Total Defence 2025-2030

Peter Hultqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! We live in a dangerous and changing time. We must realize that Russia has a long-term perspective on the military developments we see in Ukraine. It is about a war that is intended to transform Europe and be part of the transformation of the rules-based world order.

This is something one must be very clear about in these times, when negotiations are being discussed. We cannot have any agreement over the heads of Ukraine or Europe. How a ceasefire comes about will define our entire future, and Ukraine must be guaranteed unconditional security. The best for Ukraine's security is a NATO membership.

The fundamental question is whether the Russian regime is interested in peace at all. The imperial dreams are a reality, and Georgia and Moldova are in danger. There is a risk of provocations against NATO's border areas, and my assessment is that the Russian dream of new territories and empire-building is stronger than any potential thoughts of peace. Russia is serious about its talk of changing the world order. It means the right of the strongest to, in defiance of the UN Charter and international law, conquer the land areas of other countries.

Right now, an iron curtain is falling over Europe, and where it falls is determined by the developments at the front line in Ukraine. Europe will have to take increased responsibility for the support to Ukraine. We will have to take an expanded responsibility for our own security. The new US administration, which takes office at the beginning of next year, must realize its long-term commitment towards Ukraine. US support until now has been invaluable, and to betray Ukraine now would not be acceptable in any way.

The war continues with unabated force. The destruction and desecration of Ukraine continues daily, and the evil of the Russian regime is exposed at all times. It is in the light of this difficult situation that Sweden will now make its total defense decision. The proposal on the table is a continuation of the decisions of 2015 and 2020.

For our part, we are pleased that eight parties together have been able to reason their way to the basis for the bill. The unity shows that we all understand the seriousness of the situation, and it is a good signal to the Swedish people, the Armed Forces, and the rest of the world.

It is a very large investment that is to take place. It concerns 64.5 billion in financial supplement to the total defense between the years 2025 and 2030. The reallocation from the so-called intervention defense to a national defense continues. It is a development that began with the defense decision 2014 and was followed up with the defense decision 2020.

Despite the basic agreement that exists, I would like to make some comments.

The Defense Committee agreed that Sweden should have 12,000 conscripts in 2032, but in the bill, this is not followed, but instead it says it should occur 2032-2035. This is rooted in the fact that the Armed Forces have had views on the possibility of completing this by 2032. We consider it necessary to nevertheless mark it as the Defense Committee agreed upon. There is, in fact, a great need to expand, above all, the army, and there is a great need for more conscripts.

This is about us, from the political side, having the strength to be clear. If something happens or arguments emerge during the seven years until 2032 that make it reasonable to make a time shift, the decision can be made at that point, but we do not need to do it already now. Opening up for this time interval already now can also mean further time shifts. We must be distinct in what our requirements are.

The same applies when it comes to the four brigades that are to be in place by 2030. This must now be implemented, and actually, it is the 2020 defense decision that is to be implemented. In the 2020 defense decision, it stated that Sweden would have four brigades by 2025. That is not happening, and that is due, among other things, to the material support that has been directed to Ukraine. Now it is about three mechanized brigades and one infantry brigade being implemented by 2030. This is a very important prioritization, and for my party, it has been one of the main issues. It is a matter of removing all obstacles that exist in this process.

In the Defence Committee's agreement, it was also agreed that an analysis regarding one additional submarine should be made. It is not included in the bill. I do not think that is good. Submarines are a Swedish capability and a significant security interest. The presence of operational and functioning submarines in the Baltic Sea is a strength not only for Sweden but also for all of Nato. It is a weapon that is very deterrent and that can also be used effectively from an intelligence perspective. Sweden is also one of the few countries in the world that can produce submarines. The Social Democrats do not think it is good that the consensus in the committee has not been followed up in the bill.

We also want to establish an agency for the rescue service - a rescue authority. We do not believe that it will be the most effective organization if it is done within the framework of MSB. Instead, establishing a specially focused agency for this would provide higher efficiency to the operations.

We also want to establish a state agency responsible for the business sector's preparedness planning, economic supply preparedness, and war-critical companies. This is such a large and extensive area that it requires a separate agency that can build from the ground up. Sweden has an incredibly long construction task ahead of it in this context. Once upon a time, there was the Swedish Defence Economics Agency, and even though we now live in a different time where new methods and new collaborations may be required, one can take inspiration from how it operated. However, the area is so extensive that this cannot be managed within the framework of the multifaceted and extensive agency for civil preparedness.

In the Defense Committee's report, we also agreed to establish the Norrland Infantry Regiment. It consists of three rifle battalions that would primarily be engaged in the protection of transports and host nation support, as well as in paving the way in various ways for the introduction of both materiel and soldiers into Sweden. They would also constitute an important part of our national defense - the territorial defense.

I trust the minister's promise that we will take a position on this in October and that the promise stands, based on the starting point that Nato will come forward with its capacity requirements. I am quite certain that this is an activity that will be needed for us to manage this type of transport and responsibility for both troops and materiel that are to be brought into Sweden.

The combat aircraft is another point that I want to mention. There, a unanimous committee has raised the level of ambition compared to what is stated in the proposition. The committee more clearly marks that a Swedish or Swedish-foreign alternative when it comes to the next generation of combat aircraft shall be put forward in a clearer balance in relation to a foreign alternative. That is something I am happy about. From the Social Democrats, the Left Party, and the Green Party, we have however, in a special statement, said that we want to see that the conditions for a Swedish or Swedish-foreign alternative are realizable.

It is important to stand guard over the Swedish jobs, the Swedish capability, the Swedish research, the Swedish development capacity and, above all, the Swedish availability when developing a new aviation system. It shall be Swedish and Nordic conditions, and a design that fits our operational environment, that governs the work with this.

This is a very long-term decision. It is difficult to see into the future and to see what this will mean after Jas 39 E, which has been decided upon and is now being commissioned, but it is important that we guard what we have built up. Sweden is one of the few countries in the world that manages to produce combat aircraft.

Future challenges include such as recruiting and retaining personnel, addressing staff shortages in categories such as pilots, technicians and specialists, managing risks of delays and high price developments on materiel, as well as ensuring that the support to Ukraine - which has strong delay effects in relation to the buildup of the Swedish defense force - can be replaced. An additional future challenge is to manage the lack of coordination and joint training between units as well as deficiencies regarding materiel and infrastructure.

For civil defense, it is a matter of healthcare in crisis and war having to be built up. The role of the business sector in crisis and war must be mapped out and planned. The economic supply readiness must be built up. The work to be able to meet cyberattacks, disruptions, and sabotage against society's infrastructure must constantly be under development.

I move for approval of reservation 13 under point 11, reservation 34 under point 29 and reservation 9 under point 8.

(Applause)

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

Jörgen Berglund (M)

Madam Speaker! In a few hours, we will here in the chamber make a new total defense decision. It is four years since the previous one was made, and this decision is actually being made one year earlier than we then thought would be the case. There are several reasons why this decision is unique.

Firstly, this takes place at a time when a war is ongoing in Europe. It has now been nearly three years since Russia's full-scale and violation of international law invasion of Ukraine. The war continues, which means great suffering for the Ukrainian people. The losses are enormous with hundreds of thousands of injured and dead on both sides - perhaps the million mark has already been breached. Russia has violated almost all international agreements and treaties and has not even hesitated to attack civilian facilities, for example hospitals. The Russian regime does not hesitate in its will to try to subdue Ukraine. It is, in other words, in a time of seriousness that we make this decision, Madam Speaker.

Secondly, this is the first time that a total defense decision is made when Sweden is a member of the defense alliance Nato. It was a wise and long-awaited decision, in my opinion. It does, however, place demands on us regarding how we think. We are no longer alone and abandoned to potential help from the outside. This mindset characterized us for nearly two centuries. Sweden is Nato. Our entry made us safer and Nato stronger. According to what I am told, this integration is going very well, but much work remains, of course.

Thirdly, Madam Speaker, this total defense decision is reached in almost total agreement. There are, of course, a number of reservations, which is both natural and important, but overall, the Riksdag stands behind the main features of the bill. That we can put differences aside and concentrate on what is important for our country's security is a message of strength from here to the Swedish people. It is also a clear message to the rest of the world that Sweden stands united, not least against the Russian regime. We shall continue to build our defense capability and our country stronger. It is an important message both to Swedish citizens and to the rest of the world.

Madam Speaker! This total defense decision is large and long-term. It contains a lot of money - nearly 174 billion at the end of the period, which corresponds to 2.6 percent of GDP, according to NATO's definition, already from 2028. The decision also contains things that strengthen our defense capability, which is the absolute most important.

I will do a brief overview. Which areas does this proposition cover? It covers personnel supply, supply preparedness, critical infrastructure, cybersecurity, climate and environment, equality, research and development, material supply and the defense industry, civil protection, cyber defense and more. If you are getting nervous, I can reassure you right now that I absolutely will not mention anything about all these areas. I am quite certain that some of my colleagues will talk about their core issues. Myself, I intended to bring up three areas that I particularly want to highlight.

Madam Speaker! When I am here in the chamber, I usually always speak about personnel recruitment and how important good conditions are for employees, not least in the Armed Forces. This is still important, but I thought I would make an exception this time. I am fairly certain that my colleague Hanna Gunnarsson will mention something about this.

I wanted to talk about something completely different. I would like to address all the 350,000 Swedes who are engaged in one of our 18 voluntary defense organizations. Most are familiar with some of these – the best known are perhaps the Red Cross, Lottakåren, Bilkåren, Sjövärnskåren, and Försvarsutbildarna. Some of the perhaps less known of these 18 voluntary organizations are Försvarets personaltjänstförbund, Insatsingenjörernas riksförbund, Blå Stjärnan, Fallskärmsförbundet, and an organization I myself am a member of, namely Svenska Brukshundsklubben. I would like to urge each person listening to this to engage in a voluntary defense organization. It will make a difference for Sweden's defense capability.

All of you who are involved in these organizations deserve a big, warm, and heartfelt thank you for your commitment during all those years when no one in Sweden talked about war, preparedness, or crisis. You became involved and continued your work with developing our defense capability. This was, not least in this house, a time when no one wanted to talk about these issues. You constitute a collective memory that we now have great use of as we continue to build defense capability. A big thank you for that!

To all those who are involved in these organizations, I want to say that more money will be included in the budget. There are two interesting personnel investigations that will be completed at the beginning and at the end of next year, respectively. I look forward to us being able to create better conditions for instructors. It is also about new tasks and about being able to support municipalities, regions, and state-owned companies.

Madam Speaker! The second thing I want to talk about is some other heroes, I would say, namely the 22,000 Swedes who are part of the Home Guard.

The Home Guard is a part of the Armed Forces, and just like the voluntary defense organizations, the Home Guard is extremely important for creating public support and a will to defend.

Unlike the voluntary defense organizations, the Home Guard has also been used during the so-called strategic timeout, not least during crises such as floods and forest fires. For this, the Home Guard deserves a big and warm thank you.

Now the image of the Home Guard has changed, but the tasks are at least as important as before. The Home Guard's primary strength is, as I see it, its local anchoring and rapid response times. In my opinion, the Home Guard's role will grow now that Sweden is allied, not least in terms of so-called host nation support with well-known tasks such as protection and guarding.

Madam Speaker! Evidence of the Home Guard's important role is that the number of Home Guard soldiers is to be increased to nearly 26,000 by 2030. This commits us to continuing to maintain high quality in the training and to take advantage of the great interest that exists among Swedish citizens.

In order to be able to increase the defense capability, the Home Guard will also be provided with new materiel in the form of vehicles, boats, sensors, thermal sights, image intensifiers and tactical radio - important and necessary additions to our important Home Guard units.

Madam Speaker! Total defense contains important pieces that must be put in place to secure Sweden in the event of a crisis, high alert, or even war. But it is not the time now to relax and feel satisfied. It is now that we must continue to work on converting all these funds into increased capability and strengthened resilience and preparedness. The pace of the capability increase must be raised - primarily, I would say, in civil defense. Municipalities and regions and the private sector shall and will take their responsibility. Together we build a safer, greener, and freer Sweden.

Lastly, Madam Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to wish all officers, soldiers, sailors, civil servants, and volunteers involved in the defense of Sweden a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

(Applause)

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

Hanna Gunnarsson (V)

Madam Speaker! Colleagues in the Committee on Defence! Ministers! Hello to all of you watching and listening!

Today we have the largest debate of the parliamentary term on the defense area, the one regarding the direction for the total defense for the years 2025-2030.

The debate follows one and a half years of work within the Defense Commission, where all the parties in the Riksdag have discussed for many hours how Sweden's total defense should best be developed moving forward. I would really like to thank all the experts and specialists in the Defense Commission and the chairman for the work that has been put in.

Madam Speaker! The unity in defense policy may seem strange. Politicians are supposed to disagree. We are to show differences and argue over details. Certainly, the differences also emerge in this debate – you will, in any case, hear quite a lot of left-wing politics from me. But in the serious security situation we are in, where Russia's violation of international law in its war of invasion in Ukraine is now approaching a third year, the investment from us politicians is to be as united as possible. I hope that it can provide peace of mind and support to everyone in the total defense sector, and it is a valuable signal both outwards towards Russia and inwards towards the entire population.

Madam Speaker! The world needs peace. All people have the right to live in peace and freedom with human rights, a secure home, healthcare and education in a society free from racism, oppression and inequality.

To solve crises and conflicts in the world, we need to strengthen aid and development work, diplomacy, mediation, political leadership, and interpersonal cooperation.

Research from Uppsala University shows that 2023 was the year since 1946 with the most ongoing conflicts between states in the world - a total of 59. Russia's war in Ukraine and Israel's occupation of Palestine are on the minds daily of very many people even here in our country.

Madam Speaker! Sweden's support for Ukraine is unanimous across party lines, and the support will continue as long as it is needed. In Belarus, the people need our support against the dictatorship, and in Moldova and Georgia, we see how Russian influence risks destroying the efforts to build strong democratic societies.

Vänsterpartiet naturally demands an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and a sustainable peace in the Middle East. I do not intend to delve further into the security policy; that question has already been debated here in the chamber.

Madam Speaker! A strong total defense requires a robust society in all parts. This means a well-developed welfare state where municipalities and regions have sufficient resources on a daily basis and also in strained situations. Welfare activities suffer from permanent understaffing. It is society's ability to handle everyday situations that shows how prepared we are to handle crises.

Total defense encompasses all policy areas, not just defense policy. Everyone must participate and take responsibility. Furthermore, the civil defense must be built in close cooperation with peacetime crisis preparedness.

