Defense and society's crisis preparedness

Björn Söder (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the report on expenditure area 6 Defence and society's crisis preparedness. I would like to begin with a few reflective words as this will be the final budget debate for the parliamentary term.

What I can state is that, unlike previous years, it has been a jarring period, not only for those of us sitting in here but for the entire world. Many probably hoped that society would return to normal when the covid pandemic was over. But that changed with Russia's completed war of invasion which began on 24 February 2022.

For our part, we in the party have lost two colleagues under very tragic circumstances. Sven-Olof Sällström, who had been there since the party's entry into the Riksdag, did a great job for the party during the initial crisis of the war in Ukraine. Svenne, as he was also called, was not only a Member of Parliament but he was also an officer at heart.

Some of the important proposals he presented were, among others, that Sweden should send tanks to Ukraine, which also subsequently happened. Another important issue that Svenne championed before he passed away was the combat pilots' pay issue, something that also was subsequently resolved. Svenne was a colleague who is now deeply missed by many of us.

Svenne was subsequently replaced by Lars Wistedt who, together with member Pelle Söderlund, made great contributions for the party in the Defence Committee. Lars, with his 26 years in the defense forces, was one of the most knowledgeable in the Riksdag and certainly in the entire Defence Committee. In addition to his officer role, he had an enormous historical knowledge and energy within these issues. It was therefore very shocking when we were reached by the news that he had fallen asleep during a business trip to Canada.

We remember and mourn our colleagues by not letting their memory fade, and their contributions for Sweden and for Ukraine during this eventful and complex time are written in history.

Mr. Speaker! The budget for 2026 is presented, just as in previous years, during a very turbulent time in the world. Not many had imagined that the 2000s would again become a forum for global conflicts and the risk of major war among the world's superpowers. Even more were convinced that we no longer needed a defense. That was rather naive.

The Sweden Democrats have, as is well known, been the only party that repeatedly wanted to maintain a defense. It is a common thread alongside our immigration and crime policy that we have stood by, even when the defense was called a special interest from certain quarters and previous governments had begun the dismantling of the defense.

As early as 1999 – 26 years ago – I myself warned that the Russian development could quickly take a new direction from what was then perceived to be a more Western and democratic one. In our youth bulletin, I wrote as a twenty-year-old: ”It is possible to construct completely foreign future scenarios for Russia's development. It can neither be ruled out that the reform policy returns, that the development continues in the same direction, or that the collapse accelerates. It can also not be ruled out that the political leadership is replaced by red-brown forces with political ambitions that threaten our immediate neighborhood or perhaps the entire world."

The uncertainty is great. A downsized defense takes years to build up again – we may not have that time the day the political situation changes. Our insurance is called: Swedish Defense!

Of course, parts of our policy have been detailed and at times a bit too forward-looking. If we look at our motions from 2012/13, however, we already saw then where the world was headed: the great power rivalry between the USA and China as well as the aggressive Russia.

Let me quote: "We cannot, as responsible citizens, choose to ignore how Russia has rebuilt its military capability."

Another interesting part is from 2013, where we write about the rapprochement between Russia and China and the other BRICS countries, which concludes with the conclusion: "The European countries should already now take a security and defense policy stance for such a conceivable development."

How the European awakening went we see today, five in twelve and full panic. What we also see is the price tag for the failure to act. We have urgently needed to ensure a, admittedly welcome, defense initiative of approximately 300 billion kronor. The Sweden Democrats also left a large mark in the Defense Commission, and what we can also see is that many of our older proposals are also being implemented in the current buildup of the defense.

Mr. Speaker! Why is it then important for us to annually conduct a review of what we wrote 10–15, yes, 26 years ago? Well, because it is important for us, for Sweden and the voters to see that there actually still are politicians who see things coming.

It is certainly true that adjustments were carried out after the invasion of Georgia in 2008 and 2015. But the truth is, which is also described in several reports, including those from the National Audit Office, that it was too little, too low prioritized, and without follow-up. It is the receipt for the opposition's so-called defense policy. One followed in the Moderaterna's earlier footsteps where defense was a special interest.

In a report by MSB and the Armed Forces from last year, it is established that the situation in the total defense at the starting point of the Ukraine war was not only bad, but it was worse than previously thought. Our ability to defend our country's territorial integrity in the event of war was so poor that the government, together with Sverigedemokraterna, more or less had to make emergency orders for the defense to even be able to manage for more than a few days. It is the receipt for the previous government's "great transition" of the defense.

He simply could not manage to choose between activist environmental policy, quotas, feminist foreign policy, and Sweden's survival. It may sound harsh, but that is how it is. In 2022, Sweden stood, just like in 1914 and 1939, unprepared for a brutal world that did not take wishful thinking into account.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats, together with the government, have during these three years implemented more initiatives on defense than the previous government implemented during its eight years in power. We have invested billions in investments in the Armed Forces' ability to defend Sweden. We have invested billions in civil defense and in healthcare, medicines, emergency stocks, and agriculture. We have reintroduced national service, and we act against Russian infiltration, strengthen psychological defense, and so on.

This is undoubtedly the most defense-friendly and action-oriented government base in modern times, and it is obvious that this is only possible with the help of the Sweden Democrats.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have been driving the issue regarding easing environmental permits for the Armed Forces. Unfortunately, the government has stalled here. Given the security situation, it is, we would say, crucial that the government gets moving, removes obstacles to growth, and acts.

In today's newly released security strategy from the USA, we can read that the ambition is that the EU needs to take responsibility for security in Europe to a greater extent with a target of 2027. In that case, it is a failing grade to simultaneously sit and not get environmental permit regulations through. It limits the production of conscripts and the defense industry. It is about weapons and about strengthening Swedish defense capability.

As Lars Wistedt often expressed it: We lost the war and the country, but at least we had a good bureaucracy! It is a small consolation when Stockholm looks like eastern Ukraine.

The Prime Minister himself has mentioned the importance of removing obstacles to growth and pointed out that the departments work in silos. Despite this, it is going far too slowly.

Another matter that the Sweden Democrats have pushed since 2023 is the issue of Russian properties and the importance of a strong protection law. It also concerns legal possibilities to take action against these security-threatening operations. It is not by any chance that several of these properties are located in connection with protected objects.

The Sweden Democrats have also pushed the government on the issue of strengthening MSB's mandate and role within the total defense. We also proposed a review of the military intelligence service in 2023 – a proposal that did not align with the proposal that is now on the table.

It is in our opinion an inconvenience that Must did not hit the mark regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine. At the same time, there are both political and economic reasons for this. This applies particularly to the dimensioning of the operations, something that should have been expanded in connection with the invasion of Georgia, among other things.

