It is the right call for now. Joining NATO should not be a knee-jerk response, but a measured and considered thing that can wait until after the general election later this year.
But this is a political decision that should not be taken in haste, every choice here has significant ramifications and allowing for a less hasty debate is a good thing in my opinion.
The correct response is not another sixty years of dithering that will at some point turn out to be equally worthless, but to get off one's indecisive arse and join NATO. The best time to do so was years ago; the second best was yesterday. The best remaining realistically achievable time is now.
[ ] Parcel arrived damaged
[X] Parcel damaged my house/city/country
So any Russian military retaliation that occurred between Sweden announcing they intended to join NATO but before they officially did would, in effect, be an attack on the whole EU block. Which is tantamount to a direct attack on NATO.
Finally, Sweden has several bi-lateral defence agreements with countries like the UK and US. It's obviously not technically the same as being a NATO member, but many people in the Swedish defence establishment regard it as closely equivalent.
NATO's most important member is the US, which isn't party to these European agreements. The same escalation risks that preclude the US fighting for Ukraine would probably prevent the US from fighting for Sweden.
Sweden has to join NATO to get the unambiguous commitment of the US, and to put the decision of running escalation risks on the Russian side.
Apart from that, after this war (no matter if he wins or not) the Russian military would be in no state to attack anyone except maybe moldavia. In fact there was a leaked FSB memo just two days ago, which was highly critical of the invasion and estimated that even if they win they would need 500,000 permanently in Ukraine to "keep" it. That is significantly more than half of the active military in russia.
that jives with my armchair understanding of Russia's forces as well. they simply don't have the resources to take and hold much more than Ukraine. drafting extra people would be very unpopular. their economy can't handle growing the military, either. they just aren't in the state Germany was when they invaded Poland.
maybe they can threaten nukes, but even if NATO doesn't meet that challenge I can't imagine Russia successfully taking the Baltics with the threat of nukes alone.
People really should read the NATO treaty. It fits on about 2 sheets of A4. Article 6 makes very explicit what constitutes an attack on a NATO member, and it's not "an attack on another EU country that's not in NATO". It's on the territory of /NATO members/.
Treaty text specifies: Aid and assist. Likewise, the second paragraph specifies the NATO remain foundation of NATO member states' security.
It remains untested if "aid and assist" means fighter planes fighting sorties, boots on the ground, or nuclear umbrella. There is very little formal structure for EU military operations, because most member states coordinate via NATO structures.
North Atlantic Treaty is very clear: it says that all member states are in war if one is attacked and specifies use of armed force. While it hasn't been tested either, NATO has the genuine military organization, armed forces and nuclear warheads to implement it.
It's a sentence in a document.
The legitimacy of these 'mutual defence treaties' is a function of legitimacy on the ground, history, disproportionate power etc..
Wait to see what happens if Georgia joins the EU, then the leader does something dumb, Putin II invades ... will Europea attack? Can they? What will they do? Can they agree on a response? How to coordinate?
EU is a political body with some other aspirations, but the 'Hard Power' is NATO.
Not sure if it matters at this point if Sweden is a member, because I believe that Russia invading Sweden or Finland would be the same thing as invading NATO.
It's about changing the position of a country that has a history of craven acquiescence to whoever is the biggest bully in the neighbourhood at the moment; a history of being rather Deutschgesinnt until about 1942-43, and of "always having been on the Allies' side in spirit!" after that. A history of selling iron ore for Krupp guns and allowing trains transporting German soldiers to and from northern Norway/Finland.
And after WW2, a record-beating history of painting the holier-than-thou Sverigebilden -- the international image of Sweden -- around the world, and perhaps above all indoctrinating her own population in it.
Not really a history to be all that proud of, or worth clinging on to.