Therefore, it is unfortunate that one of the goals for civil defense, that civil defense shall prevent and manage severe pressures on society even in peacetime, is being removed. I want to, for this reason, move for approval of reservation number 40.

The increase of the economic resources for total defense must not occur at the expense of the needs in other important parts of society such as healthcare, infrastructure, housing, social work and climate.

In this year's budget bill, the government and the Sweden Democrats propose tax cuts of 34 billion kronor - at the same time as we know that the needs among the directly society-critical activities are enormous. If society does not function today, if the staff are already going to their knees, there is a great risk that it will not function in a crisis or, in the worst case, in war. And we know that Sweden's role and geographical location require that we have a functioning civil society and a functioning civil defense even under very great pressures.

Madam Speaker! We live in a more vulnerable society. Climate change, cyberattacks, influence operations, sabotage and polarization place great demands on our entire total defense.

Privatizations and sell-offs of socially important activities have caused major problems. From having a public organization that had an overview and could plan and prioritize, we now have socially important activities divided among a very large number of actors, a good portion of which actually have foreign ownership, and all of them only have a handle on their small piece. In addition to the loss of public control, tax money that should go to core activities is now ending up in private owners' pockets.

The privatization hysteria that has raged in recent years and actually still prevails has weakened the robustness of Swedish society. Public ownership and public governance of society-critical activities are required for a robust and secure society. Vänsterpartiet therefore considers that the public sector should successively take back society- and total defense-critical activities into public hands.

Infrastructure and transport are crucial for the Swedish total defense to function, just as it is crucial for the entire civil society to function every day. In the total defense, things such as freight wagons that can transport heavy vehicles are required. Capacity at shipyards to receive large ships is required, and new icebreakers are required.

In recent years, we have unfortunately seen that some of the total defense's most important railways, Malmbanan and Inlandsbanan, have had major deficiencies in maintenance. Investments must be made in peacetime for the railway to function in major crises or, in the worst case, war, and the maintenance is already lagging today. Missing investments have a direct impact on the entire total defense's ability to carry out its mission, which is to protect and defend Sweden.

The climate crisis is our greatest security threat. Droughts, floods, and extreme weather events constitute a direct threat and are a contributing factor and cause of war and conflicts. The effects of the climate crisis exacerbate inequality in the world. Counteracting the climate crisis is therefore the same as working for a more peaceful and secure world.

It is important that we have a broad security policy approach and mindset and that it also includes measures to build a long-term sustainable society, socially and economically as well as ecologically.

To transition in a more sustainable direction, it is required that all parts of society and all inhabitants take a collective responsibility and work together. Authorities, companies, and all public activities and organizations must contribute in their own way. This also applies to the Armed Forces. The Armed Forces must not be an obstacle to the societal transition that is needed for a more sustainable society.

We must be able to expand wind power and solar power, develop outdoor life, build housing and protect farmland and reindeer grazing areas while the military defense must be able to exercise. It is difficult, but it is not impossible.

We in Vänsterpartiet believe that the interests of the Armed Forces must be able to be weighed against other societal interests in a more equitable way, based on assessments of the best interests of society at each individual occasion. We will carefully read the investigation on wind power that was submitted to the government last week and look forward to solutions regarding the expansion of new wind power in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet argues that an equal society is a safer and more secure society. Unfortunately, the government's policy is heading in the opposite direction. We see increased vulnerability among people and increased polarization in the public debate. Racism and discrimination against people with a different background or faith divide us and make our society weaker. The polarization also impairs the population's cohesion, solidarity, and will to defend.

We must strive for an inclusive society where people help each other and can together withstand crises and, in the worst case, war. Therefore, all expressions of divisive currents must always be combated so that we can live safely, freely, and securely in Sweden. To strengthen the sense of community in the population, culture, civil society, religious communities, and public service media play a very important role.

Madam Speaker! We in Vänsterpartiet are opposed to Sweden joining Nato. Nato membership is now a reality, and much of the Swedish defense's activities will now be Nato-oriented.

In the future, Sweden's own defense capability must be at the center of Swedish defense planning. We must be an active partner in cooperation with our Nordic and Baltic neighbors, and the countries must take a common responsibility for the Baltic Sea, the North Sea, the North Sea, and the Arctic. It is this, and not operations in countries far away, that shall be the Swedish priority. Vänsterpartiet opposes, of course, all forms of Swedish participation in NATO's planning and exercises with nuclear weapons.

NATO membership will entail a change in Sweden's decision-making process regarding total defense, because NATO's planning is not fully synchronized with Sweden's. In Sweden, we have a long process of discussions with the Defence Preparation Board so that all parties can participate and have an influence. In this way, total defense receives a democratic anchoring. This must not disappear as a result of NATO membership. The Government has a great responsibility to ensure that the democratic anchoring through the Defence Preparation Board is maintained, and I expect that will be the case. For this reason, I also wish to move for approval of reservation 9.

Madam Speaker! The popular anchoring of the total defense is incredibly important. It is a matter for the entire population, and everyone can make their contribution to the total defense. An important building block for this is the conscription. In conscription, young people from different backgrounds meet and are trained together. It is important that the number of conscripts continues to increase, but the increase must be sustainable. The number must be based on what is needed in the war organization and personnel supply but also correspond with the resources available in the Armed Forces. The equation with all constituent parts – accommodation, equipment, materiel, and officers – must add up. This applies especially to clothing and equipment for women.

Conscription is an intrusive part of a young person's life, and therefore the conscription training must be as good as it is possible over all. In order for the conscripts to have a high degree of co-influence over their daily lives, a functioning and independent conscription council is required. It is important that the Armed Forces listen to the Conscription Council's recommendations and solve the problems that the Conscription Council identifies. This applies primarily to compensations and the conscripts' travels.

Steps have also been taken towards reviving civil service. We in Vänsterpartiet think that is very good.

Madam Speaker! The staff is, of course, the foundation for a functioning total defense - I thank Jörgen Berglund for the pass on this issue. Working within our total defense authorities can involve great risks, both at home in peacetime and during international missions or other sharp situations. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that the working conditions within the Armed Forces are as good as is possible at all.

The military represented the last male professional monopoly in Sweden. It was not until 1989 that women were allowed to work for wages within the defense forces. Equality work must be an integrated part of the entire Armed Forces' activities.

To have a long-term strong defense force, it is important that the organization can retain its personnel and that those who have left it can return. Wages and conditions must be improved so that no one leaves the profession for economic reasons. This also applies to skills development and further education. Exactly what wages and conditions should look like is, however, not a matter for politics but for the parties in the labor market.

A larger number of soldiers and officers will, as a result of the NATO membership, serve abroad. Overseas missions on operations and in staffs and long exercises here at home do not only involve hard work and long absences for the individual but also affect family and relatives at home. I want to express a big thank you for your efforts - to both those of you who are away and those of you who are at home.

We are now waiting for the investigation on the Armed Forces' personnel supply. It is to be delivered in June 2025. It is regrettable that it is not finished and can be included in this total defense decision.

Madam Speaker! In order for the Swedish total defense to be able to grow in the way we are now deciding, large investments are required in personnel, in infrastructure, and in making decision-making and planning processes faster and more efficient. We are sometimes met with great frustration that it takes too long to make decisions and that things that have been planned are not carried out or arrive on time. There are many issues that must now be solved together so that the direction we decide on this afternoon can be feasible.

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

Jörgen Berglund (M)

Madam Speaker! In a reservation from Hanna Gunnarsson and Vänsterpartiet, they want Sweden to leave the European Peace Facility. For those who do not know, perhaps I should repeat what the purpose of the European Peace Facility is. It is the following: to prevent conflicts, to create and preserve peace, and to strengthen international security and stability.

My question to Hanna Gunnarsson is, naturally, what is wrong with preventing conflicts and creating and preserving peace. A large number of the European Peace Facility's interventions are directed towards Africa, a continent that is severely affected by conflicts of various kinds and great suffering for the civilian population.

It is also about the support that the EU sends to Ukraine. One example is the training mission Eumam, which is financed with funds from the Peace Facility.

I must actually say that I winced a little when I read this reservation. Is this a clerical error, or does Vänsterpartiet really think that we should not collectively continue to support the crisis-stricken continent Africa or Ukraine?

Madam Speaker! I give Hanna Gunnarsson the opportunity to explain why Sweden should not participate in this conflict prevention work.

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

Hanna Gunnarsson (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank Jörgen Berglund for the question and for the opportunity to elaborate on this, as this is very important.

Everything that Jörgen Berglund mentions is, of course, good things. What we in Vänsterpartiet oppose, and what we have opposed for many years, is the militarization we see at the EU level. The EU is a supranational organization that for a long time has moved in a more military direction.

It is problematic in many different ways. It is problematic primarily because it is supranational, but it is also problematic because the countries in Europe do not quite have the same view on how the militarization of the EU should proceed. As a parenthesis, it is very interesting to follow – now, for example, there will be a commissioner for defense issues.

Everything that Jörgen Berglund mentions is good stuff. We do all of that – or should do. There was an aid debate here late last night. Unfortunately, I did not listen to it, because I was sitting and writing my speech. I regret this, all colleagues!

Everything mentioned is what we must do, but unfortunately, these are things that the government has cut back on. The aid we were once very proud of in Sweden – the mediation work, the strong UN work, and all such things – is being dismantled by the government we have now.

Above all, the aid to Africa is incredibly important. Both China and Russia, which are non-democratic countries, step in and exert influence by, for example, buying up ports and other infrastructure and providing aid in that manner. Sweden should be there with strong aid, development work, and mediation work in wars and conflicts, and furthermore provide strong support to the UN, as we once did but unfortunately do not really do anymore. However, this should not occur under any kind of umbrella in the form of the EU's militarization.

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

Jörgen Berglund (M)

Madam Speaker! There is an old saying: You cannot pick the raisins out of the cake. That is what I want to direct to Hanna Gunnarsson and Vänsterpartiet. Sweden is a member of the EU and Nato. I can understand, and I know, that Vänsterpartiet would preferably not want us to be part of either of those organizations. But now we are, and then it is perhaps logical if Vänsterpartiet and Hanna Gunnarsson do not want to participate in the European Defense Fund. There is some kind of logic in that, I think, even though I think it is wrong. But that they want to leave the European peace facility and write out, stand for, and think that it is good, I actually do not understand.

I would like to hear if Hanna Gunnarsson can answer the questions: What would be better if Sweden left the European peace facility tomorrow? With whom would we coordinate our support to Ukraine or Africa, and would it be better if we did this here on our own?

One can have a thought or a long-term vision, but that does not help war-torn Africa or the civilian population in Ukraine. This is happening here and now in our immediate vicinity. Therefore, it is incredibly important that Sweden is involved. It surprises me that Vänsterpartiet does not think so.

We are not going to have a debate on aid now, but one can still note that despite the changes Sweden and the government have made to the aid, Sweden still ranks at the top in terms of providing aid in the world. It may be worth remembering.

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

Hanna Gunnarsson (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer and the question!

I am following the debate on aid, just as surely many others here in the chamber are also doing, especially what the Christian organizations say that have worked with aid for much longer and now see the funds decrease and almost disappear.

I return to the question of the EU. Sweden is a member of the EU and Nato, but they are not fixed organizations. They are changeable. In negotiations and various types of decisions, they have more than one direction. It is very clear with the EU, and I have understood it as that Nato is usually talked about as a very political organization where one negotiates together. They are, therefore, influenceable organizations for both Sweden and the left. We have a fairly strong left group in the EU that works daily with these issues.

We coordinate the support for Ukraine to a large extent also outside the EU, partly because there are EU members who do not like the support for Ukraine, if I may put it that way. At the EU level, one sometimes has to perform different types of maneuvers just to get the support for Ukraine sent out, because the EU organization is supranational, in that sense.

I do not, therefore, believe that we should link the support for Ukraine to the EU. I believe it is good to continue doing this together with like-minded countries in different constellations. I also believe that is how one needs to think regarding both aid and development work. We need to find like-minded countries to carry out the aid work together with them in different ways. This is done today. We do not need a peace facility. We do not need different types of EU funds where we pay in tax money that is then to be managed by the EU organization. We can manage it together with other countries.

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

Mikael Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Members of Parliament! Ministers! You who are sitting in the gallery and you who are following this on TV!

Today we are debating the Total Defence 2025-2030, the Defence Committee's report. I begin by moving for approval of all proposals in the report and rejection of the reservations.

In my speech, I want to say something about the global situation, something about our NATO membership and, of course, something about Sweden and the defense decision we are now making.

This defense decision is being made in a serious security policy situation. Mark Rutte, who is NATO's Secretary General, gave a major speech on Thursday where he warned that the danger is heading towards us at full speed. He also told the member countries - very self-critically - that we are not ready for what is heading towards us within four or five years. He warned that NATO does not reach Moscow's production of weapons. He also added what I believe we all understand, namely that what is happening in Ukraine could happen here.

Rutte also said that if we do not spend more now to prevent war, we will have to pay a much higher price later if the worst were to happen. I want to mention this, because we do know and have heard it said many times before that we have the toughest security policy situation since World War II. It is for real. We in our country have had the privilege of standing outside of war for 200 years. It is fantastic, and we truly hope that it will continue to be so. But it is no law of nature and nothing we can take for granted.

Madam Speaker! The security policy situation is no vacuum. It will likely persist for the foreseeable future. We see the war ongoing in Ukraine and how Russia disregards all rules and attacks power production, elderly care homes, and hospitals. Russia receives help from China with products and components and from Iran with drones. North Korea sends not only ammunition but also soldiers. They are paid not only in rubles but also in technology.

Madam Speaker! This is the situation in which we have to make our decision. The situation is also intensifying in our own immediate vicinity. We see upgrades even here. In Kaliningrad, there are Iskander missiles that reach far into Swedish territory.

When we are now making investments, I am pleased with our unity. It is important to explain to the Swedish people that this is completely necessary. Every krona that is invested is completely necessary to build up civil and military defense so that we can manage. We shall also contribute to Nato because we are now a member there. Together we contribute to the deterrence.

NATO has been the strongest defense alliance in world history. Alone is not strong. We heard NATO's Secretary General point out that not all members yet reach 2 percent. Sweden has for a long time underperformed and invested too little. Now we are investing, and the defense commitment rises to 2.4 percent next year and then to 2.6 percent. But we must be completely honest that it is not certain that it will be enough. During the next year, NATO will come with new targets, and just as Rutte said, we must remember that during the Cold War, Sweden also invested 3 or 4 percent of GDP. He pointed out that it was also a tough security policy situation, and it might be even worse now.

