Military affairs

Lars Wistedt (SD)

Madam Speaker, members, citizens and not least the Association of HMS Hugin's Friends, which is also an important part of the total defense!

Today we are debating the Defense Committee's report FöU4 Military matters. Since I am starting to get old and grey, and perhaps a bit forgetful, I begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal in the report in its entirety and rejection of all reservations.

Madam Speaker! Several important and factually correct points and opinions have been raised by motionists from both the Sweden Democrats and the opposition parties. This testifies that everyone takes Sweden's future and defense seriously, and we think that is good. There must be a free and open debate regarding these issues.

Against the background of the Russian war in Ukraine, which has been ongoing since 2014, motioners from Sverigedemokraterna wished to draw attention during the general motion period to the fact that Swedish legislation needs to be adapted in view of the ways in which Russia behaves. It utilizes deceptive operations in the attack on Ukraine.

We can take, for example, the occupation of Crimea in 2014 where it was initially unclear who the attackers actually were, as they did not wear recognized uniforms or other obvious identifiers. This delayed – and in some cases even prevented – a time-critical intervention by the international community. Putin got away with his trick, and suddenly Crimea was occupied.

In a similar way, it then occurred in eastern Ukraine, where armed groups without clear affiliation appeared and paved the way for what subsequently became the Russian occupiers.

Madam Speaker! Russia, and its predecessor the Soviet Union, have been and still are world leaders when it comes to deception, so-called maskirovka.

This is about exploiting oppositional personalities, ideologically deviant groups, etcetera to plan and carry out so-called destabilization operations.

This type of hostile activity aims to paralyze and delay our decision-making and the implementation of measures to increase readiness so that a heightened effect is achieved through their other military operations. This type of deception operations has been ongoing for a long time. It began long before World War II, and it is still ongoing.

One simply wants to exploit a situation where we do not know if it is peace or war, if it is a state, a terrorist organization or a criminal gang that is doing something, or if it is simply a matter of a combination of unforeseen events and accidents that put us in a difficult situation.

Therefore, in the end, we are not certain which legal provisions apply and what measures we in Sweden can take. This is what is commonly referred to in technical terms as gray zone issues, meaning that we cannot or do not dare to make decisive decisions in time and that the adversary thereby gains a critical advantage.

Madam Speaker! In the motions submitted by Sweden Democrat representatives during the general motion period, the general concern is reflected that our legislation may not be adapted to today's and not to tomorrow's security policy situation and the methods that Russia, in particular, utilizes.

It does so in Ukraine but also against individuals and oppositionists who are unpleasant for the dictatorship. I can take as examples Sergei Skripal, Alexei Navalny, Anna Politkovskaya with several others.

Legislation often has difficulty keeping up. We saw only a few weeks ago problems with rigid legislation. This was evident, not least from the so-called snippadomen.

It is therefore with that underlying anxiety that the motions were submitted. It was not to create any kind of military dictatorship, if anyone should think so. On the contrary, the Sweden Democrats believe that freedom and democracy are worth defending with all available means at our disposal.

Madam Speaker! We have now, after dialogue with our coalition partners in the government, obtained a good and clear account of how the government intends to work to address the gray zone issues and the way forward. We also know that the ongoing Defense Commission will look into it, address it in its upcoming work, and propose measures.

In a similar way, we have also received reassuring information on how the government intends to proceed in order to simplify regulations, processes, etc., so that the Armed Forces can intensify its training activities. This applies in particular regarding the requirements for various permits that are required.

We are therefore satisfied with the defense committee's report. I therefore move again for approval of the committee's proposal in the report in its entirety.

In this speech, Sara-Lena Bjälkö (SD) agreed.

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

Peter Hultqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! In the Committee on Defence, there are many committed members who want what is best for Sweden in different ways. They try, from different perspectives, to contribute to this work.

Of course, one should have a positive starting point when considering different proposals. But one must also dare to examine what different proposals might potentially open up for in a future.

I would like to begin by moving for approval of the reservation of motive from the Socialdemokraterna, Vänsterpartiet, Miljöpartiet, and Centerpartiet. This concerns the parts regarding the tasks of the police versus the military.

We share the committee's view that SD's motions should be dismissed. But our motives for this are different from those stated in the committee majority's text.

We consider that the police and the military fundamentally have different tasks and different focuses in their activities. They also have different strategies when it comes to how they meet things and matters operationally.

