Sweden's government faces a critical week where EU defense policy and Ukraine support dominate the international agenda, even as the opposition intensifies its scrutiny of ministers on issues ranging from football agent costs to tax crime enforcement. The week that began with Defense Minister Pål Jonson's (M) consultation in the EU Committee culminates with Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson's (M) trip to Brussels for an informal EU summit—while three fresh written questions expose the government's vulnerability on domestic policy matters.
Why This Week Matters
This week marks a decisive moment in Sweden's EU engagement on defense policy. With Ukraine still in focus three years after the invasion, Swedish defense industry and innovation capacity stand at the center of the EU's attempt to build a sustainable security strategy. Meanwhile, the government must handle growing parliamentary scrutiny over domestic issues—a reminder that even in times of international crisis, voters demand answers on everyday concerns.
The EU Defense Agenda: Sweden at the Center of Innovation Debate
On Friday, February 6, the EU Committee convenes to hear Defense Minister Pål Jonson (M) report back from the Defense Ministers Council on December 1, 2025, and consult ahead of the next council meeting on February 11 in Brussels. The core of the consultation: EU support to Ukraine through defense innovation cooperation.
According to the EU Committee's agenda, the discussion will focus on how the EU can deepen its cooperation on defense innovation—an area where Swedish companies like Saab and their drone technology have been prominent. The question is not merely technical: it concerns how the EU should balance national defense industries with common procurement mechanisms, and how innovation funds should be distributed among member states.
Nordic Angle: Sweden's Role as Innovation Engine
Sweden's position is strategically favorable. As one of few EU countries with a vital defense industry—and as a new NATO member since 2024—Sweden can shape the discussion about how the EU's defense fund should prioritize innovation projects. But the Council's outcome on February 11 will also reveal tensions between large member states like France and Germany, which compete for influence over EU defense industrial policy.
The informal summit on February 12, where heads of state and government gather without formal decision-making powers, offers Sweden an opportunity to position itself as a pragmatic intermediary. Historically, informal summits have functioned as arenas where real negotiations occur beyond diplomatic protocol—a dynamic that favors smaller countries with strong argumentative positions.
Ukraine Support: From Emergency Aid to Long-Term Strategy
Three years after Russia's full-scale invasion, EU support to Ukraine has shifted from emergency ammunition and weapons to structured reconstruction cooperation. The defense innovation agenda reflects this shift: the EU now seeks mechanisms to integrate Ukrainian defense industry into European supply chains, while preparing for a potentially prolonged confrontation with Moscow. For Sweden, this means both business opportunities and security policy commitments.
The Prime Minister's Brussels Test: Open Meeting Signals Transparency
Monday, February 10, marks an unusual event: an open EU Committee meeting where Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson (M) informs and consults ahead of the informal leaders summit on February 12. Open meetings are rare in the EU Committee, which usually works behind closed doors. The decision to make this meeting public suggests the government's ambition to demonstrate transparency around Swedish EU policy—or possibly to handle internal parliamentary pressure for greater insight into EU negotiations.
The summit's agenda is not yet publicly confirmed, but informal summits typically focus on strategic issues requiring consensus rather than formal decisions. Likely themes include the EU's defense policy positioning after the 2024 U.S. presidential election, relations with China, and the ongoing debate about EU institutional reforms ahead of possible enlargement to the Balkans and Ukraine.
Swedish EU Leadership Ambitions
For Kristersson, the summit is an opportunity to strengthen Sweden's profile as a reliable EU partner after the sometimes turbulent years under the previous government. As a new NATO member but long-standing EU member state (since 1995), Sweden holds a unique position: militarily non-aligned history combined with modern security policy realism. This could make Sweden a credible voice in debates about EU autonomous defense capacity without provoking Atlanticists like Poland or the Baltics.
The open meeting also gives opposition and civil society the opportunity to scrutinize the government's positions in real time—a practice aligned with Swedish transparency traditions but contrasting with often opaque EU diplomacy.
Ministerial Accountability: Three Questions, Three Ministers, One Pattern
While the government navigates EU defense policy, the opposition intensifies its scrutiny on the home front. Three written questions submitted on February 6 expose the government's vulnerability across a broad spectrum of policy issues:
1. Football Agents' Tax Haven
Social Democrat Lars Isacsson poses a written question (HD11473) to Justice Minister Gunnar Strömmer (M) about the Swedish football industry's agent fees—which according to international data are among the world's highest. The question points to the need for increased transparency and potentially new regulatory mechanisms for an industry where large sums move without clear oversight.