I want to say to those of you watching this debate that we must be prepared to make sacrifices. The freedom we have is worth defending. We Christian Democrats believe that the defense issue is important because Sweden must be able to be defended against external threats. The external threats certainly exist.

With this defense decision, we are making important investments. The war organization will, during this period, increase from 88,000 to 115,000 people.

We also see to it that the four brigades are completed by 2030. Several of us who were in the Defence Commission know that there were discussions there and that they actually should have been finished already. But now we see to it that there are no delays. This is necessary. Nato will likely point out that there are deficiencies in our part of the world when it comes to ground combat troops. Therefore, it is important that this is not postponed beyond 2030. We need to speed up. We do not have all the time in the world. It is important that it is in place now.

Madam Speaker! We are also making investments in the navy. We ensure that there are personnel investments. This also applies to the Air Force. We have fine aircraft, which are manufactured in Sweden. But they are, however good they may be, very vulnerable on the ground. Now we ensure that we invest in the base organization and in having personnel who can move the aircraft out.

We are also making investments in ammunition. We can state that the peacetime forecasts for ammunition can be thrown in the bin. Few countries in Europe have production of ammunition, but we do. We must invest in increasing it further, both for our own security and for NATO's security, but also to help Ukraine. Therefore, it is important that we ensure the logistics work when it comes to the ammunition.

It is when we have those things in place that it works. And it is when our units are fully staffed and we train that we achieve military effect. That is what we particularly emphasize. These investments shall result in us obtaining an increased capacity for deterrence individually, but above all together.

It is also our membership in Nato that makes it an operational unit. Sweden is a mobilization area, and this shows that together we achieve the strength that is absolutely necessary.

We are also, as has been mentioned before, making investments in the Home Guard. It will be expanded during the period. The voluntary defense organizations play a very large role. I want, just like a predecessor in the debate, to emphasize the importance of engaging in a voluntary defense organization. It matters.

Madam Speaker! I want to conclude my speech by thanking everyone who helps in voluntary defense organizations of any kind, including in the Home Guard. They make an important contribution. But I also want to thank all our soldiers and officers who make important contributions in Sweden and around the world. I want to thank you and your relatives for your contributions and wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Almost exactly two years after the Defense Commission was appointed, we stand here with a new total defense decision to be made for the period 2025-2030. It resulted in a total of three large, good reports and one control point.

The committee's reports were very good. In my speech, I will try to focus a little extra on what is important for the Center Party and on what we consider important to achieve an even stronger total defense during the period 2025-2030.

Madam Speaker! Now that Sweden is a member of Nato, the military defense must be designed and dimensioned not only to be able to meet an armed attack against Sweden but also for deterrence and defense in a collective Nato context. All of Sweden shall be able to be defended, but Gotland, the west coast with the port of Gothenburg, and the Nordic Cap and the northern part of Sweden are assessed by the Defence Preparedness Board and in our reports as strategically important areas in the event of war.

If an ally is attacked, the Swedish armed forces, together with the allies' armed forces, must have the capability to contribute to NATO's collective defense. This in itself requires a specific capability for host nation support. It is therefore necessary to create additional conditions to improve the defense capability and combat readiness of combat units. But it is also necessary to increase the capability for host nation support together with the entire total defense, through, among other things, the design of the basic organization and its presence throughout the country. It is of great importance that the organizational units decided in the 2020 defense decision are fully in place.

For the Center Party, it is important that all branches of the defense are developed at all times - the army, the air force, the navy and of course also the Home Guard. The Center Party wants to emphasize that the development of the navy needs to proceed at a faster pace, given all the water around us. I and - I believe - many with me have, when both the committee and the Defence Preparation have been in other countries and discussed from a Nato context, experienced that many wonder about and want to talk about what Sweden should and can contribute with in Nato within the naval area. It is important to remember.

All this regarding strengthening all branches of the Swedish Armed Forces naturally includes both the personnel organization as well as the infrastructure organization, with buildings and the like, and a constant development of the materiel area.

Madam Speaker! The voluntary defense organizations and the Home Guard contribute in an important way to both public support, will to defend, and the collective total defense capability through their presence throughout the country. In order to be able to plan and staff for the requirements of war, the voluntary defense organizations must, however, have current knowledge of the requirements and how the dimensioning should look.

The Home Guard has a high state of readiness and very good local knowledge. They create the conditions for war units to mobilize as well as to protect and guard important areas and facilities all over Sweden. Furthermore, they have an important role in host nation support. In order for them to be able to perform their role, more modern and heavier equipment needs to be procured for the Home Guard. This is currently underway, which is very pleasing. The Home Guard contributes to resilience, will to defend, and public support.

Centerpartiet has long advocated that we want to see strengthened volunteerism both during peacetime crises and in a modern civil defense. It is important that the municipalities and regions consider volunteerism when they develop their operations, also in a scenario of heightened alert. The activities of the voluntary defense organizations cover many different and important areas and can have an important role, not least linked to civil protection.

Civil society actors can also have an active role in both operational crisis management and preventive work. Knowledge of home preparedness and how to manage on one's own needs to become much better in society. Volunteering needs to be included in training and planning but also in exercises in a more systematic way. In addition, agreements and arrangements need to be written with municipalities and regions.

Centerpartiet also believes that the voluntary defense organizations can be developed through greater cooperation with the private sector. I mentioned it in the debate we had about the budget for 2025, and in this debate I want to once again emphasize that folk education and community centers - such as bygdegårdar, Folkets Hus, and parks - will be important in the work to ensure that the total defense decision 2025-2030 is achieved. Folk education helps to build resilience and the will to defend.

Then we come to my pet subject: the Home Guard and the military regions. I would first like to thank both ministers for the wording in the bill that the Armed Forces themselves shall review how the organization of the military regions should look. If a reorganization is to take place, it is important for me and C that, for example, the Rikshem Guard Council is heard on this. It is, after all, the case that the entire Armed Forces, not just the army, are dependent on the military regions. The Air Force and the Navy are as well.

Where the military regions should be organized is not a political issue, I believe. The Armed Forces should decide together with other actors, for example, the Home Guard Council.

Madam Speaker! The pandemic and Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine show how important it is that all parts of Sweden and the EU reduce critical or risky dependencies, not least in the area of supply. The Center Party wants to see a preparedness model where the business sector plays a central role based on an insight of a mutual dependency between the public sector and the business sector. This could, for example, involve that preparedness measures are financed through compensation to the business sector to maintain a service or a preparedness for certain goods or services, based on agreements that take supply security into account also in high alert or war.

Storage is another possibility, but it is important that the storage is designed in a way that guarantees good turnover and distribution possibilities and that it is not about emergency stocks of the old sort. We need to build new types of emergency stocks 2.0 that are adapted for the 2020s and beyond. Right now, the planning horizon for the total defense is at least three months, but against the background of the experiences from the war in Ukraine, we believe there are good reasons to start considering whether it should be longer.

Madam Speaker! Strengthened competitiveness and increased self-sufficiency of food are important components in strengthening Swedish food preparedness. But in a crisis or war situation, it is not enough that we can produce a lot of food if we cannot simultaneously secure agriculture's transport and its supply of diesel, fertilizer, seed, pesticides, spare parts, competence, and other things. War planning needs to be developed. The Centre Party believes that the investigation Food Preparedness for a New Era lays a good foundation for the preparedness work in its proposal for a new food preparedness act.

Centerpartiet considers that Sweden should have a good supply capacity for society-critical goods and services throughout the country in the event of crisis and war. Increased self-sufficiency of important supplies is an important component in the continued buildup of the total defense. Self-sufficiency level, the competitiveness of agriculture, logistics and storage of necessary food and strategic input goods, as well as the individual's own preparedness, are important starting points that must constantly be further developed. Both public actors and the business sector have an important task here based on their respective roles. When the national coordination of the supply preparedness is developed, it is important that the regional and local perspective is included and that the business sector's participation and added value are clear, as is the availability across the entire country.

Madam Speaker! This total defense decision is historic in that it is the first decision made while Sweden is a member of Nato. It is now important to ensure that the entire total defense is developed, not least the civil defense. Building a strong civil defense within the total defense is extremely important. Here, municipalities, regions, the business sector, and civil society play a major role. Now it is required of all of us that the decisions made are also implemented so that municipalities and regions know what to plan and work towards.

An equally important issue that was discussed extensively in the Defence Preparation Committee was the command capacity and leadership. Mandates regarding decisions and management must be known and practiced in advance. In high alert and war, it is also necessary that decisions can be made decentrally as close to the operations as possible. In high alert and war, the command structures must guarantee that society's collective resources can be distributed, directed, prioritized, and coordinated to achieve the greatest possible defense effect. That capacity and those mandates may also need to exist for major peacetime crises, not least to avoid parallel management systems.

Madam Speaker! I must also, of course, mention something about the defense appropriations for the coming period. As we approach 2028, 2.6 percent of GDP will be invested in military defense. These are large sums of money and large and important investments, but with the global developments that are now occurring – and occurring at an increasingly faster pace in many parts of the world – we in the Centerpartiet believe that during 2025 we must start talking about the defense appropriations having to rise to 3 percent. Centerpartiet is prepared to discuss this and also proposed this in the Defense Commission. I hope that other parties are also prepared to decide on this.

Madam Speaker! The war in Ukraine affects us all. Since the start of the war, Sweden has supported Ukraine with amounts of materiel, which has been extremely important. It is also extremely important that we continue this commitment and help Ukraine win the terrible war that is ongoing.

Madam Speaker! When the New Year's bells ring in 2025, we will have a new total defense decision in place, a decision that is good but probably insufficient given what is happening and occurring in the world around us.

There is much to say about the total defense, and I have addressed a good deal of all the questions that the Center Party considers important and is driving. I wish to move for approval of the Center Party's reservation number 1. I would also like to wish the Speaker, the Chamber Office, my colleagues in the Defense Committee, and the Ministers a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

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

Anna Starbrink (L)

Madam Speaker! A war is raging in our vicinity. Human catastrophes, democracies being pushed back in the world, threats and hatred that divide - it is a difficult time.

On my 18th birthday on November 9, 1989, the Berlin Wall fell. What luck to experience some of the best decades in Europe's history, with the fall of dictatorships, our hopeful entry into the EU, the freedom that spread out before us, the bonds of friendship that were forged and the faith in the future!

When my own children are now in their late teens, they are forced to experience a completely different Europe, a Europe where we once again have war in our vicinity and a time when a new iron curtain falls and the anxiety for the future characterizes their thoughts.

Putin has led his country in a neo-Stalinist direction with a terrifying oppression of its own people. Every oppositional hint is suppressed. The brutal war he is waging against Ukraine creates a terrible suffering, and his rattling of nuclear weapons is a threat to humanity. This is what we are now forced to contend with.

Torgny Segerstedt wrote a famous editorial in Göteborgs Handels- och Sjöfartstidning already in February 1933, when he saw what awaited with Hitler in power in Germany. I have borrowed but also updated his concluding words, which also well describe our time:

To force all the world's politics and press to occupy themselves with that figure is inexcusable. Mr. Putin is an insult.

He is an insult to the Europe that could be such a flourishing place for people to live and grow in, an insult to all of Ukraine's young people who are forced to defend their country and whose future is so uncertain, and an insult to those who encounter adulthood here in Sweden and are forced to look out towards a Europe that is once again ravaged by war.

Madam Speaker! It is in a restless time that the Riksdag has to make its total defense decision for the coming five years. That the decision has been moved forward by one year is entirely reasonable since the world around us is developing so drastically for the worse.

The terrifying development has led to major and revolutionary changes here at home. For the first time, the Riksdag will make a defense decision as an ally in Nato. It is an epochal shift that we are finally getting to witness.

For my party, our entry into Nato has been a central security and defense policy issue for decades. Sometimes we have been mocked by political opponents, sometimes called warmongers. But such things slide off or blow away when one knows that one's own position is well-founded and correct in substance in order to safeguard peace and freedom. Eventually, it also became obvious to everyone that the security policy situation entails a danger to our country, and then the vast majority of parties also joined our position. Good so, even though the shift came very late with the previous government.

That there is a broad consensus in the Riksdag today on the way forward is a strength. In difficult times, the parties and their representatives must stick together. It does not mean that the different opinions may not be expressed or that the different parties should stop working to put their own mark on the development of the military and civil defense in the future. It does, however, mean that we must make efforts to find the common solutions that exist to build upon. It is precisely what the eight parties in the Riksdag have done within the framework of the Defense Committee's work and in the dialogue that has been held with the government during the development of the total defense bill.

The proposition implies a resource supplement of a rarely seen magnitude to both the military and civil defense. It provides good conditions to strengthen our security and make us prepared to meet major trials.

Civil defense is a high priority. It is necessary for Sweden to quickly and effectively strengthen its capacity. And even if the work is being done from an all-too low level - a starting point that is too low - anyone can probably see the great commitment that exists for this all around our country in authorities, municipalities, regions, all different preparedness sectors, the business community, the voluntary sector, and the homes.

In the bill, an investment in civil defense of 37.5 billion kronor until 2030 is presented. It marks a clear shift from a sack of sand to a highly active movement in our society. The ambitions for a powerful total defense of the future are high. War - this simultaneously impossible but highly relevant thought - is what we ultimately must prepare for.

All readiness sectors in civil defense receive increased funds with the submitted proposal. Naturally, the rescue services and the protection of the civilian population are a central part of this. We know that the defense of Sweden only works if society functions, if we have a functioning food supply, drinking water, healthcare, electronic communications, transport, energy supply, and so on.

I particularly want to point out that Sweden's economic defense needs to be strengthened. The business sector has a central role in the total defense. We need resilience in production and in the supply chains. The business sector must have the ability to shift its production, and there must be input materials available.

I also want to highlight civil society as an indispensable part of our total defense. There are approximately 160,000 voluntary associations that can contribute in various ways during different types of crises. This applies not least locally, close to people's everyday lives. Association life can mobilize resources and volunteers and spread information and knowledge. Just by existing, association life brings people together and contributes to cohesion and resilience. We must take care of that. The voluntary defense organizations, of course, have a special significance for our total defense.

Business and civil society drive our country forward in many ways. But of course, the public commitments must also be far-reaching and well-prepared. Therefore, it is important that our various authorities take their responsibility and are given the conditions to fulfill their mission even in crisis and, ultimately, war – municipalities and regions likewise.

To quickly strengthen our country's military capability - both materially and personally - is the main focus for the military defense. In this way, we can become a credible, reliable and solidary ally, with the power to defend our own country and contribute to the defense of our neighbors.

