Before Sälen, Defense Minister Pål Jonson wrote an op-ed about the importance of companies for defense capability. "The government is also intensifying dialogue with the industry to ensure that we work towards common goals. The time when the state spoke to the industry is over. Now we speak with the industry." The message from the government and other parliamentary parties is that it is through partnerships and cooperation with defense companies that capability will increase and future deterrence will be built.
At the same time, it is not only in Sweden that the discussion is taking place about strengthening defense companies. Recently, the Polish presidency in the EU presented its priorities, and the importance of the technical, innovative base and production capability was mentioned repeatedly. NATO's new Secretary General Mark Rutte also highlighted the importance of defense innovation and increased production capacity this week. The keynote speeches from the Prime Minister, the Defense Minister, and Social Democrats' party leader Magdalena Andersson emphasized the importance of defense companies.
But there was no conversation with the companies in Sälen. There was no discussion in the panel talks during the Folk och Försvar national conference on how this important capability should be developed. Defense companies, defense materiel, or defense innovation were not topics in the program – and no speakers represented these subjects on stage. And perhaps it is reasonable. It is easier to manage an authority or write a law than to stimulate companies to choose to invest in a sluggish defense market with significant business risks.
Nevertheless, questions of interest to the industry are raised in Sälen. The Left Party raised the issue of regulating Sweden's arms imports. It is an exciting question. When a state chooses to supply capability with the support of companies - domestically or from abroad - it is a choice with many considerations. Factors such as availability, development risk, potential strategic subcontractors, access to capability over time (along with the operational limitations that come with these), etc., must be considered and balanced. The need for interoperability increases with allied and more partner countries. But it is also about dependencies. Dependencies on a supplier and the country where the supplier is based – and the supplier country's values, foreign and security policy.
Another perspective is the one raised by the British Ambassador to Sweden and by Sweden's Ambassador to Ukraine. The defense of Sweden does not look like it used to, when the focus was on tangible materiel, boots on the ground, and the number of brigades. Russia's war in Ukraine presents a different reality where soldiers in large volumes are sacrificed on the battlefield. In that struggle, Sweden has no chance. However, our technical expertise provides a strategic advantage. An expertise guaranteed by the defense companies in Sweden. From the stage, it was emphasized that our competitive companies are an important contribution to NATO.
Companies should not assess the defense's operational needs. However, it is interesting to listen to the Supreme Commander on how companies contribute to delivering capability. Companies can also draw conclusions from other international customers. As we now build defense capability, the work is characterized by variables such as speed and adaptability. Advantage is given to those who can innovatively change the conditions. Therefore, it is no longer just about what we buy, but also how quickly systems are procured and how seamlessly and creatively they can adapt and use them in various innovative ways. A general I met from Ukraine before Christmas told me about how companies were at the front and how quickly materiel could be adapted and adjusted to meet the changes in warfare. The innovation loop is high-intensity. It is difficult for Sweden in peacetime to achieve the same materiel supply cycles, but it is impossible to continue working in the way we have. This means that processes, flows, working methods, and planning tools need to change.
As Defense Minister Jonson pointed out in his article, there is reason to move from speaking to the market to an active, early market dialogue. The development will require extensive knowledge building and investments in research, technology development, and innovation. But we also face conflicting challenges with time-consuming permit processes, difficult-to-assess security protection work, unclear procurement needs, and a lack of market dialogue. For this, determination, leadership, a willingness to take risks, and a strategic perspective are needed. What does the state want with the market and companies? How does the state plan to supply its and allied capabilities? These are questions, considerations, and priorities that concern politics and public debate. Conversations, albeit complex, that also need to be held in Sälen.
Robert LimmergårdSecretary General
Security and Defense Companies