Reporting from the extra meeting of the European Council on March 6

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! The European Council met last Thursday for an extraordinary meeting. Two issues were on the agenda: the continued support for Ukraine and the strengthening of the defense of European countries.

The weeks before the meeting, after President Trump's and President Zelenskyy's press conference in the White House, European heads of state and government met in several different formations. President Macron in France convened a meeting in Paris. Prime Minister Starmer hosted another meeting in London. Before that, many of us colleagues were seen in Kyiv on the three-year anniversary of the full-scale invasion on February 24.

Just before the European Council meeting, we also met in the Nordic-Baltic circle, which meets more and more frequently, this time together with Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk. Taken together, we are jointly the second largest donor in the entire world of support to Ukraine. We are working more and more with and closer and closer to each other on defense and security policy issues. We also maintain, jointly and individually, close contact with precisely France and the United Kingdom.

On the same day, the government decided to send up to eight Swedish Jas 39 Gripen to Poland to, together with our allies, ensure that weapons and other support sent to Ukraine from donor countries actually arrive. This is how we jointly strengthen Ukraine and simultaneously contribute to, in our case, Sweden's and the Swedes' security.

Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelenskyy participated in the Council of Europe's meeting on Thursday. In light of the recent weeks' quite shocking events, he was grateful for the strong support that he and Ukraine have received from Europe at various meetings during the recent period. From the EU's side, very many repeated the will to support Ukraine for as long as needed. It was emphasized that Ukraine is fighting a battle also for Europe's common security, that no peace negotiations regarding Ukraine may take place without Ukraine and that peace must ultimately be concluded on Ukraine's terms.

In the conclusions prepared for the meeting, a number of important principles for future peace negotiations are established. On the way there, the EU shall continue its efforts to ensure that Ukraine has as strong a position as possible both before and during any peace negotiations – that which is now also increasingly called peace through strength in Swedish.

Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orbán announced a few days before the meeting that he does not intend to accept the European Council adopting any conclusions at all on Ukraine that go further than the UN resolution. This cynicism met with much criticism, including vocal criticism from Sweden. This is naive in the face of the real threat that Russia poses to Europe, but it can only be stated that we do not agree with Hungary. Nothing suggests that the other 26 countries will agree with Hungary. I understand everyone who now feels deep frustration that a single country – precisely Hungary of all countries, which itself better than many countries knows what it means to be a subordinate state to Russia – is blocking the entire EU's decision-making in these matters.

Instead of devoting the meeting to finding meaningless lowest common denominators, we 26 countries agreed to instead let our consensus be expressed in a joint statement. That 26 is more than 1 is not just simple mathematics, but it is also a clear message about how isolated Hungary is right now. We others are right, and Hungary is wrong.

Madam Speaker! That Europe must take greater responsibility for its own security is something we hear more and more often as the discussions on the transatlantic engagement for Europe progress. The EU's role in the rearmament that is now taking place around Europe raises many questions. The European cooperation as we know it was created out of war and a will for peace. The EU does not and shall not have its own army or engage in such security planning and capability development as is NATO's task. It is good that no one is currently trying to find structures that replace NATO. Instead, many argue, with some justification, that Europe's NATO countries must now seriously arm themselves in line with NATO's objectives and future objectives in order to remain a credible partner to the USA and other NATO allies.

It does not mean that the EU lacks important tasks. The EU has other competencies that are significant for the overall defense capability. It is a unique economic cooperation with the ability to establish rules for, for example, common standards and joint procurement. The EU can also, by virtue of its economic strength, create incentives for more private investments in the European defense industry. It is therefore important to also remind of European competitiveness when we talk about the need for more European security. The work that the Commission has initiated with regulatory simplifications will benefit the defense industry in Europe. A growing economy is fundamental to financing a growing defense. Sweden belongs to the countries that are pushing the most for strengthened European competitiveness, and the global situation only makes this even more important.

The EU's collective economic strength also means that certain countries can obtain better terms than would otherwise be possible when they take out loans for national initiatives. This therefore benefits Sweden and Swedish security when our friends and allies also arm themselves. Alone is not strong. At the same time, it is important to remind that the EU's countries must have their own economies in order. I think the Swedish Riksbank Governor described this very well when he said: "I would go as far as to say that our well-managed public finances are part of our defense capability."

The Commission's proposal, with the elements we discussed in the consultation in the EU Committee before the meeting, received the expected green light from the Member States. That we live in serious times is reflected in what we do and the speed at which we do it. Old truths are being questioned and reformulated at a high tempo. The Commission shall now prepare legislation and decisions to create a financial space for the Member States' upgrading. The Government will participate actively in that work.

Madam Speaker! Let me say one thing in conclusion. I place great value on the broad consensus that we have shown and continue to show in Sweden in these issues. This applies to politics here in the Riksdag but also much more broadly in society.