Several members have been involved in the content of the defense decision. I think it is a large and important investment that lies ahead of us. I also want to point out that a modern military defense must be in constant development. Digitalization, defense innovation, and research are areas that are strengthened by this defense decision.

Madam Speaker! Of course, today's debate and the total defense decision we face are about how we shall forcefully expand the resources to the various parts of the total defense. Of course, it is about staffing and about acquiring more and more modern materiel for the Armed Forces and about making the development of the civil defense go even faster. But ultimately, it is about our country, about our population, our democracy, our freedom and our way of life. All of that is worth defending. I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the total defense decision that lays the foundation for the defense's development during the years 2025-2030. Defense decisions are multi-year, and growth within the defense takes time. But the security policy situation can change rapidly.

On 24 February 2022, the security situation in Europe changed drastically with Russia's illegal and full-scale invasion of its neighboring country Ukraine. It reminded us that peace, freedom, and democracy are not things we can take for granted and that war aimed at occupying another country's territory, with thousands killed and injured, continues to occur to a very high degree, even in our part of the world.

Madam Speaker! The decision we are debating today is based on the Defense Committee's three reports: Allvarstid, Kraftsamling, and Stärkt försvarsförmåga. The work with the Defense Committee has provided the conditions for us to have a broad consensus today on the most important aspects of security and defense policy. I would like to thank my colleagues in the committee, especially Chairman Hans Wallmark, for good cooperation.

Miljöpartiet stands behind the main points in the reports, but we have also had a number of deviating positions, including regarding the broad view on defense. We believe that one must be clear-sighted and weigh in the different types of threats that society faces. We have also been clear that we would have liked to invest even more in the development of civil defense.

Miljöpartiet supports that the total defense should be built so that it deters other countries from attempts to control or otherwise exploit Swedish territory, harm Swedish society, or exert threats and blackmail against Sweden. By increasing readiness, both civil and military, we can influence the risk of war.

Here in Miljöpartiet, we want to emphasize the importance of achieving a balance within the total defense. For a society to withstand the pressures of a war, a civil defense is needed that protects the population, ensures that important societal functions continue to operate, and supports the military defense effort. Therefore, Miljöpartiet believes that it is important with the investments in civil defense that are being carried out now in connection with the defense decision.

At the same time, it is also clear that it has not been possible to gain support for a more long-term investment where Sweden gradually approaches the levels of funding that MSB has indicated are needed. Instead, civil defense only grows until 2028, when it lands at a total of 15 billion. After that, no announcements are made regarding continued growth for civil defense. On the other hand, the military defense continues to grow. Thus, the imbalance continues, and the defense becomes weaker as a whole.

Madam Speaker! The majority in the Defence Committee has also chosen to propose changed goals for civil defense, which we in the Green Party consider strange and unfortunate. A goal indicates a clear prioritization and direction. The goals are an important way to steer the agencies' activities. Riksdag-mandated goals are also followed up annually in connection with the budget, which gives the politicians an opportunity to follow the development and propose changes.

When the majority now removes the goals to maintain necessary supply, contribute to strengthening society's ability to prevent and manage severe stresses on society in peacetime and, with available resources, contribute to the ability to participate in international peace-promoting and humanitarian efforts, it will have consequences for the authorities' work with civil defense.

This is a clear indication that the government, unfortunately with the support of the Social Democrats and the Centre Party, does not want civil defense to have important tasks in terms of subsistence preparedness, crisis preparedness, or international missions.

One also moves the goal of safeguarding or protecting the civilian population to position three. This reprioritization is made despite the claim that the goals are not mutually prioritized. It cannot be interpreted in any other way than that the majority does not consider the protection of the civilian population to be as important as the overarching goal regarding societal functions. Miljöpartiet wants the goals for civil defense to remain as they stood in the defense decision of 2020.

Madam Speaker! We mean that civil defense and crisis preparedness go together. To strengthen civil defense so that it is dimensioned to meet the requirements of war also means that crisis preparedness is strengthened, at least if one does not separate these two important functions. Instead, one needs to see crisis preparedness and civil defense as a whole that can meet and manage crises across the entire threat spectrum, from smaller and larger crises in peacetime to the conditions that prevail during high alert and, ultimately, war. There is now a tendency to want to completely overlook crisis preparedness. But we need the ability to withstand both crises and war.

Madam Speaker! Another deficiency with the decision today is that the financing of the decision is not resolved but is pushed into the future. The large expansion of the appropriations actually occurs first at the beginning of the next mandate period, but even now we can state that with such large investments in defense, there is a great risk that other investments will be sidelined. Therefore, we in Miljöpartiet, together with Socialdemokraterna and Vänsterpartiet, have said that we want to see a readiness tax that can contribute to the financing of the defense investments.

The expansion of Swedish defense must not occur at the expense of other societal functions that have an impact on Sweden's total defense capability. A functioning society and a functioning welfare system and infrastructure in peacetime are the foundation for our ability to handle crises and wars.

Madam Speaker! At the same time, I want to emphasize the importance of having a readiness to be able to handle antagonistic acts both below and above the threshold for an armed attack. Miljöpartiet supports the Defense Committee's assessment that an armed attack against Sweden cannot be ruled out, and that it also cannot be ruled out that military means of power or further threats of such could be used against Sweden.

Even though Sweden is not currently facing an immediate threat of war, we need to have a state of readiness to be able to handle developments that could have serious consequences if they occur. But hybrid activities such as cyberattacks, sabotage, and influence operations are already occurring today. The question is not whether we need to face these threats, but where, when, and how.

Society must therefore be built to be resilient. Rapid digitalization makes questions about vulnerability in our societal systems increasingly relevant. Many important societal functions are dependent on digital systems and electricity supply, which makes them sensitive to both data breaches and other disruptions. If these systems are affected, it will have major consequences for all parts of society.

Madam Speaker! Also energy supply in a broader sense - that is to say increased and more decentralized electricity production, which is needed - as well as food supply, healthcare and many other parts of modern society are vulnerable. These are vulnerabilities that we need to be able to manage and prevent. It is important to find a coexistence and be able to assess the whole in the total defense perspective. Sweden needs to speed up the work of increasing the supply preparedness to ensure clean drinking water and food production.

Miljöpartiet argues that increased organic production of food provides better conditions to be able to produce food in the event of crisis or war, as organic production is not dependent on inputs such as artificial fertilizer and chemical pesticides in the way that conventional agriculture is.

Madam Speaker! Perhaps the most clear is our vulnerability and exposure in the field of communications. Influence campaigns and disinformation reach us in several different ways, not least via social media. Through the application of artificial intelligence, both the quantity of influence campaigns and their accuracy will likely increase. This is a threat to democracy.

Psychological defense is about building up the society's resilience against disinformation and influence campaigns. This includes, among other things, increasing the population's ability to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources and to distinguish between what is true and what is false. Today, it is difficult to know where disinformation campaigns originate. National and international actors, individuals, political organizations, and organized crime move in the same digital space. We need to strengthen the media and information literacy of the population, which includes both text and images.

The defense of democracy against both foreign power and internal threats is a crucial security issue. Today, it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between foreign powers and domestic threat actors, when, for example, foreign actors hire gang criminals to carry out threats and acts of violence.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has been a part of the defense alliance Nato since March 7. In that sense, this is a historical defense decision. Miljöpartiet stands behind the fact that a strong Swedish total defense with a credible defense capability acts as a deterrent and thus preserves peace and contributes to Nato's collective deterrence capability. We want Nato to focus on its core task: defense of the allies.

Mr. Speaker, NATO also has the nuclear deterrence, which is a fundamental part of the alliance. Nuclear weapons are terrifying weapons of mass destruction that would have catastrophic consequences if they were used. The Green Party therefore stands firm that nuclear weapons must never be allowed on Swedish territory in either peacetime or wartime. We believe that Sweden should introduce legislation that prohibits the importation of nuclear weapons onto Swedish territory.

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

Overall, I think we need to get better at upholding international humanitarian law - the laws of war. These aim to limit the suffering that armed conflicts cause for both civilians and combatants and regulate which methods and means of warfare may be used. The laws of war need to be integrated into total defense planning. To fulfill international commitments, handle war crimes, and promote a more humane world, we need to strengthen knowledge of the laws of war within the entire total defense. This feels important to point out, not least in light of the debate on security policy that we had last week.

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank my colleagues in the committee for that we have been able to meet in a broad agreement. I would also like to thank the Minister for Defence for having listened to and taken into account, at least the greater part of the Defence Committee's work and proposals.

It is however unfortunate that the government has not complied with the Defence Committee's proposal for a conscript music corps in Norrland. We must continue to work so that the government, and perhaps also the defense command, will understand the importance of culture for the total defense. Not only the protection of cultural heritage but also contemporary culture has an important role to contribute, among other things for creating meaning and cohesion, which is important for our will to defend and our defense capability.

Madam Speaker! Moving forward, I also believe that we will need to return to how we protect our population. Miljöpartiet believes that Sweden should have a broad view of security that takes into account military threats as well as other threats, for example climate change, pandemics, and natural disasters. It is about human security. By strengthening our preparedness and creating a robust society, we create the conditions to handle the challenges of the present and the future in order to protect both the people in our country and our environment.

The climate crisis will mean that even in Sweden we will be affected by more extreme heatwaves and rain resembling downpours. Drought, fires, floods, increased risk of avalanches and erosion, destroyed crops and contaminated drinking water are some of the consequences that many Swedes will experience. We must therefore ensure our preparedness for the consequences of climate change and invest significantly more in climate-adapting our society. Unfortunately, the government does not take the climate threat seriously enough to deliver a policy that reduces emissions and adapts society to a changed climate.

The protection of the population will also need to be expressed in how we protect ourselves against armed attacks. Therefore, the question of increased air defense capability will need to be addressed in future defense decisions, as well as how our navy can be developed and contribute to the defense of the Baltic Sea. In order for the defense decision to be implemented, good conditions are needed for our soldiers, sailors, officers, and conscripts, and our voluntary defense organizations need to be involved.

I finally want to emphasize that we agree on much in the Defence Committee. I nevertheless move for approval of reservation 40 regarding the goals for civil defense, reservation 28 regarding the climate, and reservation 4 regarding the broadened threat picture.

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

Jörgen Berglund (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Emma Berginger, for an interesting speech! In the speech, there was of course a great deal that I agreed with, and also what Member Berginger said about our membership in Nato.

I see in a reservation from Miljöpartiet regarding the total defense's direction and capability that Emma Berginger and Miljöpartiet write that the defense should be defensive. Then one asks: What does Miljöpartiet mean by that?

I do not know if it has been missed. But we have a defense force, and we are members of a defense alliance. Or is it that Miljöpartiet means that we should only shoot back if we are directly fired upon? It is a bit unfortunate.

In the same reservation, Miljöpartiet writes: We shall protect our population and cooperate with neighbors in the Nordics and the Baltics.

NATO consists of 31 members besides Sweden. It is the entire core of the defense cooperation. It is a collective defense. It is about standing in solidarity for each other's defense, just as we expect a defense in return from all other countries.

What does Miljöpartiet actually mean when they write like that? I would very much like to know that.

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Madam Speaker! I can say with pleasure that I believe we are relatively in agreement on these issues, the member Berglund and I.

We write that the defense shall be defensive in its character and structure. It is connected to the fact that the defense is based on the principle of self-defense in international law. It is precisely for that reason that we express ourselves in that way. I do not believe that there is actually any difference between how I view this issue and how Member Berglund views the issue.

We have a defense force to defend Sweden if we are attacked. But we do not have a defense to threaten or in any other way attack other countries. Our defense exists in the event that we are attacked. Therefore, the defense shall be defensive in its character and structure.

We emphasize the cooperation within the Nordic and Baltic countries. We have also heard several other speakers do this here during the day. They are our closest neighboring countries. They are countries that share our military geography, where we know that we have approximately the same conditions and views on matters.

We know that we can contribute our defense capability to provide protection. We know that we have a long-term cooperation that has been ongoing for a long time. Nordefco has been mentioned, for example.

We see that it is very positive if we can work closely with our Nordic neighboring countries and with the Baltic neighboring countries. In our contribution to Nato, we can contribute in precisely this area.

We had a debate last week on Sweden's contribution to NATO's deterrence and defense in the Euro-Atlantic area. Even there, it was expressed that it is primarily in that area that we want Sweden to contribute to NATO.

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

Jörgen Berglund (M)

Madam Speaker! It feels very good that Emma Berginger says those words. That was also what I thought I heard in the opening statement.

The wording you have in your reservation is misleading. It can easily be misinterpreted. That is why I asked the question. I really wanted to know: Do you mean what you wrote, or do you mean what you are saying? It sounds very good.

Let me underline that I share the view that in the NATO cooperation, Sweden obviously has the most cooperation with our Nordic neighbors and the Baltics. That is only good. We share that view.

I actually have no follow-up question for Emma Berginger. I will have to settle for the answer she gave and hope that it is also the Miljöpartiets message.

As a suggestion: Think about your phrasing! I think they can be misinterpreted.

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Madam Speaker! I fully stand behind the wording that the defense shall be defensive in its character and structure. I hope that Member Jörgen Berglund also stands behind that the defense shall be defensive in its character.

Just for that reason, I do not think I need to reflect on those formulations. It is rather that we shall jointly use a language that makes it clear to everyone that this is what we mean by Swedish defense.

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Madam Speaker! This is the first defense decision that Sweden will make as an ally. Our entry into Nato naturally has far-reaching consequences for our defense policy and our defense planning.

This is also a defense decision being made in the most serious security policy global situation since the end of the Second World War. It is therefore urgent to build up a stronger total defense. There is danger in delay, Madam Speaker.

With this defense decision, we also place the development and reinforcement of the war organization at the center. It is also the war organization that is Sweden's most important contribution to NATO's activities when it comes to deterrence and defense.

Madam Speaker! The bill is based on the reports of the Defence Commission. The deviations that exist are few and minor. The Government has truly made an effort to be able to implement as much as possible of the Defence Commission's reports. In the few cases where we deviate, it is because the Swedish Armed Forces have assessed that it has been difficult to implement the ambitions that the Defence Commission has had.

It also means that it is a defense decision where the entire ÖB's military advice will be implemented. It has also been important for the government. ÖB's military advice is a well-considered advice from the professional side.

Implementing as much as possible of the Defense Committee's proposals and also the entire ÖB's military council has been an important objective for the government.

The broad political consensus among the parties in the Riksdag regarding the defense policy direction is, naturally, a strength for Sweden. That all eight parties stand behind both the war and basic organization, but also the direction for the defense economy, is something almost unique in international comparison, I dare say.

I would like to extend a warm thanks to the members of the Defence Committee for a good cooperation and a very well-executed work for Sweden.

