BONUS: "Europe has to be saved from itself" - Sweden's Deputy Prime Minister

Summary

Brussels Playbook Podcast — BONUS: "Europe has to be saved from itself" Interview with Eva Busch, Sweden's Deputy Prime Minister and Energy Minister (February 12, 2026)

---

Overview

In this special episode of the Brussels Playbook Podcast, host Anne McElvoy sits down with Eva Busch (sometimes transcribed as Eber or Amber), Sweden’s Deputy Prime Minister and Energy Minister, ahead of the Munich Security Conference. The discussion spans Europe’s response to the war in Ukraine, the EU’s institutional challenges, relations with the US and the Trump administration, debates over migration and integration, free speech and protest, and the future of European energy. Busch’s forthright, no-nonsense style crystallizes a vision of Europe that is faster, more sovereign, and firmly rooted in its founding democratic values – but also in need of “saving from itself.”

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Europe’s Response to Ukraine and Security Challenges

• European Leadership’s Role ([01:05]–[02:17]):

  • Busch argues Europe is at a “crossroad,” capable of acting but hamstrung by inertia. She references recent meetings (Davos) reflecting a “more of a European determination” that now needs to translate into real action.
  • She questions the need for Europe to stop depending on American leadership and even the EU’s own institutions:
    Quote: “Can Europe now decide to lead itself, not wait for American leadership, maybe not even wait for the EU institution itself? That is what I’m trying to push for from a Swedish perspective.” [01:59 – Busch]

• On the EU’s Core and Bureaucracy ([02:37]–[04:20]):

  • Busch says the EU “needs to be saved from itself,” warning that overreach and bureaucracy erode legitimacy – as seen, she argues, in Brexit and rising Euroskepticism.
  • She urges a re-focus on “strong democracies, not large bureaucracies” and warns against a Union that promises too much and delivers too little.

2. Europe’s Place in the World and Relations with the US

• Feeling Excluded from Decisions ([04:20]–[06:11], [08:36]–[10:53]):

  • McElvoy highlights the perception that Europe is sidelined in Ukraine negotiations. Busch responds:
    Quote: “Europe needs to toughen up... stop waiting for the commission to take the lead... Let’s make sure we’re truly strong together where we decide to be strong — on the single market, on securing sovereignty and independence.” [04:54 – Busch]

  • Busch criticizes slow EU action, noting delays in reducing dependence on Russian gas even after the full-scale invasion. She says Brussels being “outrun” by member states is not a concern, but “how do we move fast enough from words into action.” [06:56 – Busch]

• On the Trump Administration and US Relations ([09:12]–[11:31]):

  • Busch says the Trump administration’s unpredictability means Europe must be respected for its “own strengths,” not slow institutions. She makes a pointed distinction:
    Quote: “The president does not respond well to weakness... only responds to strength and unity — but not unity in itself.” [09:35 – Busch]
  • She notes Sweden’s sharply increased defense spending (2.8% of GDP, targeting 5%) and advises the US to update its view:
    Quote: “I think the Americans need to update their talking points on Europe... It still sounds like they believe Greta Thunberg is running the show — and she’s not.” [10:32 – Busch]

• Reaction to US Rhetoric and Value Debate ([11:31]–[13:37]):

  • In reference to J.D. Vance’s “highly insulting” comments at the previous Munich conference, Busch says such rhetoric causes friction rather than partnership but acknowledges the need to address internal threats and the importance of a unified set of European values.

3. The EU, Legitimacy, and Political Shifts

• On von der Leyen and Institutional Limits ([13:37]–[15:46]):
  • Busch describes Ursula von der Leyen as “the strongest [leader] that we have,” but reminds listeners that she cannot act without unanimous member state backing.
  • She calls for some countries to “move ahead to show that it is possible,” emphasizing public legitimacy and warning that unmet promises drive polarization — referencing political surges in the UK, Germany (AfD), and France (Le Pen).

4. Migration, Integration, and the Swedish Approach

• Overhauling Migration Policy ([16:25]–[19:17]):

  • Busch outlines Sweden’s dual focus: clarifying both pathways into and out of Swedish society. She criticizes past attempts to “blur the lines” of Swedish national identity and notes reforms moving away from permanent residency towards either citizenship (demanding language, self-sufficiency, and value alignment) or temporary stay.