These are just some of the important initiatives and issues that we have implemented during this short period. During 2026, the Sverigedemokraterna, together with the government, will implement a number of other reinforcements in the area.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats naturally see it as positive that there is today a common consensus across party lines on the upcoming investments. It is one of the advantages of the Defense Committee. We are, in many respects, with few exceptions, in agreement. It is, however, enormously important that the investments are maintained.

The question regarding the future operating budget is something that should begin to be discussed already now. The discussion is already in full swing in England and France, and particularly in France, which has enormous problems with its public finances. The equation of high unemployment, defense investments, strong welfare, and investments in the green transition will not add up. It will require hard prioritizations, and to not see this is to deceive oneself and the Swedish people.

This is our, or my, contribution to history, which I mentioned in the introduction. We will need more people in work to afford both defense and welfare. We will need to prioritize these areas within the coming years.

We will not be able to finance all parties' wishful thinking and special interests by taxing the middle class into oblivion, because that is exactly what will happen. It is one of the conclusions from a French investigation that has looked at how the equation is to balance. One of the parts that they have backed away from is precisely large tax increases, because it will hamper growth and purchasing power. We also know that historically it is precisely the middle class that is left holding the bag when the Social Democrats want to "punish" the rich.

The Sweden Democrats want to see a strong Sweden, where more people work and contribute to our common society. We want to see a future where young people look forward to doing national service, a national service with an expanded incentive model that compensates to a greater extent for the sacrifice that many make today.

We also mean that the conscription should to a greater extent be a gateway to the officer profession, which also needs to modernize its incentive structure. This also concerns the importance of being able to manage the life puzzle and family formation. We are aware that there are currently authorities that create obstacles for officers who move and have family members, and that is also something we want to review.

The Swedish Armed Forces shall be expanded in number, and every soldier shall be equipped with the necessary materiel to survive tomorrow's wars. It is not sufficient, as we see it, that proper equipment is not being produced. Technology and innovation will be decisive, and we shall ensure that those who stand on the front line have the best possible conditions. It is also through this that we deter a potential attacker.

We will continue the work of strengthening cooperation with the Nordic countries and maintaining our important cooperation with Ukraine. We also want to ensure that the good cooperation with the Baltic states and Poland continues, because it is our view that in the event of war, we will to a large extent have to manage on our own.

In conclusion, I would like to wish everyone in the Armed Forces who guard our outer border day and night, the home guard members who leave their families and make great contributions in their spare time, and all other voluntary organizations, which are a crucial part of our total defense, a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I would like to wish the same to my colleagues in the Defense Committee, the officials at our office, and of course, Mr. Speaker.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report and at the same time apologize for exceeding the allotted speaking time.

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

Markus Selin (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the state budget within expenditure area 6 Defence and society's crisis preparedness – an area that carries the very foundation of our freedom, our security, and the very resilience of our democracy.

Europe faces its most serious security policy situation in decades. Russia's continued war against Ukraine reminds us daily that peace can never be taken for granted.

The requirements of war must now be dimensioning for our total defense. Therefore, Sweden shall continue to build a people's defense for the most serious trials. We shall have a total defense that is strong, modern and resilient – by the Swedish people and for the Swedish people.

The total defense consists of two equally important parts: the military defense and the civil defense. Sometimes we speak of these as two different systems, but in reality, they are one and the same whole. The military defense can never become stronger than the society that stands behind it.

The agreement this summer between all eight parties in the Riksdag to allocate 300 billion kronor for a build-up of the Swedish total defense is a good basis to stand on, with a focus on NATO's new goals of defense spending at 3.5 percent of GDP and additionally a goal of 1.5 percent of GDP for defense-related expenditures.

It is in this context that we are now to see the 2026 budget for expenditure area 6, which we are debating today.

We Social Democrats approve of today's appropriation of just over 225 billion kronor and furthermore the ordering authorizations of 341 billion kronor for the years to come. Of these 341 billion in ordering authorizations, approximately 85 percent constitute the appropriation A Procurement of materiel and facilities.

Mr. Speaker! The Armed Forces shall continue to develop its operational capability. Sweden is now being integrated into NATO's defense planning, and exercise activities with our allies are being strengthened. But personnel supply remains strained, equipment availability is insufficient, and the infrastructure needs to be reinforced. Command and communication capabilities must be adapted to NATO's requirements.

We further note that the build-up of the war organization is not proceeding as quickly as was decided in previous defense agreements.

The ability to defend our own territory with army units but also to act in other countries, especially in our immediate vicinity, must increase. This requires that the buildup of brigades must continue. The current decision applies to four army brigades until 2030, and already now we social democrats can make it clear here in the chamber that two additional brigades must be built up immediately after 2030.

From a Social Democratic perspective, we also want to signal that we want to develop the current decision regarding the number of conscripts. Today we say 10,000 conscripts until 2030, but we want to raise the bar even further. We want to see 12,000 conscripts in 2030 and, in addition, a longer-term goal of 20,000 in conscription.

The ambition for the proportion of women in the Armed Forces also remains firm for our part. Today, the figure stands at 25 percent. Our goal is that 40 percent of the Armed Forces' employees shall be women. Thus, we enrich our defense, Mr. Speaker, and ensure that all possible competence can be utilized.

Mr. Speaker! The war in Ukraine affects the global demand for defense materiel and the necessary support for Ukraine's struggle for freedom. We Social Democrats want to see investments that strengthen Swedish production of defense materiel. We want to see competitiveness and Swedish jobs, not increased import dependencies.

The military defense and our security rest on the fact that we can ourselves produce and maintain critical materiel. With political will and political support, the engineering nation Sweden here continues to have very good opportunities. The defense industry has a decisive role for both the Swedish defense forces and other countries. This is a core interest, and both the combat aviation and our submarine capacity are so-called essential security interests where the state has a special responsibility.

In the vast majority of countries, the connection between the defense industry and the nation's own interests is very clear. State ownership and partial ownership are common. The Swedish state must be prepared to engage as an owner in defense industrial activities. This could involve partial ownership in large companies that are crucial for Swedish security, for example Saab, but also ownership arrangements in smaller and newly started companies that develop new and future strategic products or weapons systems.

The state must also take greater responsibility for a strategic marketing of Swedish products on the world market. Greater personnel and financial resources must be allocated here, and we Social Democrats want to establish a new Swedish export support agency. In this perspective, Sweden must not fail when it comes to Swedish dominance and design prevailing regarding the decision on the next generation of combat aircraft. In the same way, a decision to order an additional submarine should be prepared. The submarine weapon is central when it comes to naval warfare and intelligence in the Baltic Sea. Here, Sweden has a unique competence and capacity.

