Defense and society's crisis preparedness

Jörgen Berglund (M)

Madam Speaker! Today we are discussing how we should use almost 94 billion kronor for defense and the society's crisis preparedness. When I gave my speech on the corresponding report three years ago, the sum was 65 billion kronor. In other words, a lot has happened since then. 94 billion of the taxpayers' money is a lot of money. Is it necessary to invest so much, perhaps someone wonders. The short and only answer is actually yes. And it could very well be even more. But there is reason to return to that.

The reasons why it is right and proper to invest such large sums of money are several. The most obvious is Russia's unjust war against Ukraine - a war for which Russia is unilaterally responsible. It is a war that has not only caused hundreds of thousands of lost lives and injured people but has also totally destroyed an entire country.

February 24, 2022, is a day we must never forget, a day when Europe once again faced a brutal war. I say Europe, because the war in Ukraine is also our war. The Ukrainian soldiers and the Ukrainian civilian population fight every day a war not only for their country and their freedom but for all of us. I know that many have said this before, and I hope that more repeat it, because peace and freedom we best create together with other democratic countries.

Madam Speaker! I said earlier that the most obvious reason to spend more money on defense and the society's crisis preparedness is Russia's war against Ukraine. But there are more reasons. It is about the environment and natural disasters, such as large fires and floods, new pandemics and problems with electricity supply, payment systems or limited access to food and drinking water. It is about disinformation campaigns, acts of terrorism and attacks. The dangers and vulnerabilities are many and varied.

The society we live in now is more vulnerable than before, and the consequences risk being greater than before. We are more dependent on others than before in several areas. We are more digitized than many countries but unfortunately less protected in many ways. Crises are lurking around the corner, which we must be prepared for.

Yes, there are many reasons why we should continue to invest in defense and society's crisis preparedness. If we do this, we will also manage these challenges better. But it matters that we prepare ourselves.

Madam Speaker! That we need and intend to continue investing resources in our total defense is shown by this budget and the content of the expenditure area we are now debating. I am very proud of the budget that the Moderate-led government has now submitted to us in the Riksdag. It aims precisely at strengthening us as a society in difficult situations and safeguarding Sweden's freedom and the values we stand for: democracy, market economy, the rule of law, equality, and freedom of choice.

In Sweden, we have a long tradition of seeking broad and long-term agreements in areas including defense. The government shows with this budget that we continue on that path. The government and Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson often emphasize that this government wants to unite, not divide. It wants to gather, not split. I believe that it is very wise in the restless times we are living in now.

Madam Speaker! The Moderate-led government takes important steps forward in this budget regarding letting not only the military defense continue to be strengthened and grow but also the civil defense. These are parts that perhaps are not always so obvious but nevertheless very important, individually but also together with others. I will therefore highlight three things that I briefly wish to shed light on.

The first thing is that Sweden has received a Minister for Civil Defence. This is important and shows that the government prioritizes the issues of civil defence - a minister who can fully and completely concentrate on the area. The government is also bringing together parts concerning total defence that were previously scattered across different departments. Now they all fall under the Ministry of Defence. This will facilitate coordination and increase the pace, which is important, and also strengthen the follow-up and implementation. Civil defence, as is known, spans across the entire society.

The second is the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard is an authority that every day, around the clock and year-round, protects our country in many ways. They are an important rescue service at sea and Sweden's environmental rescue service at sea - that alone is worth mentioning. A safe, clean and living marine environment is the Coast Guard's vision, and we gladly share it. The Coast Guard also, as is known, has tasks within maritime surveillance and monitors, among other things, fishing and maritime traffic. Today, international missions are also included, for example, within the EU's common border and coast guard Frontex. It is an ordinary task today.

The Coast Guard has many and sharp tasks in both peace and in crisis and war. Unfortunately, for many years, they have not received the resources they need to fulfill these missions. Above all, there has been a shortage of personnel. A ship is personnel-sensitive. If someone falls ill, it can mean that the ship is forced to remain at the pier instead of fulfilling important tasks at sea. The Government is now making a major investment in this budget and allocating funds so that the Coast Guard can hire many more new employees. It is an important addition to strengthen Sweden in peace, crisis, and war.

Thirdly, we have FRA, the Defence Intelligence Agency. A crown jewel, I would like to express it as, in the defense of Sweden in both peace and crisis and war. The value of good intelligence cannot be overstated. FRA is an agency that, for natural reasons, works in silence but has a world-class edge.

Just as it concerns the Coast Guard, the government proposes a major investment with significantly increased appropriations. Our ability to detect, identify and select, as well as inform other relevant authorities at an early stage is crucial for how well we manage an upcoming crisis. The money shall be used, among other things, to strengthen defense intelligence capabilities across the board but also to strengthen the support to the police in their work of combating cross-border crime and the like.

Madam Speaker! In summary, we can state that the government is fulfilling the direction on the development of the total defense that the Riksdag previously decided upon. The government is making important prioritizations and reinforcements, among others, in the Coast Guard and FRA. The government continues to unite the country by now having appointed a new defense commission ahead of upcoming defense decisions, taking into account the deteriorated international situation and an upcoming NATO membership.

Finally, Madam Speaker, today is the medal ceremony for Mali 16, which I know some of us will hopefully manage to attend to show our and Sweden's gratitude for their efforts. Many Swedes have served internationally before them, and more will do so in the future. To defend democracy, human rights, and freedom is great. I would like to take this opportunity to thank and wish a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all personnel in Sweden and abroad who work for our security and safety.

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

Peter Hultqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! Broad agreements are good. I nevertheless just want to remind that the Moderaterna were not part of the group of parties that agreed on the defense decision in 2020.

I also understand that the argumentation regarding the Coast Guard now concerns advocating for that the Coast Guard might be included in the 2 percent of GDP that we are to reach in defense expenditures. It is clear that if one does that, one raises the level, but it does not mean an increased military capability. Finally, I see in the bill that one locks itself into the fact that the two percent goal shall be met in 2026. Previously it was 2025. What is it actually that says that this is now the realistic year?

I know that it is difficult to build military capability. I know that it is lead times. I know that cost increases have an impact. I know that we have a 17-point list in the previous defense decision that has not been addressed yet. Therefore, it may not be particularly wise to lock onto the year. Furthermore, at the press conference before the Defense Committee, it is said that they want to seek a broad political agreement. One can then ask if it is so wise to lock onto this year. Previously, the Armed Forces have said 2028, and there are many question marks and difficulties that must be managed.

I would therefore recommend increased flexibility from the government's side, because it is more important to achieve real military capability than to merely reach a percentage.

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

Jörgen Berglund (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Peter Hultqvist, for the comments!

I share Peter Hultqvist's view that it is the capacity that is what matters. The fascination with different percentages is never good, whether it concerns the NATO budget or the aid budget. The one percent goal of GNI for the aid budget has been abandoned by the government, and I note that the Social Democrats in their budget proposal have done the same. You do not usually mention that so often.

Regarding the defense decision, I want to point out that it is true that we did not participate, but we were in agreement on the goals. What we did not agree on was the economy. So it can be like that sometimes. We had a more aggressive ladder.

If the Coast Guard is to be included in the calculation basis for the so-called two percent goal, we must return to that. We must also follow the rules of the game that Nato has set up. It is nothing that we ourselves primarily control.

I think we should talk more about capability and military endurance rather than getting stuck on 1 percent, 2 percent, or whatever it is.

