Reporting from the informal meeting between EU heads of state and government on October 1

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! The European Council met for an informal meeting on Wednesday. This was followed yesterday by a meeting with the European Political Community, EPC, as it is called in EU languages. On the agenda were Ukraine, security, and defense. The discussion was naturally dominated by the serious security situation and the Russian hybrid threat, not least the serious incidents with drones and airspace violations of the past few weeks.

Only Denmark and Copenhagen had only in the days before the meeting been plagued by drones that caused great concern and disrupted Danish air traffic. I spoke with Denmark's Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen on the same day the violations became known, and I offered Swedish help. Denmark responded and confirmed its interest in receiving Swedish help, not least to ensure capacity with anti-drone capabilities to protect the meetings in Copenhagen.

A Swedish contingent was sent to Copenhagen following a government decision, equipped with the latest technology we have developed against drones within the Swedish defense industry and the Swedish Armed Forces. When we defend Danish airspace and Danish sovereignty, we also defend Sweden, not only for geographical reasons but also for common European reasons.

Today, I want to extend a special thanks to the Swedes who participated in the mission and who made Wednesday's and Thursday's meetings possible. That free democracies can hold joint meetings is obvious, but it was questioned. Now they – you – have contributed to guaranteeing that right.

President Zelenskyy participated via link at the beginning of Wednesday's meeting and underscored, just as we ourselves usually do, that more countries must do more to support Ukraine out of solidarity but also out of self-interest.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy also raised Ukraine's EU rapprochement and underlined that Ukraine has now implemented the reforms needed to take new steps in the EU accession process. Now it is the EU that must fulfill its part of that promise.

Ukraine's place is in the EU. I and many of my colleagues on site underscored this to Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, but Hungary continues, exactly as expected, to block Ukraine.

Europe must now take greater collective responsibility for the support to Ukraine. Goodwill and kind words are very good, but it is action that counts. In the current situation, there is overall a bit too much talk and a bit too little action among quite many. Sweden and our Nordic-Baltic friends are, as you know, at the forefront. That is good, but others must now take greater responsibility.

I therefore had a private meeting with President Zelenskyy yesterday. We naturally discussed many things, but among others the question of a long-term opportunity for cooperation between Ukraine and Sweden regarding new air defense capabilities. A strong Ukrainian air force would contribute to strengthening security in all of Europe.

Ukraine has for a long time expressed interest in Swedish Jas 39 Gripen – the aircraft that we have in the Swedish Air Force – both in the short and in the long term.

In the short term, Sweden is part of what is sometimes called the F16 coalition, which has contributed American F16 aircraft to Ukraine. We agreed with other countries that it was not appropriate to introduce two new aircraft systems simultaneously to a Ukraine at war. Sweden's contribution to the project is currently two radar surveillance aircraft that increase the F16 aircraft's capacity to operate.

In the longer term and after the war, the Gripen could, however, be an important part of a long-term strong Ukrainian air force. This is, of course, a long journey that involves, not least, major common European financing issues, but the government is very positive towards this future opportunity for cooperation between Ukraine and Sweden on far-reaching defense issues.

Here and now, the support for Ukraine is also largely about money. Therefore, the Commission's new proposal to facilitate the use of the frozen Russian assets for the benefit of Ukraine is both important and welcome. No decision was made at this meeting – it was an informal meeting – but there was broad support to proceed in the direction that the Commission has outlined, though not without objections, which everyone here is aware of. Belgium, among others, raises a number of legal questions. But the attitude and tone were much more positive this time than during previous discussions regarding the frozen Russian assets.

There is a broad consensus that the pressure on Russia must continue to increase. It is good that negotiations on a 19th sanctions package are now underway. Sweden is pushing for concrete measures against the shadow fleet, not least further listings of the vessels that should not be in the Baltic Sea or anywhere else at all. France acted very resolutely the other day against a false-flagged vessel in the shadow fleet.

We also spoke about security and defense. The EU has an important role in helping and facilitating for the member states to strengthen their defense capabilities. This discussion aimed to provide guidance to the Commission ahead of the roadmap that is to be presented and decided upon at the meeting in three weeks.

