Swedish contribution to NATO's deterrence and defense during 2025

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we begin the chamber's plenary session by debating the joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence's report on Sweden's contribution to NATO's deterrence and defence during 2025. With this debate and the report we have submitted to the chamber, we are also making history. I therefore welcome the fact that both the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence are present today. I also wish to begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal in its entirety and to reject all reservations.

Sweden is now allied in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and is therefore also a part of NATO's deterrence and defense, both conventional and non-conventional. Deterrence is a concept based on the fact that we have such a strong ability to inflict damage on a potential enemy that the latter chooses not to attack us or our allies. It is sensible and significantly more effective than for an armed conflict to break out.

In Sweden, we have previously reasoned in the same way as Nato but instead spoken about threshold capability and about our defense being designed so that an attacker should not consider it worth the effort to attack Sweden. The concept of deterrence is thus not new for us. The new thing is primarily that we do this as a member of a defense alliance and that we do it abroad.

Mr. Speaker! In my capacity as the chairman of the joint committee, I would like to thank all members for your efforts during the processing of this report and in particular for the efforts to achieve consensus regarding the issue of information to the Riksdag, which in questions such as these is an advantage if there is some degree of agreement, regardless of and independent of the government's composition over time – especially since it is the Riksdag that is the supreme decision-making body and the government the executive body. This is, moreover, a constitutionally established order, even though one, in light of the media reporting during the autumn, might have believed that the matter had been settled already before the Riksdag's approval. But so, my friends, is not the case.

The Committee approves the government's proposition on Sweden's contribution to NATO's collective deterrence and defense in the North Atlantic area and simultaneously rejects the motion from Vänsterpartiet. The path proposed by the government implies not only a formal commitment but also a strong and necessary engagement for the security of our own country and for the alliance's stability. By standing united in our commitment, we show that we are not just a passive spectator but also an active and reliable ally, especially in our own immediate vicinity.

If a serious deterioration of the situation should justify decisions to increase the Swedish contribution, the Riksdag shall promptly receive information and, if necessary, make new decisions. The committee emphasizes that in such situations it is of the utmost importance that the Riksdag's need for oversight and influence is not only met but also ensured through prompt feedback.

In this regard, the committee also emphasizes the importance of the relationship of trust between the Riksdag and the Government, where we are jointly responsible for keeping Sweden strong and stable, as well as our part of the alliance. In a sharp situation, this may mean that the Government returns to the Riksdag to request a mandate for any additional contributions.

Mr. Speaker! In this report, we propose that the Riksdag authorize the government to place a Swedish armed force consisting of land forces, special forces, and amphibious forces of at most 1,200 persons, at most 6 warships with accompanying personnel, and at most 24 combat aircraft with accompanying personnel at disposal until December 31, 2025, to contribute to NATO's collective deterrence and defense of the North Atlantic area.

What we are now debating is specifically the planned deployment of Swedish troops in Latvia. This makes us and our allies safer. As spokesperson for Sverigedemokraterna, I am also positive about the fact that the defense and security cooperation in the Nordic region and the Baltic Sea area is being strengthened – an ambition we have pushed for a long time, long before Sweden's NATO membership. Now this is becoming a reality, moreover with a different strength than before.

Swedish assistance to our eastern neighborhood is also nothing new. Since the 1990s, we have had extensive cooperation with the Baltic states. The starting point for that was that Russia withdrew its occupation troops and the Baltics needed to build up their own defense forces. Sweden then contributed a non-negligible amount of defense materiel, which has now also been able to be partially transferred to Ukraine through the Baltic states' generous military support to the country.

Mr. Speaker! The credibility of the deterrence and the defense of Sweden and Nato is crucial to keeping malicious antagonists in check in the most difficult security policy situation since the Second World War. The contribution we are now discussing will be a substantial support, which is good. Sweden shall contribute with well-trained units, in sufficient numbers. Therefore, the proposal currently before us is well-balanced. A Swedish troop on site will also be able to train with allied troops, which naturally enables our capability to be further increased.

We will also be able to operate within an integrated operational area around the Baltic Sea and not be restricted in our cooperation with allied states. This naturally facilitates the defense of our own country, our immediate vicinity, and the alliance as a whole by ensuring that supply lines can be secured jointly and interoperability – say that word quickly ten times – can be partially practiced in peacetime.

Mr. Speaker! This new task for the defense naturally places additional demands on the Armed Forces, which already today find themselves in a strained position with a major buildup while the support to Ukraine consumes large resources. The assessment is, however, that the forward basing will contribute to stability in our immediate area and is necessary given the threat that Russia, among others, poses today. It is also a consequence of what everyone in this chamber agrees on, namely that the security policy situation is serious.

In this context, it is also important to emphasize that this is an issue that is larger than just this single effort. The need for the entire society to step up and support security policy initiative and the Armed Forces in this strained situation can also not be overemphasized. Employers, regardless of whether they are in the private or public sector, need to view it positively when employees engage with the Armed Forces. If we are to succeed in preserving freedom, being masters in our own house, and supporting others, the entire society needs to step up.

Mr. Speaker! I understand that there may be some concern about what it means that Sweden, now as a Nato ally, is actively participating in the alliance's defense and deterrence. For those of you who think that the risk of war or otherwise is now increasing, I want to remind you that Nato, throughout its entire existence, has succeeded in its main task, namely deterrence. In a historical comparison, it is clear that the time when Nato has existed and expanded has been a time when its members have been able to preserve peace and freedom. If one compares this with the time before Nato, one realizes that it was a time of recurring wars among several of the states that now are part of the alliance.

NATO is also not a supranational organization, as you know, but is based on consensus. Sweden will therefore not be forced to participate in anything we do not decide on ourselves, even if we enter with the so-called 360-degree perspective – being part of the alliance as a whole.

Mr. Speaker! Finally, I want to address the members of the Armed Forces, sailors, pilots, and civilian employees, who will now take on a very important mission. We are immensely proud of your efforts and what you have achieved during your time in the Armed Forces, and of the fact that you both carry out upgrades and support for Ukraine and are now becoming a part of this. The mission we are now deciding on will entail further demands on you, and it is vital to meet these.

For this to happen, the operation must be characterized by result-oriented pragmatism, and I believe that, among other things, the administrative streamlining that is now being carried out in the Armed Forces is beneficial and absolutely necessary so that resources can be released for precisely this core mission. The demands of crisis and war are clear in the situation Sweden finds itself in today. We all need to concentrate on what is truly important in order to strengthen the defense of ourselves and our allies.

I would like to wish those who will be stationed in Latvia great luck. Some of us here have visited the base where you will spend a lot of time. I am convinced that it will be a time of challenges but also a developing time, as you will be well taken care of. The time there will give you great riches and opportunities for competence development for the Armed Forces as a whole.

With this, Mr. Speaker, I move again for approval of the committee's proposal in its entirety and for the rejection of all reservations. If we are not given the opportunity for the latter, I would also like to wish Mr. Speaker, the Speaker's Presidium, and all members a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

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

Alexandra Völker (S)

Mr. Speaker! When Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, the entire security policy environment changed. Russia made it clear that it no longer respects the rules-based world order. The security policy environment we now have to contend with is not the one we desired, but this is the reality we have to contend with. For over 1,000 days, Ukraine has now fought against Russia for its freedom. It is a struggle that also concerns us and our freedom.

Mr. Speaker! On March 7 this year, Sweden became a member of Nato. Joining Nato was nothing we Social Democrats took lightly. It is a decision that entails obligations while simultaneously providing Sweden with important security guarantees. With membership in Nato comes the responsibility to work together with the other Nato countries for common security.

Today's decision is about exactly this: to contribute to what is called NATO's deterrence and, by continuously demonstrating a credible military capability, to signal that we are prepared to defend ourselves. The decision means that we actively participate in the collective work of increasing security in our immediate vicinity.

Today's decision means that from the Swedish side, we will contribute to NATO's deterrence and defense in four parts.

The first and most extensive part, in terms of the number of people, concerns that we are to contribute up to a battalion to NATO's multinational brigade in Latvia, called FLF Latvia. It is a complete battalion with reinforcement resources that is to be based outside Riga in Latvia and be able to operate in the entire Baltics.

The second part is about contributing to NATO's standing naval forces during 2025.

The third part concerns participating in NATO's integrated air defense through participation in what is called NATO Air Policing.

The fourth and final part is about Sweden being able to contribute during the year to other peacetime operations and activities aimed at maintaining NATO's collective deterrence.

In summary, the decision covers that we make land forces, special forces, and amphibious forces of at most 1,200 people, at most 6 warships with accompanying personnel, and at most 24 combat aircraft with accompanying personnel available to contribute to NATO's collective deterrence and defense of the North Atlantic area. The purpose of the contribution is, as stated, to contribute to NATO's collective deterrence and defense. Given the security policy reality we have to contend with, it is however important that we are clear that the Swedish sub-contributions to FLF Latvia and NATO's standing naval forces shall be able to transition to defense if an armed attack occurs against an ally. This is part of the authorization we have to decide on.

Mr. Speaker! From a Swedish perspective, it is a comprehensive mandate we have to make decisions on. It is a new reality we have to contend with. Russia has created a new reality.

The Social Democrats stand behind the decision to, in accordance with the government's proposal, contribute to NATO's deterrence and defense. With this decision comes a great responsibility. It is a large number of soldiers, sailors, officers, and other personnel who will be tasked with participating in NATO's activities. It is we in the Riksdag who decide that they shall perform these tasks, and thus it is of the utmost importance that we keep ourselves informed about their missions.

It is also the first time we are making this type of decision. As a new member country in Nato, this is the first time Sweden is deciding on contributions to Nato's deterrence and defense. That it is we in the elected Riksdag who make the decision is an immensely important order, which my colleague Heléne Björklund will return to later in the debate.