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

Peter Hultqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! It is the Moderates and parts of the bourgeois side who have been doing this previously, that is, locking the language to a specific year. One has campaigned on the year. One started with 2025, and then it was 2026. It is we who have called for more flexibility when it comes to this.

I shall have to see it as a positive move that Jörgen Berglund is a bit fuzzier on the edges today compared to how it has sounded in both the election campaign and other contexts, and also compared to what is stated in the bill. It may possibly lead to us having a different type of discussion about this in the Defence Committee.

My only ambition is actually to achieve realism, to achieve something that is feasible so that we get out what is wisest and maximum military effect. This, as was said, takes time, and I believe that everyone who deals with defense policy understands that. I also believe that one must be aware that there are many dead ends in these types of processes.

I am therefore noting that there is a vagueness, so let's see what it stands for. But the history has been too much of a locking of years.

The reason I bring up the Coast Guard is that one must have a certain sense of what kind of signals are being sent out. Now Jörgen Berglund is putting up the Coast Guard as an example. I know how the calculation bases within Nato and elsewhere can be constructed, so it might perhaps be in the direction of danger that you will eventually come up with this proposal. But then one must know that it moves in quite a lot of economics which can then become an argument for why other measures do not need to be taken. It could be that administrative measures eat up a good deal of the two-percent discussion.

We will have to see what happens and what occurs. Now I have made these markings and received a vague answer. I will take that as something positive.

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

Jörgen Berglund (M)

Madam Speaker! I suppose I must say, for the sake of novelty, that I appreciate being described as "fuzzy". I take it as something positive. It is rarely the case.

I do not think we should get stuck in the discussion about goals and so on. I would like to argue that it is also about what clarity one has had. What goal image has one had? How hard should we stretch the bow?

Regarding the content of what we are to report concerning Nato, it is what I have said: It is not we ourselves who completely decide it, but here we actually have to adapt, whether we want to or not.

Just as Peter Hultqvist is, I really want to enter the upcoming Defense Preparation with my eyes wide open. I hope that everyone does. I also perceive that Peter Hultqvist and the Social Democrats are doing so, and I suspect that even the Social Democrats are willing to discuss even higher levels if that is required. I do, however, want to emphasize that it is capability development that is important, not percentages here and there.

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

Peter Hultqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! I shall begin by moving for the approval of the proposal in the report.

I also want to say that the previous opposition, for eight years, was always careful to speak in these situations about the importance of the minister being present at the debates. That also made me personally feel that it was important to be here. I just want that said as a reminder of how it sounded once from the rostrum in connection with this type of debate.

Georgia 2008, Crimea 2014, the attack on Ukraine 2022 - Russia will be and shall be dimensioning for how we develop the Swedish Armed Forces moving forward. I also believe that we must be prepared for the fact that we will have this security policy problem for a long time to come.

Then it is about how we position ourselves in the Nordic region and how that integrates with Nato. It is about how we develop the transatlantic link within Nato but also bilaterally and multilaterally, especially with Finland.

It is about how we develop the cooperation within the framework of the EU.

When it comes to the planning work together with Nato, I believe that one should see Scandinavia from the Arctic to the Baltic Sea - that is, the Arctic, the Norwegian west coast, the Swedish west coast, the entrance to the Baltic Sea and the Baltic Sea area - as an operational whole, both maritime and air operational, and when it comes to the navy. It is there that we shall conduct planning work.

I would like to particularly emphasize the importance of coordinating activities in Upper Norrland when it comes to Sweden, Finland and Norway and that we have a leadership and operational activity that is effective when it comes to the Baltic Sea area.

The integration into NATO's missile and air defense is also very important. A first step there could be to offer a Swedish contribution to Baltic Air Policing as soon as possible once the NATO membership is complete.

As I said earlier, the objective must be to reach 2 percent. We also have a broad agreement on that. But it is also important that when we look at that work, we should not lock ourselves into a specific year. We shall, however, look at the military effect and the civil defense effect, that is to say, the total defense.

But I want to warn against exchange rate fluctuations, debt write-offs, the development of the defense price index, increased rents, infrastructure, problems with delivery times, and plans to add new items to the defense budget that do not exist today. This risks, when we eventually sum up the 2 percent, leading to a situation where we have not reached the level that we previously believed we could reach through the investments that were to be carried out.

I make no commitments in advance regarding what levels we are to have. However, we will follow the levels that we have agreed upon at the current time. Then we will see what we come to in the Defense Committee's work.

The work with civil defense will become a major challenge. We are further ahead when it comes to military defense and its capability. There, significantly more has been done. Civil defense is lagging behind. For it to function in a good way, civil and military defense must be on par with each other. Here there is a gap, and we must look at how we handle it.

Since then, it is important to state that civil defense must be dimensioned for the requirements of war. If civil defense does not function in a war situation, the military defense does not function either; it is that simple.

With that type of dimensioning, one also manages the civil crises. Then one manages snowstorms. Then one manages floods. Then one manages forest fires. Then one manages major accidents and other things that can occur. One should, therefore, have that perspective. To dimension according to the requirements of war does not contradict having a civil defense that can function in civil crises.

When it comes to the future, I believe the work must be focused on continuing to try to strengthen the army's combat capabilities. We shall reach 8,000 conscripts by 2025. We should have a plan to reach 10,000 as soon as possible. Then we can, of course, between the parties here, conduct some form of auction procedure regarding who wants the most conscripts, but I say at least 10,000 because it also requires officers and other types of commanders, infrastructure and materiel so that one can do this in a good and feasible way. It is still the case that there must be quality in the conscript training. It is not good if we end up in a situation where the conscripts say: This is not good training. This has not been well-used time.

I usually check quite thoroughly when I am out on regimental visits and ask conscripts if they think it works in a good way and if it is of good quality. Approximately 80 percent usually think it is good. When it comes to being able to continue within the Armed Forces, it is my assessment that approximately 60 percent raise their hands.

Proceeding with more brigades can be something that is important for the future. We need reinforcements on Gotland. We also need to look at the feasibility of a new regiment in Upper Norrland. It is about the fact that we have Esrange up there. We have Host Nation Support tasks. Sweden has common tasks with Norway and Finland regarding, for example, activity at the borders. The Arctic is a hot region and will be in the future as well.

We also believe that it is important to conduct a review of underwater competence. This is one of the Swedish Navy's strengths, and it is an area where we have unique competence. A continued investment in the underwater side can also lead to Sweden becoming a very strong power in the future as well. It is an important weapons system in the Baltic Sea environment.

We must also look at the fighter wing in the long term. What happens after the Jas 39 E-version?

Sweden has unique expertise in both of these areas. It cannot be recreated if we somehow decide to end this, so I believe these are two important areas where both the Defense Committee in the Riksdag and the Defense Preparedness Board have a large and extensive responsibility.

Naturally, continued reinforcements of what we call the Defense Forces' base plate are required. It is necessary that we review what we have in our stockpiles, especially now that we have delivered large quantities to Ukraine. This is about Swedish defense capability in the short-term perspective.

It is about looking at the infrastructure in the Armed Forces. It is about which new weapons systems we are to have and not least about seeing what the situation is with repair and maintenance, because that is very important. For our weapons systems to function, continuous maintenance must take place. I believe that we have very large challenges to make up for on that point.

These are some of all the questions that we have to handle ahead of the future. In that case, this budget, for which there is a fundamental agreement when it comes to the economy, is a way to move forward. It is based on previous agreements that have been made in the Riksdag and on broad defense decisions. That is what this is based on. It is therefore not a unique initiative that has come now, but it is a continuation of what we have worked on. We actually started in 2015 and continued in 2020, and it has been in line since then.