• Integration and Crime ([19:17]–[21:21]):

  • She claims failed integration harmed migrants the most, with violence concentrated in migrant-dense areas.
    Quote: “Who are the ones that have paid the highest price ...of a failed integration? It is the ones that have migrated to Sweden.” [20:17 – Busch]
  • Consistency of law, regardless of background or area, is a cornerstone: “We do not allow alternative laws to be applied in parallel societies.”

5. Free Speech, Protest, and Societal Values

• Protests and Limits to Expression ([21:21]–[25:40]):
  • Busch recounts personal experiences of intimidation at meetings disrupted by aggressive pro-Palestinian activists. She contends that solidarity can be expressed without infringing others’ rights and rejects forms of protest she perceives as harassing or threatening to free debate.
  • She supports restrictions on “very known and clear antisemitic lines,” including the controversial slogan “from the river to the sea,” articulating a standard for prohibiting speech that crosses into support for extremism or incitement.
    • Quote: “You can believe whatever you want, but you cannot impose those values wherever, whenever...Waving around the flags of terrorist organizations...I think that should lead to action from society.” [24:49 – Busch]

6. Energy Security, Nuclear Power, and Sweden’s Model

• Sweden’s Energy Policy and European Lessons ([25:40]–[28:03]):
  • Busch notes Sweden’s €1bn energy support package to Ukraine and outlines an energy security vision anchored in nuclear power, asserting “there basically is no other realistic alternative” for reliable, greener baseload electricity for Europe.
  • She critiques over-reliance on wind that lacks predictability for industry, and challenges larger EU economies (notably Germany): “It’s time to move on, get rid of that opposition to nuclear...” [26:42 – McElvoy paraphrasing Busch]

7. Reflections on Greta Thunberg and Leadership

• Climate Activism and Policy Leadership ([28:03]–[29:02]):
  • Busch expresses respect for Thunberg’s societal engagement but emphasizes that highlighting problems must be paired with actionable solutions.
  • Quote: “We need more leaders who not only shed light on issues but that also come with solutions.” [28:46 – Busch]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “The European Union...has to be saved from itself.”
  — Eva Busch [02:37]
• “Brussels being outrun by member states is not something that is keeping me awake at night. At least I welcome these initiatives.”
  — Eva Busch [06:56]
• “The president [Trump] does not respond well to weakness... only responds to strength and unity, but not unity in itself.”
  — Eva Busch [09:35]
• “I think the Americans need to update their talking points on Europe... It still sounds like they believe Greta Thunberg is running the show — and she’s not.”
  — Eva Busch [10:32]
• “If you don’t align with [Swedish values], there is no way into the Swedish society. You will live on Swedish territory, but you will be in a permanent outside perspective from the Swedish society.”
  — Eva Busch [18:15]
• “You can believe whatever you want, but you cannot impose those values wherever, whenever... I think that should lead to action from society. I do not think that that should be allowed, no.”
  — Eva Busch [24:49]
• “We need more leaders who not only sheds light on issues but also comes with solutions.”
  — Eva Busch [28:46]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [01:05] — European leadership’s ability to address war in Ukraine
• [02:37] — EU needs to be “saved from itself”; reflection on EU’s founding purpose
• [04:50] — Exclusion of Europe from US–Russia–Ukraine negotiations
• [06:55] — Is Brussels at risk of being left behind by faster member states?
• [09:12] — Busch’s view on Europe under Trump administration
• [11:31] — Reflection on J.D. Vance’s Munich comments, internal threats to cohesion
• [13:37] — Thoughts on Ursula von der Leyen and EU institutional constraints
• [16:25] — Sweden’s new approach to migration, integration, and deportations
• [19:17] — Pushback against crime, parallel societies, and consistent rule of law
• [21:21] — The limits of protest and free speech, experience of pro-Palestinian demonstrations
• [25:40] — Energy policy: Sweden’s support for Ukraine, nuclear power for Europe
• [28:13] — Greta Thunberg’s legacy and the need for actionable solutions

---

This episode offers a candid, forceful perspective on Europe’s present and future challenges from one of its most outspoken conservative leaders, balancing institutional skepticism with democratic pragmatism, and calling for Europe to reclaim speed, strength, and core values in a turbulent world.