That the Riksdag is continuously informed about the contribution is important both in terms of the authorization we are deciding on here today and in terms of the authorizations we will decide on in the future. It is therefore pleasing that the committee has met us regarding our proposal that the Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence should receive information from the government about the Swedish contribution at least once a quarter. This was the arrangement we had during the previous parliamentary term, and with the report, it will also be the arrangement going forward.

Mr. Speaker! 24 years ago, the UN adopted a historic resolution on women's role in crisis and conflict. It was resolution 1325, which came to lay the foundation for what would develop into the agenda for women, peace and security. Much has happened since the resolution was adopted, and notably, Nato is actively working with the issue of women, peace and security.

Last summer, NATO's policy on the issue was updated. It is, in many ways, a good and comprehensive policy that clarifies how work shall be done within NATO regarding the agenda for women, peace, and security. Unfortunately, a policy does not mean that the goal has been achieved. The policy is a tool, but it is up to the organization and the member states to live up to it. In NATO's policy, it states that the primary responsibility to implement the global WPS agenda lies with the nations.

We have a long way to go to live up to the commitments in resolution 1325 and the subsequent resolutions. If there is anything the present constantly reminds us of is, if we are honest, that the development for women can take large steps backward in just a few days. Women and girls are still equally vulnerable in conflicts. Sexual violence is used as a weapon, and around the decision-making tables, it is still almost only men.

Since the beginning of the invasion, horrific reports have come from Ukraine about how Russian soldiers rape women and girls and how sexual violence becomes a part of the warfare. But it is not only in pure warfare that women are exposed. Several organizations testify that the war reinforces harmful gender roles and that gender-based violence in Ukraine has increased. This is not unique to Ukraine – research shows that abuse and violence in close relationships tend to increase in war and conflict. For women and children forced to flee, there is additionally another great vulnerability.

We have a long way to go to live up to the agenda for women, peace and security. That is why the work must be with us in every decision. The Social Democrats argue that it is not enough to refer to action plans, but we must constantly – and all the way – ensure that they are followed. We cannot lean back and say that it is included in NATO's policy.

When we participated in the UN military operation in Mali, it was obvious to us to include women, peace and security in both the bill and the parliamentary decision, even though it is the UN that has adopted the resolutions that form the basis for the agenda on women, peace and security. It should be equally obvious in this decision.

Sweden should be proactive in ensuring that the agenda is truly lived up to. It is not enough to be positive that it exists; Sweden must be proactive in its implementation. This should be a self-evident part of decisions regarding military contributions. We believe that the Riksdag, through a declaration, should issue a clear call to the government to ensure that the agenda for women, peace and security permeates and is an integrated part of the Swedish contribution to NATO's deterrence and defense. I therefore wish to move for approval of reservation 2.

Mr. Speaker! The commitment Sweden is now undertaking to contribute to NATO's deterrence and defense is based on a large number of soldiers, officers, sailors, pilots, and other employees of the Armed Forces. Without them, Sweden has no contribution.

It is Swedes who, through their employment in the Armed Forces and their will to contribute to everyone's security, leave their everyday lives in Sweden, leave their everyday lives at home, for a time, in order to work for our collective security. Without them, this would not have been possible.

But it is not just that, without them it would not have been possible. That they can go is based on the fact that there are people who step in here at home and make everyday life function: partners, children, parents, friends and colleagues.

I would therefore like to conclude by expressing my thanks to all of you who will yourselves be a part of the Swedish contribution, but also to all of you home heroes who make it possible for them to participate.

(Applause)

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

Ann-Sofie Alm (M)

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

The Committee proposes that the Riksdag authorize the Government to place at its disposal an armed force consisting of land forces, special forces, and amphibious forces of at most 1,200 persons, as well as at most 6 warships with accompanying personnel, and at most 24 combat aircraft with accompanying personnel, to contribute to NATO's collective deterrence and defense of the North Atlantic area.

Mr. Speaker! We face a historic decision that is both strategic and symbolic and which obliges us to take responsibility - for our country, for our immediate neighborhood and for the European security order.

The proposition presented by the government, Sweden's contribution to NATO's deterrence and defense during 2025, is an expression of the will to be an active and reliable member of NATO and of our conviction that Sweden makes NATO stronger and that NATO makes our immediate area safer.

I want to emphasize here the importance of solidarity and cooperation and point out the importance of Sweden's active role in security work. With this decision, we clearly show that Sweden is a reliable and proactive partner. We stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies in a time when security in our region is threatened.

Sweden's contribution to FLF Latvia is a concrete measure to contribute to a stronger and more secure Europe. It strengthens not only Latvia's defense capability but also our common security and, not least, the military cooperation in the Baltic Sea region. It is our responsibility as part of the European community to act both powerfully and resolutely.

Mr. Speaker! These are serious times. The threat to our common security has become increasingly tangible, and as a member of Nato, it is Sweden's duty to contribute to collective security.

We do this at a time when the threat from Russia is real. After Russia's violation of international law and full-scale invasion of Ukraine, we have witnessed what happens when international law is set aside and when countries are left vulnerable.

Now, action, perseverance, and the clarity to realize that Russia will not give up until the goal of exterminating Ukraine is achieved are required. Russia wants to create a Europe built on the right of the strongest, a new world order.

Europe has experienced this before in history, but we shall not go back there. Our children shall not grow up in such a Europe. Therefore, our contribution is not just a military effort. It is a signal of our determination to defend freedom, democracy, and the international rule of law. We must not forget what was written on Putin's election posters in the last so-called election: Russia's borders have no end.

It is by being strong and by being strong together with others that one prevents military aggression. It is, with all clarity, the only language that power-hungry dictators understand. A rat does not give itself up to a pack of German Shepherds, no matter how fat the rat is.

Mr. Speaker! With this decision, we show that Sweden not only expects security from the alliance but also contributes to its strength. Our Swedish forces are well-trained, modern, and capable. Sweden's contribution of forces not only strengthens NATO's capability but also gives Sweden valuable experience in cooperation and collaboration with our allies.

NATO's strategy is built on two pillars: deterrence and defense. Through our presence in Latvia, we contribute to both. We strengthen the defense capability on the ground and simultaneously send a clear signal to Russia and other potential threats that any aggression against a NATO country is an aggression against the entire alliance. When we stand together, we stand stronger.

Mr. Speaker! Let us not underestimate the seriousness of this decision. We are sending Swedish soldiers to a potential conflict zone, and we do so because we understand the importance of defending our values. Freedom, equality, democracy and human rights are not self-evident. They must be defended, sometimes with strength and determination.

We also do this for future generations, so that our children and grandchildren can grow up in a peaceful and stable Europe, and to show that Sweden is ready to take its responsibility in an uncertain world.

Mr. Speaker! With this decision, we confirm that we are NATO. We are not just a member; we are NATO. Let us stand firm by this historical decision with pride, with responsibility, and with a clear-sighted view towards the future. We are now clear-sighted. We see the world as it is, and with that as a basis, we shape our security,

But, Mr. Speaker, this historical decision would not have been possible without the commitment and the preparations that many have already put in.

Therefore, I want to extend a warm and heartfelt thanks to the Armed Forces. You have thoroughly prepared yourselves for this mission. Through careful exercises and strategic planning, you have ensured that our contribution will be effective and significant. Sweden is in safe hands with your efforts.

Thank you also to all of you officers, soldiers and sailors who have trained and prepared yourselves to serve in Latvia! Thank you for your commitment and your professionalism! You show courage and determination by taking on this important mission, and you make us all proud.

Thank you also to your families, relatives and friends! You are perhaps the more invisible heroes in this. Your support, your strength and your patience make it possible for our soldiers, sailors and officers to perform their work. You carry a great responsibility at home when they do their duty, and we know that this is not an easy burden. I want to express my deepest gratitude for all of your contributions to our country's security.

When our officers, soldiers and sailors now travel to Latvia, they do so to defend our common security and our common values. We are aware of the risks and challenges that this mission entails, but we are also convinced that they will carry it out with the professionalism, stability and courage that characterize Sweden's defense.

I would therefore like to conclude by wishing you all great luck. We look forward to you all coming home, strengthened by the experience and ready for new missions. Thank you for defending us!

(Applause)

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

Hanna Gunnarsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! Hello to all of you listening and watching at home! Today, the Riksdag is debating a unique matter. It is Sweden's first plan for what we are to do as a NATO member. It is excellent that we get to handle it as a separate proposition with its own decision and its own debate.

The government's proposal is that Sweden shall participate with ships in NATO's maritime surveillance and aircraft in what is called air policing. We will also participate in NATO's operation in Latvia. Vänsterpartiet stands behind this with the proviso that Sweden does not participate in activities involving nuclear weapons, which mostly concerns the part of the bill dealing with the American so-called Bomber Task Force. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of reservation number 1.

Vänsterpartiet is opposed to Swedish forces participating in training activities that may include elements involving nuclear weapons. Vänsterpartiets position is that Sweden shall never be involved in planning, preparing or practicing the use of nuclear weapons.

Sweden could have been much clearer that we will not allow nuclear weapons on Swedish territory. Our neighboring countries Denmark and Norway made statements about nuclear weapons in connection with the respective countries' applications for Nato membership and when they wrote their so-called DCA agreements. Vänsterpartiet regrets that the government did not do so in the same way and that such markings did not occur either at the entry into Nato or in the DCA agreement. That countries compete with each other in nuclear armament increases uncertainty in the world. It is not a sensible way to build peace and security.

Mr. Speaker! Vänsterpartiet was against Sweden joining Nato. We demanded a referendum on the issue so that the population could have their say and the decision would be anchored.

NATO membership is now a reality, and much of the Swedish Defence's activities will have a connection to NATO going forward. But Sweden's defense capability must be at the center of Swedish defense planning. At the same time, we shall be an active partner in cooperation for our Nordic and Baltic neighboring countries. We shall take joint responsibility for the defense of the Baltic Sea, the North Sea, the North Sea, and the Arctic - our common near area. It is this, and not the planning of operations in countries far away, that shall be prioritized by Sweden.