Now we will have to see what the next defense commission returns with in due course. I wish, just like others, that we can reach an agreement on something broad here.

I have now tried to mention a number of points that can be important for the future but also risks. What we must not indulge in when it comes to implementation processes is wishful thinking where we believe that this will be easier than it is.

Then I saw that someone in an article claimed that there was now going to be some new defense policy. I cannot judge it in that way because what will happen will be built on what we have already done, and it will be more of what we already have broad majorities for. Such words as those that are used to strengthen the marketing are not worth much in practice.

I vote in favor of the proposal.

(Applause)

In this speech, Johan Andersson, Lena Johansson and Markus Selin (all S) concurred.

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

Jörgen Berglund (M)

Madam Speaker! I had not intended to request the floor at all. As a member of the government side, I feel a special responsibility regarding the upcoming defense debate not to engage in unnecessary polemics. But I reacted to Peter Hultqvist's slight insolence, if I were to describe it as such, when he in his introduction pointed out that Defense Minister Pål Jonson is not here.

I can assure Peter Hultqvist and others in the chamber that the Minister for Defence has another commitment, and I can reveal that it concerns Mali 16. I think he made the right prioritization. I believe and hope that we all would have done the same. Our overseas veterans with relatives are extremely important.

Madam Speaker! While I am standing here, I would like to take the opportunity to ask a question to Peter Hultqvist. I noted in the Social Democrats' special statement that one, as I interpreted it, is critical that the government has done nothing about the fact that we need an additional submarine and a regiment in Upper Norrland. I wonder then: Does Peter Hultqvist really mean that the government should have thrown that in now after a little over eight weeks and not waited for the defense preparation we have? Or how do the Social Democrats mean that?

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

Peter Hultqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! For the first point, what I said had nothing to do with any triviality, but was a pure consumer information regarding your own actions during the years of opposition. I do not know how many times the question of the Defense Minister's presence was highlighted in this type of debate. So it was merely a reminder of how it once was. I tried to remind how it once was even in my previous exchange of remarks. That, you may have to take on your own account, so to speak.

When it comes to what is stated in our statement, these are markings for the future, which we think it is reasonable to make today. I also made a good deal of markings in my opening statement that are not directly linked to what is stated in the budget bill but have a more future-oriented perspective.

For us, it is important to put forward a lot of such things as a platform. We want our policy to be known. We want to influence this. We do not just want to sit in closed rooms and make deals. It is important that both within the Armed Forces and among the general public, it is seen that we have a political will, so there is nothing strange about this.

The government's pace in its own decision-making and what you want to do for gestures is nothing that I am responsible for. What I have noted so far are rather general articles and the press conference. Then we will get started with the Defence Committee, and then we can sort out these issues there.

But it can be good – and this is no new foolishness, if that is how you experience it – to reflect a little on your own actions during the past years. I can make long enumerations if you so wish. I notice, in any case, that the attitude now that you have the power of government is different than when we had the power of government, and that can well be good.

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

Jörgen Berglund (M)

Madam Speaker! I can state that this also applies to the Social Democrats' rhetoric in government and in opposition. I am satisfied with that.

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

Peter Hultqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! I do not know what that actually meant in practice. When I sat in the government, I tried to be clear about our perceptions and opinions. I tried to be accessible, both in relation to the Defence Committee and in other contexts, and to convey, speak about, inform, and discuss. That is surely an important approach for a minister.

I perhaps know better than many others how important medal ceremonies are, so I do not question the prioritization. I just wanted to point out how you yourselves acted in your time. I have understanding for Pål Jonson - I say nothing about that. But I still think it is good if you remember how it was.

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

Mikael Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating expenditure area 6 Defence and society's crisis preparedness; it is the Committee on Defence that is doing so. Let me initially move for approval of the Committee's proposal in the report and for the rejection of the reservation that has been submitted.

Right now, air raid sirens are sounding across all of Ukraine. This morning, it has emerged that Russia has sent over 60 missiles. It is chaotic in Odessa, Kyiv, Kharkiv and many other cities. It is very clear that things are not going so well on the battlefield for Russia, but instead, they are betting very foully on knocking out power supply and water in order to reduce defensive capabilities in that way. But we notice that the Ukrainians are very firm in continuing to defend their country. If they do not continue, Ukraine will no longer exist.

On February 24, this attack began, when Russia attacked its neighboring country. And on Christmas Eve, friends in the chamber and you who are sitting in the gallery or watching this on TV, it is ten months since the attack started.

We have every reason to continue supporting Ukraine. We have recently decided on a large package, and the government will continue to provide support. We, together with other countries in Europe, as well as America and Great Britain, will continue, because just as was said before, they are not fighting only for themselves—they are fighting for us. We have a duty to continue to step up. It is very important to have this said when we discuss this here. We are primarily discussing the Swedish defense, but this is an incredibly important part to highlight.

The tougher security situation we are seeing is, as someone also said earlier, no air pocket, unfortunately. It is something that will prevail for the foreseeable future. We who sit here in the chamber will likely, during our lifetime, have to look forward to this sharpened security situation. Right now, we see scenes that we have not seen since the Second World War. This naturally turns the gaze toward ourselves and on the importance of us strengthening our defense.

We have a good defense, Madam Speaker, but it is too small. It needs to become larger; we need to expand. Next week we will start a defense preparation. It is very important, and I am glad that we have a consensus in this report. My hope is that we in the Defense Preparation can also have a continued consensus that we need to move forward with strengthening our defense.

Let me just mention a few things that I, from the Kristdemokraterna side, think it is important that we do. It is naturally important that we continue to increase defense spending. We are currently at approximately 1.3 percent, and our assessment is that by 2026 we will be able to reach up to 2 percent.

Several of us were at the parliamentary meeting with Nato in Madrid a few weeks ago, and then Nato's Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg pointed out that 2 percent is a floor. Probably, in several countries, we need to envision what has already been done in, for example, the Baltics and Poland: that for a period of time, one must go above that level. We must, in fact, make necessary investments. The Defense Force, both the civilian and the military, has been neglected for far too long, and now we must make necessary investments in various areas.

We want to join Nato; I am glad that we have a consensus on that in the Riksdag. My hope is that we can do it as soon as possible. It means the important thing that we can achieve joint defense planning. It will increase the strength for us but also the security for neighboring countries. We will be able to have increased cooperation between Norway and Sweden and between Finland and Sweden and in our area. This is, as was also said before, an area of operations, where we will receive a special responsibility in Nato.

Let me mention a few things that we envision we need to do when it comes to strengthening our defense. I am thinking of the army. We have decided that we shall have three brigades. We see, Madam Speaker, before us that we need to expand to five brigades. We should have two brigades that could help against the Nordic Cap, together with Norway and Finland. But we would also need to have a brigade that in the future can help with increased presence in the Baltics.

This also means that we need to increase the number of conscripts. We do not need to have any numbers race, but we see that we need to reach 8,000 and then 10,000, as Peter Hultqvist said before. Then we envision that we need to go up to 12,000. This will create the return so that we can fill all these brigades with soldiers, because it is important that they become full-strength and that one can train fully. What has historically been missed and what creates real military capability is exercises. Therefore, it is important that we increase the number of conscripts and in that way achieve full-strength and thus increased capability.

