Military affairs

Erik Ezelius (S)

Madam Speaker! A year ago, when we stood here and debated last year's report, we were in the final stages of the Defense Committee's work. Unlike then, we now have a decision in the chamber regarding the direction for the total defense 2025–2030.

A year ago, we raised many points that were later found in the government's bill on total defense, namely a continuation of the policy pursued from the orientation decisions in 2015 and subsequently 2020, which broke the previous trends of cuts and a trimmed-down defense force. The focus is now on a powerful expansion, for example regarding the procurement of materiel and expanded conscription training in order to build up our combat units and thereby strengthen our defense capability.

When I entered the Riksdag in 2014 and simultaneously received leave from my job as a professional officer at P 4 Skaraborg Regiment, the appropriations were at approximately 45 billion. In line with the 2020 decision, we were at 60 billion, and today it is 143 billion. With the decision this autumn, the forecast is that we will reach approximately 186 billion kronor by 2030, corresponding to 2.6 percent of GDP.

Madam Speaker! Why do I bring up the budget and orientation decisions when we are to debate military issues? Well, there are those who believe that the hardest part is done and behind us, and that now that we have made decisions for 2025–2030, it is only for the Defense Committee to lean back and watch as the decisions are implemented. Nothing could be further from the truth. To use military terms: the plan is established and decided. Now comes the difficult part, namely implementing the plan.

Figures easily become abstract, which we remember from the pandemic when support measures in the form of multi-billion amounts were implemented. Later, there was the support package in the form of multi-billion amounts to Ukraine.

If we look at this year's figures, that is for the defense budget, at 143 billion, excluding any changes in the supplementary budget, in relation to the state's total expenditures of 1,374 billion, we realize that it amounts to over 10 percent of the state budget. Note then that we are still adhering to the decision that has been made in the chamber. Much water has, as is known, flowed under the bridges since then, and Sweden's government speaks of levels at 3 ½ percent of GDP but flags for higher. USA's Foreign Minister Marco Rubio spoke as recently as a few weeks ago about levels closer to 5 percent.

When we speak of percentages of GDP, it goes without saying that it is not a question of static amounts but that they have their starting point in growth. We can state that it is a question of enormous amounts, and all of this is to be converted into weapons systems, combat vehicles, ships, transport aircraft, main battle tanks, conscripts, employed group commanders, soldiers, sailors, temporary employees, officers, reserve officers, expansion of our functional schools, infrastructure, barracks, training and shooting ranges, ammunition, uniforms, boots and so on. The list can be long.

For those of us who work with defense issues in different ways, it is now a matter of being forward-looking and realizing that certain things will need to be steered and adjusted to better hit the target. The Armed Forces is in a growth phase now – and will continue to be for a long time to come.

But the global situation does not allow for any length of time, rather the opposite. In the event of a peace settlement in Ukraine, it is a matter of a few years, up to five years, before Russia has regained the capability from before the full-scale invasion on 24 February 2022.

Sweden does not stand alone, but all like-minded countries in the West face the same fact. Previously, we had little money and much time. Now, we have much money and little time. The build-up of the total defense will require many resources, efforts, and sacrifices, and I know that the support for this is great. The war in Ukraine has made the seriousness come right up to us and the awareness that we all have a responsibility is great.

Madam Speaker! I nevertheless want to emphasize that the question of what consequences the expansion of the defense entails for society as a whole must constantly be included. Here, coexistence is a key word. In order to have high acceptance and a strong will for defense, we must see society as a whole where the interaction between the civilian and the military must function for us to achieve the best resilience.

Let me give a few examples. The first concerns wind power, a recurring topic in the debate and in the chamber. Something that caused temperatures to rise in November last year was when the government said no to 13 offshore wind farms for defense reasons. Let me emphasize once again that the defense aspect carries the most weight when it comes to defense preparations in our country and among our allies, but that does not mean that one cannot be a constructive party that, in applicable cases, reports positively where it is possible to build wind power instead of giving the short answer no at the final stage.

The committee took the initiative to hear several parties and authorities to see how to move forward. Without giving the impression that different interests will coincide, there is nevertheless an insight that another order must be established, based on the societal interest that offshore wind power is an important component for solving the acute electricity needs now and in the near future, and that coexistence as such is of the utmost importance for creating acceptance for a powerful expansion of the defense.

The government's investigators submitted the report Opportunities for coexistence between the Armed Forces' activities and expanded wind power in December. There are several interesting proposals in that report on how we can find a more accessible path to accommodate different interests.

Let me bring up my own constituency and the place where I myself began my military career 17 years ago. Karlsborg served for a long time as Sweden's reserve capital. Karlsborg is truly the epitome of a municipality where the Armed Forces and society go hand in hand. No one is surprised to meet men and women in uniform; rather, they form part of the cityscape. Karlsborg can in many ways be held up as an example regarding dialogue and cooperation because the Armed Forces and the municipality are aware that they are mutually dependent on each other.

Let me connect this with what I raised earlier in my speech regarding the challenge that comes with the Armed Forces growing. Do not misunderstand me: Karlsborg is probably one of the municipalities that has the most positive view of the Armed Forces, but the situation is that the municipality has more or less had a wet blanket thrown over it, which makes it impossible to build new homes. The background is multi-layered with questions about noise levels and national interests, and there is no reason to question that the assessments, together with the municipality's geographical conditions and limitations, create problems. The consequence is that the municipality, which has a need for 70 new homes per year, stands completely still.