Transcript

[A]

European leaders and defence ministers are gathering at the Munich Security Conference, grappling with how to end the war in Ukraine as it approaches its fourth anniversary. But do they have any influence in how and when it might end and on whose terms? Welcome to EU Confidential. I'm your host, Anne McElvoy. Eber Bush is a woman who doesn't mince her words. As Sweden's deputy Prime Minister and energy Minister, she's become a prominent voice in calling for a more robust stance against Russia and defending conservative values at home on issues from immigration to Palestinian protests. In the 2022 general elections, Bush's Christian Democrats formed a coalition with other right leaning parties, marking a shift in Sweden's political landscape. She's emerging too, onto a wider European stage. So might we hear more of her forthright brand of politics and will it make a difference in Brussels? Eva Bush, welcome to EU Confidential.

[B]

Good to see you again, Anne.

[A]

We're talking on the eve of the Munich Security Conference. The war in Ukraine is approaching its fourth anniversary. You've consistently warned that the threat Russia poses to Europe is not abating. Do you think the key powers in Europe, Germany, France, the UK and others, have a strong enough voice to bring this to an end?

[B]

I believe they have if they want to. But I think Europe truly is at a crossroad now, not only in words, but in action. Now, taking this seriously enough and I think coming out of just a few weeks ago, Davos, there was, if there was one positive thing to say about that week, was there was a more of a European determination being formed during that week. Now it just needs to be put into action. And we've had a lot of these reports showing pointing in the right the same direction, basically the Red Letter report, the Draga report. The question now is, can Europe now decide to lead itself, not wait for American leadership, maybe not even wait for the EU institution itself. And that is what I'm trying to push for from a Swedish perspective.

[A]

So why are you so doubtful that the eu, which after all it is, you know, the clues in the name. The European Union is the entity of member states and one of its purposes is the protections of democracy and freedoms across Europe. Have you lost faith in the European Union?

[B]

No, I'm still very much hopeful, but I have quite stark message in many ways. The European Union, in order to secure the future of the Union, it has to be saved from itself. So I'm a Christian Democrat, so I fall in the lines of some of the ancestors that formed the European Union. Konrad Adenauer, Schumann, De Gaspari so I'm a warm friend of the European Union and it is the most successful peace project ever in modern time. And it was formed, I mean, during one of the most horrible and dystopian eras ever. And if we could come out of that period after the Second World War with Europe literally shattered into pieces and still form a very realistic cope with the both value union and trade union that is the fundament of the European Union. Well, and we can deal with today's problems. However, the European Union was built for stability, not for speed. And that is the reason I'm calling for the European Union to come back to its core purpose and in order to make sure that we are building strong democracies and not very large bureaucracies, because the very bureaucracy that the Union is now is now eroding public legitimacy. I mean, that's why we lost our British fans and that is why we're also now seeing the long term support for the union being undermined in a lot of member states. So scale back what the union promises to deliver on. That's where we actually need a proper European win or else the Union should not even get involved.

[A]

How much are you concerned that European leaders and the so called coalition of the willing are largely being ignored by the Trump administration? Even if, as you suggest, tries to step up and focus more? I mean, there is no role in the negotiations at the moment for Europe. The negotiations underway with the US and the Middle east talking to Russia, we do seem to have been cut out. Is that a message that Europe needs to kind of take on the chin?