It is also important with the navy. We have surface combat ships, but we see that in the NATO context we will likely be given a responsibility to help keep sea lanes open. We envision that we need to increase the number of surface combat ships and that we also need to increase the number of submarines by at least one.

The Air Force has been crucial for Sweden historically and will continue to be so. We envision that we need to increase the number of divisions from the current six to eight and that we also need to invest in the base system. However fine and fantastic our fighter jets are, they are very vulnerable on the ground. Therefore, it is important that we have the base system functional so that we can move our aircraft out and have personnel who can prepare them.

This significantly increases our capability and is included in the planning, but we also need to move forward and speed this up. We don't have all the time, I think, and we need to speed things up. If we agree that a military attack on Sweden cannot be avoided, we need to speed up and make the necessary investments required so that we have a strong defense for ourselves and together with others.

Lastly, I want to join in the thanks to all military personnel in our country, in Mali and in other places, if you happen to be watching this debate. The Christian Democrats want to extend a big thank you to you for the effort you make. You do not do it in vain, because you create security for us and wherever in the world you are located. I also wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

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

Lars Wistedt (SD)

Madam Speaker, honorable members and dear people across the country! Today we are debating expenditure area 6 The military defense and the society's crisis preparedness, and I will begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal and also point out that we have submitted a special statement regarding the two percent rule.

All of Sweden shall be able to be defended. This ancient principle applied until the year 2000 when the major cuts began. No significant reflection was made then on the changed global conditions. There were many signs of concern, but we did not take them seriously.

Russia did not develop at all in the positive direction that the world had hoped for after 1991. The revanchism in Russia became clearer from 2004, but it did not provoke any major reactions in Sweden. The dismantling of the state of preparedness continued. The war in Georgia in 2008 was fought far from all Swedish TV sofas, and neither did the annexation of Ukrainian territories, including Crimea, in 2014 cause the Swedes to be shocked.

Russia's withdrawal from the CFE Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe in 2007, the aforementioned war in Georgia and the annexation of Crimea resulted in some limited actions, mostly various condemnations.

In 2015, however, we began to see some signs of life in politics, and the government at the time allocated additional funds to the defense. Since then, a long-term process has been initiated, and in the committee's report, we can see how a long-term process for reconstruction is beginning to take shape.

The investigations that have been commissioned are a first step on the way, but reconstruction costs money and takes time, a lot of time - and time is something we are very short of right now.

Madam Speaker! In many ways, our situation today resembles that which Sweden faced in 1939-1940 when our immediate neighboring countries were attacked and, in most cases, occupied by either Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. It then took decades to build up a Swedish total defense, and we must include that in the calculations ahead of upcoming budget and decision-making processes. This does not happen overnight.

In light of this, I would really like to emphasize, as previous speakers have, that we need a long-term strategic direction with broad parliamentary support that does not change after every election. Defense must not once again become a budget regulator.

Which military threat should we focus the reconstruction towards? In our area, there is today only one potential aggressor, and that is Russia. The other nations are either in Nato or the EU or are neutral democracies.

The question is which Russia we should dimension the total defense against: the Russia we saw before 2022, the Russia we see now with war in Ukraine with limited success and methods contrary to international law, or a reborn Russia with revanchism and stab-in-the-back legends in the background that reappears, draws lessons from today's war and adapts to become more effective – roughly as the Germans did in the 30s and then surprised the world in 1939.

Unfortunately, it is probably the latter Russia we must have as a starting point for our planning. Let us therefore not repeat the mistakes from the 90s and believe in goodness in Russia.

When we now look into the crystal ball to assess future threats, we must therefore dare to analyze why we did not want to see the signs of that time of a Russian rearmament during the late 90s and early 2000s and take that with us into upcoming planning processes in both defense preparation and the Defense Committee.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to defense planning, it is important to be aware of Sweden's upcoming role within Nato and, thereby, naturally in the defense of the Nordics. Here, the entire defense is part of Nato, not just a small part that we send here or there and that goes in and out like in a stamp club. If you are in Nato, you are in, heart and soul. This is something we must take into account in, among other things, upcoming defense preparations.

We also have other international commitments during the next year: the EU presidency, accompanying projects, PESCO, the European Defence Fund, the Swedish presidency in Nordefco, and continued bilateral cooperation between Sweden and Finland. Member Hultqvist also mentioned a number of other different commitments, including the transatlantic link.

Completely new and different demands will be placed on our combat forces and our civil defense, not least now when we are to actively support neighboring countries within the framework of the joint defense planning.

Credibility must be strengthened, and we must be careful about that. Previously, we have mostly had tough rhetoric and sharp formulations, but that is not enough. We must actually put action and material behind the words and show that we can and dare to speak out. Then we will be perceived as credible by a new Russia.

To get the most out of the money, we in politics must be clear in giving tasks to those who are to plan and implement this, that is to say the Armed Forces, total defense and so on. We give them tasks and resources and then as much freedom of action as possible to design this. We shall not be involved in fiddling with the details, instead that is solved in dialogue with the government and the Armed Forces. Total defense personnel are professionals and know best how to do this. This is what the Sverigedemokraterna will push for, especially in the upcoming defense preparation.

Madam Speaker! On the basis of the above reasoning, the Sweden Democrats wish to emphasize in their special statement that the two percent question must not become an end in itself, a kind of numerical exercise, but as has been suggested previously, it is the defense's collective ability and capacity to defend our country, people, and constitutional order that is the real goal. The collective total defense capability, regardless of economic fluctuations, interest rate hikes, exchange rates, and whatever it may be, is what is important to achieve, not the monetary goal itself. We must also include any cost increases for NATO membership.

The two percent goal must be a baseline, and the total defense budget must therefore be allowed to exceed this level even in the near term, depending on what is required.

I also want to thank not only the personnel of the Armed Forces but everyone within the total defense who work around the clock and with great ambition to secure our defense capability.

(Applause)

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

Anna Starbrink (L)

Madam Speaker! In 1998, the Folkpartiet held a national convention. It had already been a few years since the Berlin Wall fell, and we were in the midst of a time strongly characterized by a wave of openness that literally swept across Europe and made young people, like myself at that time, strongly feel what freedom means. We could almost touch it.

We crossed all the borders in Europe, and we gained insight into life in the East and forged many bonds of friendship. But we were never naive. We knew that peace and freedom must never be taken for granted, and we knew that alone is not strong, only alone. Folkpartiet, the Liberals of that time, decided at the national meeting in Lund that we should work for a Swedish membership in Nato, and that is what we have done since then.

It was obvious to us then that neutrality cannot secure our freedom in the future. We also felt strongly that we need to be in solidarity with other democracies. This was and still is our strongest argument for a Swedish NATO membership. And today we have finally reached the threshold of the defense alliance. It is immensely significant, not only for us who were young when the wall fell but also for our children's and our grandchildren's future.

Of course, it is not enough that we become members of Nato, we must also strengthen our own defense capability. Both as a country and as a people, we must be ready to meet the greatest of challenges. It is a new reality that is being shaped, with Putin's horrific war of aggression against Ukraine and power ambitions whose full extent we do not completely know. But reality is also shaped by the increasing climate threats, which will affect our lives even more tangibly in the future. And as always, it is the people who are already vulnerable who are hit hardest.

Madam Speaker! We must not be afraid of the future. Instead, we shall take responsibility together, lead the way, and be part of shaping our future. In the budget and the expenditure area that we are discussing here today, the focus must be on strengthening Sweden's resilience and the military defense so that we can all feel security in the assurance that we as a nation have the ability to defend our own country and our future allies in a mutual, trusting, and close cooperation. Equally important is it, for the same reasons, that we strengthen the civil defense.