Who else, besides the municipality, is most critical of this? Well, the Armed Forces locally – K 3. Why? Well, as the Armed Forces grow, there is a need to employ more officers and soldiers, but they have nowhere to live. In this case, the municipality and the Armed Forces have joined forces to try to reach a solution, even if it does not seem to exist in the near term. But this is a clear example of our ability to steer and adjust, to be forward-looking and find solutions to create acceptance for strengthening the cooperation between the military and the civilian, which together constitute the total defense. In the long run, it is about strengthening our resilience. Here, political craftsmanship is required in both large and small matters.

So, in the long term, we build our defense capability, strengthen the will to defend, and increase the resilience in society.

(Applause)

In this speech, Johan Andersson (S) agreed.

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

Per Söderlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! I begin by moving for approval of reservation 10.

Madam Speaker! For a report titled Military Affairs, there are many requests in the Defence Committee's report 5 concerning environmental assessments. It shows that environmental assessments have been a long-standing problem for the Armed Forces, and the problems persist despite being well known among the authorities and in politics.

It is actually about a conflict between different interests. On one hand, we have environmental and climate aspects, and on the other hand, we have our country's defense capability. Sometimes these interests are pitted against each other, and then the processes tend to become protracted. It can be about how many flight hours are permitted at an airport, how many artillery shells may be fired at a shooting range, or about the establishment of new training grounds.

Chapter 3, Section 10, first paragraph of the Environmental Code states that the total defense and the defense interest shall be given priority in the balancing of incompatible national interests. Obviously, environmental assessments have been an obstacle to the Armed Forces' growth despite that legal text.

Madam Speaker! In its annual report for 2024, the Armed Forces assessed that under current legislation, it would take up to ten years before a valid environmental permit would be in place for a specific shooting range. At the same time, both Swedish and foreign authorities warned that Russia only needs two years after the war in Ukraine to build up the military for an attack on another European country. It is therefore eight years faster than the time it was assessed to take for us to even create opportunities for our conscripts to practice at a nearby shooting range.

With the deteriorated security situation, it is more important than in a very long time to provide the Armed Forces with the conditions they need to build up the defense to an acceptable level. Therefore, we can be glad that the government has acted in this area to facilitate future environmental assessments, something that we have been pushing for for some time.

Ordinance 2024:1212 with special provisions on the notification of certain defense activities is such a measure that will facilitate the Armed Forces' growth, but it ceases to apply at the end of 2030. We would have liked to see it remain in force indefinitely, as the security situation will most likely not improve significantly over the next five years.

The regulation applies to the Armed Forces, the Fortification Agency and the Defence Materiel Administration, not the defense industry and any future civil defense facilities. It would have been a more effective regulation if it had covered all total defense activities, even though I see difficulties that may arise with such a formulation.

An investigation is underway to review and submit proposals on how the permit process according to the Environmental Code can be simplified and shortened by making the process more flexible, efficient, and predictable. I will honestly say that I have not read the entire part that has been presented. It is more than 1,500 pages. But the investigation has been extended, and two additional reports will be submitted during 2025. It will be interesting to see what the result will be, as it could be a more long-term solution than the aforementioned regulation.

As early as this morning, the government announced that it had reached decisions on all environmental permit cases concerning increased activities at the Armed Forces' training grounds, shooting ranges, and airfields. Regarding some of the decisions, they have waited for rulings for over a decade. This was a welcome announcement – and it shows that the government takes the Armed Forces' needs very seriously – even if one might think that this should have been done earlier.

Madam Speaker! Everyone who engages in shooting, whether it concerns hunting or sport, knows that practice is extremely important in order to achieve good shooting skills. Many shooters who are serious about their shooting therefore fire thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of shots every year.

For understandable reasons, access to shooting ranges is important for those who want to become a skilled shooter. This also applies to the Armed Forces and the Police Authority. Unfortunately, access to their own shooting ranges is limited in some cases. They partially solve this by sometimes borrowing civilian shooting ranges for practice. Home Guard personnel often have closer access to a civilian shooting range than to the Armed Forces'. For them, civilian shooting ranges are a time- and cost-effective alternative.

Thus, police often have limited access to suitable shooting ranges. They also rent space at civilian shooting ranges to practice their shooting. Some police officers and soldiers are also sport shooters with membership in a shooting club to further practice their shooting.

The civilian shooting ranges therefore fulfill an important function for these two authorities. When it comes to the civilian shooting ranges, it is the associations that operate them that are responsible for ensuring that they are safe to use and that the necessary permits are in place.

Madam Speaker! It could all be well so far, but it is rarely that simple. Today, civilian shooting ranges are threatened from several sides.

It concerns, among other things, the EU's upcoming rules on the ban of lead in ammunition used in or near wetlands. A wetland can be a puddle, according to the assessment of Swedish authorities. Consequently, in principle, all shooting on the country's shooting ranges risks being prohibited during rain if the lead ban is realized.

Another problem is that the Police Authority is unable to carry out inspections of shooting ranges to the extent that is needed. Shooting ranges must, in fact, be inspected and approved every five years, and they may not be used if this does not occur.

It has therefore been difficult for the Police Authority to keep up with inspections, which has led to the so-called shooting range death. Several shooting ranges cannot be used pending inspection. One could jokingly say that the Police Authority has shot itself in the foot, as in practice, it has reduced the possibility for its staff to practice their shooting – police officers testify that it is difficult to find time for it.