Isacsson's question is not just about football: it concerns the principle of how Sweden regulates international markets where national legislation meets global capital mobility. Football agents often operate across borders, making tax collection and oversight complicated—a problem reflecting broader challenges in digital economy and service trade.
2. Shingles Vaccination for the Elderly: A Public Health Question
A second written question (HD11472), also from Social Democrat Karin Sundin, addresses Social Minister Jakob Forssmed (KD) about shingles vaccination for people over 65 years. Shingles, a painful viral disease affecting an estimated 35,000 Swedes annually, can be prevented with vaccination—but is not included in the national vaccination program.
The question puts the government before a classic public health dilemma: cost-effectiveness versus preventive care. The vaccination costs several thousand kronor per person but can save societal costs in healthcare visits and long-term pain management. The Social Democrats' question is strategically timed: with an aging population and rising healthcare costs, it pressures the government to demonstrate prioritization of elderly health.
3. Tax Crime and Labor Market Criminality
The third written question (HD11471), from Social Democrat Leif Nysmed to Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson (M), focuses on the Tax Agency's powers to combat tax crime linked to labor market criminality. Nysmed requests strengthened tools for the Tax Agency to act against systematic tax evasion—an area where Sweden has long struggled with organized crime in the construction sector and restaurant industry.
This is particularly sensitive for a center-right government traditionally skeptical of expanded agency powers. The Moderates have historically emphasized tax cuts and simplified bureaucracy but now face a problem: without effective tax collection, both state finances and fairness between law-abiding companies and tax evaders are undermined. Nysmed's question forces Svantesson to balance her party's ideological position against practical necessities.
4. Total Defense Conscripts: Rights and Conditions
Unlike the written questions, Left Party member Hanna Gunnarsson's interpellation (HD10328) to Defense Minister Pål Jonson represents more formal parliamentary scrutiny. Interpellations require oral debate in the chamber, giving greater visibility. Gunnarsson's question about total defense conscripts' rights and conditions comes at a time when Sweden is expanding its defense efforts after NATO membership.
The question concerns work environment, economic compensation, and legal rights for conscripts called up in peacetime for training and preparedness. With the reintroduction of compulsory military service in 2018 and its gradually increasing scope, questions about conscripts' situation have become increasingly relevant—especially among young voters directly affected.
A Pattern of Parliamentary Pressure
The three written questions and interpellation form a pattern: the opposition uses parliamentary tools to systematically scrutinize the government's handling of issues where it is ideologically or practically vulnerable. Football agents, elderly care, tax enforcement, and conscripts—each question touches different voter groups and exposes tensions within the government coalition between Moderates, Christian Democrats, and Sweden Democrats.
What to Watch Next Week
- Friday, Feb 6: EU Committee consultation with Defense Minister Jonson. Focus on Swedish position regarding defense innovation financing and Ukraine support. Will Sweden drive a Nordic coalition together with Finland and Denmark?
- Tuesday, Feb 10: Open EU Committee meeting with Prime Minister Kristersson. What priorities for the informal summit are communicated publicly? How does opposition respond to the government's EU strategy?
- Wednesday, Feb 11: EU Defense Ministers Council in Brussels. The outcome reveals whether Sweden succeeded in influencing the agenda. Look for public statements from Jonson after the meeting.
- Thursday, Feb 12: Informal EU leaders summit. Though no formal decisions are made, the result signals the EU's direction on defense, Ukraine, and institutional reforms. Kristersson's positioning will affect Sweden's future influence.
- Coming weeks: Ministers' answers to the three written questions. How do Strömmer, Forssmed, and Svantesson handle opposition criticism? Will the answers satisfy parliament, or lead to follow-up questions and potential committee scrutiny?
Data Sources and Methodology
This article is based on official Riksdag documents from parliamentary year 2025/26: EU Committee meeting HDA3EUN24, chamber session HD0I70, written questions HD11473, HD11472, HD11471, and interpellation HD10328. All information is verified from the Riksdag's official database accessible via riksdag-regering-mcp.