Mr. Speaker! Civil defense is still our greatest deficiency. I say this with great respect for the extensive work that is ongoing within authorities, municipalities, and regions. A strong total defense is what provides society's true capacity in a crisis. It is about Sweden's collective mobilization capacity and resilience. Within the framework of this summer's mentioned settlement, 50 billion have been allocated for the buildup of civil defense. Here, it is about a whole and the ability to withstand attacks. It is about vital voluntary defense organizations and about maintaining a functioning infrastructure and electricity supply. It is about capacities for food and fuel supply as well as drinking water, about managing fires both in built-up areas and in forests as well as the supply of healthcare and medicines and the ability to carry out extensive clearing operations in a sustainable way.

Certain steps have been taken with training activities, improved capabilities, the introduction of civil service, war placements, improved coordination with the Armed Forces, and so on. The basic principle is simple: A strong civil defense is the very prerequisite for a functioning military defense. But the journey back to a robust civil defense is still long. For example, national ID cards are still lacking today, which in a crisis or war can be crucial for being able to quickly identify an injured or a deceased person. This should be addressed with speed.

We see further that cooperation with the business sector has increased but is still insufficient. A new agency should also be tasked with being responsible for the business sector's integration into the total defense. This is a very large task that concerns how production resources can be utilized during crisis and war. The work so far is not in proportion to what needs to be done.

Mr. Speaker! Crisis preparedness is about the ability to protect life, health, and society-critical activities when accidents, crises, or wars hit us. Crisis preparedness is about the fact that society must function when nothing else does. Important steps forward are also being taken here, but a good deal remains. We Social Democrats believe that a strategically important decision should be to establish a new state rescue agency that shall be responsible for staff training but also take clear responsibility for the strategic development of the fire defense. Crisis preparedness must function in the entire country, not just where resources are greatest.

Mr. Speaker! Overall, we stand behind the committee's proposal for appropriations and ordering authority for 2026 and expenditure area 6, but we want to establish two new regiments, one in Kiruna and one in Kvarn, and regarding this, we move today for approval of our reservation.

We want to see these two regiments, so-called organizational units, because we simply see the need to establish long-term training sites for soldiers at these locations. It is also about making a security policy statement and strengthening the war organization with improved unit production.

In the Arctic region today, great power interests are being pitted against each other, which is why Kiruna in particular becomes especially important. The Malmbanan, space technology, the mining industry, and the area's aforementioned strategic location require an even more extensive and permanent military presence.

At the same time, Kvarn outside Linköping is today the home of both the Markstridsskolan and the division leadership. Since the infrastructure is already in place with training fields and a facility for urban combat, we consider Kvarn to be a suitable center for developing unit production. Thus, we also increase the number of conscripts in the long term.

Mr. Speaker! From our starting point, it is a self-evident fact that a broad defense policy consensus constitutes a strength for Sweden. We therefore want to emphasize that a fundamental part of the defense agreement is that participating parties shall be given the opportunity to together and in dialogue sort out different priorities. In the work with the budget bill, the government has, in our opinion, not complied with this order. Especially when it comes to civil defense, future budget spaces have already begun to be claimed without it having been preceded in a reasonable way by a dialogue with all parties outside the government base.

It is weak. We are waiting for this dialogue. The government is too slow, and we Social Democrats do not believe that such a way of working lays the foundation for Sweden to be able to stand strong and united in an uncertain world.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats also regret that there is no agreement on the ongoing financing of our defense in the long term. While it lies outside today's consideration, we Social Democrats want to see, among other things, that a readiness tax is investigated and introduced.

A fragmented tax system, large tax cuts for those who already have a lot and low growth have contributed to far too much diminishing resources for our common commitments. Now that we face large investments to strengthen our defense capability, it must not happen at the expense of our collective resilience. For example, Sweden is heading towards a budget deficit of 167 billion kronor next year. Sweden is therefore already borrowing money to balance the budget.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, a few words on the bigger picture. We want to build a resilient Sweden. Security is not built in a year. It is not actually built by a single party or by a single government either. Security is built through long-term perspective, cooperation, and accountability over time. The defense's strength comes not only from the appropriations but from our ability to unite when it matters. The most important thing of all is to defend Sweden, our democracy, and our people's security.

We Social Democrats stand ready to continue taking responsibility for that Sweden is free, safe and strong – yesterday, today and for future generations.

(Applause)

In this speech, Johan Andersson (S) agreed.

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

Helena Bouveng (M)

Mr. Speaker! I was a bit puzzled when I heard Member Selin's contribution. He said that he misses transparency. As far as I can recall, our ministers have truly strived to be transparent and to have broad agreements. It is sad to hear that Markus Selin does not experience the same.

Mr. Speaker! I have a question. The Social Democrats do not have more money than the government for defense, but they want to have much more than the Armed Forces can afford or even create the conditions for. Therefore, I want to ask Markus Selin what two extra brigades would cost. What would an extra submarine cost? What would 20,000 conscripts per year cost? What would two extra regiments, as the member mentioned, cost? And what would it cost with a combat aircraft program without competition – you want to keep it national – and without alternatives, when it comes to buying out foreign licensed production etcetera?

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

Markus Selin (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you to Member Helena Bouveng from Moderaterna! I did not mention the word transparency even once. It is therefore a bit difficult for me to guess what Member Bouveng from Moderaterna intends. I suspect it concerns the same issue that the chairman of the Committee on Defence posed to the Prime Minister on Thursday. It concerned the fact that we do not have dialogue and consensus in the discussion regarding upcoming broad agreements.

On Thursday, the chairman Peter Hultqvist stood over there and posed his question to Prime Minister Kristersson, who stood here. Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said that we must ensure it happens and that the Defense Minister would soon return so that all parties in the Swedish Riksdag get the chance to conduct a dialogue and prioritize their important issues. So, Mr. Speaker, we are building a strong and deeply anchored people's defense.

Regarding the priorities concerning money, the member asked very good questions. Sweden and this right-wing government are now borrowing money to finance the current budget. Next year, we will be missing 167 billion kronor. At the same time, taxes are being lowered for those who already have a lot. The government has also hit some kind of record low in growth. We have a Moderate Finance Minister who has a shrinking cake and yet distributes it to those who already have very many resources.

The long list of things we are to invest in will likely be supported by all parties. In that case, it is up to Member of Parliament Bouveng to say when we should invest, not whether we should do it.

(Applause)

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

Helena Bouveng (M)

Mr. Speaker! I solemnly state that the Social Democrats stand behind us borrowing these 300 billion for defense. Even then, we are still 50 billion short. It is a bit exciting. But it is not only submarines, new regiments, brigades, etc. that are among the Chairman's and the Social Democrats' various proposals. They also think that the state should enter as a partial owner, a golden shareholder, in Saab. I find it a bit difficult to understand why. Saab seems to be doing perfectly well without state ownership or, for that matter, MP Peter Hultqvist's expertise. And from where would the Social Democrats take the money? With Saab's successes, it is not cheap nowadays to buy in if one wants to have any influence there.