Madam Speaker! Overall, all of this has a negative impact on the defense capability. The problems with the inspection of shooting ranges have already led to some associations simply ending their activities. Instead of opposing organizations that help state authorities, in this case primarily the Police Authority and the Armed Forces, they should be given the help and support they need to continue developing their activities – to strengthen the defense capability.

Therefore, in motion 2024/25:1407, we propose some measures concerning exactly that. It is about facilitating the permit process for shooting ranges, about promoting the establishment and maintenance of shooting ranges through economic incentives, about research to reduce the environmental impact from shooting ranges, as well as regular dialogue and conversation with the shooting movement. In this way, the associations would feel more involved in the protection of society, and the understanding of the associations among the authorities and the government would increase. The death of shooting ranges could also be turned into a rebirth for both shooting ranges and the shooting movement as a whole. That, Madam Speaker, would also benefit the buildup of the Swedish defense.

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

Lars Püss (M)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Defence's report number 5, Military Affairs. It is a so-called motion report, where motions from the general motion period are addressed.

Let us begin with something that makes me extremely concerned.

In the Committee on Defence, we often discuss that Sweden's defence is not solely an issue for the Committee on Defence but must be included in all committees and all activities in the Riksdag. It is up to everyone to reflect and start to act according to what we must do if the worst were to happen. Sweden's defence is built on the fact that everyone contributes and prepares, not just the military. The lessons from the war in Ukraine are very clear. That civil society functions is absolutely crucial for the military defence to also function.

Last week, I sat in a committee meeting in the Nordic Council where we listened to a presentation on the Nordic labor market. When the slide with challenges and threats appeared, climate change, an aging population, and low birth rates were listed. But there was not a single word about the fact that there is war in Europe, that 1.4 million people have been killed or wounded in the war in Ukraine, that Greenland's status as a part of Denmark is being questioned, and that we have begun to discuss transitioning Sweden's economy to a war economy instead of a civil one.

It simply isn't enough. It doesn't work. We must start thinking about and preparing for the worst that can happen and start planning for the fact that the world is changing. That is the only way we can stand strong and equipped and thereby avoid war.

Madam Speaker! On a similar theme are the parts of the report that deal with coexistence but also environmental permits. For a long series of years, we have not only dismantled our military and civil defense. We have also dismantled our ability and our understanding of what will be required of us in order for us to be able to manage a war.

Some of us remember the opening part of the telephone directory: If war comes. It was a self-evident matter for the vast majority to from time to time read a small part of all the advice and instructions that were on those pages. We knew that the worst could happen, and we acted accordingly. Today we have stopped doing that. Even though the situation has slowly improved, there is still a very long way to go. The worst thing we can do is not to talk about this or to downplay the probability. It is when we talk about it, plan for it and prepare ourselves that we can reduce the probability.

When it comes to coexistence, we must realize that the military defense must be given priority in a number of different areas, just as we allowed it during the Cold War. We must constantly ensure that, for example, the sensors we have set up to be able to detect threats can function fully, without unnecessary interference. It does not work to say: Yes, but the technology is being developed. Tomorrow we will surely be able to handle it. It is now that it must work. We cannot assume or hope that something will be resolved with future technology. What we deploy today and use today must function fully today and not just potentially at some point in the future. That principle is absolutely crucial for us to be able to meet an armed threat. What we do today must work today.

Madam Speaker! It will therefore continue to be a "no" to offshore wind power in many places around our coasts. But to make the entire permit process simpler and more efficient, the government is now reviewing the possibilities of being able to designate specific areas instead of having to apply for each individual site.

At the same time, it is important to obtain permission for a new approach to the defense's training activities. I was myself raised near and live again near the Ringenäs shooting range outside Halmstad. There, the shooting range has been used for decades to practice air defense. They have fired out over the sea with 40 millimeter ammunition.

I can say that it sounds quite substantial. But it has been part of everyday life, and we took it. Today, one does not fire 40-millimeter automatic cannons anymore, but instead practices with simulators given that the technology has developed. In the environmental permits, there is still a huge scope to practice with 40-millimeter ammunition, but it is limited for fine-caliber ammunition.

When I wrote the speech, I did not know about the news that came this morning. Our Minister for Defence, together with the Minister for the Environment, has now agreed to a number of different environmental permits that have been lying in the Government Offices. Hopefully, it will mean that we will get adjusted and significantly better conditions to train.

If we are to have a functioning defense, our soldiers must also be given the opportunity to train. As the conscription cohorts grow, the needs will increase further. We as citizens must show both respect and understanding for this.

The shooting ranges and training sites we have are limited and furthermore fewer than before. It will mean that the burden on those who remain will also become higher than before.

In conclusion, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Madam Speaker! I and Member Püss agree on very much of what he says.

We agree on the serious security situation and the horrors of the war in Ukraine. We agree on the inappropriateness of an important ally, USA, threatening another close ally, Denmark, regarding Greenland.

We agree that we need to increase our military and civil capacity to withstand war so that we hopefully keep war away by deterring an enemy from attacking at all.

But we must also have a society that functions. In that case, coexistence must be achieved between the defense and the surrounding civil activities. That is precisely why it is important that we nevertheless hold fast to environmental legislation that protects our environment and our climate.

