TL;DR: The Swedish military doctrine created a military culture of highly autonomous units that were expected to make task completion and decisive action their top priority, even if it meant disobeying orders. Consequently, NORDBAT 2 was highly effective in achieving their objectives, some of which they themselves decided, but you have to wonder where you draw the line between taking appropriate action based on local knowledge and simply going rogue.
This especially in the context of a UN peacekeeping mission - such missions depend on consent from the belligerents, and if UN troops are seen to become participants in a war, it is likely to make future operations harder.
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/09/20/trigger...
TL;DR: The Swedish military doctrine created a military culture of highly autonomous units that were expected to make task completion and decisive action their top priority, even if it meant disobeying orders. Consequently, NORDBAT 2 was highly effective in achieving their objectives, some of which they themselves decided, but you have to wonder where you draw the line between taking appropriate action based on local knowledge and simply going rogue.
This especially in the context of a UN peacekeeping mission - such missions depend on consent from the belligerents, and if UN troops are seen to become participants in a war, it is likely to make future operations harder.