Already now, the Social Democrats have presented a budget that lacks 50 billion. That is around 2,000 kronor per month in tax increases for a family. Perhaps that is why Peter Hultqvist is so keen on selling signed books, even during committee trips. He does not realize how deep he would have to dig into his own wallet if his proposal were to become reality. But he is not here defending it. Not everyone can write books.

My questions to Member Selin are: Where will the money come from? Will it be an additional 2,000 kronor per month in tax increase for an ordinary family?

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

Markus Selin (S)

Mr. Speaker! I think the tone of the debate now is somewhat unworthy of the consensus on defense policy that we have had until now. It becomes rather sloppy to discuss books here and there. I heard a long series of irrelevant arguments and do not have time to address them now.

The Social Democrats have financed their budget proposals penny for penny, krona for krona. What we are hearing from the Moderates is therefore a bit strange. We are raising the tax because we can and are able to finance our budget krona for krona.

When it comes to ownership, it is influence we seek. I can say, Mr. Speaker, that as a Social Democrat in this chamber, I am grateful that there is a Wallenberg family that has taken responsibility for Sweden's defense industry. But it cannot be up to the economic cycle and different owners' share capital to determine whether our common security shall be governed by a Chinese or American company that changes its strategic policy.

We have many countries in our surroundings, neighboring countries, where the most common thing is that society and, ultimately, the state has influence over and owns parts of the defense industry. The connection between the defense industry and our common security is very important and very strong. To say broadly that we might want to buy ownership in Saab is one example, but there are many other companies out there as well. To buy a sufficiently large insight position or to tinker with different share values and voting rights is entirely possible. It is nothing strange. In new Swedish, such a share is called a golden share. We will be able to resolve that when we want to.

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

Helena Bouveng (M)

Mr. Speaker! Unfortunately, it is not the first time someone has stood in this speaker's chair and stated that the security policy situation is the most serious in several decades. Russia constitutes the dimensioning threat for Sweden. Therefore, the government is making the most extensive reinforcement of the defense since the Cold War. The purpose is to protect Sweden and the country's population. The investments contribute to making Sweden stronger both militarily and civilly as well as economically. The substantial increases in the defense budget and the investments in innovation and the expansion of the defense industry also create an opportunity for a technological leap across the entire country.

The military capability shall be built up and material and personnel targets shall be met. Self-sufficient war units shall be able to meet the demands of global developments. Based on the current GDP forecast and the proposed and calculated appropriations in the budget bill for 2026, defense expenditures during 2026 are estimated to correspond to 2.8 percent of GDP, according to NATO's accounting practices. From 2028 onwards, the appropriations are estimated to correspond to 3.1 percent of GDP.

Together with previously budgeted increases, the appropriations are therefore increased by 26.6 billion in the budget bill for 2026. In the budget bill for 2026, the government proposes that the appropriations for military defense be increased by 10 billion.

The defense's growth occurs in parallel with an increased utilization of the war organization, including through participation in NATO's measures for deterrence and defense, national readiness adjustments, as well as continued military support to Ukraine. The expansion of the defense also involves reinforcements in the defense industry and more and more trained employees.

The Government intends to take the additional steps required to reach 3.5 percent by 2030 in upcoming budget bills, based on, among other things, in-depth reports from the defense authorities and future GDP development.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to highlight some of the areas that we are focusing on. The first is personnel. The Swedish Armed Forces' growth implies greater personnel needs than before. A central task is to attract, recruit, develop, and retain personnel.

That is why we are increasing the compensation for those subject to total defense duty and officer candidates – the conditions for those performing military service must be reasonable. The daily allowance was last increased in 2017 and has since remained completely unchanged. The daily allowance for those subject to total defense duty is increased from today's level to 200 SEK. The cadet compensation for officer candidates is increased by the same percentage as the daily allowance, from 175 SEK per day to 240 SEK per day.

When it comes to the Armed Forces' materiel, with previous budget decisions, we are increasing the appropriations for materiel and facilities by nearly 12 billion compared to 2025. Looking at the expected acquisitions during 2026, it can be mentioned that for the Army, it concerns air defense, rocket artillery, ammunition, and combat vehicles. For the Navy, it is primarily surface combat ships and combat boats. And looking at the Air Force, it concerns tactical transport aircraft and long-range strike capability.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I shall say a few words about industry, research, and innovation. The buildup of the defense and the support for Ukraine presuppose that we have a strong defense industry in Sweden. The experiences from Ukraine underscore the importance of being able to quickly develop military capability. The budget bill for 2026 contains, among other things, investments in a defense innovation unit, research infrastructure, and protection of groundbreaking technology. This provides opportunities for the defense industry to become more efficient and innovative.

I am proud and happy, Mr. Speaker, that Sweden historically stands well in the competition as other countries are now building up their material competence. We can sell main battle tanks, Jas Gripen, and now also submarines – and this without state ownership, Markus Selin, albeit through good cooperation with the Swedish government. This bodes well for the future of Sweden's defense, for Sweden's innovative power to endure, and for our technological development to remain far ahead.

But, Mr. Speaker, the military defense cannot hold without a strong civil defense. When the government took over the civil defense, sufficient funding, governance, and structure were lacking. Security in Sweden's immediate vicinity had simultaneously deteriorated significantly.

The government therefore chose to change the course for Sweden's total defense and carry out a substantial upgrade. For civil defense, this means that the funding will be septupled, from approximately 2.7 billion kronor in 2022 to approximately 19.4 billion kronor in 2028.

But I agree with Member Selin: Much still remains to be done. Sweden's resilience and deterrence must be strengthened. For this, it is required that the capacity in civil defense is increased expeditiously. The Government therefore proposes in the budget for 2026 a new package for civil defense totaling approximately 12 billion kronor for 2026–2028. The investment amounts to a total of approximately 3 billion kronor in 2026, approximately 4.2 billion kronor in 2027, and 4.6 billion kronor in 2028.

In addition, the funds that were parked in the 2025 budget bill for future priorities within civil defense are being allocated. For 2026, this concerns approximately 700 million kronor, for 2027 approximately 1.8 billion kronor, and for 2028 approximately 2.1 billion kronor. The proposals are based on an agreement between the government and Sverigedemokraterna.

We are looking primarily at our supply preparedness. That is where 1 billion kronor will come from. We are looking at health, care, and nursing. It is of utmost importance that this functions in the event of high alert and, ultimately, war; it is crucial for the total defense. We are also looking at the food supply. It is essential that we can ensure that the entire population has access to necessary food in the event of a serious disruption such as a peacetime crisis, high alert, and ultimately war. In that case, it is required that the robustness of the food chain increases.