Processes can be expedited. Exceptions can be made for, for example, noise. But we must not jeopardize the environment in such a way that we create irreversible consequences. It is very important to take that with you.

We must also find a way to have a society that functions as well in peace as in high alert or, in the worst-case scenario, in war. In that case, we need to have a functioning, sustainable energy supply. The Armed Forces must also be able to participate and contribute to this.

Just as was said here earlier by Member of Parliament Erik Ezelius, one must, for example, work constructively to be able to point out locations where wind power can work, and not just have the government here say no collectively to 13 applications at once. In that way, one places a dead hand over the possibility of developing offshore wind power in the Baltic Sea.

I ask Member Püss: What deviations and concessions from a functioning society and protection of the environment is he prepared to make in order to keep the war away?

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

Lars Püss (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question! I think it is highly relevant.

I believe we have quite a lot of consensus on this. Consensus, or coexistence or mutual understanding, exists. I come from a municipality where the Armed Forces is very much active and has been for very many years. I know the need to have a dialogue so that both can coexist.

I believe that in a number of areas we must simply get better at conducting dialogue and describing our needs. This applies to both the Armed Forces and municipalities and regions. Regarding that part, I still have a good amount of confidence.

Specifically as an answer to the question about wind power and offshore wind power, there is no doubt that with the order we are now moving towards, according to the proposal that the government is presenting, it is about being able to designate specific areas so that we do not have the complicated and very lengthy process of getting offshore wind power.

We also want to see offshore wind power. But it must not damage our ability to defend our country. Therefore, it was a no on a number of areas where there was an obvious risk that we would have difficulty using our sensors.

In this speech, Ann-Sofie Alm (M) agreed.

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much for the answer, member!

I can state that coexistence is about dialogue with municipalities and companies but also, for example, with farmers or neighbors in the vicinity of our training areas. It is very important to both ensure the safety of the activities that the military conducts and be able to find solutions so that one can exist side by side.

It is something that we must safeguard in the situation we now find ourselves in, where the military's activities will grow in scope and affect more and more people.

It is also important to have an understanding that people are affected and that people will have opinions and viewpoints. To gain acceptance and understanding for the military's activities, this coexistence is needed.

When it comes to offshore wind power, I can nevertheless state that the collective rejection has laid a dead hand over the ability to develop offshore wind power in the Baltic Sea. This means that one cannot take advantage of the technical possibilities that exist.

It is not just something that exists in the future, as MP Püss says. There are actually technical possibilities here today to expand our ability to obtain a global view by, for example, connecting sensors with offshore wind farms but also by looking at suitable locations.

Now the signal that the government has sent to all actors, both the companies that want to invest in wind power and the Armed Forces, is: Do not bother, it is no use. Here it shall be open, and here we shall not have any wind power.

This is happening in a situation where, at the same time, great promises are being made about building nuclear power. We know that it is associated with both greatly increased risks and economic consequences that are not positive for our energy supply capacity.

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

Lars Püss (M)

Madam Speaker! We are moving towards an order where it will become clearer and simpler. We will point out specific areas precisely to make the process faster, cheaper, and much clearer for those who want to invest in offshore wind power. It is the system we have today that is not efficient enough.

If the Armed Forces state in its opinions that offshore wind power is unsuitable, I would rather trust it than anyone else. If it says that it will create problems for it, I will say no every single time if the question is posed to me. It is the Armed Forces that must be allowed to decide and say whether it works or not.

What we are now heading towards is a clearer and faster order. It is also significantly more cost-effective. I think it is an excellent path that we are now entering.

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

Hanna Gunnarsson (V)

Madam Speaker and honorable members! Hello to all of you who are listening and watching, at home or in the gallery!

When one talks about defense policy, it is important to start by raising one's gaze. At the same time as we stand here and debate, the war in Ukraine and the war in Gaza are ongoing. These are two wars that, here and now, cause people to be killed and societies to be shattered. We all need to work together for a more peaceful and secure world, both here at home and in Ukraine and Gaza. Invasions and occupations must cease so that all people can live in peace, freedom, and democracy.

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating a report with the heading Military Affairs, which contains a number of different motions on total defense. We live in a time where it is obvious that we need to build up our entire total defense. Total defense is, as everyone knows, broad and large. Our society and our world are truly interconnected. The military defense protects our borders, while the civil defense protects our society. Society must function here and now in order to be able to scale up and continue working under significantly more difficult conditions and circumstances during a major crisis and, in the worst case, a war.

Madam Speaker! But if the healthcare staff are already on their knees, it will be difficult to be able to expand healthcare in a situation where it needs to be done. If the infrastructure is constantly crashing here and now, it will not be able to withstand a war.

We as humans are dependent on a robust society for our survival. This means sustainable systems where we have food, water, and fresh air to breathe. But we also need to have bees and insects that ensure we can grow our food. We live in a climate crisis. It is becoming more and more apparent how even that is connected to the total defense – how every little bee is actually a part of our entire total defense. Without bees, there will be no cultivation, no security of supply, and no robust society in time of war and crisis.

Madam Speaker! One could call the committee report Climate and environment in total defense instead of Military affairs, because it is precisely climate and environment that many of the motions are about.

In previous debates, I have spoken a lot about Vättern, a large drinking water source that must be secured despite increased military exercises both around and in, on, and over the lake.