The Armed Forces can today provide support to civil society if it does not seriously hinder the regular activities within the Armed Forces. Sweden has been clear, traditionally speaking, that military troops may not be deployed against its own population or against civilians.

One must not exercise coercion or violence against individuals. That is the police's task. On the other hand, from the Defense Forces' side, in connection with counter-terrorism, coercion or violence can be used. But that is only after a request from the Police Authority or Säpo.

It is not the case that the Armed Forces shall be used for maintaining order or during public order disturbances, or as an instrument against gang crime or football hooliganism.

The Armed Forces' resources have also been used in connection with forest fires, during hurricane Gudrun, and during floods. The Armed Forces have an obligation to assist in accidents. Helicopter transports and helicopter operations occur in connection with police operations. Police, military personnel, or other designated persons may also be engaged in the guarding of various protected objects.

Debates have been held back and forth regarding the military's task versus the police's task. Most recently, Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer has expressed himself vaguely, broadly, and unclearly about the military being given increased tasks in the policing area.

We have a history, and when it comes to the suspicion regarding what SD actually means, it is something that SD themselves have created. You yourselves have spoken about using the military in suburbs, that we have a war-like situation in Sweden and that the military should then step in. You have thus arranged the entire arrangement with a completely own and clear force that causes the questions regarding what SD actually aims for to be raised.

SD writes in its own motion: The Armed Forces' possibility to assist the police should not only apply to terrorism but also to other subversive criminal activity or in extraordinary situations.

It is very precise when it comes to what one actually means in different contexts. One should not have this type of phrasing, which can be interpreted in different ways. What is interpreted in one way according to Lars Wistedt can be interpreted in another way by someone else. Ultimately, there must be very strict rules and guidelines regarding what responsibilities an authority has.

We must not create a system that in any way opens up for the state to gradually change character and move in a more authoritarian direction. We must not open up for that type of development; it is important to say that. Now Wistedt says that no one wishes for a military dictatorship. Of course not – surely no one could even say such things once without facing violent criticism.

But if you don't have your marbles and puzzle pieces in order when you are to handle matters of authority and direction, you don't know where it leads. I know that in 1931 it was a historical occasion when the military made a decisive mistake. Since then, a line has been maintained where one distinguishes between military and police activities.

I want to remind that the Armed Forces are working with support for Ukraine. They have readiness operations, and they are managing a tougher global situation. More conscripts are being trained. It is about the establishment of new activities, about the NATO accession, and about extensive exercises nationally and internationally.

We must evaluate and reflect on what it is we should prioritize. When it comes to the Armed Forces and its resources, we must, among other things, prioritize the tasks that are entirely defense-oriented and concern the defense of Sweden.

A question was raised as to whether Crimea is an example to take hold of in order to change the Armed Forces' instructions. I can only say one thing: If we have foreign soldiers in uniform on Swedish soil, regardless of whether they have national insignia or not, who begin to behave in a way that clearly conflicts with Swedish interests, it is clear that a state power must take action in such a matter. Uniformed personnel must also be able to be handled by both police and military in such a situation.

But opening up the legislation can lead to a development that is not what we desire for Sweden in the future. There is much that one can have objections to in this type of reasoning. But to have the pieces in order and know what one is talking about, to have precision in the promises and to have no ambiguities or vagueness – that must be the starting point when looking at what the Armed Forces have for tasks and what the police have for tasks.

It must not be the case that we have a system that is largely an on-call system, where one requests that the Armed Forces should do both this and that in a strained situation. The Armed Forces is not a resource that should be available in all contexts and as soon as something happens. This should be managed in an orderly manner and with clear rules. With the knowledge I have of the Armed Forces, I know that they are constantly trying to live up to a social utility and the various difficult situations that can arise.

Finally, I want to say that there may be reason to consider doing what the Defense Commission previously reasoned about, that is, to reintroduce the reserve police. It is a strength that could be used but which stands under the police's command. There was once a time when 1,500 people were involved in this activity. They have been used on a number of occasions over the years, but the whole thing was phased out in two different stages and was finally phased out in 2012. This is, therefore, an activity that has existed and which could be reintroduced. It could also contribute to strengthening the possibilities to handle what one might possibly call extraordinary events.

There, I think we have a reasonable alternative that should be discussed in a serious way. Then one keeps track of what is military and what is police-related. One has the correct chain of command, and one has the correct order in the regulatory framework.