In a democracy like ours, we disagree on a lot of different things, and that is how it should be. That is also what Ukraine is fighting for, the right to have different opinions. But in these issues, we unite. It was noticeable in the EU Committee last week, and I think it is noticeable in the public conversation in Sweden.

We stand united behind Ukraine. We stand united behind how Sweden should act in the EU. We also stand largely united on Sweden's role in Nato. We stand united on strengthening the Swedish defense, and we have doubled the defense appropriations in just a few years.

I have high hopes that we will also agree on an even stronger Swedish defense in connection with the objectives that will be adopted at the next NATO summit this summer in The Hague.

The broad consensus is relatively unique when polarization and extremism characterize the political debate in so many other countries. Many of my colleagues at the EU summit testify to completely different atmospheres in their countries.

We must also take the risks seriously. Division in EU countries also increases the risks of division between EU countries. But today, we are taking hold of the broad consensus.

Madam Speaker! With this, I conclude the report from the meeting.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Madam Speaker! We truly live in a restless time. This morning, Säpo presented a situation report stating that the threat against Sweden is serious and that Russia is the major security threat.

In that situation, it is naturally very important that the EU has realized the seriousness and that Sweden is no longer a brake but can now give its support to, among other things, EU loans to increase the possibility for the EU's member states to finance increased defense expenditures. That is what we are facing. It is about rearming to give our support to Ukraine and to secure our freedom.

What is nevertheless worrying is Hungary's actions during the EU summit. Hungary must not be allowed to dictate the terms. But it cannot be ignored that when the conclusions of the EU summit are to be translated into words and actions, Hungary has the power to be able to block new sanctions against Russia. When it comes to the frozen Russian assets, it is a worst-case scenario that Hungary's actions could result in the money held in Belgium having to be returned to Russia.

How does the Prime Minister view this? What assessment does the Prime Minister make regarding this? This is especially relevant in a time when the EU, Ukraine, and Europe need unity rather than division. How shall it be ensured that new sanctions can be put in place and that frozen Russian assets can be used to finance the resistance against Russia?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I do not quite know what time is referred to regarding Sweden as a brake. When it comes to the support for Ukraine, the criticism of Russia, and doing everything we can to support Ukraine, Sweden has never been a brake.

When it comes to Hungary, I share the view that it is concerning, but the rules in the EU are as they are. In the European Council, unlike in individual council meetings, all countries have a right of veto. Such are the rules.

It means that decisions on sanctions are made by unanimity. It means that statements on Ukraine and Russia are decided by unanimity. It limits us right now. When it comes to the frozen assets, I believe, however, that the G7 plays a larger role than Hungary and other individual EU countries do.

We saw a taste of the sanctions issue already during the holidays when Hungary in the European Council refused to stand behind unanimity, as has been the tradition previously. Instead, one obtained necessary unanimity in the Foreign Affairs Council. There are no guarantees that this will happen in the future.

I am concerned about this. At the same time, the EU has the rules that the EU has. We will not be able to change those right now. It also means that in other constellations that Sweden participates in – for example, when the EU's countries meet the United Kingdom or Canada, and for that part, in the best case when the EU's countries talk with the USA – we can make decisions that bypass the requirement for unanimity in the European Council specifically.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Madam Speaker! The Prime Minister speaks about more European security. It would be interesting to hear if Sweden nevertheless has any new initiatives up its sleeve for how to try to get Hungary on board to be able to make new important decisions for European security.

I also want to take the opportunity to ask whether Sweden will take any new initiatives to quickly put in place the resources that will be needed here in Sweden so that we can do our part in the new EU commitment to equip Sweden's defense and Sweden's total defense without it negatively affecting other socially important activities such as healthcare and school.

Has the government taken any new Swedish initiatives, and has the government had any new bilateral meetings with other EU countries to pave the way for this? This applies in particular when the white paper on future defense is presented at the European Council's upcoming meeting.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! If we start with each individual country's task to strengthen its defense, it remains a national task. What the EU is now doing jointly is to facilitate with some temporary rules, which however can be multi-year, which facilitate for individual EU countries to borrow money via the EU at a better interest rate than they could get themselves.

It should not be underestimated. Nor should it be overestimated. It is still each individual country that bears the responsibility towards its own citizens, but also according to the commitments that NATO membership requires today if one is a NATO member, to equip its own defense.

We take that task very seriously. We are among those in the midst of an ongoing upgrade. We are far exceeding the current goal. As recently as Friday, I gathered all party leaders in the Swedish Riksdag to also discuss the way forward.

It is quite obvious that when we approach the NATO summit in The Hague, we will have new NATO objectives that will also include Sweden. It is equally obvious that we in Sweden will do our part to meet a much greater need for European defense capability.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! Many thanks to the Prime Minister for the report!

