I think much has been made of NATO membership without acknowledging that it's effectively just a signal of fair-weather friendship with the United States. NATO membership did not prevent the US from overthrowing the Greek government in '67; NATO membership did not prevent two NATO members, Turkey and Greece, from going to war in '74.

There's a lot of sound and fury for what's essentially a parking permit for US iron and a VIP club card for US weapons sales. I don't disregard your concerns - The US does exceptionally evil shit the world over, and it generally does it under the aegis of "world's policeman." From a materially transactional standpoint Trump was correct in that the US pumps a lot more into NATO than it gets back out. From a skullduggery standpoint NATO membership mostly means the US gives you more side-eye if you do something the US dislikes but won't do anything about it because then we'd have to move a fighter wing or some shit.

I'm coming around to the theory that the Post WWII world was largely shaped by disagreements between the US State Department and the US CIA. CIA gets to fuck with NATO members less, State Department gets to fuck with NATO members more. Sweden and the US have been sharing intelligence and espionage since ECHELON or before so I think practically, Sweden's membership or lack thereof would have exactly zero impact in the event of further Russian shenanigans. Symbolically? Politically? I'm not going to pretend more than a sketchy familiarity with Swedish culture.

I will say that I do not see ours as "an increasingly multipolar world." I think the USSR and China held out against Bretton Woods as long as they could but American imperialism is just too cozy a cage. It's important to play up the outliers as threats to international order but I mean... The Free World's Bogeyman is now mostly featured being towed behind tractors. One need not be an actual threat to serve the useful function of "threatening" global stability.