Operations in Nato 2025

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Europe finds itself in a harsh reality. The war in Ukraine continues to rage, and the threats in our immediate vicinity are no longer remote or theoretical. They are concrete, long-term, and also affect Sweden here and now.

In this situation, Sweden became a member of Nato during this mandate period. It was a historical step. For the Sweden Democrats, it was a step we processed and stood behind with full force because Sweden's security must be built on reality as it is, not on wishful thinking about how we would like it to look.

Madam Speaker! Membership is not, however, the final goal. It places new demands on political leadership, clarity and perseverance, as well as on us making decisions that strengthen Sweden even when they are difficult. It is in light of this that we are considering the report on the activities in Nato during 2025.

There are reasons to emphasize the seriousness of the security situation. During the year, two so-called Article 4 consultations have been carried out within the alliance, which in itself is a clear sign of how fragile the situation is. It shows that our allies are being subjected to various forms of encroachments and pressures against their territorial integrity. It is not about isolated incidents but is part of a pattern that ultimately implies an obvious risk of a larger military conflict.

The consideration we are now addressing is not just a formal position in the chamber, but it is about how Sweden, as a new member, shall orient itself in the alliance, formulate its priorities and take responsibility in a deteriorated security policy situation.

Madam Speaker! It must be said: Not everyone in this chamber has been equally clear, equally consistent, or equally realistic in their view of Sweden's security. We still see parties that chose hesitation when history demanded clarity and who responded with uncertainty when the world around us hardened. When Sweden needed clear messages, they delivered ambivalence – particularly regarding the stance on NATO membership.

However, I must praise the spirit of consensus that exists today in the Riksdag regarding what truly determines a country's security, namely defense appropriations, military capability, preparedness, and the will to actually take responsibility when the costs become tangible – even if we may have different paths to get there.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats do not only stand behind the membership in Nato but also push for proposals on Swedish priorities within the defense alliance, not out of ideological convenience but out of national responsibility. For us, security policy is ultimately about protecting what is ours – our country, our people, our freedom.

There also lies an important dividing line: For some, international structures are an end in themselves, and for us, they are a tool. Nato is for Sweden a powerful and necessary tool. The alliance strengthens Sweden, and Sweden strengthens the alliance. Sweden shall be a loyal ally and a credible partner, and Sweden shall never become a passive follower. Swedish security policy must also within Nato be characterized by judgment, backbone, and national self-respect.

Madam Speaker! That is also why this report is important. It concerns not only Sweden's presence in a new institutional framework but also the practical direction of our work in Nato during 2025 – how we shall contribute, which priorities we drive, and how we best strengthen both Swedish and the alliance's collective security.

The Sweden Democrats argue that Nato should stick to its core, which is the collective defense of the member states' territory. That is where the alliance's strength lies, that is where its legitimacy lies, and that is where Sweden's most fundamental security interest lies.

A voice for realism was needed here. A voice was needed that says that Europe's security begins in Europe and that Sweden's responsibility begins in our immediate vicinity. It also means that we must be able to prioritize. When Europe once again faces serious military threats, focus must not be shifted from what is the alliance's very task, that is to deter, defend, and hold together.

Against that background, I also want to raise a concrete issue where Sweden's role in Nato is now being developed. We note with great interest that Sweden has been allocated capability goals involving contributing to an integrated air and missile defense within the alliance. This is welcome. It is also in line with what the Sweden Democrats have advocated previously, namely that Sweden should prioritize exactly this type of capability within Nato.

In a time when the threat landscape increasingly includes advanced robot systems, cruise missiles, and air attacks, a robust air and robot defense is a crucial part of both national and allied security. Here, Sweden has both the competence and strategic reasons to take a greater responsibility.

Madam Speaker! Against that background, I would like to dwell for a moment specifically on the Nordic perspective. With Sweden and Finland in the alliance, a historical opportunity has opened up. The entire Nordic region is now in the same defense alliance. It is not just a symbolic change but a strategic transformation of our region, and it is an opportunity that we need to take full advantage of.

The Sweden Democrats want Sweden to be a driving force in deepening Nordic cooperation within Nato. We shall not be content with participating; we shall contribute, lead, shape and develop. If the Nordic countries coordinate their capabilities even better, then not only will our countries become stronger, but the entire northern flank of Nato will become stronger.

This could mean joint operational planning for the defense of the Baltic Sea. Closer integrated cooperation with Finland, whose security is in practice inextricably linked with our own, is underway. It could also mean deepened coordination with Norway and Denmark regarding logistics, intelligence, and air and sea defense, as well as regular and advanced joint exercises that strengthen our actual combat capability.

All of this and more is ways to make Nato stronger and more relevant for our part of the world. It is ultimately about uniting geography with strategy. We share seas, airspace, infrastructure and security interests. Therefore, we must also to a greater extent share planning, exercise and practical responsibility.