(Applause)

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

Lars Wistedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! First and foremost, as I hinted or perhaps even underlined in the speech, the intention is in no way to take over the police's task. The intention is instead to plug the holes that may exist and, above all, will exist and that will be sought out by a potential opponent. It is therefore not about going out and repeating Ådalen 31 or anything of the sort. I want to be very clear about that.

If we look at how an adversary, whether it is a state or a terrorist organization, wants to exploit the gray zones and the gaps in the legal frameworks, it is precisely about not speaking about having an agenda and a uniform. They will instead act in such a way that we will not be able to identify them.

Our thought is that the police in such a case shall be able to request support from the Armed Forces. We have full confidence that our administration will be able to design an appropriate regulatory framework for this. It is a matter of looking forward and seeing how the adversary will behave in the next step. They will not do as they did before.

Additionally, we want to emphasize that we think the idea of a readiness police is a good thing, which we are happy to support.

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

Peter Hultqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! So then – let us put it this way: I hope that SD in the future stops talking about using the military as order-keepers in suburbs if anything happens, but instead sees it as the police task that it is.

You are talking yourselves into the type of question mark that I raise. With the wording you have in your own motion - regardless of the explanation that Wistedt is now attempting - you create a fuzziness in a concept that in different ways could be an angle of approach to something other than what we are now discussing.

I do not know what the legislation should look like for us to be able to handle, for example, Russian illegalists. I also do not know what reinforcements or changes in the legislation we should have so that we can handle spies or saboteurs. I do not even know if it is possible to design that type of legislation.

We have laws regarding this, and here it is about trying to detect such things through police work in the authorities we have and then prosecuting it according to the laws we have. I don't really know what we could contribute legally here, if that is what this is about. Is it such that we can reach more illegalists with legislation - then gladly for me. But then I also want to see what type of proposal it is about.

I mean that we have a multitude of laws to handle different types of scenarios. But what is crucial is our ability, knowledge, and competence to address this as early as possible. That is what the authorities are constantly working from.

Flexible laws and broad laws often involve a risk of different interpretations, and this can in turn lead to major legal problems.

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

Lars Wistedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! Just regarding clarity, not least in the legislation, I can truly agree. I am very much for clarity because I myself come from the military.

We just want to emphasize that we are in no way talking about public order in the suburbs. In our work, we have never at all, in either the defense preparedness or the defense committee, talked about this. I want to be very clear that we are not doing this.

Looking forward in time is important. One cannot simply plan based on and fixate on previous conflicts. We must try to estimate how these subversive elements have been used in ongoing conflicts and what evaluations, for example, Russia or terrorist organizations make of the effectiveness of their operations, and then we must try to take that into account.

There is a process for the design of legal provisions and other matters. We are completely convinced that there is sufficient competence there.

The Defense Preparation Committee will also look into this. We hope that we can reach clear solutions and proposals for solutions there.

When it comes to military and police cooperation beyond the emergency police, there are, or there were at least in the past, so-called milosäkkompanier where qualified police personnel were included. These could be a glue between the Armed Forces and the police. This might also be something that can be looked into further.

With that, I would like to thank you for this exchange of remarks.

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

Peter Hultqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! Then I shall ensure that what Lars Wistedt has now said is recorded, and I shall remember it. If I then see leading representatives for Sverigedemokraterna return, as they have done on a number of occasions when there have been problems somewhere, with that the military or something else that is not the traditional Swedish way of handling this should be sent out, I shall say: I thought that when we discussed this report from the Committee on Defence, we agreed that we are not engaged in maintaining order in the suburbs. I shall note this and remember it. It is a good statement which, in that case, delimits what it is actually about.

Then perhaps there is a difference between me and Lars Wistedt in that I do not believe so much that we can legislate our way out of this with saboteurs, illegalists, and spies. It is about our ability in the authorities to track this down as early as possible. We now have these two brothers who have been convicted, for example. There, it was not the law that was the problem. The problem has been that they have been able to operate for the time they have operated. But they were still caught. We also have a number of other examples of how the authorities have intervened.

I would very much like to develop how we strengthen our abilities to detect the situation, analyze it correctly, and intervene as early as possible. I do not believe that we do that by having any deeper discussions about exchanging resources between the Armed Forces and the police. It is about other things.

Then I hope that we will finally have a unanimous report from the Defence Committee.