Our municipalities and regions constitute a fundamental backbone in Sweden's civil defense and themselves have a great responsibility to ensure preparedness at the local level. Therefore, the government has also allocated funds here. The rescue services have already been on the agenda and are war-positioned, but we emphasize that a strong rescue service and a robust protection for the civilian population are central components in Sweden's civil defense.

I could have gone much further into this, but we thought we would have the Minister for Civil Defence here. Unfortunately, he has fallen ill.

I would finally like to thank not least all of Sweden's parties for a good cooperation. I am completely certain that Sweden's government, parliament and defense forces would not have come as far as we actually have without a common view on the whole. It is a strength for our country, our security and our total defense.

(Applause)

In this speech, Gustaf Göthberg (M) concurred.

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

Hanna Gunnarsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! I listened with great interest, of course, to what the member from the Moderaterna had to say in the speech regarding the budget. We have had very good cooperation between the parties to arrive at a defense budget that increases in a way that allows us to build up the total defense, including the civil defense, which the member also spoke about. There is much left to do, especially when it comes to the civil defense.

I still want to ask a question about what the member raised regarding the increase of the conscripts' compensation. An increase is being made from today's 146 kronor to 200, which is relatively little money in this context. Conscription is not a job where one receives a salary, but one receives a financial compensation.

A short while ago, a much-awaited report from an inquiry into personnel matters was released, where an increase to 288 kronor per day for those performing national service was proposed. The Government settled on 200. The Conscription Council wants 300 kronor per day. It was a very great disappointment in the conscription movement when the government landed on 200 instead of the inquiry's 288, even though it is, of course, an increase. The reason why this increase is needed – from the conscription movement, they want a larger increase – is that very many those performing national service today actually have expenses in a way that one perhaps did not have in former times. They have moved out of their homes already before they perform the national service, and they have a rent to pay and some such things.

I wonder if the member can answer why the government chose not to follow the investigation's recommendation and raise it to the amount that the investigation actually proposed, 288 kronor.

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

Helena Bouveng (M)

Mr. Speaker! I think Hanna Gunnarsson has many sound opinions. I can agree with much of what she says.

Then there should also be some room for things and matters. It had not occurred a raising since 2017, I believe. Over eight years, one could imagine that it could have been raised bit by bit, so to speak, by both the one and the other government.

I actually do not know how the government reasoned. I wish we had had a minister on site. But I could guess that perhaps there was no more room just there. We focus a lot on being able to recruit, retain, and develop staff, and there I believe the compensation plays an important role. But how the government reasoned in this matter, I do not know. I can imagine that there were budget restrictions in all of this. Perhaps they looked at whether more or less was needed. But unfortunately, I do not have the answer to that question.

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

Hanna Gunnarsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! It can, of course, be difficult for a Member of Parliament to tell what the government has intended.

Thank you for the kind words! I hope everyone noted that Vänsterpartiet has sound views on these issues.

To continue on the substantive issue, I still think that in the very large increase we are making of the defense budget and which we have made in recent years – together, admittedly – we need to allocate a larger portion of the money to compensations, working conditions, and wages. I believe that we really must do it together.

Now, wages are, of course, the labor market's partners' question. The compensation for those in compulsory military service, however, is a political question. I know that the compulsory service movement has pushed that the amount should be indexed so that there is a continuous increase that can actually follow the price increases occurring out in society, as many other compensations do. That is what I would like to send with the government's representative here: It would be good if the compensation could be indexed so that we get a continuous increase and so that there are not these jumps every ten years, because I do not believe that anyone benefits from that.

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

Helena Bouveng (M)

Mr. Speaker! I agree with Member Hanna Gunnarsson that these jumps are not particularly good. Nothing has happened since 2017. I believe we get new salaries every second, every third year. But just as the Member said, it is actually not a salary when it concerns those performing military service.

I can only state that I have a brother who is a first lieutenant. He has a university education and has completed his military service. He does not have a single krona in loans from CSN. It is still a fairly cheap education. I can say that I was not quite as happy when I asked about his CSN notice. He did not know what it was; I had to tell him about it. There are therefore many advantages to doing one's military service and moving forward. It does not cost that person a single krona.

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

Mikael Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to start by thanking Helena Bouveng for the speech but also for the cooperation that exists in defense policy. I think it strengthens Sweden's defense capability and faith in the work that the policy is truly intended to perform.

I had intended to ask questions to the Minister, but I thought that I can still ask two different questions from completely different parts of the scale. I hope that Member Bouveng can answer as well as possible.

I intended to continue a little bit on the question previously asked by Hanna Gunnarsson regarding the compensation for those performing military service. Hanna Gunnarsson touched upon it in her last contribution, and I wonder if Helena Bouveng can elaborate on that a little bit.

The Conscription Council has indeed decided that they want to see an annual indexation of the daily allowance. I know that several parties, for example Centerpartiet, also have this as a decision. We heard here that the allowance has not been raised for a long time, and it really should have been. My question then – and Helena Bouveng perhaps wants to answer from the Moderate perspective – is whether, going forward, an indexation of the daily allowance for those performing conscript service would be the best. Helena Bouveng is, as stated, welcome to answer partly from how the government intends and partly from how Moderaterna views this issue.

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

Helena Bouveng (M)

Mr. Speaker! Mikael Larsson! I will be completely honest: I do not have very many new updates to give on this.

Personally, I think it sounds quite sensible with an indexing. Why it hasn't happened, I don't know. But as I said earlier, we must not forget that the conscription is actually a wonderfully good education that one can benefit from regardless of whether one is to continue within the military or do something else. It is not the case that one just throws away 9 months or 13 months, not in any way.

Something that I think is perhaps an even greater problem – and I am actually a bit surprised that Hanna Gunnarsson did not ask about it – is this issue regarding women who perform military service.

Conscription constitutes the basis for the Armed Forces' personnel supply, and my view is that the number of women completing the basic training should be as equal as possible. But we are far from there. An equal organization is necessary for the Armed Forces' competence supply and also contributes to the military defense's capability, legitimacy, credibility, and public support.

I hope that we can put even more effort into actually getting more women into the Armed Forces and not focus solely on the compensation.

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

Mikael Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! This is an issue that is important to resolve, hopefully together, so that the compensation for those in national service becomes better.

As I said initially, I have two questions that are truly scattered on the map of issues concerning total defense.

Helena Bouveng spoke in her speech about that the food supply should be strengthened, which the Center Party of course stands behind. These are issues that we have had within the framework of the Defense Preparation Committee but also within the framework of the agreement that was reached here shortly before Midsummer.

The government has proceeded with the desire to see turnover stocks of grain, and it is the four northernmost counties that have been relevant for this. It is really very good, and it is important and good that this is put in place. I truly stand behind this fully and completely.