[B]

This is the reason why I'm saying Europe needs to toughen up. And I think European leaders needs to also stop waiting for the commission to take the lead on some of these initiatives. We're not a Federal consists of 27 member states for a reason. Let's make sure that we're truly strong together on the areas where we decide to be strong on single market, for example, and making sure we have the right competences to secure our sovereignty and independence. And for me, one of those areas needs to be tempo and speed. And I'm hoping that Sweden, together with a few other countries will be the ones taking the lead on seeing temple deregulation and predictable permitting as actually a matter of our security. If we don't, we will see our competitiveness completely plummet in relations to the challenges that we are seeing and the competition that we are seeing from our lovely friends in India, for example, the industry war that has been going on for a long time between China and the US and this is why I'm pushing for energy security so heavily and for a rude awakening when in terms of moving away from the very ideological debate that we've seen on energy physics needs to be placed in the center of the energy debate. What makes the system work?

[A]

What I'm not clear about from what you're saying at the moment is you want to see more member states, if you like, taking more muscular action, built for tempo, built for speed, as you said, rather than bureaucracy or even solidarity. But if you're the European Commission, what you really don't want to see, or indeed the European Council, you know, any of the central kind of entities that have been the glue of institutional Europe, you get very worried if you've got too many multi speed things going on or alliances. You've got E3s here, that's Merz Macron, Starmer. You've now got, you know, Nordics like yourself who sound quite gung ho to move on fast. Do you think that's actually okay that you might leave sleepy old Brussels behind?

[B]

I would welcome the day where Brussels would feel that it's, it's being outrun by its own member states. I think we're nowhere near that situation. So that is not my main concern. My main concern is how do we fast enough move from words into action, how do we use this momentum? Because it's always sort of a ruckus amongst the European leaders whenever anything seems enough urgent and you have all of these grand words and commitments, but then what actually comes out of it? Just look at the commitment of cutting our dependence of Russian gas, for example, after the full scale invasion it took until the energy council that I was part of this fall in Luxembourg, I think it was in October before we made the final decisions and then we're still waiting a few more years. So I think Brussels being outrun by the member states is not something that is keeping me awake at night at least I welcome these initiatives. And I'd like to also raise a finger of warning, as you say, at least in Swedish, that we are now focusing so much on the omnibus packages and not looking into all of the EU regulation that is already lined up in the pipe. If you just look from Sweden's perspective, our private sector will be burdened by another roughly 80 million Swedish crowns. So around 800 million euros in added costs for Swedish companies yearly, apart from the sort of introductory costs to this as well. So I mean, it's a lot of, a lot of money going in.

[A]

What about this point before we move on to Donald Trump, that sense of the Americans really in for this security guarantees both on Ukraine, but more broadly in Europe or not. I mean, you could say, looking at the run of play at the moment, that America now seems to see itself as brokering between Ukraine and Russia. And there is not space at the table for all of the efforts that Europeans have put in to trying to get into it. We're not in the right room. So what view of the Trump administration does that leave you with?

[B]

The way that I have perceived this is and the way it's landed with me is basically this is the reason why Europe needs to be respected in its own strengths, because it's very apparent that our dear American friends and the Trump administration that has become increasingly unpredictable is not very impressed by our slow and steady institutions. And he does not respond, the president does not respond well to weakness. It only responds to strength and unity, but not to unity in its itself. And this is the reason why I think it's so important that other countries are now doing the same journey as Sweden is doing in terms of our defense spending. We will reach 2.8% of GDP in defense spending this year, and we're set on a very good trajectory to meet the 5% target that we agreed upon after the Hague meeting. But I think we also, and I said this to Mr. Lutnick when I had the opportunity to meet him in Davos. I think the Americans need to update their talking points on Europe because it still sounds like they believe that Greta Thunberg is running the show and she's not. So I gave them the updated stats on defense spending for Sweden, the updated numbers on migrations, which is now the lowest it's ever been in 40 years. We have the lowest tax levels in 50 years, and we have a lot of wind power. But Sweden is actually now building a lot of nuclear power. And they need to see that we're actually walking the talk that gives us strength and opportunity at the negotiation table.

[A]

I'd love to know what walking the talk is in Swedish. Let Swedish listeners get in touch and help the deputy prime minister with her metaphors. Help you out, J.D. vance issued that clarion call which was seen in large parts. I think you sent shock waves through parts of Europe and the defense and security and energy establishments last year at Munich, basically telling Europe that it had got left behind, that it was making itself irrelevant. And many other brick bats were issued by Vance. Do you think he was right? And what have we learned this year from it?