I want to start by agreeing that it is very refreshing when there is so much consensus on many important issues here.

The USA's role in Europe is changing. It is really no longer a secret. It is happening in a rather dramatic way. The need for action from Europe's side is very clear.

Perhaps the most current of what was addressed in the report is that one opens up for joint loans and eased debt rules. 150 billion is no small sum, even if it is for a very important purpose.

At last week's open meeting with the EU Committee, the Sweden Democrats raised the question of how we ensure that the money goes towards strengthening just the defense capability and nothing else, as well as how we assess the risks that certain countries might not be able to repay the loans, even if the risk can now be assessed as lower than before.

Today we were also reached by the news that one will only be able to buy weapons and only European weapons. I intend to first ask if that is correct. In that case, it was not quite what came out in the EU Committee. Then it concerned precisely the question of defense capability.

Can the Prime Minister help to clarify that? Is it correct that it will involve specific weapons and specifically European weapons? If I can squeeze in one last small question, I wonder how one views the risks associated with limiting the measure to a single market, namely the European one.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! The important answer is that we have to wait to see when the Commission returns with the concrete proposals that follow from the Council's agreement. That is often the case; it is with rather broad brushstrokes that the Council usually makes its decisions. Then there are often different views, perhaps both in the Commission and between countries, about exactly what results the decisions are to have.

The intention was, however, completely clear: it is not to be money that is used as one feels like in the greatest generality, but it must be about things that strengthen the defense capability. Then I understand that there are also nuances in the word defense capability. One can say that it is solely weapons, and one can say that it is a number of things that have an explicit connection to defense capability and which are not just weapons. But let us return when we have received the proposals.

When it comes to the European aspect, Sweden is in favor of a larger and better European defense industry, and we also contribute to such an industry. We have also been very critical of an overly narrow definition of this. BAE Systems, which manufactures the CV90 in Övik, is very Swedish but is owned by a company that I believe is listed in the United Kingdom. There are others who cooperate closely with other countries' defense companies, also in Norway, thus in Europe but outside the EU. It is also about the USA; half of the Gripen has American components in it.

We are really for it because things are being built, made and developed in Europe. It would be good to have a bit more independence from the USA, for example. But it would be very bad to limit these companies' opportunities for cooperation with other successful defense industries.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much for the answer, Prime Minister!

I would have liked to continue on this very interesting topic, but I just want to raise one more thing. It concerns the dimension of defense capability that relates specifically to information security, not least the issue of disinformation. The Polish presidency has been very clear that this is a priority issue for them. As an example, there is the so-called democratic shield, which is still in an unconcretized state. This causes some concern.

We are, of course, all in agreement regarding the current problems, not least in terms of hybrid warfare. But in the fight against disinformation, one must obviously be particularly mindful when it comes to freedom of expression and freedom of opinion. When one talks about this shield, or others, one often talks about European values. But from all appearances, it is difficult to find a consensus on what such values would be in Europe.

From experience, we know that the concept of disinformation is used extensively globally, not least among authoritarian countries to suppress dissent. I therefore wonder if the subject was touched upon at the council's meeting or if the Prime Minister has any general comments.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! No, it was not specifically mentioned in the council. However, it is clear that we live in a time when what we call hybrid attacks, where disinformation can be an important part, play a role in the gray zone – before one even knows whether it is war or not and before one even knows whether things have happened or not.

We have seen quite a few such examples. We saw the pure disinformation campaign in Sweden against Swedish social services. It had very little to do with freedom of speech. One can absolutely think whatever one wants about Swedish social services. But to systematically spread lies that Swedish social services kidnap Muslim children – that is disinformation. Other countries have experienced other, corresponding things.

Then I am the first to agree that one should be careful in the gray zones and not abuse it entirely. Everything that is said which one does not personally agree with is not suddenly disinformation. But there really is disinformation that is deeply harmful to our democracies.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! I thought it was good when the Prime Minister in the EU Committee clarified that it is about a loan guarantee that the EU provides when countries want to take out loans via the EU to get a lower interest rate. In the media debate surrounding the proposal, I do not think it has always been clear that it is precisely a guarantee.

I have previously pointed out that I believe Sweden should be a proud member of the frugal four, which push for a restrictive economic policy in the EU. I think it feels very foreign that Swedish taxpayers should be involved in financing not only reinforcements of the Swedish defense but also the defense in a lot of other EU countries. It must still be national, own interests.

When it comes to Ukraine, I think it is very positive with the broad consensus in the support for Ukraine that exists in Swedish politics. I listened with interest to the Prime Minister's press conference on Friday, and I want to emphasize the importance of dialogue between the government and the parties in the Riksdag. This applies both to the support for Ukraine as well as to security policy and how we can best strengthen the Swedish defense. It is therefore why I believe the Prime Minister needs to call for security policy talks between the parties in the Riksdag.

