The paper analyses impacts of the North Atlantic Council positions on perceptions of US - European relations in 21st century. First, the opening chapter clarifies under what circumstances was the organization born and what roles did it play during the following five decades. The text suggests an existence of 4 long-term constants in Allied relations. Next, the core of the paper looks at short-term repercussions (military, economic, political and other) of particular positions of the North Atlantic Council and their projection into perceptions of the transatlantic relations both by the general public and political elites. The analysis focuses on 6 situations: 1) NATO's response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, 2) the Alliance's crisis on the eve of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, 3) the beginning of NATO's engagement in Afghanistan in 2003, 4) military capabilities reforms launched at the 2002 Prague Summit, 5) NATO's position towards missile defense at the 2008 Bucharest Summit, and 6) France's return to NATO's military structures in 2009. Finally, the paper concludes with an application of the findings on the new NATO Strategic Concept, which was adopted at the 2010 Lisbon Summit.

COMMON ENDS OR COMMON MEANS? The Cold War is over and Sweden and Finland are starting to deal with the new security enviroment that has emerged. Grand Strategy in both countries is changing to meet the new Europe and surroundings. Both Sweden and Finland consider the risk of a direct attack in the near future to be highly unlikely and this has effects on the respective countries grand strategy. A broadened approach to security is applied and the military instrument is no longer the primary concern in the strategy. Both Sweden and Finland become members of the European Union in 1995 but neither is a member of NATO, the countries both consider themselves as military non-aligned, the only two countries with a coastline to the Baltic Sea with that stance. This makes for a logic choice to cooperate for the common security and a cooperation is formed to cover security policies to be relevant in peace, crisis and war. Even though the countries are existing in and interpret the new security enviroment in similar ways they approach the challanges in differing ways. This creates the differences that we identify and describe in this thesis. The purpose of this thesis is to identify and describe the differences between Sweden's and Finland's grand strategy, how this difference has changed from 1996 to 2018 and if these differences can have consequences for the cooperation between the two countries, mainly military and at the highest strategic level. The thesis is focused on the elements of the grand strategy that involves the armed forces of the respective countries. This comparative text analysis compares political policy documents within the grand strategy field from both Sweden and Finland. We will compare the period from 1996-2018. The comparison will be made by examining three occasions in the period, year 1996, Year 2004 and year 2018. The documents used have relevance against these years and are analyzed by applying Jacob Westberg's model; ends, means, ways and environment. The differences and the consequences that are the conclusions of this thesis are that cooperation are not always formed because it is the best possible option but sometimest the only possible options. Sweden and Finland's history differ in some parts and this has affected the respective country's security strategies. Finland has a history of coping for itself and has thus a national focus with focus on a stable national defense while Sweden has a history without war in modern times and a constant glance at military international engagement and the political benefits that can be achieved on the international scene.

Den säkerhetspolitiska situationen i Norden var under kalla kriget låst i kampen mellan öst och väst. Detta innebar att respektive lands möjligheter att fritt välja säkerhetsstrategi var begränsad. Först efter slutet på kalla kriget öppnade sig denna möjlighet och länderna kunde även se sig om efter nya samarbeten och partners. Nya säkerhetsstrategier utarbetas i Sverige och Norge där det internationella åtagandet stärks och nya samarbeten utvecklas med bland annat det nordiska försvarssamarbetet. När Ryssland i och med sitt agerande i Georgien och Ukraina återigen börjar utgöra ett potentiellt hot börjar det territoriella försvaret hamna i fokus igen. Den nya säkerhetspolitiska situationen leder till ett militärt samarbete mellan Sverige och Finland som bland annat involverar försvarsplanering för skyddandet av det andra landets territorium. Men ett sådant samarbete uppstår inte mellan Sverige och Norge. Syftet med denna studie är att undersöka och beskriva likheter och skillnader i svensk- och norsk säkerhetsstrategi sedan förändringen i omvärldsläget 2008 och vidare beskriva eventuella möjligheter för utvidgade försvars- och militära samarbeten mellan Sverige och Norge, liknande det som finns mellan Sverige och Finland. Studien använder sig av kvalitativ textanalys applicerat på norska och svenska försvarsbeslut, propositioner eller underlag inför dessa. För att kunna svara på studiens syfte och frågeställningar används två olika teorier, en per frågeställning, som appliceras på textanalysens resultat. Studiens viktigaste resultat består i att de slående likheterna mellan svensk och norsk säkerhetsstrategi beror på den gemensamma strategiska miljö som länderna befinner sig i samt att hoten i den förändrade omvärlden tolkas likvärdigt. De största likheterna mellan de två ländernas utformade säkerhetsstrategier finns i de säkerhetspolitiska målen samt de tillgången till nationella medel och resurser. Den största skillnaden mellan länderna rör vald metod att genomföra sin strategi på, där Norge för en tydlig allianspolitik och bygger sitt nationella försvar kring Nato medan Sverige väljer att stå militärt alliansfritt och samarbeta genom bilaterala avtal. Denna skillnad är också den faktor som starkast negativt påverkar förutsättningarna för ett mer utvecklat militärt samarbete länderna emellan. Utöver frågan kring Nato finns det goda möjligheter för vidare militära samarbeten främst genom gemensamma förband för internationella operationer. / During the Cold War, the security situation in the Nordic countries was fixed in the battle between the East and the West. This meant that each country's ability to freely choose a security strategy was limited. Only after the end of the Cold War did this opportunity emerge and the countries could look for new partnerships. New security strategies were developed in Sweden and Norway, where the international commitment was strengthened and new collaborations were being developed, for example the Nordic defence cooperation. When Russia begun to pose a potential threat with its actions in Georgia and Ukraine, territorial defence rose in priority. The new security situation leads to enhanced military cooperation between Sweden and Finland, which involves, among other things, military planning for the protection of the other country's territory. But no such cooperation develops between Sweden and Norway. The purpose of this study is to investigate and define similarities and differences in the Swedish and Norwegian security strategies since the change in the external situation in 2008 and further describe possible opportunities for enhanced defence and military cooperations between Sweden and Norway, similar to the ones existing between Sweden and Finland. The study uses a qualitative text analysis applied to Norwegian and Swedish defence decisions, acts or reports. To be able to answer the study's purpose and questions, two different theories are being used, one per each question, which is applied to the results of the text analysis. The most significant result of this study is that the most prominent similarities in Swedish and Norwegian security strategies are results of a shared view of the strategic environment and new threats from changes in the external situation is interpreted likewise in both nations. The most notable similarities are found in the stated strategic ends for each country’s security strategy and the national means in assets and capabilities they both possess. The biggest difference between the two are in which ways they operate in the strategic environment, where Norway has chosen NATO as the foundation of their national defence and Sweden stands as non-allied military state depending on bilateral agreements for cooperation. This difference is also the most vital factor negatively effecting the possibilities for enhanced military cooperation between the two countries. Apart from the issue surrounding NATO there are relatively good possibilities for further military cooperation, primarily thru joint military units for international operations.