[B]

The way that the Americans have been operating with some of these statements and not with, at least with last year's statements from J.D. vance at the Munich Conference is the way they're doing it is highly insulting. And the way they're doing it is not signaling, hey, let's partner up. Let's make both America stronger and the EU and Europe stronger, but rather let's create disruption, let's create insecurity, let's go about it in an insulting way that causes friction and makes no one knows who we can trust and really rely on. And also it came in a setting where no strong firm statements were made for the long term support on Ukraine and that lands very well in Sweden. Having said that, what I have pushed for many years is that the European Union is more than a union on trade or coal and steel. It is also very much a value union. That is, the union is set out to ensure peace by safeguarding the values that makes Europe feel like Europe. And I believe that European leaders had not taken this seriously enough. This is the reason why I've said we actually now need to take the debate on Islam's place in Europe. And I'm saying this not as a way of speaking against anyone's religion, but rather making sure that we can all live in peace. Whether you're a Muslim, a Christian or an atheist or a Jew in Europe, we can all live side by side in peace and in harmony by making sure that there are one set of values that are non negotiable. If we don't take this debate, I believe that we will see in more European cities the type of friction and polarization that we've seen in some municipalities in UK for example. And that will not be good for business, that will not be good for the cohesion of the union. And in that sense, J.D. vance was right when he spoke on the threat from within.

[A]

You're a fellow Christian Democrat with Ursula von der Leyen, the commission president. What's your opinion of her? Because in many ways you seem to be saying that you're a. And institutional Europe has lagged behind what is necessary. But there she is, I don't know whether she likes it or not, often dubbed Queen of Europe in terms of that kind of Brussels world in which she operates, but also where she convenes. And what is your opinion of her? I mean, or is she a politician, if you like, from a different era of European politics who's struggled to perhaps find a foot in this one?

[B]

Ursula von der Leyen is a strong European leader and the strongest that we have. And if you're wondering who who to call when you want to call Europe, you should be picking up the phone to Leyen. But she's also a good listener. That's what you have to be in the capacity that she has, she cannot go any further than the 27 member states give her backing to actually go in her statements. And this is the reason why when some are only pointing to the commission to take lead on things, I'm pointing back at the European leaders of the 27th member states because we will not be in agreement with every single step that needs to be taken now. And then some member states, well that's.

[A]

When the European Council can come into play.

[B]

Of course it can. But I believe that it's with a lot of issues. Maybe some countries need to move ahead to show that it is possible. Once again coming back to the question of public legitimacy because if we keep on over promising to our citizens, letting more and more power up to the European Union level and not delivering on those promises, we will just keep on eroding public legitimacy and then increasing political polarization. Just look at reform making a massive progress in the polls in the UK alternative for Deutschland in Germany. You see the leadership under Li Pen in France as well. So you'll keep on seeing these movements in so many of the the countries.

[A]

I think we'll talk more about the immigration debate in Sweden and energy security after the break.

[B]

Well, the holidays have come and gone once again but if you've forgotten to get that special someone in your life a gift. Well, Mint Mobile is extending their holiday offer of half off unlimited wireless. So here's the idea. You get it now, you call it an early present for next year. What do you have to lose? Give it a [e-mail] Switch limited time 50 off regular price for new customers. Upfront payment required $45 for 3 months, $90 for 6 months or $180 for 12 month plan taxes and fees. Extra speeds may slow after 50 gigabytes per month when network is busy see terms.

[A]

Welcome back to EU Confidential. Let's talk about that record on immigration and the handling of it. If we could just because you did open up that very interesting topic you've seen to do a you made huge strides there and lots of differences in the way you've gone about that. Some pickup in the UK press and others. This week your government has proposed toughening the rules on migrant returns from Sweden. That is people who commit serious acts of violence could be deported if they aren't EU citizens And you're calling on other European countries to overhaul the unhcr, the refugee agency regulations and rules that can limit the scope of deportations is deportation. Deportations are sort of good framing through which you think it's healthy for societies to approach topics like this.