One European country deviates, as we have heard here, in the support for Ukraine. It is Hungary. Now Viktor Orbán has also gained a new friend in the form of Donald Trump in the USA, a Trump who obviously cannot be trusted. In the support for Ukraine, there is an asset that we today do not fully utilize – the frozen Russian assets that are locked in Europe.

Before the European Council meeting, articles were published in, among others, the Financial Times about how a number of large countries are now starting to move and could consider using frozen assets for Ukraine. This is an opinion that Sweden has held for a long time and which we have broad support for here in the Swedish Riksdag. In the written report, it is only mentioned that it concerns the interest income, i.e., that which is already being done today.

I therefore wonder: Was there any discussion about seriously using the frozen assets of Ukraine to stop the Russian aggression?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! These are important issues, and I completely share the description of the loan guarantee. One gets a better debate if one says what it is about, and that was exactly what it was about. It is, therefore, about helping countries with poorer credit ratings to use the EU's credit rating to lower the costs of loans that they take out themselves. Exactly so!

Neither that is risk-free; nothing is risk-free. But I believe that if the alternative is that countries do not strengthen their defense capabilities, it is a greater risk. We shall be frugal. We care about Swedish taxpayers' money, and we care about it even if it were to be used in other countries in the EU.

Yes, it is about dialogue. I came to the press conference that was referred to directly from a two-hour-long party leadership conversation. We went through the situation in Ukraine there. We went through what had happened during the recent meetings. We discussed with each other and listened to the military intelligence service. Many of these things were done, and it was truly dialogue about this. I said already then that I intend to return, not least on the important question of when we will know a bit more about how much we in Sweden are expected to further strengthen our defense in relation to other NATO countries' corresponding responsibilities. That dialogue will continue.

It is Hungary right now. Sometimes it has also been Hungary and Slovakia. That was not the case the other day, and that is what we valued. There are risks in a number of other countries that could go a corresponding way towards meeting. Right now, I see that the risk is higher that we get greater disagreements in these issues in Europe than the chance is that we get fewer. It is a serious sign.

However, it does not concern frozen assets specifically. We had some signs of movement in that direction. They were up for discussion in the council, but no new openings appeared there. My simple assessment is that the large Euro countries, with Germany at the forefront, absolutely do not want to do this. Then it is not always said in plain text in the debate, but the Euro countries harbor a very strong skepticism toward acting in any way that some could claim questions the credibility of the euro.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! I have a follow-up question to the last one. It may be a bit of speculation, but do you think it also applies if there is a new Chancellor in Germany?

It is important to reduce Russia's military capability, and it follows from that that the sanctions have been an important instrument in this. The sanctions have led to Russia creating a shadow fleet to bypass the sanctions. As you mentioned, it will be difficult with new sanctions if Hungary, through Orbán, continues to block it. It is therefore important that the noose is now tightened around the sanctions that already exist and that the noose is also tightened around the shadow fleet. But it is not even mentioned in the conclusions that come from the European Council.

I also think it is very clear that we cannot trust Trump in this situation. I absolutely expect that we will be able to reach an agreement on reinforcements of the defense. But we also need to talk about the security policy and the reorientation that is now occurring from Trump's and the USA's side.

I wonder a bit when we will see more than just ice in the Prime Minister's stomach. When will we see concrete action in that Sweden also manages to conduct a new security policy analysis based on the situation we find ourselves in now?

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind you in all humility of the rules of the chamber.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I do not dare to guess when it comes to the new German government, but I can assure the questioner that I raised the matter when I had my first meeting with Friedrich Merz in his government-forming capacity as recently as this week.

I expressed then that it is really not self-evident to make the assessment that many Euro countries do. One meets many senior people in that system who make the same assessment as we do: that Russian frozen assets should be used.

It is not too late yet. They can only be used once at most. As long as they are there, they are still possible to use.

Last but not least: being in the stomach does not mean passivity. It means not being struck by panic, not drawing hasty conclusions. Just like many other countries, we do not draw hasty conclusions that the transatlantic link is broken, because it is not. That it is challenged and questioned is beyond doubt, but it is not broken. The new analysis was made when we joined Nato. Now, it will be required to deepen the European analysis in Nato.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Prime Minister for the report.

Centerpartiet welcomes, like all others, that the government continues to keep the support for Ukraine high on the agenda. The need for support is greater than ever before and must find other forms than political conversations. In light of the latest developments in the USA, driven by President Donald Trump's administration with new priorities of quick peace over Ukraine's self-determination and his, to say the least, clumsy and humiliating stance, Europe's full support for Ukraine must be clearly marked, as has now occurred. It is very satisfying.