(Applause)

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

Gustaf Göthberg (M)

Madam Speaker! Honored members! The defense of Sweden is of particularly important interest. It is the state's fundamental task to ensure a military and civil defense of our country, our population, our values and our interests.

Today we are debating the Committee on Defence's report 4 on the military defence. Of the many motions that have been raised in this Riksdag on this area, it is clear that there is a broad interest and commitment to the Swedish defence.

We also see it in more areas and in other parts. The upgrading of the defense is ongoing. It is important for us in this chamber and for the Armed Forces to ensure that personnel supply continues to be a key factor for success. In several places in Sweden today - this I want to particularly emphasize - soldiers and sailors are becoming a natural part of the cityscape as our regiments increase and the military presence grows. Sweden's membership in Nato is the single greatest paradigm shift that this country has seen in security policy since the beginning of the 1800s. The support to Ukraine also continues on the military side.

During the committee's processing of the report, it has primarily crystallized, as I have read it in my office, two areas that may become subjects of debate in this chamber. The first concerns the Armed Forces' work with goal conflicts.

We have known for some time that there can be different wills in our elongated country that both have the common good in mind but which sometimes end up on a collision course with one another. One issue, such as wind power, is often present in the defense policy debate as a conflict of objectives. We know that all types of energy, including wind power, contribute to society's energy resilience but that they can also literally constitute obstacles for important training activities for the total defense.

Several parties in this chamber now want to move forward decisively, investigate the issue further and produce action plans and guidelines to be able to remedy the problem. It should, however, be said already now, Madam Speaker, that this is already being done to a large extent. The Armed Forces have this year been tasked to report on how they contribute to coexistence between different societal interests and to develop the capacity for early dialogue and cooperation with relevant actors in the planning and testing process for planned facilities for, for example, renewable energy production. Regarding the coexistence between the defense and wind power, the Total Defence Research Institute has produced a study with proposals on how the expansion of wind power can be increased while the defense's interests are protected. This is, therefore, ongoing.

The second point, which we have just heard debated here in the speaker's chairs, is the Armed Forces' support to the police in the event of a crisis or war situation. It is a very pressing issue, which obviously also evokes some strong feelings in this chamber.

In this case, I nevertheless want to remind you that the Committee on Defence, despite the exchange of remarks we heard earlier, is in agreement on how to proceed, that is to say that there is no reason to investigate the issue further - this not least because the previous Defence Commission, and also the Riksdag during the proceedings here in this chamber, were very much in agreement regarding the provisions that apply: The military defence shall have the ability to protect society and its functionality by, with existing capabilities and existing resources, assisting the rest of society both in peacetime and during high alert.

It is welcome that this is settled, just as the Swedish Armed Forces' ability to assist the police during extraordinary events is settled. If there is actually agreement in the chamber on this.

Madam Speaker! In addition to this work to increase our defense capability, which is ongoing broadly in society, we also have a defense preparedness that is working. It would therefore be, in my opinion, unwise of the Riksdag to preempt that process by making decisions on new directions or priorities for the defense in a parallel track.

I would finally, Madam Speaker, like to take the opportunity to turn directly to those who serve in uniform and also in civilian roles in our total defense. Their contribution is important. Their work matters. The effort they put in also creates a sense of pride in this chamber, among us who are the people's representatives. To you, I want to say thank you.

With that, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Hanna Gunnarsson (V)

Madam Speaker! Honored members! Hello to those of you who are listening at computers or at home!

We live in a time where the need to build up our entire total defense is evident. The terrible war in Ukraine has shown with all desired clarity that we live in a very uncertain time. There is war in our vicinity, and Russia is a clearly imperialistic country that threatens its neighboring countries. Vänsterpartiet therefore supports the reinforcements of the Swedish military defense.

At the same time, we must view total defense from a broad perspective. Our society and our world are interconnected. The military defense protects our borders, but total defense, including the entire civil defense and civil society, protects us all. Our society is dependent on a functioning healthcare system here and now, but if the staff are already on their knees in normal conditions, the healthcare system will not be able to handle a crisis or, in the worst case, a war.

We as humans are dependent on a robust society for our survival, a robust society with sustainable systems where we have food, water, fresh air and biodiversity. Without this – water, food, air to breathe and bees and insects that ensure we can grow our food – society does not function.

Madam Speaker! We are living in a climate crisis. I believe it is becoming increasingly obvious to everyone how the total defense is interconnected and that every little bee is actually a part of our total defense. Without bees, there will be no cultivation, no security of supply, and no robust society in times of crisis and war.