Madam Speaker! We must also be clear that no alliances in the world can replace a strong national defense. There is still a political debt in this chamber. Sweden scaled down its defense for a long time – capabilities were decommissioned, readiness was dismantled, and far too many chose to believe that history had ended when it in fact was only regrouping.

The Sweden Democrats do not intend to repeat those mistakes. We stand for a long-term buildup. We stand for Sweden to be firmly aligned with NATO's objectives. We stand for building a defense that can actually defend Sweden, not just on paper and in plans, but in reality, with personnel, materiel, endurance, and the ability to meet a serious attack.

In conclusion, I want to be clear about one other thing. The security policy situation requires more of us than winning debates or formulating well-meaning intentions. It requires maturity, responsibility, and perseverance. When it comes to our defense of Sweden and our role in the North Atlantic, Nordic, and European security cooperation, we must fundamentally strive for as strong a unity as possible – not because we agree on everything, but because reality demands stability, predictability, and strength.

Sweden is today part of Nato. It is a historical fact. But how we choose to be a member – how we build our own strength and how we use this membership to make Sweden safer – is still a political question.

Let me also, now during the final parliamentary session of the mandate period, say the following in my capacity as chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs: Even though we in the committee's work have different views in many respects, this area is characterized by a common seriousness regarding Sweden's security. It is valuable, and it is important. It is a strength to take with us into the next mandate period.

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

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! A little over an hour ago, NATO's parliamentary assembly's spring session concluded in Vilnius. It is a bit unfortunate that this debate on NATO was scheduled for the same day. I traveled back to Sweden early this morning. The Center Party is one of the parties that is not participating in this debate here in the chamber. I do know, however, that it is difficult to coordinate the chamber's planning, especially now as we head towards summer and towards a parliamentary election.

The communication we are debating today covers both the government's work and the Riksdag's delegation to NATO's Parliamentary Assembly. I am one of seven Swedish members in this delegation and assembly. There are also seven Swedish substitutes.

Vänsterpartiet has repeatedly been very clear in the debate on Sweden's NATO membership. We believe that Sweden would be safer outside of NATO. We remain opposed to NATO membership, but now that Sweden is a member, we are pushing for Sweden to conduct a policy in NATO that is as wise as possible. We focus primarily on two parts: democracy and nuclear weapons.

Now, NATO membership is a reality. However, it is of the utmost importance that Sweden can also in the future, despite membership in NATO, act independently in foreign and security policy. We shall decide on the development of our defense as well as make our own analyses and positions, with a lively and popular debate.

Much of the Swedish Defence's activities going forward will have a connection to Nato. Vänsterpartiet considers it important that Sweden's own defence capability stands at the center of Swedish defence planning, but also that Sweden shall be an active cooperation partner with its Nordic and Baltic neighboring countries. Sweden shall, together with its neighboring countries, take responsibility for the defence of the Baltic Sea, the North Sea, the North Sea, and the Arctic. It is Sweden's immediate vicinity – not operations in countries far away – that shall be the Swedish priority in Nato.

Madam Speaker! With Donald Trump, we have received an authoritarian president who does not care about international law. Trump is an authoritarian president who completely disregards international law. The kidnapping of Venezuela's president, the support for Israel's genocide in Gaza, and the war against Iran are examples of clear violations of international law. The military threats against Greenland also represent a direct threat to Europe and to the EU's member states.

The developments in the USA will be very uncertain in the coming years. Vänsterpartiet does not want Swedish security to be conditional on the USA, and the same applies in many other countries in Europe. The USA has a special position and in practice has a veto over NATO's actions. At the same time, the USA has throughout history waged wars of aggression, supported military coups against democratically elected governments, and armed paramilitary groups. They still export weapons to warring countries such as Israel and Saudi Arabia.

The political situation in the USA is also unstable and strongly polarized. During 2025, the USA experienced the largest democratic backsliding in the country's history and the largest democratic backsliding of all countries in the entire world, according to the democracy institute VDem in Gothenburg.

Vänsterpartiet was and is opposed to the so-called DCA agreement on defense cooperation with the USA. The agreement allows for American soldiers to be stationed in Sweden – furthermore with immunity if they commit crimes – and does not involve a clear no to nuclear weapons on Swedish territory. From Vänsterpartiet's side, we are clear: We say no to foreign military bases in Sweden, both permanent as well as rotating, regardless of which country they come from.

Madam Speaker! Nuclear weapons are a fundamental part of Nato, and it cannot be ignored that Swedish membership in Nato also entails participation in Nato's structure for nuclear weapons use. From the beginning, Sweden could have been clear that it will not allow nuclear weapons on Swedish territory. Instead, it has been very clear that Sweden stands for everything – including Nato's nuclear deterrence.