We also mean that this must continue ahead of the upcoming negotiations – perhaps they have already begun – regarding the new long-term budget for the EU. It is very important.

Much of what I had intended to ask about has been raised. I nevertheless choose to stick with a few questions for some clarifications.

When I had the opportunity to participate in Renew Europe's group meeting ahead of this summit, the question of using the frozen Russian assets came up very much. There were very many messages to Europe's leaders. Therefore, it was a bit disappointing to hear that there was still no movement, as the Prime Minister reported.

If that is not the case, are there any other ways? The Prime Minister mentioned the G7. Is it a possible way to go to work further? What obstacles exist for us to be able to do this, to utilize not only the returns but also the assets, in order to build up Ukraine?

Since this matter with Orbán and the veto right is a great mystery, but I can ask further questions about it in the next round.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! We are, as said, in agreement on the importance of the support for Ukraine. We are also in agreement that we are united in Sweden. That is good. When things get serious, we are united in such issues. In many countries, even those that stand firm in their support for Ukraine, many are currently testifying to significant internal tension. Democracies are vulnerable. One should, therefore, not underestimate the value of what we have here.

When it comes to the MFF, the multiannual budget, I spoke with the President of the European Council António Costa as recently as yesterday. He has signaled a first discussion – albeit very preliminarily – already at the next European Council, around March 21. Then, of course, it is a long journey, as everyone knows.

When it comes to frozen assets, there is no doubt that it is the large Euro countries that are in the driver's seat. Then I think it is the G7 that can reach a collective decision. I won't bet my life on it, but I believe that consensus is required there as well.

Everyone knows what Sweden thinks. Everyone also knows what quite a few smaller Euro countries think. It remains to be seen whether France and Germany, as well as the European Central Bank, can be convinced. It is there that I believe the great skepticism lies. One can have different opinions about that, but as long as it exists, it affects this.

We do what we can, but as is well known, we are not a eurozone country. We do not have the greatest influence on this. I usually point out to other countries in our vicinity that have the euro as their currency that they probably have greater opportunities to influence, precisely because they have the currency that they want to be released from frozen assets.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I wish the Prime Minister and the government good luck with the continued discussions. They are extremely important and also pedagogically very important.

When it comes to Orbán and the right of veto, I hear what the Prime Minister is saying. The rules are as they are in the Council. But then my question is: Is it possible to approach this in some other way – not now, I understand that, but in what way does the Prime Minister believe one can make a shift in the long term? What can be done within the EU's framework to change this? What is the Prime Minister prepared to resort to? We cannot let Putin's henchmen jeopardize Sweden's, the EU's, and the world's fundamental democratic values. We must act.

One final question concerns an idea from our sister party in Germany, namely that the European Investment Bank could establish a fund for reconstruction of Ukraine. Is this something the Prime Minister has heard about or can imagine bringing forward in the discussions?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! Regarding the EIB, we have so far mostly discussed their various investment rules to facilitate the financing of the defense industry, whether it goes to Ukraine or to strengthening other European countries. The other I shall leave unsaid.

When it comes to Hungary, I would say that as long as it concerns mere statements, the damage is limited. When 26 countries speak out clearly against one, the message is very clear in any case. If it concerns decisions that only the EU can make, for example the EU's sanction regimes, the damage is significant. They cannot be made if Hungary were to choose to block them.

Finally, there is other support where we must nevertheless create other coalitions than just the EU. Think, for example, of everything Europe could do including the United Kingdom and Norway! That is, by definition, not an EU decision but something else. Do not underestimate the possibilities for 26 EU countries to, together with the United Kingdom and Norway, do really big things!

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! We from Miljöpartiet also want to begin by underlining the full support for Ukraine and wishing continued success in finding unity at the EU level.

Much has already been raised by the previous speaker, but from the Green Party's side, we usually point out the fact that the EU has actually financed Russia's war by continuing the import of fossil energy. More money has been given that way than what has been possible to support Ukraine with. It is a great shame. My first question to the Prime Minister is: Is this an area where the discussions during the last meeting have moved forward, also considering how the world around us has changed?

Another thing we usually bring up is the shadow fleet. What does the situation look like regarding unity there? If there is anything new, it would be interesting to hear it.

I also want to emphasize the importance of us being able to access the frozen Russian assets.

In this turbulent situation where Trump more or less bullies Zelenskyy openly in front of the media, claims that Zelenskyy is a dictator and negotiates with Russia over his head, it stands very clearly that the EU needs to unite and show even greater leadership.

Something that worries me is the talk that one would need to build more nuclear weapons in the EU, i.e., weapons of mass destruction. What is the government's view on building more nuclear weapons within the EU? And linked to that regarding the defense issue: How does the Prime Minister view developing a European defense industry and in that way being able to reduce the dependence on the USA?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me just acknowledge that I also appreciate the Green Party's very constructive view on the questions regarding the support for Ukraine. I appreciate it very much.