I am satisfied that the parties, during the process over the last few years following Russia's full-scale and unlawful invasion of Ukraine and during the long and complex process that the Nato application entailed, have now actually moved closer to each other. We have a political consensus that the focus should be on work in our immediate vicinity and not on Nato operations or Nato missions far away.

Mr. Speaker! It is simultaneously important that Sweden in the future does not only look to NATO's work and areas, but that we also participate in appropriate UN missions to contribute to global peace and security. There, the UN has an incredibly important role.

Mr. Speaker! In the proposition, it is proposed that Sweden shall participate in a NATO operation in Latvia that has been planned for a longer period. The Baltic countries border directly on Russia and have requested a permanent military presence from other countries, something we believe Sweden can contribute to. Exercise and training for this has been ongoing in Skåne, and other planning of the Latvia operation has also taken place.

The Swedish Soldiers' Association has been planning a soldiers' home at the camp in Latvia for some time. The soldiers' home is a place for the soldiers to rest and recover and have a meaningful leisure time between work shifts. It is an important place so that life when participating in a mission is not just work. I look forward to visiting the soldiers' home and making a return visit to the camp, which the Defence Preparation Board has already visited, at some point in the future.

International missions, even in our direct vicinity, do, however, take up a lot of resources. It is important that the Armed Forces continue to work to improve the conditions for the soldiers and officers who participate in missions and that the work that also must be done at home can continue as planned. Above all, it is important that the training of conscripts can continue with high quality and enough officers despite the fact that we will now have soldiers and officers abroad.

Vänsterpartiet considers that international military operations in the future shall be staffed by employed personnel - not conscripts.

Mr. Speaker! I want, just like my colleagues, to take this opportunity to thank all the Swedish soldiers who have been deployed and who are about to go out on international missions. It involves a very great sacrifice for the individuals but also for family, relatives and friends at home. It is a long time to be away from home, and it is a long time of training and preparations before one goes out. Thank you for your efforts!

Mr. Speaker! Finally, I want to emphasize the importance that it is the Riksdag which, in accordance with the Instrument of Government, makes the decision to send Swedish military troops abroad in peacetime. Vänsterpartiet considers that this should also apply now that Sweden is a member of Nato. The Riksdag has on several occasions during recent years shown that it can act quickly regarding both preparation and decision-making. We greatly appreciate that the government has kept the Riksdag's parties well-informed during the process that has led up to this decision.

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to start by thanking Hanna Gunnarsson for the constructive approach the Left Party has had in both the Committee on Defence and the Committee on Foreign Affairs - and not least the joint Committee on Defence and Foreign Affairs - when we have dealt with this proposition, despite its initial opposition to Sweden joining Nato.

It is also important to address what Hanna Gunnarsson raises in her speech and which is the basis for the Left Party's reservation in the report, namely the question of gathering a common strength by contributing to the alliance – but doing so in a faltering manner. The purpose of Nato is both deterrence and defense. As I understand it, the Left Party wants to contribute to the defense part in full but stand outside the deterrence part, which, among other things, concerns non-conventional deterrence, i.e., the possibility of deterring potential antagonists through nuclear weapons planning.

The Left Party refers to Denmark and Norway, which in another time and in a different context made unilateral declarations not to base nuclear weapons on their territories or conduct exercises with such. They, however, have no reservations. The question is what alternative the Left Party wants to see regarding perhaps the most important form of deterrence if they do not want NATO's nuclear planning and nuclear exercises to function. It is this, after all, that will ultimately keep antagonists like Russia in check. If we yield here, the deterrence will be considerably compromised.

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

Hanna Gunnarsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! I can begin by saying that I think it is incredibly important that defense policy is constructive and pragmatic in the situation that we and the world find ourselves in. It has been a long process with both the Defense Preparedness Board and the joint committee that allows us to talk things through in a very good way.

Vänsterpartiet is against nuclear weapons. That is no news. We want Sweden to sign the UN ban on nuclear weapons. We want nuclear weapons to disappear from the earth's surface. There are horrific examples of what happens when nuclear weapons are used in the world and how it affects the population for generations.

To say that it is a shortcoming if one cannot use nuclear weapons is to accept that nuclear weapons should be part of the defense of Sweden, and that is what we mean it should not be. We want to remove the nuclear weapons. We do not want them to be handled in Sweden at all. It is a known position from us, and we stand by it.

Being on the ground in Latvia, I believe, is a very good way to show that we also stand in solidarity with the Baltic countries. These are countries that have a history of war and occupation, and they are countries that are located very close to a very aggressive Russia. They are also relatively small countries. That we are there and show solidarity is therefore an important part of the work ahead.

I believe that is how we should think about the efforts we are making now. We shall also try to do our very best to ensure that nuclear weapons disappear from the earth's surface.

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I do not believe that anyone in this chamber opposes a clear international disarmament policy. We all want to see a non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and, above all, avoid more countries acquiring nuclear weapons in their arsenals.

There is a very great consensus regarding this. I cannot discern any political conflict either in the report from the joint committee, in the Defense Preparation Committee, or in other contexts. We agree on disarmament and non-proliferation and on avoiding that more countries acquire nuclear weapons.

However, Russia and other antagonistic states would cheer even louder if we clearly declared that we were divesting ourselves of the ultimate guarantee of deterrence, namely nuclear planning. But that does not mean that we want them to be used. On the contrary, the ambition is to ensure that they are not used. That is the idea behind thorough and wise planning, and in parallel, we are working on precisely disarmament, non-proliferation, and so on.

I am still requesting what the Left Party's alternative to this part of the significant deterrence is, as I could not hear it in Hanna Gunnarsson's answer. It is ultimately about the deterrence in the event of an escalating conflict with the states that actually want us, the free West and our united democracies, ill today. That is what they will take advantage of if we have nothing to set against, and then the question is: What does one want to see instead?

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

Hanna Gunnarsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! Disarmament and non-proliferation are incredibly important. At the same time, the member says it is lacking if one cannot use nuclear weapons. I think there is a certain contradiction in that way of reasoning.

We need to avoid all forms of use of nuclear weapons going forward. We cannot have the type of expansions or upgrades that we see today. That Sweden should participate in exercises with nuclear weapons is an expansion compared to what we have done previously, and in that way, it becomes an escalation in the world.

It is incredibly important that we keep the focus on the fact that we need to lead the way regarding peace and disarmament and being nuclear-weapon-free. It is about the world's future and peace.

The alternative that the member is asking about is the one we say yes to in this bill: We show that we can act together, that we participate in exercises together with our closest neighboring countries, and that we also have a presence in Latvia.

For us, this is a fairly big step forward, I would still like to point out as a member of the Left Party. The situation in the world is such that the Baltic countries are actively saying that they want our support in this. In that case, we will not lean back or stand in a corner and say no; the alternative is then that we are there, that we show solidarity and that we train together.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! I also want to highlight the Left Party's constructive work in this area. The fear of nuclear weapons has been transformed into being part of a deterrence effort, which is historical in itself. It is, of course, something to welcome.

From the Center Party's side, it is crystal clear that we want to see a world without nuclear weapons. We have clearly stated that we shall not have nuclear weapons on Swedish territory in peacetime. In that regard, there is no doubt. Norway and Denmark have also made such statements.

I still get a bit curious. In the Left Party's reservation, it states that "it cannot be ignored that a Swedish membership in Nato also involves participation in Nato's structure for nuclear weapons use." That insight is obviously present within the Left Party. But when we had a discussion about Sweden's security policy direction on Monday, it was clear that the Left Party does not want Sweden to participate in Nato's planning group, where Nato's policy on how we use nuclear weapons is discussed.

It feels like Vänsterpartiet needs to reflect for a while more on how to proceed in precisely these issues.

I would also like to know what Vänsterpartiet has as an answer to Putin's threats of nuclear weapons in Ukraine. That has been a constant line of argumentation from his side, and the West is accommodating. What is your answer to this?

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

Hanna Gunnarsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Member, for the questions!

I agree that it is good and important that we are constructive. It becomes better when we do this together. It becomes a better defense policy when we are as united as we can be. The investment from the political side is to give the Armed Forces and all our agencies in the area peace of mind to be able to work forward.

I am very happy when I hear the members say that we are to have a world without nuclear weapons. I hope and believe that for every time we say it, it becomes another step forward towards a world without nuclear weapons. That is why it is important that we stand firm that the goal is a nuclear-weapon-free world, and to reach there, I mean that Sweden should sign the UN nuclear weapons ban.

Vänsterpartiet is against NATO membership, and one of our main arguments is NATO's structure for nuclear weapons use. We stand firm on that. There are countries that do not participate in NATO's planning group for nuclear weapons, and it is well the classic discussion: Should one be involved and try to influence from within, or should one protest by staying outside?

Regarding nuclear weapons specifically, Vänsterpartiet clearly states that Sweden shall not plan or exercise for nuclear weapons, and therefore we should not be part of this planning group. In this case, we do not believe it is so constructive to sit in and try to influence from within.

The threat of nuclear weapons around the world is incredibly serious. From the Left Party's side, we stand firm, and we hope that the world stands firm, on the international conventions that exist regarding disarmament and nuclear-free status. That is our answer: We stand firm on the international conventions.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is nevertheless interesting regarding countries that stand outside the planning group. It is precisely France that does not want anyone to have opinions on their nuclear weapons and therefore stands outside the planning group.

If one wants to try to influence how the nuclear weapons policy should be designed, would it not then be better to be involved, roughly as the Left Party is when we discuss security policy or this bill? Would it have been better if the Left Party had left the room and stood outside? Or was it better that you participated in order to shape it?

I perceive that Member Gunnarsson considered it better to be involved, because better results are achieved when one participates. Why does this not also apply to NATO's planning group for nuclear weapons?