But what my question concerns is that the idea, given the serious security policy situation that prevails and given how we choose to have this type of turnover stock for grain, is that the stocks will become so large that one probably will not be able to store grain in more than a few locations, for example at Lantmännen's facilities. That is very good. But in order to spread the grain and to achieve a more redundant system, it would actually be good to be able to store the grain, for example at the farm level, at those farms that feel they would like to take on this responsibility and truly contribute to this.

What becomes my question connected to the turnover stocks, especially in the four northernmost counties but also in the other counties if we start storing grain there, is whether the government representatives, the Moderates and also others, are willing to review if grain storage can also take place on medium-sized farms and smaller farms.

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

Helena Bouveng (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Government actually says in the bill that we must ensure that the entire population has access to necessary food in the event of a serious disruption such as peacetime crises, high alert, and ultimately war. This requires that the robustness of the food chain is increased. I believe that is what Member Larsson means here.

The Government also assesses that there is a need for investments in, among other things, the construction of preparedness stocks, primarily for grain and critical input goods within primary production but also for later stages in the food chain. Therefore, we also invest a total of 2.1 billion kronor in the sector of food supply and drinking water for the years 2026–2028 in the budget bill for 2026.

What I believe Mikael Larsson is looking for a bit is that the farmers themselves should be able to store their grain at home on the farm. I have nothing against that, but for that, it requires an infrastructure that actually works. One cannot always do a copy-paste of Ukraine, because it is a fairly urbanized country. If we go up to northern Norrland, we are talking about rural areas. The warehouse itself is probably not the big problem. The problem is how it is going to get from there, and then we are talking about infrastructure, which I believe we must look at carefully.

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

Mikael Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Is democracy, human rights, freedom of speech, and all people's equal rights and value important? Is it important that we protect this? I truly hope that everyone says yes, and if we do, it is important that we continue to strengthen our total defense in Sweden.

The Center Party's budget motion focuses on strengthening jobs, entrepreneurship and growth, reducing climate emissions, and investing in welfare and infrastructure throughout the country.

Sweden faces several profound and interconnected crises. The Centre Party's budget is a liberal and green alternative that takes responsibility for Sweden's economy, climate, and cohesion. The Centre Party's policy creates conditions for a stronger and more sustainable future in the entire country.

To meet the challenges of the future, a policy is required that defends fundamental principles: that it must always pay to move from benefits to work, that companies are the job-creating engine for Swedish growth, and that welfare shall be sufficient and of good quality throughout the country. And it must be a climate policy that facilitates the green transition.

Mr. Speaker! Faced with the new security policy situation with an ongoing major war in Europe and an increasingly threatening Russian regime, the Centre Party has advocated for an increase in defense appropriations for a very long time – this already in the work of the Defence Preparation Committee.

Just before the summer, all parties in the Riksdag agreed on an increase in funding for NATO's new spending target of 3.5 percent of GDP annually, as well as an additional 1.5 percent for broader defense-related investments, for example within civil defense. It is important that these new targets are met, and the Center Party attaches great importance to honoring the broad political agreement within the defense area.

All parties also agree that 50 billion of the 300 loan-financed billion shall go to precisely civil defense. In the working group, the Center Party was particularly driving just to achieve investments within civil defense.

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party sees that the entire defense continues to need strengthening – the army, the air force, the navy and, of course, the Home Guard. It is about personnel, infrastructure, materiel and much more. Every day, the Armed Forces carry out so much good activity to ensure that we are protected in the alliance – today and tomorrow.

In the digital arena, cyberattacks are ongoing around the clock. Centerpartiet has, in this year's budget, proposed that a cyber home guard should be established so that the work with cyber and the threats that exist there can be further strengthened.

Mr. Speaker! The agreement between the parties in the Riksdag that I mentioned earlier is extremely important. As a member of the Centre Party, I am very proud of that agreement. It shows that this is an important issue and that we need to reach an agreement. The Centre Party believes, however, that more investments are needed in the long run, and additionally more sacrifices, so that everyone understands that the world has unfortunately changed.

Centerpartiet will continue to push for necessary changes to be implemented and for the decisions made by the Riksdag to take effect throughout the country. When increased demands are placed on municipalities and regions regarding civil defense, the financing principle must continue to be upheld. The preparedness of municipalities and regions and the protection of society-critical activities constitute the foundation for resilience in civil defense across the entire country.

Centerpartiet considers that preparedness needs to be strengthened in a number of areas – from infrastructure and food supply to domestic fuel production and energy production, assembly venues such as community centers, and not least folk education. In the broad sense, investments are also important to improve the conditions for growth, entrepreneurship, and welfare throughout the country. Yes, everything really hangs together. The resources for both the military defense and the civil defense must be used for concrete measures as quickly and powerfully as possible.

At the Center Party's party congress in November, we adopted the program 10 million defense-ready Swedes. That is exactly what it is about. Everyone must be ready, and everyone must have a place in the total defense. The total defense applies to everyone, and it applies to the entire country.

Mr. Speaker! The support for Ukraine must continue to be a priority for Sweden, the EU, and Nato. The horrors that Ukraine is enduring must come to an end, and Sweden must stand by Ukraine's side for as long as it is truly needed. We in the Center Party have for several years spoken about wanting to see that 1 percent of GDP goes to various support packages for Ukraine. Centerpartiet has stood behind all the proposals for support packages that have come from the government to the Riksdag, and we will continue to fight so that Ukraine receives what it needs.

Mr. Speaker! We live in restless times and have done so since Russia annexed Crimea, back in 2014. However, we perhaps have not wanted to see it until just a few years ago. At the same time as we in Sweden and the entire Western world arm ourselves to protect our democracy and what we believe in, we must still be able to convey confidence in the future and hope from politics – a confidence in the future where we believe in a brighter future, where our values and ways of living are the right ones and where we create a better world together.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to the Centre Party's special statement in this report.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Defence's report number 1 U tgiftsområde 6 Defence and society's crisis preparedness. It is one of the absolutely most important expenditure areas in the state budget. It is about the core of the state's mission: to protect our citizens.

It appears that in this expenditure area, we will invest 225 billion kronor on civil and military defense during the next year. It is an incredible amount of money, but it is completely necessary, because it is about the insurance premium. It is about us upgrading our defense both civilly and militarily. They are two sides of the same coin, and both sides are equally important.

We have, as has been pointed out several times in the rostrum, a restless time. A full-scale war is ongoing. It has been going on for nearly four years. Russia has 700,000 soldiers in Ukraine. There is a great risk, Mr. Speaker, that those troops could be moved to our immediate vicinity during a ceasefire. I am thinking of the Finnish border with Russia but also of the Baltic countries. It may also be worth pointing out that the land area that the Baltic states have is between 200 kilometers and 370 kilometers. It is not a large land area. There, we as an alliance and we neighboring countries have an important task. We are involved and contribute with a presence in Latvia, but we will need to work to be able to play a more important role in the future.