I have also spoken a lot about the emissions of PFAS from our airports and training grounds, where there have been both military exercises and civil rescue service exercises. The emissions of PFAS are incredibly serious and something that many people have been affected by all around our country, especially in Blekinge. Both the Armed Forces and civil society must ensure that the areas are remediated and cleaned and that compensation is paid out. The one who causes an emission must also be the one who is responsible for cleaning and cleanup, especially when it concerns the contamination of drinking water.

Another important issue concerning the report is the contact between our regiments and flotillas and the surrounding community. When training activities increase and the Armed Forces are expanded, there is a risk that conflicts will arise regarding the use of land, regarding noise, and regarding cordons. Difficulties also arise when it comes to housing construction, which we know is needed in many parts of our country.

This is a problem for which the Armed Forces have a great responsibility to manage and mitigate. This also applies to MSB in the locations where they have training grounds. Residents, businesses, agriculture, and outdoor life should be able to continue to exist, live, and function even in the vicinity of the training grounds. I, who live right by Revingehed, see myself how the activity is increasing and that it affects the residents around it. Dialogue is truly important.

Cooperation and coexistence are important for the entire total defense because the total defense is everything. One thing that we often talk a lot about in the total defense is the energy supply – one of the absolutely most important parts. For our societies to function in a crisis and, in the worst case, in war, energy and electricity are needed; it is fundamental for much else to function.

I want to place some extra focus on this. We need to expand fossil-free and renewable energy, not just for the sake of the climate – we are living in a climate crisis, as we have said – but also for the total defense and our own energy supply here at home, even in crisis and war. Wind and solar power are types of energy that must be expanded, and they must be expanded now. Above all, we need to expand wind power around our long coasts, while the Armed Forces must be able to train and conduct operations.

This is not an easy equation, Madam Speaker, but we must be able to expand the total defense and expand the energy supply at the same time. It is truly not easy; that is what no one claims. But it is not easy to deal with the total defense. We do not engage in this part of politics or society because we want to deal with easy things.

In December, an investigation was submitted regarding a new possibility to make decisions on the expansion of offshore wind power. If these proposals are implemented, it may become a bit easier to expand offshore wind power. But the most important thing is that there is a will and a cooperation. All parties must want to expand fossil-free and renewable energy and sit down and solve the problems together.

I hope that we can achieve good political cooperation on this, and I have just heard from both Social Democrats and Moderates here in the rostrum that there is a genuine interest in the issues.

Madam Speaker! In view of this, I move for the approval of reservation 1.

We must see the whole picture. The military and civil authorities must become better at cooperating, managing major crises, and together building up the total defense. There are resources and knowledge in the Armed Forces that should to a greater extent be of benefit to civil society. At the same time, civil society needs to be strengthened in order to be able to secure the population's survival and the society's functionality and to be able to support the Armed Forces in the event of war.

In the end, coexistence is about public support. If the population does not understand why cordons are established or why different decisions regarding land and water use are made, there is a great risk that the anchoring of the total defense among the population will falter. Consequently, the will to defend is also at risk of being affected.

These are quite big words. But we must ensure that the dialogue and cooperation improve so that we can work away the problems. So we can also work away some complaining, if one may use that word, in order to together be able to strengthen the total defense.

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 5, Military Affairs.

I would like to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal in the report and rejection of all reservations.

We find ourselves in a significantly deteriorated security policy situation. It is something that we here in the chamber are aware of. You who are sitting in the gallery also surely know it, as do all of you who follow the debate on TV.

This means that we need to rearm. We have a neighbor, Russia, who does not hold back from anything. They do not respect the laws of war. We see it in Ukraine, where Russia is waging a war where they do not only target military objectives but also shopping centers, nursing homes, power plants, and the like.

Madam Speaker! This means that we must have an increased readiness. And we have increased our readiness; in four years, we have doubled the defense appropriations.

The military intelligence service, Must, stated in a report just recently that they assess that Russia, only two years after a possible ceasefire in Ukraine, could have managed to rebuild its ability to wage a regional war and within five years a major war. This means that we must – and Must also says in his report – accelerate the rearmament both militarily and civilly.

It is about deterrence. If we have a military capability that deters, the chances increase that we will never have a war. Sweden has been a lucky country, a blessed country, that has stood outside of war for two hundred years, and we believe that should continue. But it is not a law of nature. This is what is so important: that at all levels we understand that it is now required that we rearm.

We do that too. In December, we took a good and important defense decision in strong agreement. But it is not enough, Madam Speaker. There are major deficiencies that need to be corrected. NATO's capability goals, which will become public within a couple of months, will likely point out that, for example, ammunition is something there is far too little of. There is a shortage of air defense. More ground combat troops were needed. We are part of NATO where there are resources, but it is also a matter of being able to hold out if the worst were to happen – and being able to show that we can do so.

Now the government has announced that we are to go from the current 2.4 percent up to 3.5 percent. It is a lot of money, but it is actually not any stranger if one owns a property somewhere in Sweden and has not maintained it for some decades. It is clear that it will cost money.

It is about something as important as our freedom. That is why we are making this investment. We Christian Democrats have this regarding human dignity in our DNA, and it is when human dignity is trampled that it is in war. That is why it is so important to recreate a military capability, both as a country and as a part of Nato.

The report also addresses the issue of environmental permits and the like. I thought it might be appropriate to quote from the Armed Forces' annual report for 2024. On page 33, there are examples of what the Armed Forces say they cannot do because the regulatory framework prevents them. It concerns measures from a defense decision we took in 2020, i.e., five years ago, and which should have been completed by this point.