In a divided and uncertain world, it is even more important that we stand united in Sweden, above all in such a fundamental issue as the long-term buildup of the total defense.

The investments in the military defense amount to nearly 174 billion up to 2030. It is the largest buildup of the Swedish total defense since the 1950s.

Our defense investments for the military defense will reach 2.4 percent of GDP already next year and 2.6 percent of GDP in 2028, as previously mentioned. This is particularly important in a time when the European allies need to take greater responsibility for security in Europe and jointly increase their defense efforts.

Madam Speaker! Let me highlight some of the most important parts of the bill.

Firstly: The bill focuses on increasing the combat readiness of combat units, something that was largely decided in the 2020 defense decision. If the previous defense decision outlined the contours of a war organization, it is with this decision that we largely fill it with actual content and new capabilities.

For the army, the government prioritizes the organization of four brigades which shall be ready in all respects by 2030, precisely in accordance with what the Defence Defence Committee has proposed. This presupposes, among other things, large renovation programs and supplementary procurement of materiel, as the material condition in the war units that we decided on in 2020 has turned out to be worse than expected. It has naturally also been affected by the fact that we have provided extensive support to Ukraine.

The war organization's personnel will grow from 88,000 today to approximately 130,000 by 2035. The bill includes an increased number of repetition trainings and a reinforcement of all personnel categories. A special focus is placed on the personnel for the navy. This too can be traced directly to the need to strengthen the war organization.

Secondly: The war in Ukraine demonstrates the enormous consumption of supplies that large-scale warfare entails. To strengthen the endurance and availability of war units, the government therefore prioritizes increased procurement of supplies such as qualified ammunition, spare parts, fuel, and medical supplies. Supplies have often been overlooked for a long time. But they themselves constitute the foundation for an operational and capable war organization.

Thirdly: The upcoming defense decision also entails important reinforcements of the air defense. Funds are allocated for new brigade air defense in order to, for example, be able to combat drones and helicopters.

The modified Visby-corvettes are being equipped with new air defense systems, and the ships in the upcoming Luleå-class will be equipped with qualified high-altitude air defense.

The Jas Gripen E is introduced into the Air Force, and Sweden is integrated into NATO's joint air and missile defense. The number of unmanned systems shall increase in all branches of the defense forces. But it is also about measures to be able to protect ourselves against these unmanned systems. These are important lessons from the war in Ukraine.

For the fourth: The experiences from Ukraine also show that new technology can quickly need to be converted into innovations for the benefit of war units. The Government is therefore increasing the resources to strengthen technology development, defense research, and defense innovation capability.

By 2030, the appropriation for research and technology development will have increased by more than 50 percent, to just over 1.6 billion kronor. Through the defense decision, the military space capability is also strengthened. It is also a lesson from the war in Ukraine that the space domain is central for both communication, navigation, and positioning. The Armed Forces are provided with funds, among other things, for the development of its own satellites for reconnaissance and surveillance.

Madam Speaker! The Government presents the total defense bill in serious times. Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine will affect the security situation in our part of the world for a long time to come. Support for Ukraine therefore continues to be of the highest priority and is now also a central part of our own defense policy.

The support is naturally reshaped and adapted according to Ukraine's needs, but also according to our ability to provide support. Therefore, we often talk about that we shall move from donation to production, where we use the strong defense industry that exists in Sweden to also support Ukraine. It is an enormous asset that we have a strong defense industrial base when we are to support Ukraine.

The defense decision is also being made during a formative period for Nato. During this defense decision period, Sweden will be gradually integrated tactically, operationally, and strategically into Nato's defense plans. We will also receive new capability requirements from the Nato side. All of this means that Nato's capability is strengthened. This is therefore a significant increase in ambitions for Nato's capability when it comes to deterrence and defense. This is good for our security, and Sweden intends to be a credible, reliable, and solidary ally.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker: The world is both more dangerous and more changeable than it has been for a very long time. Gone is the time when we could make defense decisions every five years from a political standpoint and then tell the authorities: Here you go, and execute!

Now there is war in Europe. Now we have supported Ukraine with nearly 50 billion in the form of defense materiel. Now we have a defense force that is working hard and is constantly making readiness adjustments due to the deteriorated security policy situation in the world.

In this situation, we must be humble in acknowledging that there may be a need to adjust the defense decision that I hope the Riksdag will make here, given that the security policy situation continues to deteriorate. But, Madam Speaker, with this total defense decision, Sweden takes a large and important step towards becoming better equipped to meet an increasingly more dangerous world.

(Applause)

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

Peter Hultqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to correct my previous motions. I move for approval of reservation 10, reservation 35 and reservation 42.

Madam Speaker! I would like to ask Defense Minister Pål Jonson: What is it that prevents you from proposing a readiness tax? This is 64.5 billion. These are, therefore, enormous amounts, and it is clear that it ends up in a competition situation with other areas such as healthcare, school, and elderly care, where more money is demonstrably needed. We also have a situation within healthcare where more money is needed, and at the same time, we see that we need to build up the civil defense on the healthcare side.

We think a more even distribution when it comes to bearing these burdens is reasonable. That is primarily about those in the higher income brackets and those with large capital gains should contribute. What is it that actually prevents you on this point?

I am fully aware that we may need to make adjustments to what we are now taking a position on. In a deteriorated security policy situation, we may perhaps need to consider whether we must recruit more conscripts than the number that is currently in the proposal. In the Defence Consultative Council, we agreed on 12,000, and it would be ready by 2032. But according to the proposal that is now before us, it is to be placed in the interval 2032-2035. This is justified by the fact that the Armed Forces are said not to be able to manage the timeline we have proposed.

But we have seven years. Why can't one take a position on this at a later stage? Why is one opening up already now for a potential time shift that could lead to new time shifts in a situation where it might even be the case that security requires more conscripts?

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Madam Speaker! We have presented a funded defense decision. It is up to each party and each government to do so in accordance with the Budget Act, and it is also entirely natural that one does so.

It shows that it is possible to invest in defense while simultaneously making other investments. This government has gone to the election on the basis that we prioritize internal and external security, and this is also evident in the national security strategy. I want to emphasize, Madam Speaker, that we have funded defense investments.

Madam Speaker! The second question concerns the interval from 2032 to 2035. The Armed Forces have pointed out that there may be challenges in carrying out this. It could be about the shortage of personnel, that is to say officers who can provide the conscripts with a good education. It could be about the shortage of materiel. For far too long, we have seen deficiencies in the personal equipment. I want to emphasize that this is something that the government has worked intensively with during the past year. It is also pointed out that there are challenges when it comes to infrastructure.

We are accustomed to listening to and taking impressions from the Armed Forces. I know that Peter Hultqvist may have a different opinion, but I think it is important that one does this and listens to what the profession says. Throughout the entire time with this defense decision, I have underlined one thing: I want something feasible. Therefore, I think it is important that one does not promise too much.

With that said, I have also seen the formulations in the report, and I think they are good. Let us keep up the pressure regarding this, naturally, but let us also ensure that we do not promise too much. It has also happened in defense policy, Peter Hultqvist, that the policy has set unfeasible ambitions. And no one is served by such.

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

Peter Hultqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! I do not think the Minister should come and talk to me about listening to the Armed Forces. I took over a department after a Defense Minister and a government that had let the relationship with the Armed Forces deteriorate. We built up that relationship through dialogue, and we had it for eight years.

But I have learned that in a dialogue, one can actually set some demands. And it is not always the case that what the Försvarsmakten says is right. One can handle this in different ways in a leadership. I would have chosen to act so that one stayed at 2032 but was open to potentially making adjustments later, when one sees how things turn out.

I would, just as Pål Jonson says, have had a different approach. But do not come and talk to me about a lack of dialogue, because I was part of building up a dialogue that had collapsed!

One should carry the burdens in a fair and solidary way in society. Many are struggling today. The economic gaps have increased, and those who earn the most and have made the most money on capital gains could be involved and contribute to the enormous investments taking place in the Armed Forces. But even on this point, we have different approaches. It is a value-based difference in how we want society to function.

I would also like to hear what is preventing you from analyzing the possibility of ordering a third submarine when we are to establish a new submarine class. It is an analysis we agreed upon in the defense agreement, but you have not included it in the bill. What is it that prevents you from doing so? It is not a major commitment to conduct this analysis. I also see more submarines in the long term.

(Applause)

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

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

As I said in my main speech: When we have deviated from the Defense Commission's agreement, it has concerned, in practically all points, the basic organization and the fact that the Armed Forces have pointed out implementation difficulties. I appreciate that the Defense Commission, when it presented its final report on 29 April, said that this was the high ambition and that it is reasonable for the Armed Forces to perform an assessment of whether it is feasible.

I believe that the Defense Preparation Committee presented twelve points, of which the Armed Forces fully supported ten. On a couple of points, it was stated that it may be difficult to mobilize all conscripts by 2032 in line with the ambition that the Defense Preparation Committee expressed. Therefore, we have written 2032-2035 in the bill. This does not mean a lowered ambition as such, but the Armed Forces will work towards this and know what the political expectations are. But I think we mislead the public if we do not listen to and take into account the advice of the professionals.

When it comes to submarines, Madam Speaker and Peter Hultqvist, it may be a bit premature to make decisions on exactly how many submarines one should have before one has decided what type of submarine one should have. This is about the replacement for the Gotland class, and we will have that by 2035. We note what is stated in the Defence Committee's report, namely that we shall consider one additional submarine. We have in no way ruled out the possibility of having one additional submarine, Peter Hultqvist, but let us decide what type of submarine we shall have before we decide how many submarines we shall have.

(Applause)

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I remind the Chamber and the members of the Committee on Defence that parliamentary custom is that all speakers speak via the Speaker, which means that one avoids addressing each other directly.

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 speech.

We are very pleased that the government has so clearly stayed close to the Defense Commission's reports when the bill was written. It shows great respect for the Defense Commission's work, and I appreciate that very much.

As the Minister for Defence has surely noted, the committee has made a small adjustment – but it may be seen as relatively large in context – regarding Swedish manufacturing of future combat aircraft. It is not an announcement in itself, as there were no motions regarding it. It concerns the formality instead. But it is, nevertheless, a change both in terms of what the Defence Preparation Board said and in terms of what was stated in the bill.

We in the committee make a note in the report that two of the three options for future combat aircraft shall be given special focus over the third when this is investigated. The third option is, therefore, to purchase from another country. The committee also emphasizes the importance of broad political anchoring of this major decision. I may perhaps be less concerned about the latter given that the government has nevertheless shown a very clear will to communicate with the Riksdag, but I would like to hear a little about how the Minister views the note that the committee has nevertheless chosen to make in the report.

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Madam Speaker! Making a choice for the combat aircraft is a major issue, and it is an important issue for the air defense. Therefore, we on the government's side consider it reasonable that the issue is investigated - it could involve hundreds of billions - and that, just as with previous choice programs, all alternatives are on the table.

Hanna Gunnarsson knows that the alternatives are that we procure fighter jets from another country, that we develop fighter jets together with other countries, and that we develop fighter jets ourselves. When it comes to the path-choice programs, we have always ensured that we have been able to compare the available alternatives and also investigated them thoroughly.

Let me also say that we think it is important to base it on the military capability and what need exists. Then we will also need to weigh in other aspects, such as our defense policy relations and the fact that the combat aircraft area is a strategic material area, as it is called, and that combat aviation is a great asset for Sweden.

We want an agreement that is as broad as possible regarding such a long-term and major choice of path. Therefore, the investigation that the government intends to appoint will include a parliamentary reference group. We think it is important that we can find agreements, especially in such issues that extend many parliamentary terms forward. But, again: It is reasonable that we investigate this, that we think it through carefully and that we have a good and thoroughly worked-out basis.

I have noted that Vänsterpartiet excludes the possibility of purchasing a foreign fighter jet and that they are the only party that from the outset excludes this. Hanna Gunnarsson is welcome to explain those considerations.

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

Hanna Gunnarsson (V)

Madam Speaker! Just as the Minister for Defence says, it is a very large decision we face. It will have to be made at some point in the future; it is not a decision that is to be made in any way tomorrow. It is important that it is investigated thoroughly. What we have talked about during the process in the committee—and I regret a little that we did not have that discussion better in the Defence Preparation Board—is the fact that one needs to consider from the beginning how broadly one investigates.

We have several options when it comes to combat aircraft, and we know that there are two of the options that everyone envisions, honestly - I have spoken with quite a lot of people both inside and outside of politics, and I do not think I hear anywhere about the possibility, or the realism in, of purchasing combat aircraft from another country. The reason is that we need combat aircraft that are entirely adapted for our geographical conditions and for the type of strategy and tactics that we have when we use the aircraft.

When one sits and investigates an alternative that one knows from the beginning that no one wants, one spends time, money, and resources on something that perhaps could be spent on something else. It is not that we have an excessive amount of time right now, and even resources are to some extent a scarce commodity.

What makes me concerned in this, and the reason why we have been so clear, is that relationships carry more weight than capability in this case. Therefore, we wanted to be clear from the very beginning. We see how the procurement of materiel is very relation-dependent, and it should be in certain contexts. In other contexts, however, one must be clear that it is capability and need that must take precedence.

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Madam Speaker! I actually do not agree with Hanna Gunnarsson there. If one is going to conduct an investigation, I think it should be done properly, and I think one should at least have reference values for what it would mean if we developed fighter jets ourselves, if we developed fighter jets together with others, and if we imported fighter jets - if not at least so that the alternatives can be compared. It is, after all, very many billions at stake.

I think a good basis is important, and the other seven parties have agreed that all three alternatives should be investigated. However, we have in a sense chosen a path for the path choice program insofar as we allocate billions to maintain competence, primarily at Saab and GKN, during the period for the path choice program. We have allocated such large amounts so that they can maintain competence and also develop combat aircraft if we land on that. I just want to say that in this regard, it is important that we maintain our capability.

Again: The Chamber has decided that the fighter jet area is a strategic material area - that which was previously called a significant national security interest - and we obviously take that seriously. Then we hope for a broad consensus around a long-term decision, and the assessment is that it will be made by 2030 at the latest. I note that the committee wrote 2028-2030, and I see no major conflicts in this. It is an important decision for the Armed Forces but also an important decision for Sweden, and we will safeguard the opportunity to find as broad a political agreement as possible on the issue of future fighter jets.

(Applause)

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Madam Speaker! I would like to ask the Minister for Defence to elaborate a bit on how he views the climate issue. As I stated during my speech, the climate crisis is here, and we will have to deal with it, whether we want to or not. But we can influence the course of the climate crisis by reducing Sweden's greenhouse gas emissions and by contributing to an internationally responsible climate policy.