It can also be pointed out that according to the Danish intelligence service and Must, there is an obvious risk of a regional war within a couple of years and a major war from the Russian side within five years. This makes us understand that we do not have all the time in the world and that we must accelerate the rearmament both civilly and militarily. Therefore, it is so important that we make these investments now.

During the Cold War, we were between 3.5 and 4.5 percent of GDP, and then it fell to around 1 percent. In this budget, we are up to 2.7 percent of GDP, and we will go up to 3.5 by 2030. We will also invest 1.5 percent of GDP on civil defense by 2030.

We have received targets from Nato for the military defense. When it concerns the public [sector] for our entire area, it is pointed out that we have challenges regarding ground troops, air defense, and ammunition. The Government is making necessary investments in some areas in the budget now, but this will need to continue.

Given the cuts that were made after the Cold War, not only from our side but in all countries in the West, we now have a great challenge. The capability that Nato has is the combined capability of the different member countries. What Sweden is doing now is important: We are showing in practical action that we are adding the money that is required and that we are making the upgrades that are required. This is of the utmost importance.

We also have something very positive, namely the Swedish defense industry. This concerns both ammunition and the ability to build submarines, Archer, the fantastic fighter jet Jas Gripen, and many other things. There are also small companies within the defense industry that make an important contribution and which we will need to utilize even more in the future.

When it comes to civil defense, I particularly want to point out that we need to increase our capacity regarding healthcare readiness, emergency stockpiles, personnel supply, and surgical capacity. This is what we are doing now with grain stores. Here we have much to learn from Finland when it comes to both food supply, fuel, and medicine.

We have now set goals, and it is very important that they are met so that we achieve better resilience. Cooperation with civil society and the business sector is also important, because we build civil capacity together.

I would like to conclude by wishing Merry Christmas to everyone in the Armed Forces: conscripts, full-time soldiers, part-time employees, officers, the Home Guard, and the 18 voluntary organizations that are linked to the Armed Forces and who make such an important contribution. This is about protecting our country and building up our defense capability.

For the Christian Democrats, we have the fight for human dignity in our DNA. It is during war that human dignity is oppressed and trampled upon. We therefore have everything to gain from building up a strong military capability that deters attacks – individually and together with Nato.

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

Ulf Holm (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the budget for expenditure area 6 Defence and society's crisis preparedness. Sweden and Europe have had to adapt security and defence policy following the continued very serious security situation after Russia's illegal and full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The war continues, and Sweden must continue to provide long-term support to Ukraine. They need all the support we can give them – both economically, militarily and civilly.

We in Miljöpartiet have, among other things, against this background, together with the other parliamentary parties, stood behind an agreement on the fiscal framework and an expansion of the total defense. The agreement means that a total defense fund is introduced alongside the balance target, which creates a space of up to 300 billion kronor to be used for the rapid expansion of precisely the total defense.

An important part of the agreement that we from Miljöpartiet pushed for in the Defense Preparation Committee to get through was that up to 50 billion kronor shall be released for investments in civil defense and to strengthen civil preparedness.

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet contributes constructively within defense policy and safeguards a broad consensus. Sweden faces a major buildup, and it is important that this proceeds in a way that quickly provides increased defense capability in a resource-efficient manner. Even though rapid measures are requested, decisions must be well-considered and lead to Sweden's defense capability being secured both now and in the long term. It must be a long-term sustainable defense buildup.

Upcoming investments, for example through equipment purchases, must be purposeful in order to effectively contribute to increased security. Sweden's defense shall be designed to deter attacks and defend Sweden, not to constitute or support a military threat against anyone else.

Initiatives within personnel procurement are an important priority now that we are making large investments and a major expansion. Also, initiatives for higher compensation for conscription training, which, among others, the Pliktrådet proposes, should be prioritized moving forward.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to highlight the investments in civil defense and preparedness as something very significant for our total defense. During the terrible war in Ukraine, we have seen how important this part of the total defense is. The Swedish civil defense is now being strengthened on a broad front, which is good. A strengthened civil defense is about protecting people's everyday lives and about functioning water and electricity, healthcare, medicine, transport, and much more. It requires both state responsibility and a clear partnership from, among others, the business sector.

Civil defense and strengthened civil preparedness are not only important from a war perspective. Crises in peacetime also require reinforcement. It could involve cyberattacks, pandemics, or natural disasters. This is a perspective that we from Miljöpartiet want to be overarching in the investments in civil defense and crisis preparedness.

Mr. Speaker! It is pleasing that the committee has made specific evaluations of the civil defense and the civil preparedness regarding how the expansion is progressing and how the reinforcements are being carried out. In an evaluation last year, the committee noted that several challenges remain within several areas of the civil defense. Even this year, the committee has reviewed the government's result follow-up.

It sounds tedious, Mr. Speaker, but it is important in order to be able to follow the development and the increased level of ambition required over several years to increase the capability within precisely civil defense and civil preparedness.

Mr. Speaker! One point in expenditure area 6 that is not affected by the defense agreement concerns money for the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority for the reception, testing, and review of new nuclear facilities. There, we from Miljöpartiet reject the 108 million kronor that the government has allocated to this because we do not want to provide money for the expansion of nuclear power.

Now there will be some nuclear power debate in this defense debate, but in the budget bill for 2026, the government wants to obtain an authorization to make economic commitments of a total of 440 billion through state loans and 400 billion through a forty-year price hedging agreement for new nuclear power. This is proposed despite researchers and authorities having warned that the government's extensive support for new nuclear power risks crowding out investments in other fossil-free electricity production – both power increases and life extension of existing electricity production – and renewable electricity production.

The state nuclear power support thus increases the risk of electricity shortages in the near term and slows down the so important electrification. A study from the Copenhagen Business School and the Technical University of Berlin shows that current nuclear power projects in the EU have been delayed by an average of over ten years. We do not have time to wait for new electricity, we must have new electricity now. None of the SMR suppliers that state-owned Vattenfall has an ongoing dialogue with have built a single reactor to date.

Mr. Speaker! This means that Miljöpartiet, within the framework of expenditure area 6, proposes a reduction of appropriation 3:1 Strålsäkerhetsmyndigheten. Regarding this, we have submitted a special statement, which is included in the committee report.

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

Gulan Avci (L)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is in the most serious security policy situation since the Second World War. Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine has shattered the European security order that was built up after the Cold War. The military threat against Europe is no longer theoretical but a brutal reality and a horrific attack on all democracies in Europe.

At the same time, we see how the global balance of power has changed. In the new American security policy doctrine, it is now clear that Europe must take an ever-increasing responsibility for its own security. This means that Europe cannot take anything for granted. We must upgrade our countries' defense capabilities both militarily and civilly, strengthen our resilience, and defend our own freedom.