Regarding I 13 in Falun, the Armed Forces states as follows: ”The choice of location for the new regimental area was delayed due to nature value inventories and hydrological investigations.”

A little further down it continues: ”At the current time, the infrastructural construction of permanent infrastructure for I 13 is estimated to be completed first in the period 2030–2032, primarily due to the currently ongoing municipal detailed planning process.”

There are more examples. I choose another one, which concerns I 21 in Sollefteå and Östersund: ”Grytans shooting range in Östersund” – it is certainly several of the members who have been there; I have been there on a visit – ”lacks an existing environmental permit … With current legislation, the Armed Forces assess that it will take up to ten years before a valid environmental permit is in place for Grytans shooting range.”

Madam Speaker! Naturally, one should be able to make appeals. Naturally, one should look at things and circumstances. But this is not reasonable! When the military intelligence service says that we need to speed up, it is unreasonable that it takes so long. We must have different legislation.

I know that the government is working on this, but it must be accelerated. It is about the nation's security. If we cannot train fully, we cannot have full military effect. These are connected. It is very important to ensure that this is arranged now.

With the efforts being made and the supplements being provided, we are on the right track. We are carrying out a substantial upgrade, and it is pleasing that we have a consensus regarding this. But there are challenges, and we need to speed up. We do not have all the time in the world.

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

Mikael Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Today the Committee on Defence is debating military issues. Many of the motions the Centre Party has raised within this area were addressed within the framework of the total defence bill, which we debated shortly before Christmas.

In my speech, I will focus somewhat broadly on defense but also go into matters that my colleagues have previously touched upon, such as coexistence and some environmental issues.

Madam Speaker! The total defense decision we are now entering aims at the period 2025–2030. It is extremely important to now take the deteriorated security situation prevailing in Europe very seriously. Therefore, it is pleasing that we have such a large consensus regarding the fact that the entire total defense must be equipped and strengthened in all its different parts. The basic organization that we have decided on, with for example new organizational units, must be in place much earlier so that we can reinforce and obtain a much stronger war organization than what we have today.

To this, it is obviously important to weigh in that we are now also members of Nato with all that it entails. Among other things, we need to take into account Nato's capability goals in our continued planning of strengthened total defense. We also need to incorporate the host nation support planning in a much clearer way. In today's public meeting linked to civil defense, we heard, for example, how the county administrative boards and relevant municipalities are working with the host nation support.

Achieving a strengthened total defense and a strong defense force also requires more and deeper cooperation between the Armed Forces, the personnel branch, and the Defence Materiel Administration, the materiel branch – but also the Fortification Agency, which has buildings and premises. It is together that we achieve success and strengthen the total defense.

Madam Speaker! In order to increase resilience, the will to defend, and public support throughout the entire total defense and in society as a whole, coexistence within virtually all of Sweden is extremely important to work on. It is also important that everyone then sits at the same table and solves the problems that exist.

From the Center Party's side, we believe in the investigation on offshore wind power that the government has submitted, where the Armed Forces, together with other stakeholders, should in principle be able to designate areas for offshore wind power. We need more offshore wind power, and we need more energy production in Sweden. That is where offshore wind power will be extremely important. It is, however, important that the Armed Forces, based on the security policy aspects, can point out where it is appropriate to build.

Coexistence is, however, much more than just wind power. It is truly everything that concerns society. I want to highlight an example that I have received and think is good, where the Armed Forces cooperate with several actors within society. When, for example, exercises are to be held and land needs to be rented from landowners all over the country, the affected landowners are gathered, informed about how the exercise will proceed, and it is also made clear what the economic conditions will be. In this way, we build coexistence together.

Coexistence will be important moving forward. When, for example, the shooting ranges are expanded and the training activities and training capacity increase around the country, it is important with information and dialogue with civil society, municipalities and regions as well as everyone who operates in the whole society.

Madam Speaker! The defense's environmental impact in general is extremely important in the ongoing work with the total defense. Environmental and climate impact is a high-priority issue, which we must take most seriously. This naturally applies to shooting ranges, but I want to highlight examples such as the seabed around our coasts and also our lakes.

We know that for some time now, attacks and sabotage have been occurring, for example on the bottom of the Baltic Sea in the form of cables being cut and the like. One can actually express it as that a war is also taking place on the seabed along our coasts. It affects us, but it also affects several other countries within the framework of the Nato alliance.

It is important that the Armed Forces also, together with other authorities, for example the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management, the Swedish Maritime Administration and other relevant parties, can map out what the Swedish seabed and sea territories look like. It is necessary to get as good a grasp as possible of this, partly based on the needs of laying new cables and where it is appropriate and not, and partly based on security aspects. Security must, of course, always come first, but even here it is about coexistence and continuing to be able to work with development throughout our country.

Madam Speaker! Synergy and cooperation breed success and also allow us to move our society forward. I really want to emphasize that the Armed Forces and the security policy situation must be given as much space as possible. But we must absolutely not lose sight of regional and national development, for example within the green transition. Of course, everything must be able to coexist and work together. The Armed Forces are in need of housing and energy, and therefore all of this must function together, regardless of where we are in the country. Synergy and cooperation, as I said, breed success.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to move for the approval of the Center Party's reservation number 7.