Madam Speaker! The large economic investments that are now being made and that lie ahead of us, together with the high ambitions that the government has shown that it has, must yield results. Therefore, it is good that a new agency is now being started, the Agency for Total Defence Analysis. This, too, is something that the Liberals have worked for. I see it as an important tool for monitoring the total defence and how it develops in relation to the direction that we here in the Riksdag are charting out.

Madam Speaker! Torture chambers for children - has anyone heard anything so horrific? Can we imagine the hopelessness in this? Bombed-out maternity clinics, playgrounds as targets for Russian attacks and hundreds of children who have disappeared - has anyone heard anything so terrible? And that is just a selection from the staggering reporting we receive from war-torn Ukraine. It is a selection of evil.

That Ukraine manages to defend its country against Russia and its horrific war of aggression is crucial for security in Europe, but here and now it is primarily about all the people who have to experience the horrors of war. They must be given a chance to get their freedom back and rebuild their lives again.

Recently, Sweden made a large support package, which was larger than all previous packages combined, and sent it to Ukraine. But more will be needed. Upcoming support packages need to be shaped with sensitivity to what Ukraine requests and needs.

The budget bill that the government has presented provides good conditions for us to, firstly, be able to strengthen our military and civil defense, secondly, make our entry into Nato an important contribution to strengthening our defense capability and our solidarity with other countries, and thirdly – last but not least – continue our military and humanitarian support for Ukraine.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Mikael Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating expenditure area 6, Defence and society's crisis preparedness. I will enter some points that the Centre Party has generally regarding total defence, but also points that we have in our reservation and our special statement.

Madam Speaker! Swedish defense capability shall be developed so that the entire country can be defended through increased availability and improved operational capability. The war units shall increase their combat readiness individually and together with others, nationally and internationally.

The ability to simultaneously mobilize the entire war organization in the event of high alert is of fundamental importance. Decided organizational changes in the war and basic organization and decided large investments, among other things to ensure basic functions such as command and logistics and to maintain and develop existing materiel, procurement of ammunition and consumables, as well as new investments, shall be carried out. It is important to continue to invest in all parts of the defense - the army, the air force, the navy and of course cybersecurity.

Madam Speaker! As has been said, it is important with continued investments in the Swedish defense, with both money, regiments, weapons and equipment. But if we are to do this, there is one thing that is equally important in a defense that is to exist throughout the country, and that is that we invest in the personnel and the conscripts. We must constantly work to ensure that the conditions are good so that one chooses to stay within the Armed Forces. This applies to investments in personnel supply both within the total defense in general and within the Armed Forces generally. The personnel are the foundation in equipping our defense.

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party safeguards the power of the Swedish voluntary movement and not least the voluntary defense organizations. They will always have an important task in the Swedish total defense, including as a manning function. But their role is broader than that. Their task is to engage citizens in the defense of Sweden, which is fundamental for the will to defend, the defense capability, and the resilience in society to be good.

It is important that the dialogue both between the Armed Forces and the voluntary defense organizations and between other total defense authorities and the voluntary defense organizations is good, based on the insight of a mutual dependence of the different roles one has.

The voluntary defense organizations need to be further developed based on their own added values and conditions and the needs of other authorities. Volunteering is a way for people all over the country to contribute their competence and experiences to the defense of Sweden, even if one is not a soldier, sailor, or employed for periodic service within the Armed Forces. Being engaged in the volunteer sector is perhaps the finest thing one can be.

Madam Speaker! In the ongoing war in Ukraine, Russia has on repeated occasions carried out both cyberattacks and physical attacks against the energy sector. The energy sector in the EU and Sweden has also been attacked digitally during recent years.

That the energy sector is being used strategically as a piece in the game of security policy has been clear during recent years. Regarding defense and crisis preparedness, the Center Party therefore wants to emphasize that our reallocation of funds is carried out with a focus on strengthening the energy sector's resilience. The Center Party considers it necessary both from the perspective of the new security situation and from the expectations that the NATO partner countries have that defense expenditures shall amount to at least 2 percent. I also share exactly the description that several other colleagues in the committee have given, that it is precisely the defense capability that must have the highest priority.

The entire society's crisis preparedness and civil defense are very important parts of the total defense. The Center Party has for a long time been pushing for increased resources for civil defense. Therefore, I and the Center Party think it is very good that the government is now investing in civil defense, and we will monitor that this increase in ambition is also actually implemented.

To finance an initiative to strengthen the energy sector's resilience, the Center Party proposes that appropriation 1:8 be reduced by 50 million kronor for the year 2023 and that an initiative to strengthen the energy sector's resilience be made, among other things through an additional 25 million kronor to the appropriation for crisis preparedness.

Madam Speaker! In the orientation decision for the defense period, the committee emphasized the importance of cost control, transparency, and efficiency in the material supply process. The Centre Party considers that it continues to be important that the Riksdag is given good cost control during the buildup of the defense, that there is traceability and that follow-up occurs regarding the material supply process. Meeting the units' material needs is crucial for enhanced capability within the war organization that the Riksdag has decided upon, and a very large proportion of the funds that the Riksdag allocates within the material area are used for the two essential security interests covered by the system of object frames.

To facilitate the Riksdag's governance and follow-up within the materiel area, we therefore believe that the government should continue to develop objective frameworks for combat aviation and underwater capability ahead of the 2024 budget bill.

Madam Speaker! I also want to mention a few words about coexistence. It will be very important in the coming years that the Armed Forces grow in the places where they are located today but perhaps also in other places around the country. But it must not be the case that the local community and the Armed Forces are in conflict with each other. It was only a few days ago that it was noted in Norrtälje municipality, where the Armed Forces have been active for many years, that a person wanted to build a house. An appeal has been made to the government, and the government has followed the Armed Forces' line of a no to construction. But today there is already a house on the property. It must be so that the Armed Forces and the entire local community together can be utilized and find solutions in order to be able to coexist across the whole country.

Therefore, it is disappointing that the new government has chosen not to proceed with the announcement that the Center Party has been pushing for regarding precisely coexistence. This is an issue that we will continue to follow very closely during the mandate period. We want to see a stronger and expanded defense throughout the country. And I and the Center Party are the first to sign on to that we should be able to do this together to develop the defense and the local community in all of Sweden.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion: In the report, there is a reservation from the Center Party which I move for approval. Otherwise, I refer to the Center Party's special statement.

I also wish the Speaker, my colleagues in the committee and the committee secretariat a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

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

Camilla Brunsberg (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Mikael Larsson for his speech on this important issue concerning the reconstruction of Sweden's total defense. I agree with much of what he states, and it is good that the Center Party shares the four coalition parties' goal that we should reach 2 percent of GDP as early as 2026.

What is interesting in the Center Party's motion is that the Center Party, in its individual budget proposal, wants to undermine and cut FRA by 50 million kronor compared to our budget proposal. FRA contributes strongly to strengthening and protecting Sweden and Swedish interests. This is done, among other things, through information to clients regarding foreign conditions of importance for Sweden's foreign, security, and defense policy. It also happens through their cooperation. It is also part of financing the operations for the newly established National Cybersecurity Centre. To then undermine FRA, which contributes to protecting Sweden and Sweden's interests when we face the greatest foreign, security, and defense policy tests in modern times, I consider to be directly irresponsible.