We managed, despite everything, just a few weeks ago to agree on further sanctions – and then there is speculation about why Hungary objected to just those. I think one should have limited hopes for agreement on further and more far-reaching sanctions on oil and gas than what we have managed so far. We have not moved further in the matter of gas and oil because there are still too many countries in Europe that are dependent on this. The most important thing is that the sanctions that already exist are followed so that they are not bypassed. That is where much of the focus lies.

We have succeeded with the shadow fleet in many rounds. It is mostly the Baltic countries that are very engaged in the issue. I certainly have hope that we will continue to list ships that we know are shadow fleet ships and that sanctions shall therefore be directed against them.

The EU will never acquire nuclear weapons. However, there is an EU country, which is also a member of Nato, namely France, which has nuclear weapons. And there is a European country that is not in the EU but is in Nato, namely the United Kingdom, which has nuclear weapons.

I believe that many Swedes will recognize themselves when I say that everyone would preferably see a world without nuclear weapons, but when the world looks as it does, we should be glad that it is not only Russia, which is in our vicinity, that has nuclear weapons. That there are two democracies in our vicinity in Europe that are also nuclear-armed powers actually makes Europe safer right now. What has happened now is that France has opened up for a discussion, where those who have always had their nuclear protection entirely national, not subject to any common rules at all, are opening up to also discuss with other countries. But that occurs, in that case, bilaterally between France and other countries, not within the framework of the EU.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Prime Minister for the answer.

When the EU is to take on the leadership role and become more independent of other great powers, it is also important to make the EU more resilient in a number of different areas. This applies to food, energy, minerals and medicines. It concerns achieving a sustainable infrastructure and a robust welfare and continuing an active work for climate adaptation and restoration of damaged nature.

Against the background of all these aspects, I wonder how the government intends to work to strengthen the defense without undermining welfare or environmental work.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I truly agree with the description that military defense is a part – but far from the whole. Ukraine teaches us this with clarity. If one does not have a functioning civil society, a functioning infrastructure, energy supply, and healthcare, one cannot manage all the other things that a war also requires.

There are reasons why we are upgrading civil defense in Sweden right now. We have a Minister for Civil Defense, for the first time in many decades. That alone suggests that we take that issue very seriously. I also think that in the budgets of recent years we have proven that we can strengthen the Swedish defense significantly – a doubling in just a few years – without compromising on the other large and important tasks. But this requires a growing economy, an economy that is doing so well that we can afford everything we want and everything we must. Therefore, my focus is always on competitiveness and a growing economy.

The defense industry is important in Europe. I believe in broad openness to cooperate with other countries. But that Europe must become less dependent on the USA, I completely agree with.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Erik Ottoson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Prime Minister for the report.

I shall allow myself an initial reflection regarding precisely the unity shown within the framework of Swedish politics right now, which was expressed at the EU Committee's meeting on Friday. Shortly thereafter, several of us from the EU Committee traveled to Poland to meet colleagues who, even in the more polarized political debates, manage to unite on the central issues concerning the protection of our social fabric and our democracy. The reflection one makes is that it is precisely the popular protection of our democratic values that is the central political task in the landscape we live in. Outside the formalized structures, we must be able to justify and strengthen the legitimacy of our Swedish and European democracy and the defense against the autocratic forces that seek to divide us.

On that basis, I have the following question. It relates to the non-military defenses of democracy, which we must not forget. The Prime Minister describes the risks and vulnerabilities he sees in other democracies. Does the Prime Minister share the view that we need to regard the autocratic efforts, of which there are traces in other democracies, as an instrumentalized attack on our democracy, which is also used and fueled by foreign states? It is now increasingly well-documented over time depending on the situation. Should we need to see it as a threat that must also be combated and accept the premise that exists within political science, namely that in the protection of democracy, one must dimension the protection in the form of what the threat looks like?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! This was the introduction to a large political science seminar. For the sake of clarity, I should say that we did not have that discussion at the Council of Europe meeting last week.

These are important issues. Poland, which is polarized in many ways, is a large and important country in Europe. From the Swedish side, we cooperate extraordinarily well with both Prime Minister Tusk and President Duda, who are responsible for different things. They appear to be in great agreement on these issues, but they are not in agreement on many other issues. We will probably have to live with the fact that it is so.

Then I believe it is good if one can have a civilized climate for conversation both within countries and, may one say now, between countries. It facilitates cooperation if one expresses oneself respectfully towards one another and rather cultivates one's friends than sows discord and division.

Otherwise, I mostly reflect that we see such tendencies in many places. We also see a tendency that people think many democracies do not solve problems well enough and fast enough. In a democracy, one must also deliver results, solve important and serious problems. Patience is limited.