I wish I were as strong in my faith that international conventions hold Putin in check. That was what Ukraine hoped for and what we have all hoped for. But what we have seen regarding the European security order and the UN's fundamental treaty that borders shall not be changed by military means is that all means and all paths that lead to Putin's goals are possible to use. International conventions and agreements have proven to be worth zero and nothing. That is the reality we face, and then we must also see it. Even I am extremely bothered by Putin's nuclear weapons threats, but that must not stop us. We must manage to respond even to Putin's nuclear weapons threats.

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

Hanna Gunnarsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! France must answer for themselves why they are not in the nuclear planning group. We can speculate, but they must answer that.

I still see a certain difference between the Defense Preparation Group and NATO's nuclear planning group, if I'm honest. I believe that the Defense Preparation Group is more constructive to participate in than the nuclear planning group is. I believe we do more good for a good Swedish defense policy moving forward if we spend time sitting in the Defense Preparation Group than if we sit in the nuclear planning group.

I believe that one sometimes must dare to stand firm in one's belief in and hope for a more peaceful and nuclear-weapon-free world. In the situation we are in, with Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine and occupations and wars all around the world, the hope today may be perhaps a little weaker than a few years ago. The world is clearly heading in the wrong direction. But to say that we need to be able to respond to this in some way or to open up to the idea that the international conventions we still have would not be valid is also a way of meeting a dictator halfway. We need to stand firm by that international law, that peace and those goals for the world, for example nuclear-weapon-free, which we believe in in order to be able to show that this is the way forward for the world.

It is not always easy. I absolutely do not want to say that these are easy things. But we need to stand firm by that belief and that hope.

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

Mikael Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I also want to join in the thanks to Hanna Gunnarsson for the constructive stance you have had over several years while I have had the privilege of collaborating with you in the Defence Committee and the Defence Preparation Board. It is also very good that you, even though you have written a reservation, say that you essentially stand behind the proposal in the motion.

But I still want to, given that you are the Left Party's spokesperson here, ask a bit about how certain things fit together. The war in Ukraine has now been going on for a long time, two years and ten months. You had your congress in May, and at that time the war had been going on for two years. You have shown before that you can change your mind. First, you were not in favor of us providing military support, but there you changed your mind quite quickly. It was very good that we could reach a consensus on that. But at the congress, you nevertheless decided on the following text: "We see fundamental problems with NATO's structure. We work so that Sweden will be a counterweight to that, which instead builds up better, defensive collaborations, with the aim of leaving NATO."

The Speaker began by addressing those following the debate on television. I believe it is difficult for them to understand this. When a war is ongoing in Europe, do you mean that Sweden should leave the Western world's defense alliance? How does that add up? What do you envision it would be for the alliance?

(FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must remind Member Mikael Oscarsson that we do not use "du" as a form of address in the chamber. I believe the Member is actually quite familiar with that.)

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

Hanna Gunnarsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! I also want to thank the members for the constructive work we have had over the recent years, especially in the Defence Preparation Committee. It may seem as if we are constantly coming back to it, but we now have a unique unity in Swedish defense policy that we have all been involved in and contributed to. We have moved closer to each other in slightly different ways and at different edges, from both the right and the left. I believe that it is good and constructive in the situation we find ourselves in.

As the member says, we primarily stand behind the bill, despite being against Nato as an organization. The member asked how that adds up. It is pleasing that the member has read the Left Party's party program. It is well-written. I sat and listened very carefully to the debates at our congress in May.

Our party program describes a long-term vision, just as all party programs do. We write exactly what the member read out: that we want defensive cooperation with a view to leaving Nato. It is, as said, a long-term vision. In the situation we find ourselves in, with war in our relative proximity, it is nothing we are driving today but precisely a long-term vision.

A defensive cooperation can involve us strengthening diplomacy and peace negotiations together, that we strengthen our civil defense together, or that we strengthen our military defensive defense together. I imagine that we can have such a cooperation with the Nordic and the Baltic countries.

We will have to see where Nato ends up in the future, but it has been a somewhat more offensive cooperation than we have wished for many times.

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

Mikael Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! NATO membership strengthens our security, but it is also about thinking of others. Today we are talking about the support we give to Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania. I believe the member is very well aware of how long they have told us: Look at the Baltic Sea! Look at Gotland! Think of yourselves, but also think of us! I believe it is this we must understand. With Swedish NATO membership, we are an operational whole.

It makes me a bit concerned when Member Hanna Gunnarsson says that the party program is well-written. In my eyes, it is not particularly well-written when you retain the requirement to leave Nato, and I believe those who are listening agree.

Mr. Speaker! Alone is not strong. That is what this is about. We cannot defend ourselves on our own. We cannot manage it. It has been a long time since it became public. But it is also about others. Putin now has an offensive war where he breaks all the rules that exist, even in war. That you still, two years after the outbreak of the war, say that Sweden is to leave this defense alliance in the long term becomes incomprehensible to me.

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

Hanna Gunnarsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is of course unfortunate that the member becomes concerned when he reads the Left Party's party program, but it is perhaps also logical. We are in different parties that stand quite far apart from each other. It shows that despite this unity in defense policy, we still have differences between us. It is very good for the voters to see.

I believe that many who work with defense and foreign policy today wonder and are surprised when they look back at how Sweden has acted over the last 20-25 years and see how our colleagues then reasoned. It is always easy to sit with the final result in hand, but in hindsight, we probably would have listened more to what the Baltic countries said, both then and in the recent past, instead of making the large scale decommissioning we did in the 2000s when we paused conscription and so on.

For Vänsterpartiet, Nato is a military alliance that perhaps is not primarily about solidarity and thinking of others. It is precisely what we mean that a defensive cooperation could be about, where we jointly build our entire total defense - everything from ensuring that the populations have welfare and that we have cohesion in society to reduce conflicts, to that we can defend our country, work towards the climate crisis, and do everything we need to do to strengthen our security together.

We believe that the support to the Baltic countries and their support to us in such a defensive cooperation could work well instead of having the military alliance that Nato entails.

But now we are in Nato, Mr. Speaker. Then we must act as well as we can based on the conditions we have.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! The Riksdag has debated security policy on several occasions. As recently as yesterday, we decided on the Swedish security policy direction until 2030.

Mr. Speaker! Let us welcome both the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence to be here in the chamber today as we debate this decision, which is fundamentally based on joint committee work between the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Defence. It says something about the fact that foreign policy is an important first line of work for both peace and deterrence, but that we also ultimately must be able to respond militarily.

Russia today constitutes a close and tangible security policy threat to Sweden and to all free European states. They usually employ all means at their disposal to achieve Putin's political goals. Nothing escapes becoming a weapon if it serves the purpose. Putin has updated the nuclear weapons policy and threatens in various ways.

We live in times of seriousness and anxiety. It is important that we seize all our opportunities to win peace. We shall do our part to prevent a larger war from breaking out. We shall not be naive but learn from our history on this continent, and we do not want to see a new Munich.

Sweden is a member of Nato. Thus, all Nordic countries are members. The Centre Party has argued for that path since 2015. We saw the need to raise the thresholds for an attack. We noted that alone is not strong and that exclusion does not lead to security either. It is a lesson that many of our neighbors in the Nordics, in the Baltics, and in the rest of Europe have had to learn the hard way, Mr. Speaker.

Ukraine is now fighting every second, every minute, every day and every month to defend itself against the aggressor Russia. They have learned that the promises and guarantees given when they handed over their nuclear weapons to Russia were unfortunately not worth much. Now, Russia is also threatening Ukraine with nuclear weapons.

The deterrence regarding Russia's attack against Ukraine could have been shaped much more strongly if we had acted earlier after the attack on Crimea in 2014. Then we could have traded and acted to prevent and deter Putin from crossing the line militarily. We must learn from those mistakes as well. And we must take our responsibility to now build deterrence that provides clarity, that provides capability, and that provides credibility. We shall show the aggressor that we are prepared to defend every inch of NATO's territory.

Today we are going to decide that Sweden shall be prepared for exactly this. The decision we are to make today is, as said, historical. It is a proof that we are in solidarity with the whole of Nato, that we take our responsibility. Even though we see a regional profile on the operations, it is part of a whole. Sweden is now ready to contribute to actively building deterrence. It is extremely important, for us but also for Ukraine, that we show that we are prepared to not only speak but actually also act.

Centerpartiet wants to thank all the 1,200 soldiers, sailors, officers and other personnel, as well as their relatives, who during 2025 will do what we are deciding on today, if possible. They will secure peace but, if necessary, also be ready to actively defend it and us through their efforts.

Mr. Speaker! The Riksdag shall today make a decision. In the report, there is a discussion about the authorization framework and how broad or large it should be. The Government sees, as does the Riksdag, previously and now that this chamber is prepared and ready to make decisions on very short notice. We have shown that. And we are prepared to do so also in the future.

We must secure that capability. I want to emphasize that in these parts it is important that we try to nurture and safeguard the broad political consensus that exists in the chamber today when we are to make decisions, even though there are thoughts and proposals regarding other authorization ideas.

In that context, I also want to emphasize what we write about regarding information to the Riksdag should occur at least once per quarter. It is important, not only because we have learned a number of things from the build-up to February 24, 2022. We have also learned a number of things from the experiences from Afghanistan. Even here, I want to emphasize the value of nurturing and safeguarding trust and confidence in this chamber and the unity that nevertheless exists here today. It is important in this formative stage.

Mr. Speaker! Finally: There is a reservation that we in the Center Party pondered quite a bit about. It concerns resolution 1325. One must not reveal what is said in the conversations, but I can still say that we think it is a good text now. It is clear that 1325 has a very clear position.

Next year, 2025, when we carry out these efforts, it will also be 25 years since resolution 1325 was adopted. I also note that at the NATO Summit 2024 – it can also be read in the report – a new policy was adopted regarding 1325 on women, peace and security. NATO has formed an institutional structure for implementation, and the Secretary General has a special envoy for this. There is, therefore, already a lot here.

Centerpartiet clearly stands behind 1325 and its importance. However, we do not see that there are grounds to issue any particular appeal to the government from the position we find ourselves in, but I think the text from the committee ultimately turned out well in that part.