How does the Centre Party explain to the Swedish people that, unlike the rest of us, you do not in the same way want to contribute to protecting vital societal functions and securing the conditions for a cyber defense and a national security center by wanting to reduce the appropriation to FRA by 50 million kronor?

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

Mikael Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Camilla Brunsberg for the question. I share the view that FRA is a very important activity and has a significant part in the work carried out within the Armed Forces, within total defense, and in the protection of Sweden. I completely agree with that, and it is a very important part for the Center Party as well.

But we see right now all around Europe, and we have seen it in our vicinity during the recent years as well, for example that attacks against critical infrastructure occur. It is very serious given the tensions today. We also really want to work actively to ensure that this infrastructure is strengthened with protection. First, one may perhaps investigate in what way it should be done and what should be done. In this way, we want to invest in precisely these parts. Therefore, we have chosen to take 50 million kronor from FRA and use them to begin working even more than what is perhaps done today with this protection of this critical infrastructure.

FRA is very good and very important. They have a very important mission to do ahead. I stand completely behind it. But we also need to work much more with the parts concerning the protection of critical societal infrastructure. Therefore, in our budget proposal, we have chosen to move these 50 million kronor there.

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

Camilla Brunsberg (M)

Madam Speaker! I share Mikael Larsson's view that Sweden's energy system needs to strengthen its resilience. The reason that is needed is primarily because the Center Party, together with its now almost established coalition partners on the left, has ensured that Sweden has shut down its nuclear reactors. This makes us extremely vulnerable for the future.

Now, Centerpartiet obviously believes that we are going to secure our energy supply's resilience by financing it with an extra 25 million kronor for crisis preparedness. Those of us who did not want to shut down nuclear power can take the opportunity to say that much more than 25 million kronor is needed for crisis preparedness. I am also firmly convinced that if we were to face a critical situation one day, it is the National Cybersecurity Centre and the intelligence services that can seriously reveal and prevent threats to the energy supply.

I think it is quite concerning that there is a desire to reduce the budget for FRA's intelligence activities by 50 million kronor. We have very large challenges ahead of us. I therefore actually think that Mikael Larsson should answer so that the Swedish people understand how dismantling FRA's activities by 50 million kronor could strengthen our energy supply's resilience.

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

Mikael Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I share the view that crisis preparedness needs much more money and that much more work should be done with it. The Centre Party are the first to sign on to that.

I think, however, it becomes a bit strange when the member says that we have dismantled nuclear power and that it is only that which should be protected. That is almost how I interpret the member. It concerns the entire energy sector - wind power and hydropower. I have sat for four years in the transport committee. And the digital infrastructure must be protected. We have seen in Europe that railway networks and trains have been knocked out. We perhaps must protect this type of critical infrastructure as well. So, it is not only about nuclear power.

Of course, nuclear power must be protected so that it does not end up as it unfortunately happened in, for example, Ukraine. But the member targets his contribution solely on the fact that we have dismantled nuclear power, and we have not dismantled any nuclear power. The protection of critical infrastructure applies horizontally across everything in Sweden. It is not solely focused on nuclear power. Everything must be protected so that we can manage our basic functions in Sweden when it comes to crisis preparedness.

We take 25 million and put it towards other things within critical infrastructure, and it could be much more; I am the first to sign off on that. But to take 25 million from FRA, which has received a lot of money previously, in this situation, I believe both the Swedish people and several here in the chamber can understand is okay. It would, however, require much more for crisis preparedness and for the protection of critical infrastructure - and FRA should, of course, have the money that is already there.

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Madam Speaker, honorable members and listeners! The security policy situation is very serious. Russia's terrible and illegal invasion of Ukraine has dramatically changed an already deteriorated security situation in Europe, which also has consequences for Sweden.

The Russian war of aggression manifests the risks of authoritarian leaders, militarism and weapons of mass destruction, as well as the importance of the rest of the world standing united in its defense of international law, human dignity and peace. Miljöpartiet supports that Sweden provides solidarity with Ukraine not only with humanitarian aid but also with weapons. That we help Ukraine defend itself against the aggressor Putin is important for the security, democracy and freedom of the whole of Europe.

Miljöpartiet also supports a faster and more extensive reconstruction of both the military and civil defense than we have previously seen a need for. We stand behind the agreement from the spring of 2022 that the appropriations for defense shall reach 2 percent of GDP as soon as it is practically possible, that is, when it is possible to effectively translate the increases into a strengthened defense capability.

It is important here to emphasize that we do not only want to increase defense spending, but we also want it to be converted into strengthened capability - and that the balance between military and civil defense is improved by the civil defense now also being prioritized in a different way than it has been for far too long. Unlike the government's proposal, Miljöpartiet wants to see a larger investment in civil defense and crisis preparedness.

Madam Speaker! It is at the same time continuously important to always weigh the defense's needs against the state's other needs within, for example, welfare and climate transition, which is also fundamental for a safe and secure society. This government's first budget is a clear betrayal of climate and environment but also of welfare and vulnerable people both in Sweden and in our surrounding world - not least the children, which is highlighted by a number of children's rights organizations in a debate article in Altinget today.

Given the government's shortcomings in other expenditure areas, the question is whether they have landed correctly in their priorities. Miljöpartiet has in its budget funds for both climate and welfare and to add to the expenditure area a total of 1,815,000,000 kronor more than the government for 2023 - this is to strengthen civil defense and crisis preparedness.

Since our budget is larger than the government's and the frameworks that have been established by the Riksdag, we cannot reserve ourselves in favor of our proposal. We must therefore abstain from taking a position, but we will explain our policy regarding the expenditure area in a separate statement.

Madam Speaker! In the shadow of the war in Ukraine, another security threat is growing. Climate change is a threat to people's lives, health, and security. It is not just about extreme weather and changed conditions for our living environments, but also about the fact that the risk of tensions, conflicts, and war increases when supplies run low and people are forced to flee.

We must do everything in our power to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and simultaneously adapt society so that it can withstand the pressures of a changed climate. But far too few parties take the climate threat as seriously as is required. The most important preventive measure is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but the government, on the contrary, pursues a policy that increases emissions and thus the risk of a climate catastrophe. In expenditure area 6, the perspective that the climate is a security policy threat is conspicuous by its absence.

Madam Speaker! In a changing world, society needs to be prepared for a number of different events. We do not know when or where the effects of climate change will strike or if natural disasters and pandemics will occur, but we need to be prepared to meet them when they do. This requires a well-functioning total defense where civil and military defense work together in the event of high alert or crisis.

At the same time, Sweden must be able to meet a security policy situation where the line between war and peace is not as clear as before - what is called gray zone issues and which the government also refers to as hybrid threats. We also need to build up the society's resilience against disinformation and influence campaigns aimed at destabilizing society and undermining our democracy.

Madam Speaker! A well-functioning military defense is entirely dependent on a well-functioning civil defense, and therefore more resources and more personnel need to be added to the civil defense. A strong civil defense increases resilience and the possibility to support the military defense.

We want to invest more in building up a strong resilience against both armed attacks and the effects of climate change, pandemics, and natural disasters. Therefore, we want to add 1 billion kronor to the appropriation for crisis preparedness and 750 million kronor to the appropriation for the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency.

We also want to strengthen the Coast Guard, partly in order to be able to carry out an effective environmental monitoring. This applies in particular to situations like the Nord Stream leak. Therefore, in our budget motion, we have allocated 25 million kronor to the Coast Guard.