Here, however, the government falters. This is not solely the defense minister's responsibility but the government's collective responsibility. But the Armed Forces must handle this, and therefore I think it is strange that both in the Defense Preparation Board and in the bill it has been difficult for the government to say that the Armed Forces must handle the climate issue - that the Armed Forces must adapt, both regarding emissions and in order to be able to function in a world that has transitioned.

We also see the issue of coexistence with other activities - I am thinking primarily of wind power. The government has rejected 13 wind turbines on one board, with reference to security aspects. From a total defense perspective, we have a need to ensure that we have a sustainable electricity supply. Therefore, this is very unfortunate, unless one simultaneously states how to proceed to solve a sustainable electricity supply for Sweden.

The government has also said that it should be made easier for the Armed Forces to obtain exemptions when it comes to environmental permits. I therefore wonder how the government will ensure that we are not hit by further PFAS scandals in the wake of making it easier for the Armed Forces' operations. How are we to ensure that we do not threaten that which we want to protect?

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Madam Speaker! There were four important and broad questions, so I will do what I can to compress the answer.

When it comes to the view on the climate threat and how it affects the Ministry of Defence's area of responsibility, this is absolutely something that can generate conflicts. It can lead to forced migration. It can lead to erosion, which we have seen creates conflicts. It can naturally also have consequences in Sweden, and in the defence budget, there are special appropriations intended for climate adaptations. This therefore constitutes a serious threat.

I think I know what Emma Berginger is referring to now. In the bill, it states that the climate threat constitutes a serious threat. If one reads the national security strategy, one sees that it states that in the long run it constitutes an existential threat. I just want to emphasize that one is working with somewhat different timeframes in the defense bill and the national security strategy. I know that Emma Berginger has raised this issue before, but I still want to say that there is a nuance difference when it comes to the time perspective.

Let me then take the question regarding offshore wind power. We have made decisions regarding the 13 applications concerning the Baltic Sea area, and our assessment is that in the Baltic Sea area it is difficult to combine offshore wind power and the Swedish Armed Forces' needs when it comes to identifying both incoming cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. It would have negative consequences for our signal intelligence capability and also our ability to identify underwater threats. When it comes to the Baltic Sea area, it is therefore our and also the Swedish Armed Forces' opinion that it would have severe negative security consequences, and against the background that we are a government that prioritizes internal and external security, we have chosen to follow the Swedish Armed Forces' recommendation in this matter.

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Madam Speaker! Certainly, the climate threat is a long-term threat, but it is also a threat that requires us to act here and now so that it does not become that terrible existential threat in the future. I would therefore like to ask the Minister of Defence how he believes the Armed Forces can be a contributing factor when it comes to the climate transition but also be able to manage existing in a society that has transitioned, for example, a society where we have electrified large parts of our transport. How will the Armed Forces be able to adapt, and why is it difficult for the government to say that the Armed Forces shall adapt? This is what we from the Miljöpartiets side have wanted to convey in both the Defence Preparation and the bill: a simple formulation that the Armed Forces shall take the climate threat into account and adapt. It is not about how or about any detailed management, but about that it shall be done. Why is it difficult for the government?

Then I want to return to the question of PFAS contamination, which we have seen become a consequence of the Armed Forces' activities in a number of areas in Sweden. These are dangerous chemicals that persist for a long time both in nature and in our bodies and can be harmful to health in various ways; for example, they cause cancer. Therefore, it is important that we ensure that the Armed Forces' activities do not threaten what we want to protect - do not threaten people's health or our environment. At the same time, the government wants to make it easier for the Armed Forces to obtain exemptions when it comes to environmental permits. The processes may need to go faster, but I wonder how one is to ensure that we do not suffer further scandals. And how are the contaminations that already exist today around our country to be handled?

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me say, Emma Berginger, that the Armed Forces are also working with climate adaptations. They have this assignment, just as they work with environmental adaptations; this can be read in the Armed Forces' instructions. I perceive that the Armed Forces have a serious depth of intention when it comes to working with both climate adaptations and broader environmental issues.

When it comes to PFAS, this is an issue that the Armed Forces have also worked on in various rounds. For example, they have chosen to remove PFAS foam in the rescue services they have for the Air Force and at our air flotillas - that is good. They no longer train with PFAS. They have also carried out remediation work at a number of sites around Sweden. That the Armed Forces are clearly also working on the PFAS issue is good and necessary. Then there are deep tragedies with connections to PFAS. I have met a number of individuals who have been affected by this, and I have respect and understanding for the fact that they are in a difficult situation.

The PFAS issue is, however, larger and is not only covered by the Swedish Armed Forces' responsibility, I want to emphasize. It involves many actors, and it is a large, broad and important issue that goes beyond the Swedish Armed Forces' area of responsibility. But the Swedish Armed Forces are, as mentioned, working on this.

The last question concerned the change we are implementing by stating that one shall notify instead of applying for a permit. The purpose of this is to shorten the application times, which in some cases can be completely absurdly long, Madam Speaker. The objective is that the applications shall be processed in six to twelve weeks, in the sense of creating the best possible conditions to achieve strong and rapid growth in the total defense. As I said in my opening remarks, Madam Speaker, there is indeed danger in delay if we cannot strengthen the total defense.

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

Mikael Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Defence, for the contribution to the debate! I agree very much with what the Minister for Defence says. I also largely agree with what the Minister presented here and has also presented in other contexts: Okay, we are making a defense decision for the period 2025-2030, but the time when we can adhere to this may be over. It is clear that we will try in broad strokes, but with the unrest prevailing in the world around us, we may perhaps have to reprioritize and even make other decisions.

Last week, I was at the Transatlantic Forum in Washington together with some colleagues from the NATO Delegation. Many of the representatives from academia, universities, think tanks, and the like were speaking precisely about the uncertainty prevailing in the world in connection with the goal within NATO of a floor of 2 percent. Many of those who spoke argued that NATO with several now must take command and instead start talking about 3 percent for defense expenditures.

I know that the Minister of Defence knows what the Center Party thinks about this and what we also pushed for in the Defence Preparation Committee.

I would like to ask the Minister of Defence if he believes and wants us to start discussing during 2025 that we should move towards 3 percent defense spending in Sweden and that we might even be able to make a decision on that during 2025. Then it will take time to reach 3 percent. We are talking about it perhaps being 2028, 2029 or 2030 before we can get there. But my question to the Minister of Defence is whether he believes, wants and feels that we should start discussing and deciding on this during 2025.

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Mikael Larsson for the question.

There are reasons to believe that defense investments will be one of the main points at the NATO summit in The Hague in June. Currently, the level of ambition from NATO, and has actually been since 2014, is that 2 percent is a floor but not a ceiling. This obviously does not suffice for Sweden's needs and Sweden's position given that next year we will be at 2.4 percent, as NATO calculates it, and go up to 2.6 percent.

What percentage will emerge in The Hague, I think, is still too early to say. Much will be governed by how cost-driving these new capability targets—kapacitetsmålsättningar, as it is called in Swedish—will become. So a new percentage could very well appear.

What I also think is important is to constantly set requirements regarding what defense capability we receive for this. How many materially and personnel-filled combat units do we get? I am also comfortable talking about how many brigades we get, how many surface combat ships, how many submarines, and how much available personnel. That is ultimately the core of our defense capability. It is also about what industrial capability we have. And the fact that Sweden has a strong defense industry is also a part of our collective defense capability and a part of NATO's capability for deterrence and defense.

So, it is definitely very possible that new percentages will emerge at the NATO summit in The Hague. But it is also important, as said, that we focus on what military capability we can achieve with these percentages and that we also ensure that we have feasible defense plans where NATO has a strong capability to conduct deterrence and defense and protect all allies' territories.

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

Mikael Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Defence for the answer.

I agree that it is obviously the increased capacity and the increased defense capability that are truly what is important. Feasibility is important. Many of the orders we place, especially perhaps on the materiel side, are long-term. They involve large costs, and it takes a long time to get them. I believe we are all really completely on board with that.

In previous posts, the consensus that exists in the defense area has been presented, and I think it is important to really emphasize that.

Regardless of whether one starts discussing 3 percent at the NATO summit in The Hague and stands firm there, and Sweden also perhaps truly does so during the next year, I believe it is just as important that we are in agreement on that part as it is on the defense decision that we are to make today. As the Minister for Defence said, it is also a strength internationally that we are so united when it comes to this type of defense activity in Sweden and in the NATO context.

I have no further questions for the Minister of Defence, but I still hope that Sweden will be forward-looking in the discussions that will be held in, for example, The Hague if they start talking about 3 percent. I also hope that this is an issue that we can truly continue to have a good discussion about when the Defence Investigation starts up again. I believe it is important that we really maintain a good tone in the discussion on these types of issues, which I want to emphasize that we have done so far. But I hope that it really is something that we will be able to return to during 2025.

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to good tone and constructiveness, Mikael Larsson is an exemplar. I know that you would have wanted 3 percent but that you compromised in this case. I also know that you stand behind the direction for the basic organization, the war organization, and the economy. I appreciate that, and it is constructive.

When it comes to NATO's defense investments and the commitments they have made, one can only observe that ten years ago there were three allies at 2 percent of GDP. When we went to Washington in July, Sweden was above 2 percent, but so were 22 other allies. It is therefore moving in the right direction, which is absolutely necessary for Europe to be able to take greater responsibility for its own security. But there may certainly be reason to return to the specific question of defense investments because I believe, as said, that the pressure will increase on the European allies who have not yet reached 2 percent to do so.

In addition to achieving 2 percent of GDP, one must also allocate at least 20 percent of defense expenditures to research, development, and procurement of materiel. Sweden also fares very well in that regard. I believe we are at 35-40 percent in terms of new procurement. We are, therefore, in a good position. We expect the allies who have not achieved the 2-percent goal to also present a roadmap to do so. This is extremely important for NATO's ability to deter. But it is also a matter of solidarity and cohesion within NATO that one achieves the 2-percent goal.

(Applause)

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

Statsrådet Carl-Oskar Bohlin (M)

Madam Speaker! It is a time of seriousness in Europe. War is once again on the European continent on a scale and in an extent that we have not seen since the end of the Second World War. The rules-based world order that has served the world uniquely well is currently being challenged in its foundations just a few hundred miles from the place where we are holding this debate right now.

We stand today before making a defense decision that is historic. It has been moved forward as a result of the serious security situation. It is, as has been stated in this chamber previously, also fundamentally a very great strength for Sweden that a country characterized by a restless world also has a large measure of political unity behind the decisions that are to be made today.

The modern war in Ukraine has shown us rapid and disruptive technological development. But there is also that which unfortunately seems to be constant regarding the extreme pressures that a war entails for a society. Experiences from Ukraine show us the importance of having a total defense that, from day one, is capable of withstanding the hardships that a war entails for a society.

This, Madam Speaker, also requires a shift in perspective. This shift in perspective has been underway for a long time, but it is also manifested by this defense decision. What is the dimensioning task for civil defense? Yes, it is to be able to cope with meeting the demands of war. It requires a shift in perspective among all agencies, among all organizations, and ultimately among all Swedes who have an indispensably important role to fill in the total defense. If, Madam Speaker, peacetime crisis preparedness is about saving the individual from the crisis, civil defense is about the institutions and, ultimately, the citizens having to be prepared to defend society against existentially difficult pressures.

Madam Speaker! With this defense decision, we are re-establishing civil defense. We are getting the civil defense that we have talked about for ten years. It has almost been ten years since this chamber decided that total defense should be re-established. But in practice, it did not lead to the civil part of total defense being re-established in any significant extent.

When this government took office, the total appropriation for civil defense was 2.7 billion kronor. Now we are moving towards a level of 15 billion kronor per year. During this defense decision period, civil defense will be allocated 37.5 billion kronor.

This makes it possible to move from the planning stage to the actual capacity building, and there is an urgency with that. It has been said on several occasions during this debate that there is a danger in delay, and that naturally holds its full validity also within civil defense.

Madam Speaker! We prioritize all ten preparedness sectors. We raise the ambition in all ten preparedness sectors, but we do so particularly within six sectors that are important to ensure the basic functionality of society and to meet the needs that the military defense has in the event of an armed attack. The investments are thus linked to the clarification of the goals for civil defense.

The six prioritized sectors are: electronic communications and post, energy supply, health, healthcare and elderly care, food supply and drinking water, rescue services and protection of the civilian population, and the transport sector. And even though these sectors are sometimes divided into a pie chart as slices, they are in fact a matter of pie bases when it comes to the functionality of society, to the extent that they are prerequisite-creating for all other activities we have to engage in in society. These sectors are also, as I just mentioned, particularly important for the military defense's ability to fulfill its important tasks in the event of an armed attack.

But a long series of other things are also being done. We are reshaping the structure for the leadership of civil defense. We have clearly stated that MSB shall be given the role of a top node in civil defense. We are purifying MSB's tasks, and we are conducting forward-looking work by investing in cybersecurity. Cybersecurity can rightly be described as the upcoming domain for modern civil defense. The responsibility for that activity will be moved over to FRA as we build up the new national cybersecurity center. A long series of other measures and investments are being carried out to keep pace in this area.

Madam Speaker! It has been said earlier in this chamber that we are making historical decisions, but today I dare to assert that we are de facto doing so. Total defense is reappearing. There is a danger in delay, and it requires all actors out in the system to understand that we must work with what builds capability here and now. It is about moving from planning and PowerPoint presentations to gear and exercise, to put it bluntly.

We all have the prerequisites to build a more robust and resilient society, but it also requires that all actors in the system from now on ensure that the activities they conduct aim to build capacity here and now and moving forward. We need a linear growth in capacity. We cannot, Madam Speaker, wait for the perfect system in a distant future. This is also the direction that is now being given.

Madam Speaker! Let me conclude by mentioning that after this total defense decision is adopted in the Swedish Riksdag, the government will make a, I dare say, unique orientation decision for the total defense and the civil defense, which is clear in terms of the dimensioning target image and the activities that shall be prioritized at all readiness-responsible agencies and all sector-responsible agencies. This has never been done before in this way, in any case not in modern times. It will lay the foundation for a strengthened capability development in the civil defense.

(Applause)

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

Hanna Gunnarsson (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the speech! Carl-Oskar Bohlin says that civil defense is now reappearing. I think we perhaps have a bit more to do before it truly reappears.

I devoted a large part of my speech to the connection between civil, everyday society and civil defense. What we have here and now is also what we build civil defense on. There are no doctors jumping out of wardrobes if war breaks out, but what we have today is what we build on.