Today we are debating a large number of motions within defense policy under the broad heading Military affairs. I would perhaps rather call the block Defense's climate and environmental issues. In the block, there are in fact a number of motions on such issues. Vänsterpartiet has a motion called The Armed Forces, climate and environment. It is a broad motion where we raise many different environmental issues and which I am proud that we have written. We also focus on some specific issues that we believe the Armed Forces need to work more on so that we can have a robust and sustainable society.

Environmental issues and climate change are the defining issues of our time. There is no one, neither here in the Riksdag nor among you who are listening, who does not understand what a major climate change we face and that we humans have caused and are still causing great damage to our environment. All people and the entire society have a responsibility for the transition, so that we can move in a more sustainable direction. All authorities - also the Armed Forces - must do their part to prevent climate change and stop environmental destruction.

Climate change and natural disasters are serious threats to our country, other countries, and the safety of the inhabitants. There are countries whose continued existence depends on us preventing the climate changes that are occurring. There are many examples from recent years of fires, floods, and droughts. We will see more of such things in the future. Around the world, natural disasters in the wake of climate change are one of the major root causes of war and conflicts. To counteract climate change is therefore to work for a more peaceful and secure world.

Madam Speaker! The energy transition is a fundamental issue for us to be able to have a robust and sustainable society. The war in Ukraine has clearly shown how serious it is to be dependent on other countries for electricity and energy supply. Sweden must therefore continue and intensify the green transition, especially when it comes to wind and solar power. There are many areas in Sweden where it is suitable to build wind power, especially offshore and especially in southern Sweden. Those projects must be completed. They must be realized.

The entire society, including the Armed Forces, must contribute to facilitating the green transition. It must be possible to find a balance between the expansion of wind power and the Armed Forces' expanded exercises. Both are important for a robust and secure society.

Madam Speaker! Vättern is a drinking water source for 280,000 people, a number that will most likely increase in the future. It is a unique environment for both wildlife and vegetation and a popular tourist destination. But Vättern is also a large training ground for the Swedish Armed Forces, which use the area around Vättern for flight exercises.

There are requests to fly and shoot even more. This naturally has consequences for life at and in Vättern. Vänsterpartiet therefore proposes that an action plan be developed to reduce the pollution that the military exercises in and over Vättern cause. The issue of remediating Vättern from pollution needs to be addressed. There are, of course, many more training and shooting ranges in Sweden that need to be remediated and cleaned up, but we believe that Vättern as a drinking water source is the most acute example and must be prioritized.

Madam Speaker! The Armed Forces shall be given good conditions to exercise. But we must put environmental and climate issues at the top of the agenda. There is no other possibility if we are to be able to stop and prevent the climate changes we see today and be able to hand over an environment that is not too destroyed to future generations. Sweden needs to build a strong and robust society where we can secure our own supply. Environmental and climate work is an important part of this.

I move for approval of reservation number 3.

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

Mikael Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Defence's report number 4 Military matters. These are issues that are important for the Swedish people and that will likely become even more important in the future.

We live in restless times. A war has been ongoing since 2014, but it has become even more intense since Russia's full-scale attack against Ukraine just over a year ago. The war will likely become protracted. We hope that it can end and that Ukraine will win and retake the territories it has lost. But we must be prepared that it could take a long time.

It is the worst, toughest security policy situation we have had since the Second World War. It also turns eyes toward Sweden. We must in different ways ensure that we strengthen our defense force. We have a good defense force, but it is too small. It must become larger. We need more soldiers and conscripts. We need to expand in different areas.

It brings us to the question that is also raised in the report: training areas. As we point out in the report, it is more important to have faster and simpler environmental review processes. It is no small matter. It is of utmost importance that we can train fully. More training areas will be needed when we are to regain capability. Then it is important, which we very rightly emphasize, to give the Armed Forces opportunities to train and to get back permissions that have been held. It is an important part of the rebuilding of our defense.

Another matter addressed in the report is that the Armed Forces' ability to support the police during extraordinary events and the like has increased. We agree that it is important that this can be done. The Armed Forces can be an important resource.

As the opposition points out, the emergency police are also important. Already in 2017, the Defence Preparedness Board established that it is an important part of the recovery of civil capability. Therefore, I hope that measures and steps are now taken so that that capability can be recreated. And it should not only be able to be used in war but also at special occasions, when resources are needed to relieve the police. I see it as part of having a robust civil defense.