[B]

I believe you have to have a two way approach to it. You need to both be much clearer on the way into society and much clearer on the way out of our society. And Sweden did neither for a very long time. I mean, there was a sort of almost like we were generally trying to blur the lines on what it meant to become a Swede, saying that there is no proper Swedish culture. Culture, what is even Swedish. It's maybe, you know, building IKEA furniture and standing in line and, and all other values or culture expressions are imported. And I think we've managed to move away from, from that. Because if you talk to someone who has migrated to Sweden, they are very clear on. It is very obvious that there are some things that are very Swedish. And if you don't align with that, there is no way into the Swedish society. You will live on Swedish territory, but you will be in a permanent outside perspective from the Swedish society. But I believe that on the other hand, we have said to people, you do not have the right to asylum. But it has been possible for people to remain in our society, but not being part of the society for a very long time, that has driven up exploitation in workforce, that has driven up crime, and that has driven up division between different groups in the Swedish society. And that's why I'm pushing so hard both for deportation. If you've gotten a no, that no needs to mean something, then you have to leave. But if you get a yes, then the way into the Swedish society should be much clearer. And we're moving away from what we call permanent possibility to reside in our country and say it's either temporary or you move towards a citizenship. And the citizenship then needs to include not only language tests and demand that you can support yourself. It also needs to make sure that you are aligned with basic Swedish values.

[A]

And just looking at those sweeping legal powers that were expanded a couple of years ago, that was to tackle the rise of drug syndicates and those who were recruiting young people, mainly from migrant backgrounds, into drug gangs, into violence. And that extraordinary spike of violence that you're country experience now there is a story there of a reduction in gun violence is particularly one, one thing that people have been looking at among that cohort. But there are also people saying, look, if you've come to this country from a migrant background. So you're already trying to find your your feet in the society. And there are stop and search measures that are particularly targeted on you or your elder brother or your family. You feel in a strange way still kind of contingent, maybe unwelcome. Is that a perspective that you understand?

[B]

That is something that we're still struggling with, yes, to be honest and frank. But who are the ones that have paid the highest price, the highest cost of a failed integration? It is the ones that have migrated to Sweden. If you look at where we've seen gun violence being predominantly very core part of the gang violence in Sweden, it has been in areas where we have a high degree of migrants. So for me, and if you ask a lot of peoples who have migrated, and not at least the second generations of migrants to Sweden, they're now saying someone is actually fighting for Swedish values and Swedish law to apply to me the same safety that Swedes who have been living in Sweden for generations can enjoy. And their living areas are now being applied to the area where I reside and live. So for me it is also a way of expressing we do not allow alternative laws to be applied in parallel societies. In Sweden we are all upholding the same law in every single area.

[A]

Well, let's take an area where there might be some conflict between certain kinds of freedom oriented values, Swedish, but shared, you know, across many European countries and similarly minded people, and the necessity, or the perceived necessity sort of to, to kind of make everyone coral into a certain idea of what it is to be a national citizen. Because that seems to me a really interesting topic in all of our democracies. And a good example might be, for instance, last year I noticed that you'd hit back at certain forms of pro Palestinian protest after one of your cabinet colleagues was. Was harassed in the course of one protests. And there have been similar debates in London and elsewhere and in Germany a much more stringent view has been sort of taken of what kind of protests can be on the streets. But people feel strongly about it. They're entitled to have strong differences of opinions. When you said activists are behaving like barbarians when they restrict other people's freedom of speech and referred to along an honorable tradition there in Sweden of the free word and free opinion, you know, were you not encroaching also on the ability of those who feel incredibly strongly about something very important that was happening in the world and is still going on in some form to bring their freedom of opinion to the street?

[B]

The short answer is no. So for me, I believe that there are wonderful ways of expressing solidarity with people in need without infringing on others. Freedom of speech. And what was happening was just. I can take my own public meetings as an example. I was holding open meetings for anyone in living in Sweden to attend these meetings, but they were violently being harassed. It was getting increasingly difficult to uphold basic security for the people that were attending these meetings. I had meetings completely surrounded and barricaded with people screaming and being threatful and causing an extremely disturbing and unsafe environment for elderly citizens who had taken themselves to an open public meeting. And any citizen in Sweden can come and ask a question, unfiltered, uncensored, to the Deputy Prime Minister of Sweden and have an open, straight answer. And those meetings were during a period impossible to hold because there were Palestinian activists who were not lifting the cost of civilians being murdered in Gaza, but rather shutting our meetings down.