Vänsterpartiet has repeatedly proposed here in the Swedish Riksdag that Sweden should establish reservations regarding nuclear weapons, but this has been rejected both by the Social Democratic-led government and by the Moderate-led government with the support of Sverigedemokraterna. Our neighboring countries Denmark and Norway made statements regarding nuclear weapons in connection with each respective country joining Nato and in connection with the countries' respective DCA agreements. Vänsterpartiet regrets that the government did not make any such markings in connection with Sweden's accession process.

Nuclear weapons are a security risk for Sweden, and Sweden shall not participate in or promote the use of nuclear weapons. Proponents of nuclear weapons argue that nuclear weapons are a deterrent, but it is a very short-sighted perspective. That countries compete with each other in the nuclear arms race increases uncertainty. It is hardly in this way that we build peace and security.

Vänsterpartiet wants Sweden to remain a nuclear-weapon-free state. We should therefore adopt national legislation that prohibits the import, storage, and transit of nuclear weapons on Swedish territory both in peacetime and in wartime. NATO countries such as Finland, Lithuania, and Spain already have national legislation against nuclear weapons. Therefore, we should in Sweden have a law that prohibits the import, storage, and transit of nuclear weapons in Sweden.

In October last year, Sweden participated for the first time ever in a nuclear exercise, namely NATO's annual nuclear exercise Steadfast Noon. The exercise involved combat aircraft with the capability to carry and release nuclear weapons. Sweden's role was to act as a support capability for the deterrence and use of nuclear weapons. It was voluntary for NATO's member countries to participate in the exercise, and Sweden could have chosen to abstain. Despite this, the Swedish government sent both combat aircraft and personnel to participate. In this way, this became the first time that Sweden participated in a nuclear exercise and part of the preparations from the Swedish side to utilize weapons of mass destruction. This unfortunately, Madam Speaker, means that Sweden becomes a potential target in a war where nuclear weapons are used.

The Left Party's position is clear: Sweden shall never be involved in planning, preparing or exercising for the use of nuclear weapons. Within Nato, the principle of no first use is lacking, which means that Nato does not exclude being the party that first uses nuclear weapons in a conflict. This means that the threat of nuclear weapons is always imminent. We believe that Sweden would benefit from pushing for a rule that Nato shall not use nuclear weapons first.

Agreements on nuclear-weapon-free zones are one of the most effective tools against nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation. If all countries can be assured that other states are not engaged in nuclear weapons, the desire to acquire their own nuclear weapons is mitigated. A nuclear-weapon-free zone in both the Nordic region and the Arctic, as well as in the EU, would be a good decision from a security policy perspective. It would also be an important signal for peace and nuclear disarmament towards our entire surrounding world.

Since Sweden became a member of Nato, Sweden's Riksdag has received more members in Nato's parliamentary assembly, which is an organization where parliaments meet and discuss Nato issues. In Sweden, we have by consensus chosen a model where all parties have been given the opportunity to sit in the Nato delegation, which I think is good.

To the assembly, there are several associated delegations from countries that Nato cooperates with but which are not Nato members. Some of these countries have a democratic deficit and a shrinking democratic space. One such country is Georgia, where the ruling party Georgian Dream rapidly shrunk the democratic space for the opposition and for opponents after the election in October 2024, which was criticized by international observers. Now, the opposition is being prevented from attending meetings in Nato's parliamentary assembly, while the regime's representatives from Georgian Dream participate as usual.

NATO and NATO's parliamentary assembly must be clearer in its democratic message to states both inside and outside NATO that are shrinking the democratic space. Therefore, Madam Speaker, NATO's Centre for Democratic Resilience needs to be established. This proposal has been blocked by Hungary for several years. Now Hungary has finally changed government, but the democratic regression in Turkey and most recently in the USA shows that NATO faces several future challenges linked to democracy issues. There is a risk that these countries will now block the proposal. Sweden should therefore push for the establishment of a centre for democratic resilience.

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank my colleagues in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly for a pleasant year together. I move for approval of reservation 2 on a center for democratic resilience.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! The report deals with the government's communication regarding the activities in Nato and the account of the Riksdag's delegation to Nato's parliamentary assembly, both for 2025. The Social Democrats have no motions or reservations, but I will say a few words about Sweden in Nato, which is still quite new, and about the future.

An application for NATO membership was submitted by the social democratic government in the spring of 2022 after Russia's attack on Ukraine earlier that same year. After some twists and turns, including with Turkey and Hungary, Sweden was finally able to become a NATO member on March 7, 2024.

It was a big step, Sweden had then been alliance-free and neutral for over 200 years. 200 years of alliance-freedom and 200 years of peace – Sweden is probably the only country in the world that has had unbroken peace for so long. The alliance-freedom and neutrality, established by Karl XIV Johan at the beginning of the 1800s, took us through all the wars on the continent in the 1800s and kept us during the 1900s outside of both the first and second world wars. This long period of peace laid the foundation for the rapid economic development in Sweden, as Sweden was transformed from one of Europe's poorest countries into a successful industrial and welfare nation.