Just as someone said earlier in the rostrum, it is two sides of the same coin. That we have a total defense that is strong both civilly but also militarily is of utmost importance to work on. This report is a part of the work with that.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! Today we are discussing military affairs, which several have raised previously. We all understand the context in which we do so. There is war in our immediate vicinity. And finally, an upgrade of our military is taking place. I am pleased that we here in the chamber are doing it together.

I would like the previous speaker to extend a big thank you to all of you who help to defend and protect our country, both within the defense forces and in many other ways. A big thank you to you! You are incredibly important.

It is also important that society's collective conditions and the military's necessary development go hand in hand. What do we need then? Well, the military undoubtedly needs increased resources and capabilities. That is what the Defence Investigation is currently working on. That is, among other things, why I am here right now, while they are sitting and discussing. It is extremely important that we together try to reach an agreement on how we can best strengthen our defense and that we do it jointly so that they become long-term solutions.

We also need coexistence. For the Center Party, it is important that one realizes that a broader view of the interests of the total defense and the coexistence between different interests, not least within the same geographical area, is necessary. The government must therefore map out the application of the Environmental Code and practical development in order to propose changes that make the overall assessment simpler. We have discussed this many times.

To secure society, it is also necessary that we get the broad cross-party energy dialogues started. It is fundamental for our society to function.

We have requested this for many years from the Center Party's side, and it has still not happened. Just yesterday I was at a meeting with many entrepreneurs, and I know that many others were also there. Long-term thinking in energy policy is absolutely crucial for society's basic functions, and we must get better at this.

Civil society and the defense must live together, and they are completely dependent on each other. We also need a strengthened focus on cyber capability and the society's preparedness. This naturally applies to the food industry, and others have also raised that issue. It is good that we have finally started to take steps towards Sweden as a whole, and not just Centerpartiet, having understood how important agriculture is for our country. It is not a special interest but a completely fundamental interest for our country that ensures we can function in a crisis. The defense does not function if society does not function, and in that regard, the food sector and the energy sector are two completely crucial sectors. We must get better there.

Madam Speaker! There are things that we do not need. Things that we do not need are, for example, military personnel on our streets being deployed against civilians. That is something we do not need. I am also convinced that the Chief of Defence does not need to have his soldiers taken away from him to play police with something that they do not have the ability to solve in the way that police are consistently trained to handle.

Therefore, we must clearly and consistently reject the Sweden Democrats' proposal to deploy the military against our citizens. The police and the defense have different tasks, and they are solved in different ways. The defense already has enough on its plate to fulfill the task of protecting our country. They do not need to simultaneously go out against our own population.

One must not deploy the defense against our civilians, against Sweden's citizens. Military actions against the civilian population are a hallmark of authoritarian states that we do not want to compare ourselves with. Nevertheless, SD has introduced motions to deploy the military against the civilian population - against the suburbs, of course, as is said every time in the media. It is always against the suburb. It is Malmö's streets that you want to deploy the Swedish military on. To put forward that type of proposal is almost contemptuous towards the people of Malmö, the defense, and the police. Then one has not understood the importance of the police's work, what they are trained for, and how they act. To manage this, one must have the required training, and military personnel would be taken away from the tasks they already have. It is literally a life-threatening proposal.

SD should focus on using its great power over the government to instead achieve a better functioning police, for example more money for the National Forensic Centre so that many of the people in the gangs are actually imprisoned. We have worked for a proposal to reintroduce a reserve police, and there is now support for the proposal.

I also consider - as an additional supplement - that the requirement for distribution permits for harmless objects at the defense should be addressed so that we can achieve a review. Then Lantmäteriet does not need to be completely overburdened by a multitude of documents instead of focusing on supporting our land with fast decision times.

I vote in favor of reservation 4.

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

Lars Wistedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! First and foremost, I want to emphasize what I said in my speech, namely that we have not, either in committee or in preparation, focused on measures in suburbs, Ådalen, or elsewhere. We see the gray-zone problems that can arise. Not everything is about weapons. There are also other areas where the Armed Forces can support civil society, for example, within the member's area of cyber threats. They are perhaps even more difficult to define.

I want to be clear once again that we do not believe the military should take over policing duties from the regular police, but rather it should act as a resource within the areas that are not covered by current legislation.