I see quite a few shortcomings here. There are quite a few things in civil society that we must address for civil defense to function. The Minister mentioned the sectors himself. Healthcare, infrastructure, energy supply, and emergency services are four of the absolutely most important things when it comes to civil defense. They are also four things that – and here we must be honest – do not function very well here and now in everyday society in municipalities and regions.

To use the Minister's own analogy, I would like to say that there are holes in the cake bases. The cream and vanilla custard run through, because there is so much to be rectified. We have a healthcare system that is on its knees. We have an energy supply that does not work. We have an infrastructure where there actually are holes in the railway tracks.

How does the government view this connection and the great needs that exist in everyday society?

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

Statsrådet Carl-Oskar Bohlin (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Hanna Gunnarsson, for the question! I believe it is central that one does not turn the discussion on civil defense into a general political debate about the political priorities that one considers particularly pressing in a broader perspective.

Civil defense also carries a distinct character. It carries the investments aimed at coping with the dimensioning, ultimate threat. The 15 billion that are now added from 2028, with a steep trajectory up to that point, are such investments that lie outside ordinary operations and activities in order to build special robustness and special redundancy.

Of course we can talk about general or universal state grants and investments in welfare, but it is fundamentally a different debate. I note that this government is implementing historically large investments in, for example, the general state grants. We are implementing an energy policy aimed at tackling the failures that have characterized energy policy in this country for a very long time.

But this should not be confused with the specific investments being made in the energy supply sector, which are about strengthening the conditions for operation and building in reserve power and special redundancy in the system. These are fundamentally two different debates and need to be treated as such.

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

Hanna Gunnarsson (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer!

I do not quite agree. I accept the definition of civil defense and the dimensioning in war now. But we must be honest that, if we were to end up in war, it is not enough that we have a very fine plan that we pull out, that we have practiced moving to the alternative command posts, and that everyone is war-stationed. It is not enough.

If we do not have a healthcare system that functions here and now, healthcare will not function in war. There are not more people, at least not those who are licensed, to pull out. Many of those who are already in the operations will also do other things and be moved to other places. Therefore, this belongs together.

It is about not placing civil defense outside the reality that we find ourselves in here and now. If we do not have a rescue service that works and is fully staffed today, there is no possibility that it will be fully staffed with trained and educated personnel then. One can, of course, bring in other personnel through legislation, but trained and educated personnel are not available to be brought in.

The investments in civil defense and the 15 billion that the government has added are very good. It is very good that the government has a ministerial post for civil defense, and it is very good that this focus is being set. But we must be honest that the foundation, the base plate, does not exist today. It is not good enough to be able to withstand the pressures that we are talking about now - pressures that we hopefully will never see in this country but which we nevertheless plan for.

We do not have that activity. We do not have the stability in everyday life today that is needed to be able to withstand the pressures that exist in war. The government must also see that.

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

Statsrådet Carl-Oskar Bohlin (M)

Madam Speaker! I believe it is important to keep two things in mind here.

The first thing is that it is fundamentally about a redistribution and a reprioritization of resources. In the event of an armed attack against Sweden, something that we naturally all hope to avoid, completely different priorities will need to be made regarding the social services provided by society. We will therefore not conduct healthcare on the same premises as we do in peacetime. A very large redistribution and reprioritization will be required.

The second thing is that the sectors that are placed under special pressure during an armed attack require an additional supply of personnel. One must have a specific competence in advance. That is why the government is now working very actively and swiftly with the reactivation of the civil obligation.

We are doing this within the rescue services, because we have had a rescue service that has been dimensioned for peacetime conditions. Over a couple of years, we will be able to build up an extra force of approximately 3,000 people. They will receive basic training and can then step in and reinforce in the event of an armed attack.

We now move on and do the same regarding the electricity supply, where we see that the repair readiness is lagging. Conclusions have been drawn from the war in Ukraine about how energy infrastructure is attacked in a way that requires increased manpower in terms of repair readiness. That training will hopefully be able to commence during 2025.

In a systematic way, we identify upcoming personnel supply needs in civil defense. But let me be clear that a large part of this is about creating a buffer to transition to a society that looks completely different and to use resources, just as the Defense Preparedness Board notes, in a different way than one does in peacetime.

(Applause)

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

Peter Hultqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! One must have a base, just as the Minister for Civil Defence said. That is largely the municipalities and the regions. If the municipalities and the regions do not function properly in peacetime, they will not function properly in either crisis or war. Civil healthcare is needed. The civil school system is needed. Elderly care is needed. All of this must function even in a war situation. That is why personnel are war-stationed, and that is why that personnel is included in the civil preparedness.

Then it is clear that it is interesting to discuss the money for both municipalities and regions and what standard one maintains in the operations even in peacetime. In my world, these questions belong together. If we are to talk about cake bases, I want to say: It is probably very important to ensure that there is a piece of cake before one has anything to distribute. One cannot simply narrow down this debate - there, Hanna Gunnarsson is completely right.

I ask you the same question that I asked Pål Jonson. What is it, really, that prevents you from standing behind a preparedness tax? The answer that you have financial coverage in your budget is not sufficient, in my opinion. It actually says nothing about the will.

It is clear that I can interpret it as that you have a reluctance when it comes to those who have capital gains and those who have the highest incomes should be involved in paying for these large investments. We agree on the investments. I want to remind the Minister that we have been in agreement on every step, even when it comes to the buildup of civil defense. This is, therefore, not a new invention that this government has come up with. Here, the basis is broad agreements from a long time ago.

(Applause)

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

Statsrådet Carl-Oskar Bohlin (M)

Madam Speaker! I sense a frustration in Member of Parliament Peter Hultqvist. That frustration seems to be about the fact that we now have a government with a parliamentary basis that can reconcile its economic policy and that is capable of prioritizing internal and external security. We have put a funded defense decision on the table.

Madam Speaker! I perceive an approximately equal frustration when it comes to the potential government basis that Peter Hultqvist belongs to – it is somewhat unclear exactly what it consists of. There is not quite the same stringency when it comes to wanting to prioritize these issues over other issues.

What I conclude, Madam Speaker, is that Peter Hultqvist's side of politics risks not making the calculation work without an additional tax. One is fundamentally more disparate when it comes to the priorities that one wants to make. This is naturally expressed in the shadow budgets from the various opposition parties. Some of them are strongly expansive.

What Peter Hultqvist expresses is, therefore, a frustration that the government's own base cannot make this equation work without a readiness tax. But this is something the current government and its parliamentary base have succeeded in so far. It is fundamentally a strength for Sweden that we have managed to prioritize these issues without having had to introduce a readiness tax until now.

(Applause)

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

Peter Hultqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! I do not know how much the Minister's psychological analysis of the concept of frustration deepens or clarifies the core issue in this debate, for the core issue actually concerns something very simple: Is one prepared to ensure that high-income earners and those with large capital gains shall participate in financing the defense investments, or is one not?

Obviously, there is something hiding behind the Minister's rhetoric here. It is interesting fluctuations with words like disparate and so on to create a bit of additional weight in the whole. It is probably as simple as that we stand for a more solidary distribution than you do. That is how the truth looks, and then it is just as good to have it said. This is what hides behind it all.

I also intended to bring up another issue. The Minister says that one is purifying MSB. I think that one should then ensure that a state agency for rescue services is established. I think that one should establish a state agency for the business sector's preparedness planning and economic supply preparedness and for war-critical companies.

These are such large and specialized tasks that the current organization, with MSB's multifaceted mandate, will not solve it in a good way. It is just as good to realize that this is where one must go for there to be the right weight in the operations or - if I shall use a word that perhaps lies in the Council of State's line - more rigor and greater effect of the operations.

This is a proposal from our side that I think the Minister could comment on in a positive sense in his final reply.

(Applause)

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

Statsrådet Carl-Oskar Bohlin (M)

Madam Speaker! I choose to stick to the requested theme of rigor. It is the case, Madam Speaker, that it was Peter Hultqvist who, during his time as Minister for Defence, together with the government at the time, abolished the military service in Sweden.

I fundamentally think it was a good decision, but I do not know if Peter Hultqvist is the right person to demand rigor in the chamber of the Riksdag when he now wants to reintroduce the same tax under the designation "readiness tax". On the other hand, Peter Hultqvist also did not want to join Nato as late as just over half a year before we ended up joining Nato, so perhaps rigor is not a concept that Peter Hultqvist should be banging on the head of the current government.

My perception is that we need to ensure that we do not get a degradation in the buildup that is now taking place of the civil defense. If we had infinite time and a blank sheet of paper, Madam Speaker, one could have considered more solutions than those we now have at hand. What we have said is that we will clearly focus the rescue service part as its own operational arm within MSB, also in order to be able to purify the role as the top node in the civil defense for the rest of the operations.

This is naturally being done as a measure to avoid losing capabilities in the existing operations. We know that it takes a long time to achieve operational capability in newly established agencies, and the assessment overall is that we simply do not have that time. We cannot afford an organizational loss of capability, which would be a major risk if we chose to follow the line that Hultqvist advocates here.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the contribution to the debate! I intended to focus on food production and food preparedness within the total defense.

It is a question that we had very good and extensive writings about in the report Kraftsamling. It concerned, among other things, food production in high alert and war - about diesel, fertilizer, seed, spare parts and other things in order to be able to keep a food production running. At the same time, it is important to think of the entire chain from farm to fork when we talk about food production in high alert.

Several investigations have been carried out in this area, which provides a good foundation for the work that needs to be done, and I know that the Minister, together with Minister Kullgren, as recently as last week met with LRF and Hushållningssällskapet at a farm specifically to discuss some of these issues.

When I am out and meeting farmers, they truly agree that these are extremely important issues, and one really needs to know what will be required and what we can help with during difficult times.

In light of the total defense decision that we are to make, I wonder if the Minister can account for the individual farmer's role, at the farm level, in the build-up of the total defense.

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

Statsrådet Carl-Oskar Bohlin (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Mikael Larsson, for an important question! Thank you also for the Center Party's great commitment to civil defense, not least with regard to these issues.

I think Mikael Larsson makes a completely correct analysis. This sector is important and foundational for Sweden to be able to function even under disturbed circumstances and conditions. It is also one of the reasons why one of the largest allocations of funds within the economic framework for civil defense goes to just this sector. The sector will, when we reach the level in 2028, receive 1.6 billion per year.

I visited, as was mentioned here, a farm last week that has been working on its resilience-enhancing work. It concerns a type of measures to manage to conduct the business in something that could almost be likened to off-grid, that is to say, to increase its own self-sufficiency and its own competitiveness. These are also the kinds of investments that the state will be able to help with to some extent and on the margin. This very farm had received investment support for certain measures that have contributed to increasing the general resilience in the business.

With that, I also want to emphasize that it is important that we create the best possible conditions for a competitive and profitable agriculture, because that lays the foundation for this activity to be able to function and exist even under more disturbed global conditions than those we are currently experiencing.

My general urge beyond this is that one takes the opportunity and reviews one's continuity planning and identifies vulnerabilities in one's own supply chains in order to be able to build a more robust operation.

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

Mikael Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister Bohlin, for the answer! I truly share the view that it is in a peacetime situation such as we have now that we must increase the agricultural sector's competitiveness and ensure that it is profitable to be a farmer. However, that is a different debate.

I have one further question that I would like to ask the Minister. It is something that I have often raised, even just now in my speech, so it is community centers in the countryside, for example, village halls.

Bygdegårdar, Folkets Hus och Parker and the temperance movement's Våra Gårdar are found all over the country. These are three organizations within civil society that are extremely important in the construction of the total defense, precisely because one has an infrastructure consisting of premises to be in.

In the Defense Committee's report *Kraftsamling*, these assembly site organizations were mentioned as important in the buildup of the total defense. Can the Minister state how he views the role of the assembly sites in the buildup of the total defense? How can the assembly sites in the countryside contribute to strengthening our total defense?

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

Statsrådet Carl-Oskar Bohlin (M)

Madam Speaker! Many thanks, Mikael Larsson, for another important question!

I would like to say this: Today, what is sometimes called safety points are not a requirement for the country's municipalities. Right now, we have referred a report by Carl Fredrik Graf, who, as Mikael Larsson surely knows, has been working with the preparedness of municipalities and regions. It is an urgent issue to move forward with.

Without anticipating the preparation of the committee report, a clearer relationship of responsibility is outlined therein for, for example, safety points. Here, I believe there is potential for synergy effects if municipalities inventory and establish a mapping of which types of premises in rural areas can be used for this. The type of premises that Mikael Larsson highlights are, in my world, typical examples of such.

So, there needs to be a coordination and work at the local municipal level. If that is then combined with a clearer set of requirements from the state that one is expected to maintain these types of safety points, it could possibly contribute to speeding up that work.

It is one part. The other part that I also believe is important in this is the civil society council that MSB has established, where the scope is broadened to more than just the voluntary defense organizations.

Just as Mikael Larsson mentions, there are naturally many civil society organizations that are important for building resilience out in society. Those that Mikael Larsson mentions as examples are some of these.

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Madam Speaker! All of us who have been politicians for a while know that there are primarily two ways we govern our operations and agencies. One is the budget, the money bag, and the other is goals. That is how it works at the municipal level, and that is also how it works at the national level.

Some debate has been held here regarding the money bag, namely that the funding for the total defense bill has not been resolved. We need to find ways to finance it, either through a readiness tax or in other ways that risk, in the worst case, undermining the activities that are an important part of the total defense.

Madam Speaker! I intended to dwell a little on the objectives instead. In the bill, the Government proposes that a number of objectives for civil defense should be removed. It concerns the objective to maintain necessary supplies, the objective to contribute to strengthening society's ability to prevent and manage severe stresses on society in peacetime, and the objective to contribute, with available resources, to the ability to participate in international peace-promoting and humanitarian operations.

I wonder what the government actually has against these goals. What is there to object to regarding maintaining a necessary supply? Why should that goal be issued? What is there to object to regarding contributing to strengthening society's ability to prevent and manage severe stresses on society in peacetime? Both crisis preparedness and civil defense are connected. Even though the military defense should focus on its tasks, the civil defense should be able to perform tasks even in peacetime when it concerns major crises.

Why does one not want to contribute to the ability to participate in international peace-promoting humanitarian missions? It is something that is very important for global security and for creating experience of crises and other events abroad. Why does one not want to keep these goals?

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

Statsrådet Carl-Oskar Bohlin (M)

Madam Speaker! I believe that the Green Party is making a mountain out of a molehill.