If Russia had not invaded Ukraine four years ago, Swedish non-alignment would probably have persisted, as it had served us well for all these years. But Russia's attack, together with Finland's decision to apply for NATO membership, changed everything.

With Russia's invasion, it became clear once again that Russia did not intend to respect the European security order set out in the Helsinki Accords in 1975. On the contrary, Russia fell back into the aggressive sphere-of-influence thinking that has actually always existed in the mentality of the Russian regimes during both the tsarist era and the communist era. After Putin took office in 2000, all tendencies toward democratic development in Russia have been dismantled, and they engage in wars of aggression against their neighboring countries, infiltration in countries in the West, hybrid warfare, and political murders.

When we in the Defence Preparation Committee discuss the security policy situation, we agree that Russia will be an existential threat to the democracies in Western and Central Europe for the foreseeable future and that we must act accordingly.

Finland's choices also had a decisive significance for Sweden. The Social Democratic government 2014–2022 did not only reactivate conscription and began a comprehensive upgrade. We also deepened the cooperation with Finland in a very far-reaching way. One was as close to a defense alliance as one could get. I myself was Minister for Home Affairs during part of this time and was then responsible for, among other things, civil defense, and I remember very well how Finland came to become our closest partner and source of inspiration in that work.

But a Finnish Nato membership would change this. If Sweden did not also join, we would become the only country in the Nordic region outside of Nato, which would make us vulnerable. Both Finland and Sweden were governed by social democratic governments at this time, and we Swedish Social Democrats had many and long conversations with our party friends during the spring of 2022 about how we should proceed. So it happened that both Sweden and Finland applied for Nato membership. It was, in my opinion, the right thing for Sweden to do, because it is fundamentally about the security of the Swedish people.

Now Sweden is in the alliance, and we are a valued member. I notice this not least in NATO's parliamentary assembly, where we regularly meet parliamentarians from the other member countries. Sweden does not just sit passively, on the contrary. We participate, for example, in NATO's forward defense in Latvia. Pleasantly enough, it is the regiment at home in Lund, P 7 in Revingehed, that is responsible for this task on behalf of Sweden, and they have handled this with brilliance. In a couple of weeks, on June 18, the soldiers will return home from their latest mission in Latvia, and we shall be proud of their contribution to Sweden's and Europe's security.

We have also helped Poland defend its airspace through our Jas Gripen fighter jets, and this week we will decide to lead the new Nato operation in northern Finland, which will strengthen Nato's deterrence and defense there.

We are, therefore, an appreciated and active member, and we have integrated well into the NATO cooperation.

Now there are two major tasks before us. The defense cooperation around the Baltic Sea must be further deepened. The Nordic countries, the Baltic countries, Poland and Germany must build a common defense of their part of Europe that is so strong, coordinated and united that no one will dare to attack us. That is the first task.

The second task is to contribute to increased European independence from the USA. It is also an issue we discuss a lot in the Defence Preparation Board.

On the one hand, the transatlantic link is very important for Europe's defense, and it will be for a very long time. It is partly why Sweden, like all our neighboring countries, has a bilateral defense agreement, a so-called DCA agreement, with the USA, which among other things enables the storage of American weapons and other materiel, though not nuclear weapons, in Sweden. This is important. If Sweden, as the only country in our immediate vicinity, were to withdraw from the DCA agreement, we would send a signal to the USA that if we are attacked by Russia, the USA is not welcome to come and help us. I believe that would be enormously dangerous, so we shall stand firm on the DCA agreement.

On the other hand, we know that the USA is reorienting itself, from Europe to Southeast Asia. We also cannot ignore the Trump administration's unpredictable and erratic policies and maneuvers. One is not only unpredictable but sometimes even aggressive, even towards its own allies – as against Denmark in the Greenland crisis and against Spain now during the Iran war. This we must see, and we must act accordingly.

The European countries must strengthen their defenses. We must coordinate better, and we must increase materiel production. But this must take place within the framework of Nato. We do not believe in an EU defense, which some sometimes suggest. We shall not double the structures, but we shall continue to work for this within Nato.

We must also not diminish ourselves. The EU and the United Kingdom have a combined GDP that is ten times larger than Russia's. It is clear that this will have significance in any future conflict. But then we must also ensure that we strengthen Europe's defense capability together and use the resources we have to strengthen our defense.

Madam Speaker! The great military threat to Sweden is Russia. But the great threat to the continued necessary upscaling of Sweden is the Swedish government and the economic policy it pursues. This government has totally lost control over the state finances, and it will have significance for the financing of all public expenditures moving forward.

Sweden is strengthening the defense, but every penny is on credit. The surplus in the public finances that we Social Democrats left to the new government in 2022 is gone. That money ran out a long time ago. Last year, the state's deficit was 101.9 billion, and this year the deficit will be 167 billion. Also next year, according to the forecast, the deficit lies a good bit over 100 billion. The national debt is increasing sharply, from 1,200 billion in 2025 to 1,600 billion in 2027, which is an increase of 30 percent in two years.