All this is the background to the policy that the bourgeois government has driven with a firm hand since the change of power in 2022. We have left the disarmament strategy behind us and initiated a historic rearmament of both our military and our civil defense.

Enormous resources are currently being allocated to the military defense to ensure that training, exercise, readiness, materiel, and research can be provided. At the same time, the Armed Forces are strengthening their operational capability, and the Defence Materiel Administration is receiving entirely new tools to accelerate processes and deliver materiel to our military defense. The Total Defence Research Institute, the Defence Radio Establishment, and the intelligence systems are being reinforced. Officer training is being expanded, and the Armed Forces' capability to operate with Sweden's allies is being developed.

Mr. Speaker! Total defense, however, is not just about weapons and uniforms, but it is about the entire society's ability to withstand crises, attacks, sabotage, and information warfare. Therefore, the budget also contains a powerful reinforcement of civil defense and of crisis preparedness. The Swedish Defence Preparedness Agency – formerly MSB – is now given a much clearer role in this important work.

Rakel generation 2 modernizes our communication capability, the Coast Guard is strengthened, and a psychological defense is built up to meet propaganda, disinformation, and influence operations. Municipalities, regions, and emergency services are given better conditions to plan for the unthinkable so that it never needs to become reality.

We have reached a broad political agreement that Sweden shall, until 2030, allocate a total of 5 percent of GDP to defense-related activities, of which 3.5 percent of GDP is allocated to military defense. This is something I am incredibly proud of, Mr. Speaker, because in these times, the signals we send to our surrounding world – and in particular to Moscow – mean a lot. That we in this chamber and in this house are a strong force of resistance, in total agreement, is a very important signal right now as we see that some other countries' support for Ukraine is beginning to crack.

Therefore, we continue to secure extensive resources for Ukraine, Mr. Speaker, both economically and militarily as well as industrially, during the coming two years – and for as long as our support is needed. The war in Ukraine has indeed become a test not only of the Ukrainian people's endurance but also of our own endurance. Therefore, we must never get used to the war becoming everyday life. Our solidarity must not begin to fade. If we do as the Americans are doing right now and abandon Ukraine in this difficult situation, it means that we stop believing in Europe as a free, democratic continent where free people should be able to live.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's entry into Nato implies a completely new responsibility – but also security, because we no longer stand alone. The alliance, however, is built on the fact that every member country takes its fair share of the collective responsibility for security. Our forces are strengthened, equipment is modernized, and we build redundancy in society's most important systems. Cybersecurity is strengthened, and we protect our critical infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker! All of this is seen by the Swedish people, for they know that we live in an increasingly more dangerous world and that the government meets that reality with decisiveness. The coming weeks will be completely decisive for the future that Europe will face. In that situation, Sweden shall be a stable country to count on, and we shall continue to place ourselves on the right side of history. We shall continue to stand with the Ukrainian people, who right now stand on the front line and are also fighting for our freedom.

With this, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Johan Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I intended to mention something regarding our reservation in this budget report. It concerns our view on what is further needed regarding the defense's activities.

Colleague Markus Selin accounted very well for the need for a regiment in Kiruna, and I intended to mention Kvarn and how we have reasoned around it. I do not intend to speak much about the national and international situation; I believe it is well known in this chamber and hopefully also among those listening to the debate.

From the perspective that we should be able to defend the local area and other areas, it is important that conditions are provided to develop a regiment linked to Kvarn. Already today, the helicopter flotilla is stationed at Kvarn, with its main base at Malmslätt in Linköping. We also have Saab's large production facility in Linköping, which in the worst case could be a strategic target. There are therefore many reasons to do this.

Perhaps the biggest reason is that even today there is already a very large amount of land with a connection to Kvarn. Since 2011, there has been a world-class facility for combat in built-up areas which is used successfully not only by the Swedish Defence but also by Sweden's comrades in Nato. Not least, there is civil activity that has a need for training activities.

Furthermore, one is well-positioned regarding environmental permits in this part. There are very many good reasons to transition to construction at the facility in a simple way and quite quickly. Already today, there is a fairly large number regarding the possibility of localization and other things connected to this.

That is why we point out, among other things, in our reservation and in our committee motion the need for new sites for new regiments. We do not believe that the volumes that have been pointed out so far will suffice, but rather we believe that more parts will be required.

With this, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to wish the committee, all staff, and everyone active in the Armed Forces a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I move for approval of the Social Democrats' reservation 1.

(Applause)

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

Hanna Gunnarsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! Hello to all of you who are listening or watching at home!

The parties in the Riksdag are largely in agreement on the defense budget. That we can guarantee that there are resources is our investment in the growing total defense. As a member of the Left Party, I want to add that it is incredibly important that a lot of money and resources in the growing defense budget are spent on raising wages and improving working conditions for all personnel and for those in compulsory military service within the Armed Forces, including the voluntary defense organizations and the Home Guard.

Mr. Speaker! I will take the liberty of going slightly outside this specific budget item and speak about the total defense in its entirety.

Civil defense is an important part of total defense, where every single part of society is included. There is nothing that is not a part of total defense. How are we to be able to achieve a stable and robust civil defense, which should be able to secure the entire civil society during major crises and, in the worst case, war, when we know that very many parts that are very important for civil defense already today – in everyday life here and now – have budgets that mean the operations cannot function as well as they need to? What we do not have in everyday life, we will also not have if there is a crisis or, in the worst case, war.

Healthcare, the energy supply, and the transport infrastructure are some of the absolutely most important parts of civil defense. One can ask whether these parts today function as well as they would need to in order to function in a crisis or, in the worst case, war. The answer to that question is unfortunately no, Mr. Speaker.

We see today a healthcare system that has very large deficiencies. Both the care beds and the employees are too few, and the working conditions mean that the staff are on their knees even in the normal state of everyday life.

We have a very deficient energy supply. The expansion of fossil-free and renewable energy – that is, the type of energy that we can produce ourselves without needing to import anything – is going too slowly.

We see, above all, how the infrastructure – especially the railway, which is important for total defense – does not function as well as we would like. This concerns primarily the Malmbanan, which is one of Sweden's absolutely most important railways for total defense. It does not even have double tracks over the entire stretch today. An interruption there, regardless of the reason, has very large economic consequences for all of Sweden and for the accessibility in the northernmost part of the country.

All of this is total defense. In order for us to be able to achieve a sustainable, strong and robust total defense, it is therefore important that we look a bit beyond the part of the budget that we have talked about today.

It becomes a bit difficult with a state budget when we know that the total defense is everything but actually only handles this small piece here. Vänsterpartiet will continue to point out the importance of and work for more resources for investments and for the total defense-critical welfare. A strong total defense requires a functioning society in all its parts – here and now, in crisis and in the worst case war, and in everyday life. It requires resources here and now.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 17.)

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