Ecuador hardly needed to notify Sweden. It was international news. The Guardian article from five months ago that I linked was just one of many. "No one in the Swedish government reads international news" is not a credible explanation.
I see two possible explanations:
1) Sweden doesn't place a high priority on prosecuting famous accused rapists who've escaped justice for years, or
2) Sweden doesn't consider Assange a famous accused rapist who's escaped justice for years.
I don't find that believable, but whatever.
It really does look to me like you are grasping at straws, but maybe I've missed something.
I just realize Assange is a high-value target for political and legal attacks (including false allegations), so I think people who unquestioningly believe what they hear about him from official sources are naive. Haven't we all seen enough to know that governments and the media don't always tell the truth?
And when Sweden cracked down on The Pirate Bay we saw that the Swedish government is not immune to pressure from Washington.
All I'm saying is: wait for conclusive proof before leaping to conclusions.
The US does not need Sweden's involvement to extradite and try Assange. The rape charges are separate and irrelevant to the charges he faces in the US, and whether the UK would even grant his extradition to the US is not a sure thing.
These two cases are unrelated, and the only reason they have been conflated is a concerted effort on the part of Assange supporters to discredit the accusations of sexual misconduct by lumping them in with his WikiLeaks activities and make up a whole lot of guff about CIA plots rather than just accept that he should face the criminal justice procedure for some shitty personal behaviour on his part.