Nearly 30 years ago, I worked for the then Prime Minister Göran Persson. I remember very well when, in 1995, he stood at this rostrum and began a debate with the words: "He who is in debt is not free." At that time, the Bildt government had doubled the national debt in three years. We Social Democrats had a difficult task of cleaning up the state finances, and it took a few years. It was a lesson learned at a high price. Then we continued with a tight economic policy in order to be able to amortize down the national debt to today's low level.

But after every bourgeois government, new deficits follow. That was the case after Reinfeldt and Borg in 2014, and that is also how it will be after Kristersson and Svantesson – new large deficits.

This could have been acceptable if Sweden had also had growth, but we do not, on the contrary. In the first quarter of this year, GDP retreated, and last year foreign investments plummeted by 19 percent. Nor does our global environment believe in the Swedish economy anymore. Unemployment has also increased by 100,000 in four years.

We must continue to strengthen the defense, but we cannot simply continue to push the bill onto the future for our children. Those of us who are active now must also be involved in paying. This applies especially to those who have the highest incomes. They cannot simply be allowed to continue to escape the bill.

New major demands are coming our way. The Chairman of the Committee mentioned NATO's new capability goals, which we are currently reviewing in the Defense Preparation Board. We see that it involves very large commitments. Many billions must be produced. It is going to be expensive. Therefore, it is irresponsible of the current government to let the deficits spiral out of control already now, when we have so much left to do.

In the USA, they pursue roughly the same policy. There, the American administration borrows from all over the world, including from China. The deficits are skyrocketing in the USA, and the national debt is a staggering 120 percent of GDP. When one does it in that way, one also places oneself in a state of dependency. Again: He who is in debt is not free.

It is a major problem that we now have so many right-wing politicians in the world who are calling for increased defense spending but who cannot bring themselves to levy the tax needed to finance it. On the contrary, they call for even lower taxes, and then they hope that everything will somehow magically add up in the future. That does not work. It has never worked.

We Social Democrats have proposed a special readiness tax on the highest capital and labor incomes to co-finance the defense. If we are to manage this great task, those who have the highest incomes must also participate and contribute. Sweden cannot continue to run this on credit. It is not sustainable. We cannot shift this entire cost onto our children. That, Madam Speaker, is not taking responsibility for Sweden in the long term.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating NATO's activities during 2025, a year that has further characterized Sweden's role in the alliance and our place in an increasingly uncertain world.

Sweden's membership in Nato is now a fact, and the integration into the alliance's structures has deepened. At the same time, Russia's brutal war of aggression against Ukraine continues, in direct conflict with international law. The atrocities and war crimes we witness must never be accepted or normalized. Therefore, Miljöpartiet clearly stands behind strong, long-term, and sustained support for Ukraine – politically, economically, and humanitarily.

Sweden shall be a credible, reliable and solidary ally. But that, Madam Speaker, does not mean that we shall become one-sided, on the contrary. Precisely in a time of military buildup and increased tensions, a strong voice was needed for that which is more than military strength: diplomacy, international law, conflict prevention work and human rights.

Miljöpartiet wants Sweden's foreign and security policy to continue to be independent and characterized by a broad view of security. What is security actually? Is it only the number of soldiers, weapons systems and military capacity, or is it also about people's safety, societies' resilience, the climate's stability and the possibility to live free and democratic lives?

For us, the answer is clear: security is broader than that. Therefore, it is welcome that the government has begun to pay attention to the climate's importance for security policy. Climate changes act as a threat multiplier; they exacerbate conflicts, drive migration, and create instability. Giving FOI the mandate to strengthen research on climate and security is a step in the right direction, but it is not enough. Sweden should be proactive within Nato so that the climate threat is fully integrated into the alliance's analysis and planning.

Madam Speaker! We also see a development in several NATO countries where the principles of the rule of law are being challenged. Democracy can never be taken for granted, not even within a defense alliance. Therefore, the Green Party believes that Sweden should work to strengthen democratic requirements within NATO. An alliance built on shared values must also dare to defend them.

Another central issue is transparency and democratic anchoring here at home. Sweden's tradition of openness and publicity shall not cease because we are now in Nato. On the contrary, the Riksdag should be involved continuously before important decisions and meetings. The legitimacy in security policy is built on insight, accountability, and anchoring.

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet also wants to be clear about what we believe should be NATO's core task: to safeguard the member countries' territorial integrity. We oppose the alliance engaging to an increased extent in so-called out of area operations. The focus should be on deterring attacks, not on expanding missions.

We also consider that Nato should not have permanent troops or bases on Swedish territory. Sweden's security is not strengthened by becoming a permanent staging area, but it is strengthened by stability, confidence-building measures and clear frameworks.

