In June 2025, representatives from all parties in the Riksdag stood on a stage in Rosenbad and announced that they had agreed on historic investment in defence.
- Our children and grandchildren should not have to learn to speak Russian, said Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson (M).
It was about large loans of up to 300 billion to cover the Trump-driven demand that each ally should spend 5 percent of GDP on defense. 3.5 percent to the military defense and 1.5 percent to the civilian.
But the money is not enough on the military side. The military needs are clearly higher than 3.5 percent.
- The demands placed on us have become both higher and more expensive than we could have imagined, says Jörgen Berglund (M), chairman of the defense committee.
In its latest report, the preparation writes that "The Armed Forces assess that the resource requirement for a high level of fulfillment of NATO's capability goals clearly exceeds the target level of 3.5 percent of GDP set by NATO".
NATO membership entails demands on Sweden's military organization that "do not fit within decided economic frameworks".
- That is the assessment that the Armed Forces have made. I don't know how deep it is soldered. But I wouldn't consider it too unlikely that it is true, says Jörgen Berglund.
The report that he and the committee submitted is clearer:
"The defense committee notes that the decided financial framework and the conditions that form the basis of the Armed Forces' current planning are however not sufficient to fulfill in all parts the capability goals that were assigned to Sweden in 2025."
When Sweden reports defense expenditure to NATO, military support to Ukraine is included since June. This means a number of billions that are not building up the defense in the country.
NATO's capability goal is the alliance's order for what each country should contribute to the joint defense plans:
Brigades with thousands of soldiers, warplanes and military ships which, in the words of Secretary General Mark Rutte, must defend "every inch of allied territory".
The chairman of the defense committee currently has no idea how many billions are missing for Sweden to reach the capability targets.
- I don't want to speculate at this point. I think that the important thing we can do now is to produce data for a more precise assessment and based on that see how much more is required, says Jörgen Berglund.
There are several reasons why targets are missed. Infrastructure projects, such as new regiments, drag on. A lot of the Armed Forces' equipment has turned out to be in worse condition than thought. The prices of defense systems skyrocket when many countries want to buy at the same time.
- Everything is becoming more expensive, both large equipment projects and infrastructure investments, and it is clear that increases in equipment costs eat up the space, says Jörgen Berglund.
The lack of money will land in the lap of the government that will lead Sweden until the next election. DN has put questions to the Social Democrats, but the party does not want to answer during the attempts to form a new government.
- Everyone has to answer whether they intend to stick to the fact that we should be the ally that we have said. That is to say, not to be the best in the class, but to fulfill what we undertake, says Jörgen Berglund.
The US Department of Defense, the Pentagon, is conducting a review of how to base US forces in Europe in the autumn. The signals have long been that they will decrease.
It points to even bigger holes in NATO's defense plans – gaps that others must close.
- It is a reality. Europe must take greater responsibility, says Jörgen Berglund.
The Swedish conclusion that the defense fund is too small can be compared to the reasoning in Finland, a country that never cut defense in the same way as Sweden.
A defense policy working group determined this summer that Finland's defense needs clearly exceed 3.5 percent of GDP in the next ten years.
Finland's military costs may double, reports Yle.
But the alternative is worse, according to the defense politicians. They compare with Ukraine, which by the end of 2025 had total damages of around 588 billion euros, according to one estimate. Rebuilding the country after the end of a war can take up to 40 years.
If Finland ends up at war, the country would spend at least 30 percent of GDP on defense, assesses the working group, which writes:
"The cost of human suffering and intangible losses cannot even be estimated."