Mr. Speaker! With that, I move for approval of the proposal in the report from the joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence.

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the bill on Sweden's contribution to NATO's deterrence and defense. It is a historic decision to make an armed force available that can contribute to both the collective deterrence mission and, if necessary, defense.

The background to this is the serious security policy situation following Russia's illegal and full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It is a situation that affects all of Europe in a tangible way, but most of all those of our neighbors who border Russia, and when they request our presence, we show up. We see hybrid activities and we take these threats seriously. Through our contributions, we want to demonstrate our will and ability to defend ourselves and thereby influence the risk of war. Our goal is to preserve peace, democracy, and freedom.

Since March 7 of this year, Sweden has been a part of the defense alliance Nato. Even though Miljöpartiet voted against the Swedish application for Nato membership, we have decided to respect the Riksdag's decision on membership and therefore are not pursuing any withdrawal from the alliance.

The Green Party supports that a strong Swedish total defense with a credible defense capability acts as a deterrent and thus preserves peace, and that in this way we contribute to NATO's collective deterrence capability. We want NATO to be able to focus on its core task: defense of the allies. Therefore, we also support what we are to decide on today, namely that Sweden shall contribute to the multinational base in Latvia, to NATO's standing naval forces, to NATO's air surveillance and incident readiness, the so-called NATO Air Policing, and to further peacetime operations.

Sending Swedish military personnel abroad is an important and heavy decision. It is a decision that Swedish women and men shall undertake a mission to defend us and our allies, in the extreme case with their lives at stake. For that very reason, it is also important that decisions such as these are made by the Riksdag.

The decisions of the Riksdag provide strong legitimacy and popular anchoring and are not something that should be transferred to the government. We understand that changed conditions for our actions may require rapid decisions, and the Riksdag has on several occasions in recent years shown evidence of rapid action and decision-making. Requirements for an expedited decision-making process can, in our view, therefore not justify proposals that the Riksdag should authorize the government to deploy Swedish armed forces within the framework of Nato without the Riksdag's consent in the specific case.

It is also of very great importance that the government also continues to keep the Riksdag's committees continuously informed and updated on Sweden's work, positions, and efforts within Nato, both the contribution that this bill concerns and other discussions and positions. In this way, the Riksdag's influence over Sweden's work within Nato is secured.

I want to emphasize the importance of finding a broad consensus on these issues and welcome the dialogue that we have had so far in this area.

When Swedish men and women are now sent out to contribute to NATO's deterrence and defense, but also other missions within NATO, it is important to ensure that the conditions are good for both those traveling out and any accompanying persons or the family who stays at home. I expect the government to take the initiative to ensure that the conditions, which today are largely outdated, are updated. Miljöpartiet sees this as very important so that those we send out can do a good and credible job and be motivated in their tasks.

I would like, other speakers, to thank all of you who will now participate in the efforts that we are now deciding on, and your next of kin who are also important for your efforts to be possible.

Mr. Speaker! Nuclear weapons have been discussed today, and I also wish to address the issue.

NATO's nuclear deterrence, nuclear weapons, is a core part of the alliance. Nuclear weapons are, however, fearsome weapons of mass destruction that would have catastrophic consequences if they were used. The Green Party therefore stands firmly on the position that nuclear weapons must never be on Swedish territory, neither in peacetime nor in wartime. Sweden should introduce legislation that prohibits the importation of nuclear weapons onto Swedish territory.

According to us, it is important that Sweden's Nato membership does not contribute to increased nuclear weapons proliferation. Therefore, we believe that Sweden in Nato should work for mutual nuclear disarmament. The world needs fewer nuclear weapons, not more. In Nato, Sweden should also work for unconditional respect for international law and fundamental human rights.

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet also wants Sweden to promote the principle of no first use within Nato. At present, Nato does not apply the principle, which allows the alliance to introduce nuclear weapons as the first actor in a conflict. There are those who think this is reasonable, but I and my party do not. Nuclear weapons have such devastating consequences if used that it is something that must be avoided at all costs. For that very reason, there is nothing that justifies the use of nuclear weapons unless it is about responding to a nuclear attack.

The principle that Nato has today complicates global disarmament initiatives because it entails that an imminent threat of nuclear weapons always remains.

We have stated our positions on nuclear weapons in other contexts but have chosen not to do so in connection with this bill, which concerns the Swedish contribution to the multinational base in Latvia, to standing naval forces, and to air policing.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to move for approval of reservation 2 from the Social Democrats, the Left Party and the Green Party that the Riksdag, through a notice, demands that the government ensures that the agenda for women, peace and security permeates the Swedish contribution. Women and girls are severely affected by conflicts and wars. Applying and integrating a gender equality perspective in all activities in our defense is important, not least now when we are to participate in NATO's operations. Here, Sweden has good opportunities to contribute.

If one considers this to be an important approach, it is strange that it was not included in the bill from the beginning. It shows that the issue has been overlooked.

In other respects, I move for the proposal in the report to be approved.

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

Mikael Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are discussing Sweden's contribution to NATO's deterrence and defense during 2025.

Honorable Speaker, members, Minister for Defence, Minister for Foreign Affairs, you who are sitting in the gallery and you who are following the debate via TV! Let me first move for the proposal in the report to be approved in its entirety and for the reservations to be rejected.

In my speech, I intended to say something about the security situation, something about Nato, something about what Nato membership means for us and our neighboring countries, and then conclude with a thank you.

I believe that all of us here in the chamber and also those of you listening are well aware that we have a deteriorating security situation. That is the case. You have heard it said before: We have the toughest security situation since the Second World War. Unfortunately, it is deteriorating all the time. The war in Ukraine continues, and we see how bloody it is. Pardon the expression, but it is a meat grinder where 1,500 soldiers on the Russian side perish per day. We also see that Russia ignores the rules – there are rules in war, Mr. Speaker. They disregard them. They target power supplies, hospitals, and healthcare facilities.

Now China has also started to contribute, albeit not openly, to Russia through materiel or parts of what is needed to manufacture defense and war materiel. Iran and North Korea are also involved. This contributes to a more dangerous world. It is not enough that Russia receives rubles, they also receive the latest technology. These are countries that have long blinked red but which are truly glowing red today. This is a threat.

We also see that Russia, China, North Korea and Iran carry out a lot of espionage in Sweden, which Säpo reports every year. We also see sabotage in our vicinity in the Baltic Sea.

All this means that we must draw conclusions, both to strengthen our own defense and to understand how important NATO membership is. We have been members for eight months now – finally. As we said before, alone is not strong. This is of great importance for us, for the security of the Swedish people, but also for our immediate neighborhood. Swedish NATO membership creates an operational and functioning unity.

We are an area of advancement, and we have many tasks - to contribute to security in the high north, in Finland but also in the Baltics. Here it is also important to see that there is a border between Poland and Lithuania, the Suwalki Corridor. But we also see, given what is happening in Ukraine, how Russia can dig in and how difficult it is to get anywhere. If a war were to occur - God forbid - Sweden is of utmost importance for bringing aid, supplies, and support. We thus have an important task.

This is also what our report is about, namely that we are participating and contributing. We get security through Nato. But we are also participating and contributing. And the decision we are to make is the first where we concretely show what we do, which several colleagues have spoken about. But in particular, it concerns the support to the FLF in Latvia, which several of us have visited. Denmark is participating and contributing, and now we are helping and relieving. This is real and shows that we are concretely participating and contributing to deterrence. Nato has shown that such a force is deterrent.

If we have a functioning defense in Sweden, in the Nordics and in Nato, Russia's sense of adventure will decrease. If it had only been a matter of sliding in, we could be certain that they would have done so. We see the war in Ukraine. But there are several old borders from the Soviet Union's time that Russia could be interested in taking on.

Mr. Speaker! Several judges of security policy rank in our part of the world have pointed out that there is a risk that Russia may come to test Article 5. There is therefore every reason for Sweden to ensure that what we have said in the Defence Committee is fulfilled. During the next year, we will also receive the objectives from Nato. It is therefore important that we ensure this is fulfilled because we do not have all the time in the world, and this applies to both civil and military. Just Nato membership is so valuable and so significant for us and for the rest of the world. And it is important now, just as we show in this report, that we are now also participating and contributing. To arm oneself to be able to meet a war is the very best way to ensure that there is no war. The freedom we have is worth defending.

This brings me to the thanks that I promised at the beginning of my speech. I had the privilege last week of visiting P 7 in Revingehed and participating in the joint exercise there with 170 conscripts. These are full-time professional soldiers from P 7 who are now going to Lithuania. It was very encouraging to see how well it is going and what competence is being shown. I want to join in the thanks that have previously been expressed to those who are now leaving for Lithuania during the next year. I want to thank those who are leaving, their relatives, and our entire Armed Forces. All soldiers and officers perform such an important task for our security but also as part of Nato.

(Applause)

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my approval of the proposal in the report.

It has been stated earlier in the debate here today that there would be some kind of new security policy situation. Yes, the security policy situation is very bad, and yes, it is true that we find ourselves in a cold war between on one hand the world's dictatorships – China, Russia, Iran and North Korea – and on the other hand the world's democracies. And yes, Mr. Speaker, it is true that this cold war has taken increasingly more warm expressions, for example the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. But, Mr. Speaker, it is in no way a new situation when it comes to the threat from Russia. The threat from Russia has been practically constant since Russia was actually founded. What is the difference now is that more parties in Sweden's Riksdag have understood how serious this threat is. The Liberals have been advocates of NATO membership since the mid-1990s. I can be proud of that. I could just as well be ashamed that we were not even earlier, even though there were Liberals who were even earlier.

Mr. Speaker! It has shown that the worst thing one can do if one cares about the security policy situation - if one cares about Sweden's security - is to not show strength towards Russia. It has shown that the individuals, the parties and the politicians who have pursued some form of Chamberlain line, where one has wanted to back down time and again, have led to escalation rather than de-escalation. To show strength, to mark clearly, to take a clear stand against Russia and to show the military muscles is what leads to de-escalation.