Madam Speaker! One of the most important – and most urgent – security issues of our time is nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons constitute an existential threat to all of humanity. That Nato still builds its strategy on the possibility of first use is deeply problematic. It does not contribute to security, but rather contributes to increased global insecurity and the risk of catastrophic mistakes.

Sweden should therefore be a clear voice within the alliance to adopt a so-called no first use doctrine. It would be an important step towards reducing the risks of nuclear war. We also believe that Sweden should go further, by introducing legislation that prohibits the introduction of nuclear weapons onto Swedish territory, both in peacetime and in wartime. It would send a clear signal about which path we want to take: disarmament, not the uparming of weapons of mass destruction.

Madam Speaker! I want to particularly highlight a dimension that often gets too little space in the security policy debate but which is absolutely crucial for long-term peace: inclusion.

UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security and Resolution 2250 on youth, peace and security establish something very important: Peace becomes more sustainable when more people are allowed to participate in creating it. Despite this, women and youth are still heavily underrepresented in peace negotiations and security policy processes worldwide. This is not just a matter of justice. It is a matter of effectiveness.

Research shows time and again that peace agreements that include women have a greater probability of holding over time. When young people are given a meaningful role in nation-building, the risk of conflict and radicalization decreases. To exclude half of the population – and large parts of the next generation – is not only wrong, but it is inefficient and short-sighted. Therefore, Sweden should be a clear voice within Nato so that these perspectives are seriously integrated.

It is not enough with fine formulations in policy documents. We need concrete action: more women in leadership positions within peace and security work, systematic inclusion of women's organizations in conflict prevention work, as well as structures that ensure young people get influence in peace processes and reconstruction, education and operational guidelines within Nato that make resolutions 1325 and 2250 a living reality, not symbolic politics. Here, Sweden has both a tradition and a responsibility to lead the way.

Madam Speaker! Security policy is fundamentally about what kind of society we want to build and what kind of world we want to see. Do we want a world where security is defined solely by military strength and deterrence? Or do we want a world where security also concerns justice, democracy, human rights, climate responsibility, and inclusion? Miljöpartiet chooses the latter. Sweden's NATO membership is today a reality, and we want Sweden to be a constructive part of the alliance. But we also want Sweden to be a voice for change, a voice for disarmament, a voice for climate responsibility, a voice for democracy and the rule of law, and not least a voice for women and young people as active participants in the building of peace, for in the end it is precisely there – in people's participation, in trust, and in justice – where real and long-term security is created.

With that, I move for approval of Miljöpartiet's reservation number 1.

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

Karin Enström (M)

Madam Speaker! The past year, 2025, became a decisive year for Nato, for Europe's security, and for Sweden's new role as a member of the defense alliance.

At a time when Russia's brutal war of aggression against Ukraine continues to threaten the entire European security order, Nato has shown why the alliance remains the most important guarantee for peace, stability, and collective security in our immediate vicinity. At the same time, Sweden's membership has made it clear that our security policy can no longer be built on solitude or neutrality, but must be built on cooperation, deterrence, and solidarity with other democracies.

The Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Riksdag notes in its review of the activities during 2025 that Nato is now Sweden's most important defense policy arena. It is a historical change, which has already been addressed here today. For decades – even more than decades – Sweden stood outside military alliances. But with Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Europe's security policy reality changed fundamentally. The aggressive Russia showed that international law, nations' self-determination, and peaceful coexistence could no longer be taken for granted.

Therefore, it is positive that Nato, during the summit in The Hague in the summer of 2025, agreed on a new defense commitment, where the member countries shall by 2035 allocate at least 5 percent of GDP to their collective defense capability. Of these, at least 3.5 percent shall go directly to defense expenditures and up to 1.5 percent to security-related investments. The decision marks that the member countries now take the threat seriously and that Europe's countries are now taking greater responsibility for their own security.

It is about creating credible deterrence against regimes that threaten peace and democracy. History has time and again shown that weakness and division encourage aggressive states. A strong Nato reduces the risk of war by making it clear that an attack against a member country will be met with a collective response according to Article 5.

At the same time, Sweden's role in Nato must be built on democratic anchoring and parliamentary control. The Committee on Foreign Affairs therefore rightly emphasizes that the Riksdag must have insight into and influence over the government's actions in Nato matters. It is crucial for the membership to have popular legitimacy.

Here, our participation in NATO's parliamentary assembly – Nato PA, as we say in short form – also plays an important role. The Riksdag has been a full member of NATO's parliamentary assembly since March 2024, when Sweden joined NATO. This means that last year, 2025, was the first full year that the Riksdag's NATO delegation worked in the assembly.

As stated earlier today, the delegation consists of seven ordinary members and seven substitutes. I am the chairperson of the delegation. All parties are represented in the delegation; I think that is very good. Just today, the spring session for the assembly in Vilnius in Lithuania concludes.