Madam Speaker! Our crisis preparedness must be robust, well-considered, and adapted to our current and future needs. The Swedish Defence Research Agency, FOI, does solid work with research for the Armed Forces and the government. This research is, however, mostly focused on military defense, and therefore Miljöpartiet believes that FOI should be given a comprehensive mandate by the government to broaden and deepen the research regarding civil defense. We have also proposed funds for this in our budget motion.

Madam Speaker! For a long period, readiness in Sweden has been dismantled in favor of streamlined just-in-time deliveries and rapid inventory turnover, and the consequences were devastating when the new coronavirus reached Sweden. That which we want to stand strong in a crisis must also be built strong in everyday life.

We need to have a preparedness for disasters in the wake of climate change, pandemics and other conceivable events, as well as an organization that can handle unexpected events. Stockpiling of critical goods and medical supplies etc. must be built up again. In order to be able to maintain sufficiently flexible and comprehensive stocks, the responsibility for stockpiling needs to lie at the national level, and the business sector needs to be involved.

As part of strengthening civil defense, we also want to introduce a civil service that complements the military conscription. It is a civil duty aimed at strengthening society in the event of a crisis, which could range from forest fires and major accidents to strengthening healthcare during a pandemic.

Madam Speaker! Equality is also important. Both women and men should be able to contribute to our defense and serve within the Armed Forces. It is positive that the proportion of female conscripts is increasing, but it remains important to work with a systematic gender mainstreaming and with equipment development that makes it possible for our female soldiers to operate effectively. It is also important to work on attitudes within the agency, so that we achieve a more equal defense.

Miljöpartiet has its roots not only in the environmental movement but also in the peace movement, Madam Speaker. Our defense policy aims to protect Sweden and promote peace and detente in our immediate vicinity. Defense takes its starting point in the right to self-defense under international law and must therefore be defensive in its character and structure. We view the changed security policy situation with concern and have also adapted our defense policy accordingly.

We simultaneously emphasize that it continues to be important to apply a broad security policy concept that encompasses not only the threat of military violence but also other risks and crises.

We want to build a robust and secure society, Madam Speaker, but in our efforts to build this, we must not lose our compass. We want Sweden to work for peace, freedom, democracy, and human rights, both globally as well as in Sweden's immediate vicinity. Those values are important to take with us into Nato the day that Sweden's application for membership is approved.

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

Camilla Brunsberg (M)

Madam Speaker! Sweden faces its greatest foreign, security, and defense policy tests in modern times. We Moderates take this with the utmost seriousness.

Securing external and internal security is one of the state's most absolutely necessary and important tasks. To seriously secure Sweden's security, both external and internal, after eight years represents a paradigm shift in Swedish politics. What is a country that cannot guarantee its citizens' safety and security, whether it concerns internal security—police, migration, and the justice system—or external security, i.e., total defense?

That is why we Moderates, together with our coalition partners, take this task with the utmost seriousness - in many ways and within several different areas. Today in the chamber, expenditure area 6, which concerns total defense, is being handled.

The buildup of the total defense and expenditure area 6 is the largest investment in Sweden's external security in decades. Within the mandate period - year 2026 - we will reach a budget framework that today corresponds to 2 percent of Sweden's GDP.

Economic frameworks and goals are a step towards securing Sweden's security, but more is needed. Sweden's security policy actions are being coordinated for the first time, and Sweden's crisis management is being organized so that it reflects today's complex threat picture and risks.

We are establishing a national security council within the Government Offices with the mandate to build up coordination, direction, and analysis of issues concerning national security. This is a time when various threats are directed towards Sweden, which requires a unified capability against national security threats. Therefore, I, Madam Speaker, am proud to stand here at the rostrum and speak for our budget, which entails an incredibly large investment in Sweden's security. It is a paradigm shift.

We are four parties that place Sweden's security - both internal and external - high on the agenda. Now we are also creating the conditions to finally begin the upgrading of the total defense. So many have stood ready at the starting line for this to now be able to become a reality. It will take time, and we have to take it step by step. I and many others have been frustrated that there has been a long starting distance to build up the total defense and the civil defense, but now it will be able to become a reality.

We take a collective grip and organize the activities for the total defense under one department. We also now have a minister for civil defense. We add, as mentioned, the economic resources that the activities consider themselves to need, but we also organize the activity so that it can gain momentum forward.

This will not be done in a heartbeat; it will take time. I am, however, proud that there is a broad majority for our budget proposal and that there is now a government with a stable majority in the chamber to be able to implement all the changes and improvements that Sweden so much needs in many different areas.

Our Swedish will to defend is strong, Madam Speaker. It is the most important ingredient in our security policy. Personnel within the Armed Forces, conscripts, and voluntary organizations testify to a strong will to defend. As we are now to build up our total defense, this is an immensely important ingredient, and it is there. That the will to defend is strong is the most important thing in a difficult time for Europe.

I note that the eight parties represented in the Swedish Riksdag will not always agree on the details of the military defense and, above all, on NATO membership. But I also note that the parties are very much in agreement when it comes to the construction of the total defense and the importance of a functioning civil defense.

We have a very broad political consensus regarding the economic frameworks for the total defense, and we are in complete agreement on the importance of building up a total defense. This sends important signals to our surrounding world about our will and ability to build up a strong total defense in a long-term and economically sustainable manner.

Building up the total defense also involves large investments in the Swedish defense industry. A strong Swedish defense industry is part of Sweden's collective defense capability and important for Sweden's security of supply perspective.

We have a unique defense industrial base. There is no country in the world with a comparable economy that can produce fighter jets, submarines, warships and ground combat vehicles as our country can. The export share for Swedish companies has increased significantly since internationalization and globalization began. The export share is crucial for us to be able to meet the competitiveness of Swedish companies.

Now we must consolidate our forces to regain the ability to defend our country. A cohesive materials and defense industry was needed that meets security interests, security of supply, and war-critical companies for Sweden.

Not far from Sweden, Putin has started a blitzkrieg. The Ukrainian people are not only standing up for their own freedom but are also fighting for all of Europe's democracy and freedom.

Madam Speaker! In these bitter times, it is good that the will to defend is strong, that there is a broad consensus in the Defence Committee, and that we have such a broad political consensus regarding the economic frameworks and total defense. Sometimes it is, of course, important to point out the broad consensus that exists within this important area.

Madam Speaker! With these words, I move to approve the Defense Committee's proposal and reject the Center Party's statement. I also want to thank for all the fantastic efforts being made across our country and in international efforts to strengthen our country's security.

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

Mikael Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank Camilla Brunsberg for a very fine speech. I agree with much of what Member Brunsberg raised.

I would like to hear something about the government's view on what I raised in my speech regarding coexistence - on how the Armed Forces and the local community can develop together.

We know that new regiments will be started within the next few years; the regiments that have been decided shall begin to be built. We also know that the Armed Forces need even more training areas around the country. At the same time, it must not be that the Armed Forces say stop and no to everything as soon as someone wants to build a balcony, a new house, or whatever it may be.

This is an issue that is of great importance for the entire country to be able to develop. It is an issue that the Center Party has championed, among other things through a motion, but which is now being chosen to be concluded via the budget bill.

I would like to hear a bit from MP Camilla Brunsberg about how the Moderate-led government wants to work with these issues. It should not be that the Armed Forces are the biggest and always come first, but there should be some kind of balance. One should be able to build and develop towns and communities all over the country. The Armed Forces can of course be developed in its own way, but these things must not stand in conflict with one another.