Mr. Speaker! The full-scale invasion of Ukraine is a consequence of the fact that we in the democratic part of the world did not act strongly against Russia when Russia entered Georgia and did not act strongly militarily against Russia when Russia occupied Crimea. It is a consequence of the fact that we have weighed ourselves down.

Mr. Speaker! What truly constitutes a new situation now is that the democratic world has united behind Ukraine. And we have as our goal that Ukraine shall win and that Russia shall lose. A part of this is, of course, NATO's deterrence. With NATO membership, we have a common defense.

Today, there has been talk about solidarity with, for example, Latvia. That is natural. That is what this matter concerns, that we are to have a force in Latvia. But we must remember that Latvia's borders are also Sweden's borders and that Sweden's borders are also Latvia's borders. By virtue of NATO membership, we have common borders that we defend. Whoever is solidary with Latvia is also solidary with Sweden. We are actually solidary with ourselves. One could say that the ordinary existing Swedish bases that we have in Sweden are also NATO bases, just like the presence that we will have in Latvia, because it is the same thing. We defend the same borders. We are part of the same association and the same community. It is about deterrence, about ensuring that we do not back down, that we are determined, that we have backbone and that we show Russia common unyielding strength. It is only through this that we can deter. It is only by being tougher that we can de-escalate. It is never de-escalating to back down.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to this issue, it has been said here that peace would be the most important goal. And it is clear that Nato is about avoiding war. But we must remember that peace is not always the most important, as Latvia and our other Baltic neighbors are good examples of, but it is freedom that is the most important.

We can lie flat on the ground, lay down our weapons and tell Russia: Come here and occupy us and make us a part of a Greater Russia.

Then we can have peace, but we lose our freedom. And that is what this is about, that is to protect our freedom. Our Baltic neighbors constantly remind us of this when we meet representatives from there for talks. They have lived under Soviet and Russian occupation. They know what this is about. But they rose up, because it is about freedom.

That is why this is so incredibly important, that is why Nato needs to become even stronger and that is why Ukraine must win and Russia must lose. It is about freedom, and freedom must be defended. It is worth defending.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to take the opportunity, like many speakers before me, to extend a warm thanks to all those who will participate in this effort and all their relatives who make this possible. I would also like to thank you for a good debate so far. Finally, in these times, it is no less than one wants to say: Chrismukkah mubarak!

(Applause)

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

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Mr. Speaker! We truly stand before a historical moment, just as many members have emphasized in the debate. The government is proposing that, for the first time, Sweden shall contribute armed troops to NATO's collective deterrence and defense. This is an important step in our security policy shift and in our commitment to Euro-Atlantic security. We have been clear from day one that Sweden shall pursue a solidarity-based alliance policy, and now these words are being put into action.

NATO is the primary guarantor of European and transatlantic security. The bill that the government has submitted to the Riksdag enables Sweden to contribute to NATO's deterrence and defense in a credible, reliable, and and solidary manner. It is a substantial contribution and a clear expression of the regional responsibility that Sweden shoulders as a NATO ally. It is also crucial for our credibility within the alliance and for Sweden's own security.

The planned Swedish contributions, for which the government is now seeking a one-year mandate from the Riksdag, include, firstly, ground forces for NATO's forward presence in Latvia, what we usually call FLF, secondly, naval vessels for NATO's standing naval forces, and thirdly, a contribution to airspace surveillance in the so-called Nato Air Policing within the framework of NATO's integrated air and missile defense. For the fourth, it is also important that Sweden can contribute to further peacetime operations and activities aimed at maintaining NATO's collective deterrence when such needs arise.

It concerns geographically and numerically limited contributions over a shorter period. Like other operations and activities covered by this proposition, these operations are referred to in Nato as vigilance activities. It is about vigilance and about being able to act and react in a deterrent and stabilizing manner, both under Nato's leadership and within the framework of other collaborations with allies. This can, for example, involve Nordic cooperation, Joint Expeditionary Force or cooperation with the USA. Sweden will also be a framework nation for Nato's forward presence in Finland, but the design of this presence is ongoing in cooperation with Finland and Nato and is not included in this proposition.

Mr. Speaker! The core of NATO's deterrence is to demonstrate such robust military and political action that no country dares to attack a NATO ally. The bill therefore deals primarily with contributions to NATO's peacetime deterrence. We must also be prepared for the worst to happen. The Government is therefore seeking the Riksdag's mandate so that Swedish contributions that already stand under NATO's supreme commander can remain with maintained authorization and continue to perform the tasks that follow from NATO's operations plan. This applies to both FLF Latvia and NATO's standing naval forces in a significantly deteriorated security policy situation. Where this should become relevant, it is naturally crucial that the Riksdag's need for insight and influence is ensured. In that case, the Government will return to the Riksdag in the usual order.

According to the constitution, the government may send armed forces to other countries or otherwise deploy such forces if there is authorization in law specifying the conditions for the measure or if the Riksdag grants it in what is called a special case. This implies a limitation on the activities the bill can cover. The authorization that the government seeks therefore covers such activities and operations as we can now foresee on a general level or with the support of concrete operational planning. If requests for contributions to additional operations or activities during 2025 that are not covered by this bill are received, the government will return to the Riksdag if it is the case that the Riksdag's approval is required.

In summary, the government requests the Riksdag's approval for a substantial contribution to NATO's deterrence and defense during the coming year, a contribution that is a clear manifestation of Sweden's solidarity-based alliance policy, our commitment to Euro-Atlantic security, and our regional role. Through our contribution, we strengthen both our own security and the stability in the Euro-Atlantic area. I am very pleased that there is such great support behind the proposals here in the Riksdag. It is important.

In connection with the presentation of the bill, the defense minister and I visited P 7 and those who are to contribute to our effort in Latvia. To all of them, but also to all others who every day work for our peace, freedom, and security, I wish a great deal of luck and extend a very big and warm thank you.

(Applause)

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

Alexandra Völker (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by saying that I think it is very good that both the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence are present here today. It is an incredibly important decision, and it is very pleasing that we also have such a broad anchoring in the Riksdag. When we send out armed forces, it is incredibly important that the decision rests on broad parliamentary support.

Even though we are broadly in agreement on today's decision, we Social Democrats are simultaneously frustrated that the government is not more proactive regarding the agenda for women, peace, and security. The issue of armed forces is a very large part of that agenda, and when we send military contributions, a very great responsibility rests on us to ensure that it permeates the military contribution.

I believe fundamentally that we agree that this agenda is important, that women have a particularly vulnerable role in conflicts and that women must be involved in making decisions. We do not, however, agree on how to work with this. We mean that this must be high up on the agenda to guarantee that we truly create security for everyone and that we create security and peace solutions that hold over time.

We therefore had wished that this had been included in the bill. As I was clear about in my previous speech, we think it is very unfortunate that one chooses to only rely on NATO's action plan. Even though we think it is comprehensive and well-intended, we wished that this would also truly permeate the political leadership all the way and fully.

I therefore wonder how the government will work to ensure that this truly permeates the entire military contribution.

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

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Alexandra Völker for raising this very important issue. As appears from both NATO's strategic concept and the declaration adopted in connection with NATO's summit in Washington in July, the agenda for women, peace, and security shall be integrated into all of NATO's core tasks. At the summit this summer, an updated policy for women, peace, and security was also approved with the aim of improving the integration of gender perspectives in all of NATO's activities and structures and also promoting equality within the alliance.

Sweden played a very active role in the negotiations of the updated policy, and the work within Nato to develop an action plan continues now. The agenda for women, peace and security also permeates the Armed Forces' activities. The Government judged, against this background as a whole, that the agenda for women, peace and security did not need to be mentioned specifically in the bill.

We think it is so obvious that it is a completely central part of the implementation. With that said, I am still glad that Alexandra Völker and others are highlighting it in today's debate. It is naturally an incredibly important issue. I can assure Alexandra Völker that we will continue to really work for this.

(Applause)

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

Alexandra Völker (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Foreign Affairs, for the answer!

A lot has happened during these 24 years, fortunately, even though we would wish for much more. The policy that Nato adopted this summer is truly an important part of this. Those who read the policy can observe the influence of feminist foreign policy. It was first launched in this chamber just over ten years ago. It has since spread among world leaders, and it has now become an entire network of governments.

It is also highlighted in the policy. Reference is made to the fact that in order to develop the agenda for women, peace and security, meetings should be held with, among others, feminist foreign policy leadership. It is part of the policy, which we of course find incredibly pleasing. But we can state that Sweden unfortunately no longer belongs to that group. It is a group consisting of countries such as Canada, France, Spain, Germany and other leading NATO countries that are truly pushing for this to be developed.

I suspect that the Foreign Minister and the government do not intend to reconsider their previous position on feminist foreign policy and on being part of the network that is now acting together so that we move forward when it comes to women's situation in crisis and conflict.

My question is: In what way does the Foreign Minister intend to push for the agenda to both be developed and implemented within Nato when one chooses to stand outside that network?

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

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Government, as you know, does not believe in symbolic politics. We, on the other hand, pursue an equality policy that makes a real difference. It is visible every day all over the world, not least in our aid work. It remains an extremely prioritized issue both as an aid donor, as I mentioned, and naturally also in our work in Nato.

We carry out policies that make a real difference. We will never let go of the gender equality perspective. I can guarantee Alexandra Völker that I would also never allow that.

(Applause)

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

Hanna Gunnarsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! I had intended to request a reply regarding nuclear weapons, but I feel that has been done now after my other three replies. I want instead to question the Minister for Foreign Affairs about the decision-making processes when it comes to international missions abroad.

We have, just as the Foreign Minister raised in the debate, the provisions in the Instrument of Government Chapter 15, Section 16. I want to ensure that they will also apply to Nato operations abroad in peacetime. The provisions in the Instrument of Government are very important for democratic public support and so that we can have the decisions and the debate here in the Riksdag in the incredibly important matters concerning sending Swedish soldiers abroad.