If one reads the preamble of the bill that we are now to decide on, and also reads the preamble of the Defense Committee's report, which Emma Berginger has been involved in drafting, one can observe that in the objective to Ensure the most important societal functions, the question of supply is also hidden. It is stated there that within the framework of that objective, the most important societal functions need to be ensured, which presupposes, among other things, that the supply of necessary goods and services is secured.

The same applies to participation in international peace-promoting humanitarian operations, which are also hidden in the new goals.

This is about clarifying the overarching goals for civil defense. Just as Emma Berginger points out, that is how we steer our authorities and the civil defense. What we can state is that it has gone too slowly to transition the perspective shift from solely peacetime crisis preparedness to a civil defense that has a more difficult and more extensive dimensioning task.

We have talked about this since 2015, but the development has fundamentally gone too slowly. Therefore, this change is being made to clarify for the entire system what is the dimensioning task. This orientation of civil defense is also something that the Defence Preparation Committee, with the exception of Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet, has agreed on, and it is a strength that there is a consensus across party lines on the issue.

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet has long advocated for the importance of strengthening civil defense and has therefore, of course, been positive towards the direction presented in the total defense decision where civil defense is strengthened. But we have also clearly signaled in the Defense Committee that we do not want to change the goals that both the majority of the Defense Committee and the government want to change.

We actually do not understand why the goals should be lumped together in such a way that focus is lost. Just as the minister says; they hide in the new goals. Why should we hide important goals with civil defense? One must still have an intention when making such a change to the goals. No, it does not become more stringent - to use words that have appeared earlier in the debate - but this becomes a way to truly hide the activities.

When goals are moved to the body text, as the Defence Preparedness Board did, different things happen. When the activities then look at how they are to live up to the goals, it is the goals they look at, not the body text. If goals are hidden, they risk being missed.

What does the government have against the goal of safeguarding and protecting the civilian population, which is now slipping from position 1 to position 3? Why make this adjustment of the order, if there is still no internal order between the goals, as was previously stated? What is it that is considered so problematic about focusing on the protection of the civilian population?

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

Statsrådet Carl-Oskar Bohlin (M)

Madam Speaker! If there had been an internal order between the goals, they would have been numbered. They are not. They are intimately connected with each other: Ensuring the most important societal functions, within the framework of NATO's collective defense and other tasks, contributing to the military defense's capability, as well as protecting the civilian population.

Protecting the civilian population can be to contribute to the military defense's capability. Ensuring the most important societal functions can be to contribute to the military defense's capability. Those goals are intimately intertwined with each other, and therefore they are also enumerated without internal numbering. What should be clear is that they are clarified to the extent that it is these goals that constitute the civil defense's most important task. In that case, one needs to purify, clarify, and reduce the number of goals to achieve clearer steering towards those goals.

(Applause)

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

Björn Söder (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the upcoming defense decision for the period 2025-2030. But I want to begin by thanking our soldiers and sailors who work very hard under strenuous conditions. You do a very good job in keeping us others safe.

Madam Speaker! The defense and security policy debate is now taking place, just as in 2014 and 2020, during restless times. It is difficult to predict how this will end, but what is happening around the world is at least alarming. We have the geopolitical struggle between the USA and China, the seemingly permanent state of war and destruction in the Middle East, and the terrible war in Ukraine.

Before this debate, I did a review of previous debates from the defense decisions of 2015 and 2020. What we can clearly note is that other parties, just as in migration and justice issues, have now also come forward and are pursuing a Sweden Democrat defense policy. Parties that previously had defense as a special interest or an ATM for all sorts of projects have today joined behind a defense policy line that we have advocated for over ten years.

It is important in hindsight to highlight and remind that there were clear warning signs that the world would move in a deteriorating direction. And there was a party that, just as in the other issues, was forward-looking. The geopolitical change that we see today was clearly raised in our dissenting opinion in 2014 regarding China, the USA, and Russia's increasing rearmament.

The situation regarding civil defense and the lack of measures left us astonished in our dissenting opinion in the Defense Committee's report from 2014. There, the conclusion was drawn that civil defense had an estimated endurance of five to ten days, and we should probably not even mention the military defense's endurance at that time.

The Sweden Democrats were hesitant in 2015 regarding the financing specifically and argued that the appropriations should exceed 2 percent of GDP. It is easier to reclaim capacity from a high level than from a low level, we argued then. We see today the price tag for the approach that the others decided on.

In the motion to the defense decision 2020, we particularly wanted to emphasize that we already then noted that the government at the time did not take any measures to do anything about the serious limitations that the environmental permits had on the Armed Forces' operations.

This, Mr. Speaker, is just a selection of political proposals that the Sweden Democrats have championed for years. It may seem tedious that we often return to this topic, but the point is that the Sweden Democrats have pointed out problem after problem and subsequently proposed solutions - solutions that others are now finally starting to follow up on.

Mr. Speaker! Today, however, we can state that things have gained momentum. The current government, with the support of the Sweden Democrats, has pushed forward for a number of changes within both the military and civil defense. It is budget investments for 2025, an expanded civil framework of 2 billion, and so on.

Something that is also worth mentioning is the important support for Ukraine, which under this government has made a difference. While the previous government hesitated and sent away helmets, the current government, together with the Sweden Democrats, has sent away weapon systems that make a difference on the battlefield.

The Sweden Democrats have also been proactive in issues regarding the next generation of fighter jets and the importance of us striving for a Swedish concept. From our perspective, it is about more than just a fighter jet. It is a part of the body of society.

Combat aviation is about engineers, knowledge and development, where Sweden is one of five countries in the world that still has the ability to build combat aircraft. And it is about competence. This is something we should be proud of and safeguard.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have been a credible and stable partner to the government. We also welcome the overall good cooperation that has characterized the committee's work.

It is of great importance that we stand united on a general level when there is turmoil in the world, for no one knows what the coming years will look like. The only thing we can be sure of is that we will continue to need to prioritize both the military and the civil defense.

We have had some views on details in both the Defense Preparation's report and the bill - that is true. As a party, we would obviously have wanted to go further, but we believe that there is a clear security policy gain in standing strong and united in times like these.

The Sweden Democrats want to emphasize the importance of leadership with clear goals. There are some areas where we want the government to work harder. The clearest example is the serious problem with environmental permits, which the Armed Forces have warned about for several years.

As previously mentioned, the Sweden Democrats raised the issue in connection with the 2020 defense decision. The Ministry of the Environment began preparing the issue during 2021, and subsequently a 13-page memorandum was produced, which now, one and a half years later, is finally finished and implemented - with a three-week margin for serious restrictions for one of the country's flotillas.

Training flights, new establishments, infrastructure, and the limitations for the defense industry, we shouldn't even talk about those. This is not sufficient.

The government must do its utmost to create a holistic picture and a common perspective on total defense issues given the global situation. It must extend across all departments and agencies, because as it stands today, it is clear that it is somewhat up to each organization how they view this issue.

When it comes to civil defense, we believe that clearer governance and leadership are needed. It is true that much is happening in many places within both the business sector, municipalities, and regions, and that this government is doing a significantly better job than the previous one.

At the same time, we can observe that a clear target objective is lacking. It is unclear what the civil defense should be dimensioned against, for how long, and when it finally needs to have reached a certain level. This is what emerges, partly in the latest investigation on municipalities' and regions' basic preparedness, and partly in dialogue with the aforementioned parties.

The government must dare to step forward and point with the whole arm within the framework of its mandate, for in the end, it is the government that is ultimately responsible.

We understand that there is a need for flexibility, but if we then end up with 290 different solutions with varying capabilities and dimensioning, it will not end well if war comes.

To facilitate the staffing and skills supply for municipalities and regions within civil defense, the Sverigedemokraterna have proposed a comprehensive and feasible project for the government that could be initiated in 2026. We have still received no response, and the risk is that we will be standing here in 2030 and discussing staffing and skills supply for civil defense.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to state that the Sweden Democrats view the defense policy realignment positively. We are responsible and proactive in the Defense Committee and in cooperation with the government. We have been decisive in several issues that are now being handled within the framework of the committee's and the government's work.

Does this mean that we will relax? No, we will continue to highlight and drive issues that we consider to be overlooked and neglected. The list is long.

With this said, I would like to move for approval of the proposal in the report and rejection of all reservations.

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

Sara-Lena Bjälkö (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve the proposal in the report Total Defence 2025 - 2030.

A strengthened civil defense is a priority for Sweden's security.

Mr. Speaker! We stand today before a changed security policy reality. Russia's brutal warfare in Ukraine is a painful reminder of the threats and pressures that we, like our allies, may be faced with.

For Sweden, this means that we must urgently build up and strengthen our civil defense - a civil defense that is resilient, well-organized and prepared for both peacetime crises and armed attacks.

We have during the past period taken decisive steps to increase the pace of the development of civil defense. We have a clear objective, Mr. Speaker: to ensure the most important societal functions, protect the civilian population and contribute to the military defense.

It is about creating a robust and well-functioning whole where all actors in society - state agencies, municipalities, regions, the business sector and voluntary organizations - pull in the same direction.

To reach that goal, clear priorities are required. That is why an economic planning framework for civil defense has been introduced. Through this, predictability, long-term perspective, and transparency are created. With these tools, we can ensure that resources are used where they do the most good and that the results of our actions are followed up.

A strong civil defense is about ensuring that society's most fundamental functions continue to function even during high alert and, ultimately, war.

Energy supply, transport, electronic communication, and access to food and drinking water must be prioritized. At the same time, we need to strengthen healthcare, emergency services, and the protection of the civilian population. The starting point must be that what does not work in peacetime will probably not work in wartime either.

Mr. Speaker! We must provide municipalities and regions with better conditions to build up resilience over time. These are areas where the experiences from Ukraine speak their clear language.

Civil defense is also about people's will and ability to contribute. The will to defend is fundamental to our resilience. Therefore, we must invest in psychological defense – the ability to prevent and manage information influence, disinformation, and cyberattacks.

A well-informed and prepared population is a prerequisite for a strong society, regardless of whether the threats are digital or physical.

Mr. Speaker! We know that we cannot solve this alone. Sweden's membership in Nato implies an increased responsibility but also a strengthened community. Civil defense plays a central role in contributing to the alliance's collective deterrence and defense. By developing our capability, we can not only protect ourselves but also strengthen our allies' capacity.

Mr. Speaker! The Home Guard is also an important part of this joint effort. With its approximately 22,000 engaged and locally anchored members, the Home Guard is an invaluable resource. We share the Defense Preparation's objective to expand the Home Guard to 26,000 people by 2030 to ensure that they have the equipment and training required. By strengthening the Home Guard's capability, we can also further contribute to the total defense's collective capacity.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to highlight and praise our 18 voluntary organizations, which are also an invaluable resource for our total defense. With around 350,000 engaged members, they contribute training to the Armed Forces, reinforce civil efforts in areas such as transport and food supply, and strengthen the will to defend in our society. Their work, Mr. Speaker, is crucial for us to be able to meet crises and threats in a united and effective manner.

Mr. Speaker! As a member of a voluntary organization, one makes an important contribution, both so that society can function in difficult times and to support our fellow human beings. Furthermore, one gets an opportunity to take on challenges, develop, and share one's commitment with others.

To you young people who are listening and want to get involved: Contact voluntary organizations! You are needed and are our future. All honor to those who are involved and contribute to Sweden's security and preparedness. You make a difference. But it is you in municipalities and regions who constitute a cornerstone of our civil defense. Your activities must function even during high alert and war.

Mr. Speaker! It is about being able to transition the operations, prioritize correctly and use available resources in the best possible way.

The Government has recently received the investigation Municipalities' and regions' basic preparedness for crisis and war. It will be an important basis for our continued work to strengthen the municipalities' and regions' capacity. But we must not deceive ourselves. The buildup of civil defense is taking place from a low level, but that is not an excuse to drag our feet. On the contrary, the pace of development must be urgently increased. Measures that provide a rapid effect in the short and long term are necessary.

Mr. Speaker! This shall be achieved through clear priorities in combination with an understanding that civil defense, just like healthcare, police and school, is a part of the public sector's core mission. The goal is to create a civil defense that can meet both the immediate threats and the long-term challenges.

In conclusion: Let us be clear that a strong civil defense is an investment in our freedom and security. It is part of our collective insurance to be able to withstand threats and pressures from peacetime crises to armed attacks. By investing in civil defense, we not only strengthen our own security but also contribute to stability in our surrounding world.

I wish you all a Merry Christmas and a good 2025.

(Applause)

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

Göran Hargestam (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Defense Committee's report Total Defence 2025 - 2030.

The need for total defense education is great in today's society, especially considering the security policy situation in the world and the new threats that can arise. Total defense education is about preparing the entire Swedish population to be able to contribute to the country's defense and crisis management in the event of a serious crisis or war.

Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, many countries, including Sweden, have seen a changed security policy situation. It has become apparent that the threat of an armed conflict is not a distant thought but a real threat. Therefore, it is important that everyone is aware of how to react and act in a crisis situation and what resources are needed.

Total defense is not just about military efforts, but about the entire society, from authorities and companies to individual individuals, working together in a crisis situation. Civilians must have basic knowledge in crisis management, such as being able to handle information, protect themselves and their family, and know which resources are available.

Through education in total defense, society can create a sense of solidarity and shared responsibility for the country's security. When people feel that they have a role in defending their country and maintaining societal functions, a stronger social cohesion and resilience is created.

Mr. Speaker! Our authorities, regions and municipalities need training in how to coordinate and cooperate during crises. Total defense requires a seamless integration of efforts across different sectors and authorities. Training programs that promote international cooperation and alliances help to build mutual trust for common defense strategies. This is crucial for addressing transnational threats such as terrorism, pandemics and cyberattacks.

Military and civil leaders need to be educated on the rules of engagement, international humanitarian law, and ethical considerations in times of war and conflict. Respect for human rights ensures that defense efforts do not exacerbate harm to civilians or destabilize the international order. It is important that knowledge of the legal aspects of national defense, including emergency powers, civil liberties, and legal frameworks, be increased through education to manage states of emergency or wartime conditions.

Good leadership training within total defense is of utmost importance to ensure that Sweden has a well-functioning and effective defense force that can meet both current and future challenges. Effective leadership is crucial for the entire system to be able to cooperate and act quickly and in a coordinated manner during a crisis or conflict. Good leadership within total defense is a fundamental factor for creating an effective and sustainable defense system. By training and developing leaders within both the Armed Forces and civil defense, we ensure that Sweden can handle both internal and external threats effectively. A strong and competent leadership structure is one of the cornerstones for building a robust and resilient total defense.

Total Defence 2025-2030

With this said, Mr. Speaker, I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision in its entirety.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 9.)

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