During the previous year, 2025, this assembly continued to strongly condemn Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine and confirm its strong support for Ukraine through declarations and resolutions. The assembly has also supported the Ukrainian delegation, i.e., that which corresponds to the Swedish delegation to the assembly, both practically and financially, so that it has been able to participate actively in all major meetings during the year. We in the NATO Delegation have met with the Ukrainian delegation for bilateral meetings at every session.

NATO's Parliamentary Assembly's spring session 2025 took place in Dayton, USA, exactly one year ago. NATO's then newly elected Secretary General Mark Rutte participated for the first time and answered questions from the assembly. The session focused largely on noting that it has been 30 years since the Dayton Agreement was signed and thus ended the war in the western Balkans. It provided a great deal of reflections and thoughts regarding that 30 years have passed since that conflict ended. If it is resolved, however, one can continue to discuss it.

Also, the member countries' defense expenditures and NATO's budget were discussed extensively during the year, not least in light of the statements that have been made regarding the distribution of defense expenditures between the European countries and the USA.

The parliamentary assembly attaches great importance to developing cooperation with various partner countries and areas in NATO's neighborhood, such as the Western Balkans and countries south of the Mediterranean and in the Black Sea region, and also with countries in the Indo-Pacific region. Several of the adopted reports and resolutions highlight how geopolitical developments in the world make it increasingly strategically important to develop partnerships with countries also outside the membership. Another region of great strategic importance for NATO is the Arctic.

Madam Speaker! On various occasions during the year, it was noted that NATO's Parliamentary Assembly has celebrated 70 years as an organization. The importance of parliamentary diplomacy and parliamentary support for the defense alliance was highlighted, among other things, at the parliamentary summit with speakers for the parliaments of the NATO countries which preceded NATO's summit in The Hague last year.

During the year, the assembly adopted 2 declarations, 6 resolutions and 16 reports, which were then forwarded to Nato. This can be read more about in the report on the activities of Nato's parliamentary assembly that is available.

Madam Speaker! During 2025, Sweden contributed substantially to NATO's deterrence and defense. Swedish ground forces participated in the multinational brigade in Latvia. Swedish warships contributed to maritime operations, and Swedish combat aircraft participated in enhanced airspace surveillance in Poland. Sweden thus demonstrated that our membership is not only about receiving protection but also about contributing to security in the entire North Atlantic area. It is and has been important for us to contribute to the alliance's collective security.

It is also strategically important. Sweden's geographical location makes the Baltic Sea area one of Europe's most sensitive security policy areas. Through deepened cooperation with Finland, the Baltic countries, and other Nato allies, stability in northern Europe is strengthened. It creates better opportunities to defend democratic societies against military threats, cyberattacks, and hybrid warfare.

But NATO is not solely about military strength. The defense alliance's credibility ultimately rests on the democratic values that the member countries claim to defend. Therefore, it is welcome that the parliamentary NATO Assembly during the year continued to emphasize the importance of democracy, the rule of law, and resilience against authoritarian forces.

Madam Speaker! The greatest security policy issue during 2025 was, however, still Ukraine's struggle for freedom and survival. To put it briefly and clearly: Russia must out of Ukraine.

Here, Nato plays a decisive role. The support for Ukraine is not charity; it is an investment in Europe's own security. The stronger Ukraine resists, the more difficult it becomes for Russia to continue its imperialist expansion.

Sweden should therefore continue to push for long-term military, economic and humanitarian support to Ukraine. We do this concretely through our aid, military and civilian, to Ukraine. As recently as last Thursday, a historic agreement was signed in Uppsala. Part of this is that we are providing 16 Jas Gripen aircraft to Ukraine.

We must also continue to strengthen our own defense capability and our resilience against external threats.

Madam Speaker! I want to conclude by saying that Nato faces great challenges. The threats to Europe are becoming more complex, and the global power struggle is hardening, but 2025 also showed that democracies can stand united when freedom is threatened. Sweden has now become an active part of this common defense. It entails responsibility, but it also entails security.

I would like to vote in favor of the proposal in the committee's report.

I also want to comment on something that surprises me quite a bit. I thought that this was primarily a security policy debate, but it turned out that Morgan Johansson could not refrain from delivering a real smack against the sitting government. Yes, he said that Russia is the greatest threat, but it was almost on par with that the sitting government should be the greatest threat to Sweden's security and defense capability, which is completely absurd.

I believe we will return to the debate on Sweden's public finances and how we finance our security, but I just want to remind that the public debt as a share of GDP is lower today than when Magdalena Andersson left the post of Prime Minister. Sweden's public debt is one of the lowest in the EU. I believe we should return to that debate when it is more about financing than about NATO's activities.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! I did not think it was a smear, I was just poking you a little on the question of the financing.

I will actually start by correcting my statement on one point, namely what I reported regarding the development of the national debt. I have now noted that a new forecast has been released from Riksgälden which is even worse than the figures I cited. Now, Riksgäldens forecast is that the deficit for the two years 2026 and 2027 will amount to 404 billion kronor. We therefore have a national debt of approximately 1,200 billion which is to grow to 1,600 billion. That is an increase in the national debt of 30 percent in just a couple of years.