The more we can agree on the truly big issues, the greater honesty we can use for completely different solutions on other issues that are still important but are not a matter of life and death every day.

Otherwise, we will probably have to hold the seminar at another location.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Erik Ottoson (M)

Madam Speaker! These are major issues and complicated relationships. Something that is important is to have this strong foundation to stand on when one needs to make such large, extensive investments as Europe needs to make in its defense. It builds a strong legitimacy, and it builds a long-term perspective.

That is why what has nevertheless emerged from that meeting, which the Prime Minister has reported on, is interesting. It is also interesting to hear what conclusions Sweden needs to draw from the investments that need to be made in the weapons and defense industry. We are a country that has a lot of defense industry. What does that mean concretely for us, and what measures do we need to take here locally? What does it mean for the Swedish defense and the need for prioritization, to do the most important things first?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! These are really important matters, I think.

Firstly, I believe that a continent like Europe must not be naive. The belief that Russia would become any kind of liberal democracy should have been revealed much earlier – at the latest in 2008, or at the very, very latest in 2014. At that time, many countries remained trusting.

Secondly, a strong economy is a prerequisite for everything that is important, especially if one wants to do many important things at the same time. It may be a question of building our own welfare, supporting a country being subjected to invasion, or arming our own defense. In the long run, it is not possible to do this if one does not have an economy that grows. In that regard, Europe has a competitiveness problem.

Thirdly, the plan that exists right now is simple in its broad outlines.

We have joined Nato. We defend ourselves together with others and are not unilaterally dependent on just the USA, as we have been for decades.

We are strengthening the Swedish defense and continue to strengthen the Swedish defense.

The EU's common defense efforts.

Support for Ukraine.

Civil Defence.

There we have five large areas where we ourselves can do much more.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Prime Minister for the report.

We can observe that Europe is finally moving from words to action and taking its own security seriously. There is a consensus in the decisions that 800 billion euros shall be invested in defense, and it also concerns borrowing 650 billion euros. These are large amounts. My question is therefore how the Prime Minister assesses the chances that the member states will pull their weight, so that each does what they need to do. Is there that awareness among all the countries?

My second question concerns Syria. I understand that a lot has happened since the council meeting. The events this weekend have been very serious, and they have affected many civilians and, above all, minorities in Syria. Many have fled to the mountains and over to Lebanon.

Was there any knowledge at all regarding whether the current government takes the protection of all Syrians seriously and tries to hold those responsible accountable?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me start from the end. Syria was not on the agenda at this meeting at all. If it had been – it has been many times – we would probably have said as we have said all the time: We see certain progress and have some hope, but we also see risks. And if what happened as recently as this weekend had happened then, we would probably have said that the risks are obvious. It is also quite a few who have warned against those risks. Let us continue to follow Syria very closely.

From words to action, it is said. That is quite true. These 800 billion euros are more of a calculation, if one were to choose to use the borrowing opportunities that exist. It is therefore not a sum that is suddenly made available.

The question was whether individual countries are doing their part. Yes, that is the prerequisite. The EU is changing some regulations and making it possible for countries to invest more in defense without being penalized for the budget deficits or national debts they would thereby build up. Such things were in themselves important to protect, but right now it is even more important to strengthen European defense capability.

All this is based on the fact that the EU's member states themselves choose to make the difficult decisions regarding priorities and regarding the money that nevertheless must be made.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answers, Prime Minister!

I continue with Sweden's defense. It is pleasing that the sitting government is strengthening the Swedish defense. What opportunities does the Prime Minister see for Sweden to participate in what Europe is doing and for there to be a defense moving forward where Sweden can do its part? Are we prepared to make the priorities that are required for Sweden's defense to become stronger and be able to help in Europe?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I see them as good.

Sweden will not need and will also not benefit from the changes in the regulations. Sweden, in fact, has stable public finances and already has better conditions for borrowing than the EU has, if we were to need it. We therefore have no great use for it.

We do not contribute with our money, but we contribute with regulatory frameworks that increase the chance for other countries to be able to do their [work] – so good!

I am completely certain that we will be faced with continued upgrades. Now we are in the middle of the decisions that have been made. Already by the summer is the NATO summit in The Hague. Already by the summer I believe there will be new objectives. Sweden will, of course, live up to its part of NATO's collective defense in Europe.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the report and for the answers to the questions that have been asked so far today!

We have already paused a number of times at Hungary. It is a country and a problem that I repeatedly return to. It also concerns the importance of using the tools that exist to act against Hungary. The question has unfortunately gained renewed relevance in connection with what happened last week.

Besides the fact that democracy and the rule of law are being eroded at home, we have in recent years seen Viktor Orbán portray the EU as the Hungarians' enemy, and he is skeptical of or completely opposed to Ukrainian membership in the EU. I could go on for a long time. The Prime Minister is well aware of the situation.