These are, as we all know, missions associated with a very great risk, can be very dangerous and require very much of both the individual and the family at home. It is of very great importance to have that discussion here in the Riksdag and to build the knowledge among us elected members to carry that mandate when we send people abroad.

I want to ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs and ensure that the decision-making and those processes will also apply in the future when it comes to Nato operations in peacetime.

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

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Hanna Gunnarsson, for the question!

The Government's proposition Swedish contribution to NATO's deterrence and defense during 2025 is based on the provision in the Instrument of Government Chapter 15, Section 16, second paragraph 2. That provision aims at the deployment of armed forces in a specific case, as I stated in my main speech. It is adapted for and has until now been used when a need for Swedish participation has arisen.

Contributing to NATO's activities to maintain deterrence and defense follows from NATO membership, which the Riksdag has also voted for. If Sweden is to be able to be the reliable, credible and solidary ally that there is broad agreement that we want to be in NATO, Sweden must also have the ability to quickly, effectively and continuously over time be able to make decisions regarding participation in NATO's activities for deterrence and defense. It is also central for our own security.

Since the continuous tasks differ in some way due to the membership compared to how it has been previously, we must ensure that there is legislation in the area that is long-term sustainable. In the accession bill, the government therefore already indicated that there may be reason to return to the extent to which further measures should be taken to improve Sweden's conditions to provide operational military support within the framework of the NATO membership.

It is however too early at this stage to say how such a possible authorization from the Riksdag should be designed. The Government will return to the issue. I want to emphasize that it is important that we find a solution that has broad support in the Riksdag. I completely agree with what many members have said. In these issues, we should have very broad support.

(Applause)

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

Hanna Gunnarsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! I would have preferred a somewhat clearer answer from the Minister for Foreign Affairs on the question. I understand that it is a very large issue for the government to work with and that it takes time to settle on this.

I want to be very clear that the Riksdag has shown on several occasions that it can make decisions and process matters quickly. We have recently had examples of this and also continuously. We had operations underway in Mali for five years and made continuous decisions about it.

I want to send a very clear message to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the government. It is exactly as the Minister for Foreign Affairs says at the end. A very large and broad consensus is required. I would gladly say a total consensus, which we have nevertheless shown that we can have in many issues here.

The decision-making processes we have in this matter, I think, work. It provides a very strong democratic mandate from here that it is we, the elected representatives, who make the decision to send soldiers abroad in the very large mission that we are aware of what it entails. It is my absolute support to the government.

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

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Mr. Speaker! I acknowledge that. It is too early at this stage to say what an authorization would look like. But we are very keen that there is broad support in the Riksdag and also consensus on the need for it. We will return to this.

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I also want to start by thanking both the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence for their presence here in the debate. It is important for decision-making legitimacy and so that we can have an open and good dialogue and discussion about these issues.

As I said in my speech, the Green Party stands behind the reservation concerning that we would have liked to see the government address the issue of women, peace, and security in the bill. This has also been discussed here in the chamber in a previous exchange of remarks.

Then the Foreign Minister said that the agenda for women, peace and security shall be integrated into all NATO's activities and structures according to policy. I am then questioning why the government has not complied with that integration and why one has chosen not to mention it and raise the issue in the bill.

Is it an oversight? Can one admit that it is a mistake on the government's part that it has been chosen not to mention it? It is, after all, about doing work out in the field. But it is also about us telling, speaking about what we do and including the important issues in relevant steering documents.

Then one must still say that the bill in this situation is the most important steering document for the effort. That is precisely why I still want to ask why this issue has been overlooked.

I also want to ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs how she views mutual nuclear disarmament and how the work on the Stockholm Initiative is progressing within the Government Offices.

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

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Emma Berginger for the question.

We have touched upon this in previous exchanges of remarks. The simple answer is probably actually that we see it as a matter of course that this should permeate all activities in Nato, which we have also said in Washington, but also the Swedish Armed Forces' activities.

Just as the committee states in the report, the government has also adopted an action plan for Sweden's implementation of the agenda for women, peace and security. The Armed Forces is one of the agencies that shall contribute to the implementation of the action plan.

This is, therefore, nothing that is being hidden in any way, but I would say the answer is that this is obvious for the government. But I will absolutely ensure that we also live up to it.

When it comes to the issue of disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation, this is still a central task for Sweden. We are very pleased that the issue is, for example, highlighted this week in connection with the Nobel Prize ceremony, where a prize is awarded to an organization that works for a world without nuclear weapons. I think it is a way to draw attention to it, but the government is, of course, continuing its work on it.

But it is also very difficult when Russia, on a weekly basis, in an extremely irresponsible manner, threatens to use nuclear weapons. It is a matter of being able to keep two things in mind at the same time, that is to say, we need to have a deterrence that works in an effective way while at the same time we work with disarmament, arms control, and non-proliferation.

(Applause)

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The Government therefore considers equality issues to be so self-evident that they can be neglected and has therefore not bothered to raise the issue in governing documents. I think that is very unfortunate, because it shows that the Government does not take these issues seriously.

I think it is positive to hear the Foreign Minister speak about the fact that there is still an intention to continue with disarmament and arms control. It is also positive that she highlights the positive aspect of the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to an organization that works for a nuclear-free world.

But my question concerns how the government works for a world without nuclear weapons. I also acknowledge that it is very worrying with Russia's nuclear threats and nuclear posturing, which occur continuously. It makes the issues very complex and difficult to work with and drive. But if one intends to really work with these issues and maintain that work even in times when it is difficult, one must also be able to answer the question of how one works with this.

It cannot just be a few sentences on a website or a talking point that one can repeat, but one must also be able to concretize. How does the government intend to work with these issues so that, on the day it actually becomes possible to achieve mutual nuclear disarmament, it is ready and able to be driving and leading in that work?

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

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Mr. Speaker! I am somewhat questioning the claim that we would neglect the important issue of equality and the integration of equality work in Nato and the Armed Forces' work.

I may be even more questioning of the claim that we do not include it in governing documents. I have just said that it appears from both NATO's strategic concept and the declaration adopted in connection with NATO's summit in Washington in July that the agenda for women, peace, and security shall be integrated into all of NATO's core tasks. If anything, that is a governing document!

At the summit this summer, an updated policy was also approved, just as I mentioned. There are therefore steering documents, and there is active work being done. We will ensure that it also permeates all our activities in Sweden and internationally.

Just as I said in my previous remark, the government is actively working on non-proliferation and disarmament, fully in accordance with the initiatives that have been taken in the working groups where the work is ongoing. This applies, for example, to the Stockholm Initiative, which the questioner mentioned.

(Applause)

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Since March 7 of this year, Sweden has therefore become allied within Nato, and this entails profound and historical changes in Swedish security and defense policy. We are now covered by treaty-bound, mutual and collective defense obligations.

Our participation in NATO's activities for deterrence and defense therefore differs from our previous experiences in international peace-promoting missions. Now it is about the defense of ourselves and our allies.

Mr. Speaker! We live in serious times, and we find ourselves in the most serious security policy global situation since the end of the Second World War. In that context, a strong and credible deterrent capability against Russia is absolutely necessary. Participation in NATO operations in support of defense and deterrence is therefore a completely central part of the Armed Forces' ordinary activities. It is naturally also important for the defense of the Swedish territory.

The mandate that the government seeks today is adapted to this new reality. Participation in these operations is a national security interest and something that our allies also expect us to deliver.

The proposition describes a collective Swedish contribution to NATO's deterrence and defense which has the entire North Atlantic area, that is, SACEUR's area of responsibility, as its geographical delimitation. But every individual operation and activity that Sweden will contribute to has, of course, its own and smaller area of operations.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden takes these tasks most seriously. We are therefore preparing significant military contributions within both the land domain as well as the sea and air domains.

The Swedish contribution of ground forces to contribute to NATO's forward presence in Latvia is planned to consist of a mechanized battalion and include approximately 600 personnel, soldiers and officers. The battalion has, for nearly eight months, conducted intensive preparation at P 7 in Revingehed for this very important mission. In addition to contributing to NATO's ability to conduct deterrence and defense, it will be an important contribution to training our officers and soldiers to also serve under NATO command.

In the maritime domain, Mr. Speaker, we propose a contribution with a warship to NATO's standing naval forces. The Swedish contribution is intended to be part of a mine-clearing force that will be able to operate in the northern part of the North Atlantic area, including the Baltic Sea. The Swedish Navy has great experience in operating with allies, especially in the Baltic Sea. But this will, therefore, be the first time a ship is placed under NATO command to perform tasks linked to the alliance's collective defense.

For NATO's airspace surveillance and incident readiness, the government is seeking a mandate to participate with up to eight combat aircraft. The missions within NATO's air policing are carried out across the entire North Atlantic area, and a Swedish contribution can be expected to operate from both Swedish and allied territory in northern Europe. The Air Force also has extensive experience in exercise activities and training with NATO, but in this case, it would be the first time we can base from another allied territory and carry out airspace surveillance.

For all contributions, it also applies that the government seeks a mandate for reinforcement resources if the security situation should require this. This means that for the land contribution, we seek a mandate for a temporary increase of up to 1,000 soldiers, for the sea contribution for an additional up to two warships, and for the air contribution for reinforcement with an additional eight combat aircraft.

Mr. Speaker! The serious security policy situation also places higher demands on NATO's ability to react to an emerging situation or deter a potential threat. The alliance needs to act quickly, flexibly, and credibly when such situations arise.

As the Minister for Foreign Affairs previously mentioned, the government is therefore seeking a mandate so that the Armed Forces can contribute to other peace-promoting operations and activities aimed at maintaining NATO's collective deterrence, what is commonly called vigilance activities.

