It's not either or. But in this situation the Swedish people have a better chance of influencing their own government than the one trying to get it to do what it wants. In this situation the boss is powerless over swedish people if the goons lose their power.
Kick the big party out of office. If a someone can't hurt you except by getting a someone else to do it, and that person only has the power you give it, deal with that person.
I'm not saying it's easy. I'm saying that the statement "my most immediate concern..." is incorrect. What's more likely: 1) demands from Swedish citizens to the USA actually stopping the USA from using Sweden in its geopolitics? Or 2) Demands from Swedish citizens to the government they empower?
If it's only the extreme fringes, then maybe most people in Sweden simply don't have much of a problem with it or don't care either way, or have more immediately pressing problems to deal with, or something else. Whatever the reason, if you don't like it then your most immediate problem is dealing with the roadblocks to getting your government to stop doing it.
EDIT: Maybe we're just talking past each other. The phrasing "most immediate concern" is something I equate to "the problem I have to deal with first". That's why I see that statement of problematics. If you were able to in some way deal with the USA first without changing Swedish politics at all then some other geopolitical power will quickly fill the power gap afterwards and play the same games.
"most immediate concern" was in regard USA spying foreign citizens vs china doing so. I was saying that FOR ME, a citizen of "the west", USA is more dangerous.
You might write all the long comments you like, and suggest me to vote (lol, i see that's working very well in USA as well), but the fact remains.