We have for several years seen that Hungary tries to block or delay every new support package, sanctions against Russia and so on. Often it works out in the end. But it is a huge problem for Ukraine, for the EU and for Europe as a whole.

Several meetings have been held regarding the Article 7 procedure that has been initiated. How does the Prime Minister view the conditions for moving that process forward? It is unfortunately increasing in relevance over time.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I shall be careful again and say that this was not raised at the European Council. But such questions naturally lie beneath the surface.

I have, as I have said, fought many battles against Hungary. Sometimes it eventually works out because a country, in this case Hungary, is not even in the room so that decisions can still be made. But we cannot count on it working that way in the long run.

The rules are as they are. We will not be able to change that right now. In that case, one must find other ways to get around Hungary.

As I said: The more we also work with other important non-EU European countries, the more Hungary's influence sinks back a little. But in principle, I completely agree.

The Article 7 procedure, that is, to what extent one violates fundamental obligations, is ongoing. The Commission sometimes comes back with reports, and for example, various hearings are conducted. Sometimes Hungary ensures that some part is tightened, and then it can disappear from the process. But nothing new came up regarding this just now.

It is the Commission that holds it, not every individual EU country. We held the gavel during our presidency. Right now, it is the Poles who hold it.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Prime Minister! It is a question that is difficult to let go. The Prime Minister can therefore count on the fact that I will return to it, but I thank you for the answer here and now.

I can only tell as an anecdote that as a high school student I did an exchange in Hungary a couple of years before the Hungarian EU accession. At that time, I was met by young people who, just like I was, were about to enter adult life, and they looked with longing in their eyes toward Europe and the life that we lived. One still has to hope that there is a power in that and that it remains.

I have no further questions for the Prime Minister but want to say that it is important to continue to press on in those contexts where there is an opportunity to do so.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! As I said in my introduction, it is deeply ironic that it is just Hungary of all countries. If it had been countries that had never been the subject of truly dangerous things, one might possibly have understood it, but it is just Hungary.

When I was in Budapest a few years ago and confirmed that Sweden was selling an additional four Jas Gripen to Hungary, Hungary's Prime Minister even thanked Sweden in his speech for the support when Hungarian refugees left Hungary and for Sweden's support during Hungary's EU entry – as if all this had no significance for the struggle unfolding today.

For me, this is completely incomprehensible. But we are nonetheless where we are right now.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Erik Hellsborn (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for a very informative report back!

It is obvious that there is a broad consensus within Europe regarding the need to strengthen defense capabilities in order to be able to meet an ever more aggressive and imperialistic Russia. Large sums of money are being allocated for this, but as everyone understands, money plays no role if it cannot be converted into actual materiel.

Europe's economy is twelve times larger than Russia's, but despite that, Russia can produce new military materiel at at least as high a pace as Europe – this is because they simply have a larger and, for that purpose, more expanded industry compared to us here in Europe. In the short term, it is probably difficult to escape the fact that Europe to a large extent must rely on imports to be able to strengthen defense capabilities, but in the longer term, it is desirable that we become self-sufficient to a greater extent. European defense companies are, however, hesitant to expand to the necessary extent as such expansion is obviously expensive, and one does not know how long today's large demand will persist.

I therefore want to ask the Prime Minister how he views the issue and whether any conversations have been held regarding how the European defense industry can be encouraged to grow.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! Exactly such conversations are being held, and they are designated with various more or less understandable abbreviations. They are also included in the large competitiveness report. It is about consolidating the European defense industry and not having regulations that stop it, having more joint procurements so that countries can easily join each other's procurements when they are buying things anyway, and having more fixed standards so that two neighboring countries do not buy the same thing with slightly different specifications, which makes it more expensive, slower, and less compatible. These are just a few things. It is also about facilitating private capital entering the defense industry.

All this is happening now and is starting with quite impressive force. It is perfectly obvious that we have relied unreasonably much, above all, on the American defense industry.

I share the view that was described: 500 million Europeans have an inherent strength that we perhaps do not fully utilize, every day. It was probably the Polish Prime Minister who said something like this: Should 500 million Europeans really have to ask 350 million Americans to be able to take on 140 million Russians? That was one way of expressing it. One should add that it is a Russia that perhaps uses 25 percent of its economy for the war, which is prepared to go to war and threaten others with nuclear war and which has no democracy to take into account in its own country.

The rules of the game are thus not completely equal, but we must prove that our democracies are in every way much stronger, both here and now and in the long term, than what Russia is doing.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Erik Hellsborn (SD)

Madam Speaker! I do not have much to add and thank the Prime Minister very much for the answer.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I say the same thing – thank you very much!

The reporting was hereby concluded.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)