These operations often occur with short notice, and they are military tools that regulate NATO's force disposition based on a changed security situation. It is about being able to carry out tasks together with allies, for a limited time and in a delimited geographical area. The operations can take place under the leadership of Nato, but they can also be bilateral or multilateral collaborations such as, for example, Joint Expeditionary Force.

Sweden will likely receive requests to participate in such activities continuously during 2025. In order for Sweden to be able to act quickly and flexibly when needs arise, a mandate also needs to be sought in advance.

The contributions are proposed to amount to a maximum of 200 employed soldiers and officers for ground forces. This concerns special forces, amphibious forces and up to three warships as well as up to eight combat aircraft.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, in these serious times, it is a central Swedish interest that Nato has a strong capacity to conduct deterrence and defense. The contribution of strength that the government is seeking a mandate for will be decisive in demonstrating Sweden's role as a credible, reliable, and solidary ally.

(Applause)

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

Hanna Gunnarsson (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Defence for the presentation and for participating in the debate. It is very valuable.

I would like to broaden the perspective a bit with a question about the defense policy decision-making processes moving forward. Next week, Sweden will be at the end of our process when we make the orientation decision for the total defense.

NATO is, as far as I can understand, at the beginning of its planning process. It is quite a complicated organization, so it is not always so easy to understand what it is and what it is doing.

We have talked about this before, and I would like to bring it up again. I think it is very important that we do not end up in a situation where we become out of sync with the NATO process as a whole or that the planning of our military defense, which is an important part of the total defense, should fall behind or be trumped by the NATO process in any way. I would like to hear how the Minister of Defence views our overall decision-making processes moving forward.

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Hanna Gunnarsson for the question.

It is completely correct, Hanna Gunnarsson, that Nato is in perhaps its strongest transformative stage since the end of the Cold War. The expression of this is that one has new regional plans. One is also reviewing its command and obedience relationship, what is called C2, and also the military capability goals. The idea is that the military capability shall support the regional plans.

How does Sweden stand in relation to this very formative process? We have, of course, considered it against the background of the Defense Preparation's reports but also the bill, which the government presented in the autumn and which we will also debate next week. Regarding NATO's capability goals, virtually everything in the bill points in the direction that we will have a much better capability to achieve NATO's capability goals when we have made the total defense decision with a focus on this.

The second question, which is somewhat broader, concerns defense investments. As Hanna Gunnarsson knows, it will very likely become an important issue for the capability process and an important issue leading up to NATO's summit in The Hague. The current line there is that 2 percent is a floor but not a ceiling. Sweden is currently at 2.2 percent of GDP, and we will be significantly above the target if the Riksdag adopts next year's budget. Then we will be at 2.4 percent.

When it comes to both capacity targets and defense investments, Sweden is doing relatively well in a NATO comparison.

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

Hanna Gunnarsson (V)

Madam Speaker! I want to be even a little more concrete in my follow-up question.

When we decide on our total defense direction, we have a process with the Defense Preparedness Board, and we let it take quite a long time. I know that the Minister for Defence is also a strong advocate of the model with the Defense Preparedness Board.

Our model guarantees a very strong anchoring of defense policy in the Riksdag by letting it take a long time to discuss, talk things through, and reach things that we can be quite in agreement on. It provides a very stable defense decision for the Swedish direction.

I am concerned that our process will fall out of sync with NATO's five-year process, or however many years it is, and that Sweden ends up in a NATO process that is not synchronized with our process. I would like to hear how the Minister for Defence views this. Above all, I would like to ask the Minister for Defence to guarantee that our processes in the future can continue to look the way they do, with the strong democratic anchoring, and are not trumped by a NATO planning at a later stage.

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Madam Speaker! We have chosen to move forward the defense decision by one year. I think, the government and, I hope, also many in the Defense Preparation Committee, that this was a wise decision, because it means we can meet the future faster. The intention was to accelerate the upgrading that the security policy situation in the world truly requires.

When it comes to the pace of the NATO planning, I can state that neighboring countries such as Norway and Denmark are also making new defense decisions this year. As long as they are informed about NATO's capability targets and are heading in the right direction, I do not have quite the same apprehension as Hanna Gunnarsson does.

Let me also say something connected to the Defence Preparedness Board, which is the government's forum for the design of long-term security and defense policy together with the parties in the Riksdag.

I think the Defence Preparation Committee has served Sweden well. If we can find broad agreements, it is a strength for Sweden. This applies in particular to the fact that all parties in Sweden's Riksdag stand behind an upscaling to 2.6 percent of GDP. There is no other parliament in the entire Nato, except for Norway, that has such broad support around such an important issue as defense investments. It is a strength.

I know that Vänsterpartiet has had to move its position a little bit. I really appreciate the constructive cooperation that has been with all parties in the Defence Preparation Committee and not least Hanna Gunnarsson's personal commitment, which has made this possible.

(Applause)

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Madam Speaker! I had not actually intended to request a reply. But I chose to listen to both the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence to hear if the ministers and the government had read our report and acknowledged what we presented there. Since I did not hear any clear statement, I thought that through a reply I must give the government an opportunity to provide one.

One of the issues we had a discussion about was the one regarding reporting back to the relevant committees and that this should not only be a question before NATO's ministerial meetings but also when it concerns our efforts. Here, there is a writing stating that the government should report back with information on the implementation of the contribution to NATO's deterrence and defense.

As I mentioned in my post earlier, we are in a very formative stage. If we are to be able to secure continued consensus and a good process moving forward, it is important that this information is repeatedly provided, as the committee has collectively underlined. It is part of the puzzle to create a broad basis for our efforts and our deterrence capability in future decisions.

I just want to have it confirmed that the government has read this, taken it to heart, and will return to the committees, as the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Defense Committee have requested.

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Madam Speaker! It is exactly what Kerstin Lundgren says: that we are now breaking new ground in security and defense policy. Through our NATO membership, we now have the opportunity, for example, to contribute to NATO's forward presence in Latvia and can in principle participate in all DDA activities. This also has consequences for how we make decisions and how we anchor decisions.

We have also, from the government's side, tried to anchor the bill before we submit it to the Riksdag. We have invited people to various meetings and consultations precisely for the purpose of reaching as broad an agreement as possible.

We also note that even the joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence feels a great need to repeatedly receive information from the government. We acknowledge that this is important and that we will work in the best possible way to make it possible.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for that the government, according to the Minister's statement, is prepared to regularly return with information to the committee. That builds a capacity to also have a broad consensus in the future.

I can inform the House that when we are out and meeting our parliamentary colleagues, they ask: How do you manage to get such broad support to strengthen defense spending? Tell us!

It is part of our contribution that we can work together to find that consensus, and it is important to stand guard. There are parts that are not yet so specified because there is room for other efforts. Not least there, it is important that the government is clear and provides follow-up reports.

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Madam Speaker! Naturally, it is important to always keep the Riksdag well-informed, especially in matters concerning security and defense policy. It is also the government's continued ambition to do so.

Let me share an anecdote that is telling. In connection with the flag ceremony on March 11 at NATO headquarters, six of the eight parties were represented in Brussels. It evoked great respect among the other 31 allies that we had such a broad support and that so many parties wanted to participate in the flag ceremony and thereby confirm how important NATO membership is for Sweden's security. It was also a sign of the broad consensus that exists in security and defense policy, and it is the government's ambition to continue to nurture that.

(Applause)

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

Heléne Björklund (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we face a historic and decisive decision regarding Sweden's contribution to NATO's deterrence and defense during 2025. It is both pleasing and a great source of pride that we are so united on this in the chamber today. It is also a strong message to the rest of our world that we can find that unity in security policy.

This is a decision that strengthens our own country's security and reinforces our position as a solidary member of the international community. I also want to take the opportunity to say that I am pleased that the Swedish Soldiers' Home Association is currently establishing a soldiers' home in Latvia for our soldiers. We should be proud of that.

I will focus on the specific statement that we Social Democrats have in the report. Sweden is a part of Nato, and that entails both opportunities and obligations. As you have heard earlier, we support the direction in the proposition. I also move for approval of reservation 2.

But we also have a specific statement concerning popular anchoring and the Riksdag's control. I want to emphasize that we clearly oppose the idea of transferring powers to the government that would enable Swedish forces to be deployed without the Riksdag's explicit consent in each specific case.

In connection with the Riksdag's approval of Sweden's accession to the North Atlantic Treaty in March 2023, the government made the assessment that there was no reason to introduce a rule in law authorizing the government to, without the Riksdag's consent, make decisions to deploy armed forces within the framework of Nato.

In the current bill, the government states that the Riksdag's consent needs to be requested for the grant because there is not yet any law authorizing the government. We find it difficult to perceive the word "yet" in any other way than that the government intends to submit a proposal for such an authorizing law. We regret this, and we regret that the government has not involved all of the Riksdag's parties in the process. It is for that reason we feel that we want to write a specific statement to be clear about our position on the issue. It is an important principle issue.

The Swedish forces participating in peacetime deterrence can, as the government itself notes, transition to meeting an armed attack against an ally from one moment to the next. In such a situation, it is absolutely crucial that the force has the full support of the Riksdag and that the popular anchoring exists. It is also a way to show that we members of Parliament take responsibility when we send soldiers into battle.

Regarding what has been discussed here earlier, we welcome that the committee has met our requests for a clear reporting, and therefore we choose not to move for approval of our reservation.

In conclusion, I want to urge the government to take our views into account. We believe that popular anchoring and the Riksdag's decisions in these matters are important.

We Social Democrats would like to extend a big thank you to all of you, women and men, who in different ways contribute to Swedish and now also the allies' peace and security. Thank you for everything you do, sometimes with your lives at stake. Thank you also to all relatives who endure the anxiety and the sacrifices it can entail. You should know that we from the entire Riksdag are very proud of what you do.

I also want to conclude by wishing a Merry Christmas to our ministers. It is valuable that you have been part of the debate today. It is a good announcement in the important issue. I also want to wish a Merry Christmas to the Speaker and to my colleagues in the Riksdag.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 9.)

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