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Madam Speaker! We stand in a historically uncertain time. Russia's illegal war of aggression against Ukraine continues with suffering, death, and great damage to Ukrainian society as a result. The war has caused many European countries, including Sweden, to accelerate the buildup of defense capabilities while simultaneously supporting Ukraine.

The Defence Preparation Committee proposed unanimously that Sweden should increase its military defense expenditures to 2.6 percent of GDP while investments in civil defense are gradually increased to reach 15 billion by 2028. The Riksdag made a decision on this in December.

Now we stand in a situation where the USA's relations with the rest of the world, including Europe, are changing. It is a change that is occurring rapidly and where we do not know what the final result will be. But it is clear that even though the defense decision is only a few months old, even more investments in defense will be needed. This does not only concern the military defense, which the government has focused on in its communicated initiatives regarding supplements to the military defense, but to a very high degree also the civil defense. We need a total defense in balance. The civil defense is crucial for a functioning military defense.

Madam Speaker! The purpose of our defense is to preserve peace. Defense and security policy shall protect Sweden and promote peace in our immediate vicinity. Total defense shall therefore be built so that it deters other countries from attempts to control or in any other way exploit Swedish territory, harm Swedish society, or exert threats and blackmail against Sweden.

Defense is based on the right to self-defense under international law. It should therefore be defensive in its character and structure. By increasing our readiness, both civil and military, we can influence the risk of war breaking out.

Madam Speaker! Building up the military defense quickly is a major challenge. It takes time to train new soldiers, sailors, and officers. It takes time to procure defense materiel. It takes time to build the infrastructure required to house both materiel and personnel. The growth must occur in a balanced way, otherwise, there will be problems.

Another challenge when the military defense grows is the coexistence with the surrounding society. The defense is there to defend us. Therefore, it becomes a problem if the defense's activities affect the surrounding society too much. The defense is there to protect us, and in that case, it is important that, to the greatest extent possible, it is ensured that the surrounding society is not affected too negatively.

It is important to have transparency and dialogue with the surrounding society, but also to find a balance where other socially important activities can continue to be developed. I am thinking of wind power, for example. The offshore wind power needs to continue to be expanded. The Armed Forces need to prioritize energy security to a greater extent in their assessments of potential wind power projects.

The Armed Forces should work to facilitate the expansion of offshore wind power by cooperating with actors in the energy sector to find suitable locations and technical solutions so that the expansion does not interfere with the defense's interests. This was a mission that the Armed Forces had when Miljöpartiet sat in the government, but which the Tidö government has removed.

The Armed Forces is an agency, and it follows the government's directives. The government can choose whether it wants the Armed Forces to look at the broader perspective and facilitate finding coexistence with offshore wind power, or if it wants the Armed Forces to focus narrowly on the military perspective.

The current government has laid a dead hand over the possibility of expanding offshore wind power in the Baltic Sea through a collective rejection of 13 wind power projects. It is a clear signal that makes it so that companies do not dare to invest in finding, together with the Armed Forces, the technical solutions that could both enable the expansion of wind power and safeguard our defense capability. Conditional permits could have been an opportunity to ensure that more sustainable energy production can be expanded.

Madam Speaker! Climate change constitutes a serious and long-term threat that affects the Swedish Armed Forces' structure. The climate transition affects the entire society, and the Swedish Armed Forces cannot stand outside this transition. It is both about the defense contributing to reduced emissions and about the defense being able to function in a society that has transitioned.

We from Miljöpartiet believe that the defense's climate adaptation needs to occur at an increased pace and that the government should task the Armed Forces with returning with a plan for how the expansion of the defense can be carried out without further impact on climate and environment. Among other things, planning is required so that the Armed Forces' vehicles can function as part of the total defense in future energy and fuel systems, which are based on electricity and renewable fuels. Additionally, it is necessary to clarify what effects Swedish and international exercises on Swedish territory have on the environment.

We from Miljöpartiet also believe that it is necessary to investigate in what way one can manage pollution from, for example, collapsed buildings that leak into groundwater during war, as well as how one can best clear mines and cluster bombs after war. This is important to increase knowledge on how one can quickly, after war, create conditions for growing food, for livestock to be able to graze, for the forest to be able to grow, and for one to be able to return to a functioning society. The Total Defence Research Institute is an appropriate actor for such a mission. The lessons should then be integrated into training to ensure that the entire Armed Forces have knowledge of the environmental effects of war and how environmental impact during military exercises can be avoided.

Madam Speaker! A national effort is needed in the work against PFAS contamination. PFAS are long-lived chemicals, so-called forever chemicals, which remain in nature for a very long time once they have been dispersed – and not only there. Through, for example, drinking water, they reach our bodies, and there they can both increase the risk of cancer and affect our ability to have children. Of course, animals that ingest PFAS are also affected.

The Armed Forces have conducted much activity that has given rise to PFAS emissions. One example is Karlsborg airfield, one of the most contaminated sites in Europe, where levels of PFAS occur that are millions of times higher than the established limit values. A remediation of the Armed Forces' contaminated areas, including Karlsborg airfield, needs to take place. The Armed Forces and the Fortification Agency must urgently take measures so that PFAS contamination is not spread from contaminated ground.

Madam Speaker! It is important that the authorities within the defense area work to strengthen coexistence with the surrounding society and, in their activities, take into account both climate and environment.

