.  By using Graham Allison's theoretical models this thesis analyse the underlying process of connecting JEF from a rational and bureaucratic perspective. The models intend to explain on what reasons connection to JEF was made, but also reveal different actors and their role and impact on the decision. From this, driving forces and benefits with JEF can be identified.   The results point to a strong political and military consensus with equal perception of external threats and opportunities. An overarching driver is to create a military integration with other regional actors in order to create a threshold and counterbalance to Russian action. Here, the UK is seen as a valuable player that Sweden wishes to have strong ties with in any crisis and conflict scenario. The cooperation is also expected to create the conditions for development of important military capabilities together with partners in the region. In contrast to former research this study shows that reasons to join cooperation’s has become more threat-driven. That might be a sign of tendency towards realism as a suitable explanatory model in times of increased threat and the pursuit of military utility in wake of Russian behaviour.

This thesis addresses the driving forces behind the Swedish state’s procurement of Helicopters 14 and 16 and the decommissioning of Helicopter 4. These actions have significantly affected the Swedish Armed Forces, especially the Helicopter Wing, in carrying out their operational tasks. On numerous occasions the Helicopter Wing has been unable to perform its tasks. For instance, the Nordic Battle Group 08 had no helicopters to exercise with and, until recently, Sweden had completely lacked the ability to hunt submarines with helicopters for almost ten years. This thesis also aims to compare the decisions in 1999-2000 regarding Helicopter 14 with the decisions in 2010-2011 regarding the acquisition of Helicopter 16, to find if there is a general trend and how much the Armed Forces were able to influence decisions. This is done by using Graham T. Allison’s and Philip Zelikow’s models for explaining and analysing the factors behind a state’s decisions.   The analysis shows that the decisions were primarily compromises between the Armed Forces and Sweden’s government, where the government had the main influence. The decisions can be seen as rational, depending on whose point of view they are observed from, although they were not unanimously agreed between the organisations involved. It also shows that economic restrictions and the government’s involvement have had negative consequences for the Helicopter Wing organisation, that the acquisition of Helicopter 16 was a consequence of the procurement of Helicopter 14, and that further consequences will probably arise from the decision to acquire Helicopter 16.

After the cold war the border or epicenter in the conflict between east and west has moved north. From central Europe to the Baltic sea region. The Åland archipelago in the middle of the Baltic Sea, is a military strategic interest for many actors in the Baltic Sea. Demilitarized and neutral according to international law. This thesis will study the Swedish, Finish, Russian and Nato perspective of which impact Åland has a on national security policy and military strategy for the Baltic region. What are the mechanisms and strategic motives for the actors in using Åland for military purposes. Will the international agreements concerning Åland have any effect in armed conflict? This case study is performed as a qualitative study based on Graham Allison and Philip Zelikows book Essence of decision which will also serve as frame of reference for the thesis. In order to understand Ålands special status according to international law, we have made a historic exposé which aims to give the reader the background needed to understand the islands significance, both historically and present. The analysis is based on four perspectives; The actors ideological position, The rational actor model (RAM), Organizational behavior and Governmental politics. The result of this study shows that Åland will not be left untouched in case of a conflict in the Baltic area. Due to the geographic position of the islands it will be affected regardless of its status in accordance with international law. The motives for using Åland for military purposes can be found with all our four actors with regards to the islands strategic location. The one who can control Åland will also increase his ability to control sea and airspace in the northern Baltics. He will also be able to control the sea lines of communication in to the bay of Bothnia. The incentive to re-militarize Åland and use the island for own military purposes however varies with the four actors. We have found that the incentive is strongest with Finland and Sweden and very limited with Russia and Nato. Ålands status as demilitarized and neutral will probably not have any big significance in an armed conflict in the Baltic sea area. However, it may delay military intervention on Åland but not stop it.