The legislation is good, just as Peter Hultqvist pointed out. But it is about the capabilities. The legislation also constitutes a basis for the capabilities to exist. We believe, again, that there are capable lawyers and a capable administration who can produce and formulate these issues in a correct way so that we do not encounter the concerns that both have given room for.

That was what I clearly wanted to emphasize.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the floor.

It is difficult when one says one thing outside the chamber and another thing in the chamber.

I can repeat what Jimmie Åkesson has said: The military should be able to enter suburbs during riots. Furthermore, SD says: Use the military to suppress the riots. This was from May 2022, not so very long ago.

One could get the impression that these motions are an extension of what SD says in the media. That is often the case with motions in the Riksdag, meaning that there is a connection between what one says and what one does. It may be that SD does not have that impression, but that is how motions work – and that is how we usually handle them.

After people in the periphery of SD have paid people to set fire to Qurans, unacceptable riots occur. They then want to subdue SD with the military. The word "subdue" is used here.

I still believe there is an understanding among the SD member that we can get the impression that you, in your motions, present something different from what you say in the media. It is very good if that is not the case, but I wonder if the member can explain the context between the motion on using the military civilly, linked to the citizens, and what is said in the media about the military being deployed in the suburbs.

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

Lars Wistedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! Yes, absolutely! This is an interesting question to dig into and, not least, to sort out what has been said and what has been done.

Regarding the Quran riots and the so-called SD-periphery, I want to remind that it was not SD personnel in themselves who paid, but it was a matter of persons outside the party. They are not part of the Sweden Democrats, and that is interesting.

Otherwise, I share the view that we should not argue about riots and such. It is a completely different task for a completely different part of the authority, I want to emphasize. Those are tasks that we work with in the Committee on Defence and in the Defence Preparedness Committee, and it is there, after all, where the questions are decided.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer, and I thank in particular the member from the Sweden Democrats for clarifying that the Sweden Democrats do not stand for the policy that the chairman of the Sweden Democrats has expressed in the media on numerous occasions. Then it is clarified! I thank you for that!

Then we know for the future that when SD's chairman says that military personnel should be deployed against citizens in our suburbs in Malmö, there are other parts of SD that do not agree. I hope that the member wins that internal struggle.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! I say hello to colleagues whom I am not used to working with, as this is not my regular committee.

I come from Miljöpartiet, which is built from movements for the environment, equality, and peace.

The situation we find ourselves in now, and the entire issue regarding the military, is very much about thinking about what is unthinkable and planning for even the worst-case scenario. From my perspective, this raises many thoughts about resilience. We have understood that we need to isolate Russia. I am also grateful for the unity that the Swedish Riksdag has shown in these issues. It is a matter of stopping the sponsorship of Russia and Putin through gas and oil. I wish that we could go even further in that matter.

In the long term, it is about us building up a resilience regarding energy so that we can be more self-sufficient. We should simply invest more in solar power and offshore wind power to make us more self-sufficient even in the short term.

There are conflicts of objectives today that need to be discussed and addressed. We in Miljöpartiet believe that the municipal veto needs to be reformed, as do the conditions and the permits granted to the Armed Forces, so that one does not jeopardize a higher degree of self-sufficiency of electricity.

We need to see that water is an immensely important resource. It is nothing that we can take for granted. Earlier in the debate, Vättern was mentioned, which today supplies 300,000 people with drinking water. Probably more municipalities will connect. It could come to be 600,000 people who are directly dependent on water from there. Without water, we have no security. We must remember that it is about defending the population. Therefore, Miljöpartiet thinks it is relevant to look at whether the defense and the Armed Forces can have other training sites than in and near Vättern, which is precisely a drinking water source.

When we speak about preventive measures, we have a pandemic behind us from which I hope we draw all conceivable lessons. One such lesson is about ensuring that they do not arise at all. Right now, alarms are coming from several places that avian influenza has also begun to spread to mammals, even to mink. It is extremely serious because mink and humans are genetically very similar. There is therefore every reason to think about the preventive work against pandemics and see the mink farms not just as an animal welfare issue but also as a security issue to ensure that we never have to end up in a situation where avian influenza mutates and reaches us.

We also need to ensure that we get functioning transport. We must invest in public infrastructure in the way that is required even for times of crisis and war. We need railways that work, and we must be able to rely on the infrastructure. It will be extremely important.

Last but not least, the climate adaptation we face must be carried out from a security perspective for our own population.

Military affairs

I move for approval of reservation 5 on conflicts of interest.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 7.)

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