Even though we in Miljöpartiet stand behind all our reservations, I move finally to approve only reservations 3 and 6 in order to save time during the voting.

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

Göran Hargestam (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Defence's report 5 Military matters.

Madam Speaker, honorable members and other listeners! My speech today concerns one of the most fundamental, challenging, and at the same time most complex issues we face as a nation: How shall we balance environmental considerations and sustainability with a rapid and necessary growth of our military defense? In the long perspective, it is clear that these two objectives must coexist, but in the short perspective, there is an inescapable need to give the military defense a superior role.

Clearly, we can state that it would not serve us well with a world-class defense where the consequence is an environmental impact so great that we are restricted in our ability to move freely in nature, that we get limited access to clean water and cultivated products, and that conditions are no longer provided for several today threatened animal and plant species to reproduce. The opposite can also be said to apply: to have an environment free from disturbances but to be forced to live under conditions where citizens are not free. Fortunately, we do not need to choose. We must, however, be prepared to compromise.

It is a harsh reality we live in. The world is changing rapidly, and the geopolitical situation is more unstable than it has been in a long time. We see how the threats to our country and our allies are becoming increasingly tangible and how security in our immediate vicinity is challenged on a daily basis. In this situation, we have no choice: It is an absolute necessity that Sweden obtains a defense that is both deterrent and simultaneously strengthens our ability to defend our country and our values. This is a responsibility that we neither want nor can evade.

Madam Speaker! If Sweden were forced to defend itself militarily, it would have major negative consequences for the environment. In the event that Sweden, or parts of Sweden, were to be occupied by a hostile state, we can expect that environmental considerations will not be at the top of the agenda. There are experiences from Ukraine to learn from.

For the sake of the environment, we need to quickly and effectively strengthen our military capability. This requires investments in modern technology, improved readiness, and a stronger defense force. While we must be prepared to protect our freedom and our citizens, we also face a situation where our environment is at risk of being negatively affected in various ways. Not acting to take our environmental impact into account is no longer an option.

We cannot turn a blind eye to the long-term effects of our actions. We have a collective responsibility to preserve a healthy environment for future generations. But to delay the construction of our defense primarily to meet environmental goals would be a dangerous and naive path to take when our country's security is threatened. We must act now.

Here it is required that we can collectively agree that we shall not choose one or the other. Our defense and our environment must be able to function and develop in a positive direction in symbiosis with each other. With innovative thinking and long-term perspective, we can achieve this.

In the long run, we need to integrate environmental considerations into the entire defense planning. In that context, it is naturally not good that Sweden's defense was dismantled for many years. This has resulted in us being in a time crunch now and having to prioritize the buildup of the military defense, and that environmental considerations in some parts must take a backseat.

Madam Speaker! In the short perspective, it is therefore necessary that our defense takes a primary role. It is not about denying the importance of environmental considerations. But when our security and our national protection are at stake, we as a nation must do what is necessary to secure our future.

It does not mean that we should ignore environmental responsibility. When we build up our defense and develop our capabilities, we must also think about sustainable solutions, but it must not be at the expense of the need to be prepared for today's and future threats. It means that we must be smart and think long-term by implementing green technology where possible, while simultaneously upgrading our defense to meet the immediate threats.

When our defense has a satisfactory protection and deterrence, we can build our continued defense structures, develop new technologies, and plan for exercises and operations where carbon dioxide emissions and other environmental impacts are minimized. This includes, among other things, choosing sustainable materials and thinking about reuse and recycling. This must, however, not mean that we postpone necessary investments in our defense.

Madam Speaker! We now stand at a crossroads. In the long perspective, we cannot afford to either prioritize the growth of our defense or protect our environment. We must find a way that allows us to do both, and we must do it quickly. If we fail, we risk that our country and our people will not be equipped for the challenges of the future.

Let us therefore take this responsibility most seriously. Let us build a defense that is both strong and sustainable, which protects our security and at the same time, to the necessary extent, takes our future into account. It is fully possible to strengthen our defense capability without losing focus on the environment. When we build and maintain defense facilities, as well as when we develop defense materiel, we should prioritize sustainable solutions. This could, for example, involve choosing environmentally friendly materiel or more energy-efficient infrastructure.

We live in a time of rapid technological development, and there are many examples of how defense and environmental technology can interact. By promoting research and innovation, we can develop new solutions that strengthen our defense. Part of the solution is to collaborate with industry, academia, and international partners to develop sustainable and effective defense solutions.

There is no simple solution to this balancing act, but by working strategically, with a holistic view and long-term perspective, we can find ways to both strengthen our defense and take responsibility for our environment. We must understand that these issues are not in opposition to each other; rather, they complement each other. A strong defense requires a stable and sustainable society, and a sustainable society requires that we look after both our security and our environment.

For Sweden, it is about us having to be both strong and wise, prepared for the future and responsible towards both our citizens and our planet. Let us therefore work to eventually ensure a total defense that is both environmentally friendly and defense-effective and in this way show the way for the nations of the future.

Madam Speaker! Our defense readiness cannot wait. The threats to our country and our security are real and present. Environmental issues are of course a central part of our future work, but right now the circumstances require that we focus on quickly and effectively building a defense that is strong. When it comes to defense and security, there is no time to lose.

Let us therefore act with the utmost caution and wisdom, but also with the decisiveness and determination required to protect our country and our citizens in a world that is changing rapidly.

Military affairs

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 11.)

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