We are now back in what I experienced in my youth – I was about to say – when I worked with Göran Persson in the 90s, and we cleaned up the state finances after Bildt. We are in exactly the same situation now. You keep shouting about expenditures, but you never manage to finance this.

We are in agreement on the expenditures, which in total are to increase by 5 percent, and that also includes civil defense. The military expenditures shall amount to 3.5 percent of GDP, and we are on our way there. That is what we agree on. We are also in agreement on the support for Ukraine, but we are not in agreement on how this shall be financed.

What you are doing now is passing the entire bill onto our children, and then you let these expenses squeeze other parts of the public sector: healthcare, schools, elderly care, and childcare. That is why we have said that we who are employed now must actually also be prepared to pay a little more in tax when we have such large commitments as we do now. It applies especially to those who have the highest incomes; they must be prepared to pay a little more in tax so that we can manage this.

We had a preparedness tax when we armed ourselves before the First World War. We had a defense tax when we armed ourselves before the Second World War. We should have a preparedness tax now as well that co-finances this.

My question to Karin Enström is: How does she think this can be financed when the deficits are already so enormous?

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

Karin Enström (M)

Madam Speaker! I think it is very good that we have been able to find such a broad consensus regarding both security policy and defense policy. It was not entirely obvious. I think of all the years that the Social Democrats stubbornly held back and gladly wanted cooperation but not with Nato and not as an ally. On the other hand, one wanted to seek cooperation with individual countries bilaterally. It is good that we could agree on this and that we are now doing the best we can as an ally.

When it comes to the money, I say again that we have good public finances. We have one of the lowest public debts in the EU. It is in tough times that one can use money. One can have a slightly higher public debt, because that is what cyclical policy is. The only answer you have every time is increased taxes on this, then that. If it is not bank tax, then it is some other form of tax that is to be increased.

We will solve this. We have good public finances. We have large expenditures ahead of us, but we can therefore borrow money because we have public finances in good order. I know that many previous Social Democratic governments borrowed money for a long time.

I recommend that everyone go to the Riksgäld website where one can follow how the Swedish national debt has looked. I would like to say that Sweden is managing this, and we will manage it in the future as well. I believe that many other European countries and countries in the rest of the world look enviously at our public finances. To compare us with the USA and their economic public finances is a joke.

I would like Morgan Johansson to take back that the biggest threat, apart from Russia, is this government. That would be appropriate.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! The threat is indeed posed by the risk of not being able to finance the expenditures one takes on. That is when one binds oneself to other actors – borrows and borrows – and that also has a security policy consequence. Furthermore, a number of countries are discovering this now when, for example, one borrows in China. Then another country suddenly gets a hold of you. That is why one must manage one's economy and one's public finances.

No, we no longer have good public finances. You cannot say that when we borrow and when the deficit is 400 billion kronor over two years, because then the public finances plummet – they collapse. When the national debt increases by 30 percent in two years, you no longer have such good public finances. We had it previously, as a result of the fact that every time there have been Social Democratic governments, we have handed over a surplus to you. We did that in 2006, and it then turned into a deficit in 2014. Then we handed over a surplus to you again in 2022, and it has now turned into a deficit in 2026.

You always empty the barns and get rid of the surpluses during your terms of office, and then you hope in some magical way that these tax cuts you have implemented will finance themselves, but they never do. The only thing this leads to is increased injustices and holes in the state treasury.

We are, as said, in agreement on the expenditures, and we are in agreement on support for Ukraine. It would be good if we could also reach an agreement on the financing in the long term and if you could acknowledge that this must be financed fairly if it is to work in the long term. It cannot be that those with the highest incomes should take a spring note and escape the bill as they are doing now.

The tax cuts that you have implemented result in the largest increases for the very wealthiest. Why should they not be involved and now co-finance the defense expenditures? What would be appropriate in the long run would be to take a collective responsibility for both the expenditures and the financing. That is what I would like to see.

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

Karin Enström (M)

Madam Speaker! I believe this is an example of how it will sound throughout this entire election campaign, and it is up to the Swedish people to choose which rhetoric they believe in the most.

When it comes to facts, I can only state that the national debt as a share of GDP was higher when Magdalena Andersson was Prime Minister than it is now. We have good public finances, and many look enviously at Sweden and Sweden's low national debt. It will become a bit higher – yes, it is increasing – but we are in a very special position.

We have also had some really tough years behind us, as Morgan Johansson knows, and we do not want that to affect households either. I think it is more fair to do it in this way. The Member wants to turn this into a threat to Sweden's future in a situation where we have had tough years behind us and where households have largely paid the price. Now they need to get what ordinary households have received. Households with two adults and two children have received 5,000 kr more per month in their wallets. I believe that will provide growth, and it will provide faith in the future. We will continue on that line.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 3 June.)

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