[A]

I understand that, because the argument that you could bring to bear there was that in this case a colleague or another politician could be from a completely different party, was not able to engage in the public debate. Where do you fall in on the line that says, for instance, you know, an argument that we've heard in some European capitals, the UK is just one example, that there are certain chance that should be forbidden or should be basically put under the penal code, from the river to the sea, etc, or do you then fall on the side of the free speech argument which says, you know what, some people are going to say some things that could be profoundly hurtful, I don't agree with them, but they should still be said. Where are you on the absolute freedom of speech as opposed to the freedom not to be jostled or intimidated, where I completely see your, you know, your point. I think this is a slightly separate one.

[B]

You can believe whatever you want, but you cannot impose those values wherever, whenever enchanting, from the river to the sea and other very known and clear antisemitic lines, for example, every single Saturday on the streets of Sweden, outside of Parliament, outside of our head of State, the King, the Royal palace, and outside of the school of one of our Jewish communities and waving around the flags of terrorist organizations. I think that should lead to action from society. I do not think that that should be allowed, no. And nor do we allow other right wing extremists chants in free form.

[A]

We're going to just do a small amount on your actual brief of energy, unfortunately. But I do want to just raise one question because I think it's quite sort of coming back to what you said earlier about the responsibility of Europe to move, to move quickly, to be more agile. Sweden's just announced a billion Swedish krona in a package of support, so considerable package of support to the Ukraine energy system. But that it's, you know, that's only one component. I know that you have an extension sense of plan for nuclear power stations to create that more dependable baseload for energy security and also to sort of cut the cord in that debate about reliance on fossil fuels and boosting renewables and bring extra energy into play. What we're not really seeing is that moving on in bigger countries in terms of the energy argument in Europe. So if you're talking to your German colleagues, for instance, are you saying, look, it's time to move on, get rid of that opposition to nuclear which has been there since it was abandoned under Angela Merkel. Is your view that nuclear is the future?

[B]

Yes, it is. It's not going to be the future for every single European country, but it needs to be for Europe as a whole. Because there basically is no other realistic alternative to massively expand your energy system and the electricity production that is predictable and reliable. Because I mean, I'm really asking that the Swedish example will be discouraging for the rest of Europe. Just adding a lot of installed production power that we have over the last, well, 11 to 12 years. 13,000 megawatts of more installed production power. But it has all been wind power. That gives you a lot of electricity production, but it is not guaranteed to my businesses and my industry. When and where it is needed, it goes on equity, export. And I need guaranteed power 24, 7, 365 days a year. And this is the reason either you go then fossil, you go gas turbines, or you go hydropower. But that is difficult to expand with rivers and streams. We have a lot of it in Sweden, but you can expand that more and the next one is then nuclear power because you need fossil free baseload and or else you're going to drive up cost and you'll have a roller coaster of electricity prices in all of Europe.

[A]

Very last thought you said we were Enel made a reference to the post Greta Thunberg era. Just in brief, what's your opinion of Greta Thunberg and her legacy?

[B]

Well, so I think as a politician you should be very careful of targeting or speaking of specific citizens. She has representative movement that has pushed for climate awareness. Now she's moved into completely different areas. Speaking of Gaza and Palestine activists, I appreciate all of the societal engagement that she has stood for. But I believe that we need more leaders who not only sheds light on issues, but that also comes with solutions. And this is the reason my societal engagement and commitment comes in this form, at least during this period of time. Huge respect for her, but we don't agree.

[A]

Amber Bush, thank you very much for joining us.

[B]

Thank you.

[A]

Emma Bush from Stockholm there, thank you for listening to this episode of EU Confidential. I'm here at the Munich Security Conference. We'll bring you more from that next week. Across all of our report reporting. I'm Anne McElroy and the senior producer was Peter Snowden.