It is moving in the debate around NATO within the Social Democrats, which has a long history of being against membership in the defense alliance.
The party is now starting a "security policy dialogue" in which it will weigh the pros and cons of the current security policy line against NATO membership.
There is an uncertainty
The Social Democratic lead writer and political scientist Stig-Björn Ljunggren believes that there is a "genuine uncertainty" in how to handle NATO within the party.
- I think they are sincerely confused.
There are no really strong advocates, nor are there any who stand up and say that they are strong opponents of a formal NATO membership, he says.
The election year and the ongoing war in Ukraine are two factors that, however, will make it easier for the Social Democrats to agree, he believes.
- It affects both the debate climate and the speed with which this decision will be taken, says Stig-Björn Ljunggren.
He is not sure that the dialogue will result in the Social Democrats changing course and advocating membership, but says at the same time:
- There will be an opposition to this, partly within the Social Democrats, partly outside the party.
But it is quite weak now and I do not think it will really come out of the starting blocks, this will probably go pretty fast.
NATO is not a means in itself
The S-labeled political scientist Ulf Bjereld believes that the Social Democrats, through the internal discussion, are trying to anchor the issue internally.
According to him, the NATO issue has been "politically dead" within the Social Democrats for several decades, but has now been brought to life.
Ulf Bjereld believes that the internal discussions can to some extent be divisive - but that the party leadership has a strong mandate and will protect the members' opinions.
- Very many on both sides are so locked in their positions.
Both NATO membership and a military freedom of alliance are means, but in the debate it appears that this is the goal in itself, it is the wrong perspective, he says.