I would like to hear a bit about how the member and the government view this.

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

Camilla Brunsberg (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Mikael, for the opportunity to debate this! I think, just as you do, that this is an extremely urgent issue.

I am convinced that there are many of us who have experience of how many obstacles and bureaucracy there are and how many resources that are unnecessarily spent on developing a society to then, after several years of development funds, administration and investment will from companies, be rejected because there is no clarity on what applies.

I have highlighted this several times and will continue to do so, because it is ultimately a matter for the Ministry of Civil Affairs and the Committee on Civil Affairs to ensure that the processing of, for example, the construction of wind power and housing functions fully.

I believe that we in the government and the coalition partner have been clear that civil defense is extremely important and that it should be possible to coexist through this organizational change being made. I can also state that when the new organization for civil defense was introduced a few weeks ago, we ensured to invest in the activities by providing extra funds to the civil areas and the sector-responsible authorities. It will certainly be possible to meet the needs of coexistence between authorities.

I nevertheless share the member's view that the situation is very problematic and, above all, that the companies' investment funds are being wasted. They may want to invest in both wind power and housing, spend a lot of money on it and produce detailed plans to be able to establish, for example, wind power - and then it ends up as a no in the end. It is clear that this needs to be high on the agenda, and I also think we show in our organization that it is.

What is needed from the defense side is clear instructions, but both the member and I know that it will take time before such instructions can be given.

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

Mikael Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Camilla Brunsberg, for the answer!

I naturally share the view that it is extremely important to find some form of consensus when it comes to wind power, larger establishments and the like. In places around the country where the Armed Forces are already present and where there are also opportunities for development and where there are already buildings – why could one not build another building?

I am absolutely no civil engineer and shall not speak about how one should build and not, but sometimes it might be possible to install special windows that make it so that it does not make noise. Such a thing is done, for example, when one works with infrastructure planning.

It is very good that the government is taking action and gathering many of these issues in one place and driving them forward. But there must also be work carried out out in the country, and one must ensure that there is a clear result.

The processing times are long – of course, they must be shortened. This applies to environmental permits and many other types of permits. I am, as I said in my speech, the first to sign off on the fact that the Armed Forces must be allowed to develop throughout the country. It must have high priority, but it must not go so far that it prevents entire communities or individuals across the country from building homes, balconies, or whatever it may be. We have, after all, heard examples of people not being allowed to build a balcony because the Armed Forces have blocked it.

I would like to ask the member again to say something about how the government wants to continue working with these issues, besides gathering things together in one department or under one agency. It needs to be highlighted that coexistence between the Armed Forces and civil society is important in order to form a strong society.

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

Camilla Brunsberg (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Mikael Larsson! This is an urgent issue. I want to be clear in saying that my and the Moderaternas view is that if two national interests are pitted against each other, Sweden's defense capability and security are always paramount. I believe that most politicians across Sweden agree on that. It is quite often that one is faced with those tests.

I come from a very defense-oriented county myself and can say that this has been part of the everyday work there during all the years I have been politically active. We were always broadly politically in agreement that the Armed Forces and security capability always come first. What I think is problematic is that one does not give this clear notice from the beginning, but instead lets companies plow down development funds and investment funds, only to then, after two, five, or even eight years, give notice that it is not possible to build anything or establish wind turbines.

I am therefore seeking that a notification is given in a first stage so that the companies' investment funds are not wasted. I think that it is irresponsible. I hope that this can be resolved.

I do not know if we agree on what should be prioritized in cases where two interests are pitted against each other. There, I want to clarify that my and the Moderaternas view is that Sweden's defense capability and security always come first - always, in any given situation. Then, of course, it must be possible to ensure the opportunities to build housing and, in some places, establish wind power. But Swedish defense capability always comes first.

I also want to point out that when I have raised this issue, I have been told that it is primarily a matter for the Ministry of Civil Affairs. But I think we probably agree that clear instructions and clear rules of the game are needed. We may not agree on what should be prioritized at any given time, but we completely agree that clearer rules of the game are needed and that one must be careful with the companies' investment funds.

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

Sara-Lena Bjälkö (SD)

Madam Speaker! Honored members of the Riksdag! Several wise and important matters have been raised here in the chamber this morning. It is very pleasant that we are so in harmony.

We Sweden Democrats have, since our entry into the Riksdag, not only pursued an active policy for the reconstruction of the total defense but also pointed out the risks and warning signs regarding Russia's increasingly aggressive foreign policy.

For two decades, we have watched with horror at the slow dismantling of the total defense that took several decades to build up. Everything from regiments to shelters and protective equipment has been sold off or simply scrapped.

Processes, regulations, and routines for civil defense and crisis preparedness have gathered dust over the recent years. Much of this became clear during the forest fires in 2014 and 2018, but also during the initial months of the pandemic outbreak.

The Swedish Defence Research Agency exemplifies this well in its latest report on the current risks in the Swedish preparedness, where the principle of responsibility that has been guiding for many years has proven problematic when the crisis actually occurs. They describe it as that everyone's responsibility easily becomes no one's responsibility.

Madam Speaker! Before I proceed, I want to briefly mention Russia's actions in Ukraine, where they have shown themselves completely indifferent to the suffering of the civilian population.

Russia's attacks against the Ukrainian power grid began as early as 2014-2015 when, through a cyberattack, they succeeded in knocking out the grid for approximately 230,000 consumers. At the beginning of the war this spring, they again attempted to knock out the power supply through cyberattacks, but failed.

According to information, the Ukrainian power grid delivered approximately 40 percent of its capacity in November with recurring power outages. The robot attacks are carried out against specific targets with the aim of creating as much destruction as possible on the power grid. It is pure terrorist activity!

Madam Speaker! This is what the civilian population in Sweden can expect in a hybrid or war situation, because without electricity, society stops. And given the savings on crisis preparedness and civil defense in recent decades, we can expect that it will be an incredibly tough situation for us. The work with the reconstruction of civil defense and crisis preparedness must continue at an uninterrupted pace if the situation were to deteriorate rapidly.

Madam Speaker! When I look at the overall budget for the entire expenditure area, I could say that it is positive that the investments that we Sverigedemokrater have demanded for so many years will finally take place. But this unfortunately happens largely due to the reasons I have mentioned, that is to say, Ukraine's more or less total destruction in the country's eastern parts.

Madam Speaker! In the current situation, we politicians must do our utmost to provide authorities and voluntary organizations with the economic conditions required to create a robust civil defense and crisis preparedness.

Defense and society's crisis preparedness

The voluntary defense organizations play an important role for Sweden's crisis preparedness. Each organization has specialist expertise in different areas. Through courses and training, the organizations ensure that the specific expertise is preserved. The organizations also place a large number of people in specialist positions within the total defense.

Civil defense shall be developed, exercised, and led in close cooperation with the military in order to achieve synergy effects, but also to ensure that competition and leadership issues can be eliminated already in peacetime activities.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues in the Committee on Defence here in the chamber for the fact that we have now reached an understanding of how acute the situation is. Better late than never that we are so united on this report. A complete rebuilding of civil defence and a functioning crisis preparedness will take time, but this report is a step in the right direction.

Madam Speaker! We Sweden Democrats support the government's budget proposal regarding expenditure area 6 and the report with our special opinion on the two percent target.

With this, I wish you all a truly wonderful, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 20 December.)

Tax, customs and execution

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