Many proposals and initiatives are being discussed right now. Protection of the eastern flank is one such important issue. Greater European anti-drone capability is another such issue. Regulatory simplifications to facilitate broader European defense industrial cooperation is a third. Furthermore, all countries have their own core issues and their own priorities, sometimes conditioned by special geography, sometimes conditioned by special economic issues, and sometimes conditioned by special defense industrial deficiencies or assets.

We agree on some fundamental things. First and foremost, the work being done to strengthen our defense capability must be purposeful and coherent both nationally and at the EU level. On the national level, the member states are responsible for the upgrading of their own national defense. On the European level, it concerns everything that Europe's muscles can be used for to strengthen cooperation, speed up processes, increase standardization, and improve procurement. And for most of us, they can also be used by us as Nato allies.

I say "most of us," because the EU, as you know, also consists of a number of countries that are not NATO members. EU cooperation and NATO cooperation complement each other but do not replace each other.

We have neither the resources nor the time for double work or ambiguity regarding which organization should do what. The EU's role is clear: to facilitate the member states' rearmament and contribute to achieving the capability goals decided by and in NATO.

Ukraine's defense industry has developed since the beginning of the Russian invasion and is today at the absolute forefront, not in all areas but in large areas.

Just look at how drone capability has developed! Today, it is we who are learning from Ukraine, not Ukraine learning from us. We have much to gain from their experiences from the battlefield – unfortunately, we must say. Therefore, it is obvious that the measures that the EU decides on now and in the future open up for participation also by Ukraine. It is both an important part of our support to Ukraine and an important exchange for our and Ukraine's respective defense industries.

Madam Speaker! Yesterday, I also participated in the EPC meeting, which gathered 44 or possibly 45 European heads of state and government. It was essentially the entire EU plus our entire neighborhood – both candidate countries and other countries that are close to the EU.

I participated in a plenary session and in a round-table discussion and had several bilateral meetings with my colleagues. We received an interesting report from Moldova's president Maia Sandu, who told us about the experiences from Sunday's parliamentary elections in Moldova, where there was extensive Russian infiltration and where they tried but failed to overthrow the government.

The President was both relieved and proud that the Moldovan people had passed a third test in the form of Russian influence attempts, and she described in detail how, two days before the Moldovan election, they discovered Russian technical infiltration in the data systems that were to handle the election results. They felt that they succeeded in stopping it with foreign help, and she thanked all countries, including Sweden, that had helped.

We have certain reasons to feel proud of this. The Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency, Sida, the Folke Bernadotte Academy, and the Psychological Defence Agency made significant contributions to support Moldova ahead of the election. We shall now build upon these experiences. We did it to help Moldova, but also to acquire real hands-on experience of how it goes when other countries attempt to intervene and influence a neighboring country's election.

With all this, I conclude the report from the meeting, Madam Speaker, but before I do, I want to say that I would have also had a bilateral meeting with the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. For very sad reasons, however, he cancelled his bilateral meetings and went home to honor the victims of the terrible attacks in Manchester and to be present for everything that follows from it.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the report!

First, I want to say that it is important that the EU's member states now seem to be closer to a solution for how the frozen Russian assets can be used. Some question marks remain, but if we can reach a solution perhaps already by the next summit, it would be a great success.

This week's summit was characterized by the events reported in recent weeks involving drones over airports and military installations in Denmark, Poland, and Romania. It is evident that the EU needs to be able to quickly build up a capacity to protect itself against drone intrusions.

Judging by the reporting, not least in the media, one did not get very far in the discussions at the meeting regarding how a European drone wall or a drone defense could be developed. The Prime Minister himself toned down the expectations for a European drone wall quite significantly both before and after the meeting. I would therefore like to ask the Prime Minister for a bit more concreteness. Does the Prime Minister think that the EU should build up a common drone wall?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I begin with the frozen assets, where I agree that a significant step forward was taken. It is a different tone, especially from a number of countries that have the euro as their currency. I have not heard anything from the European Central Bank, but it is, as said, a different tone – good so.

That I do not go further than that is because there were significant objections, primarily from Belgium. Some of the objections are of a legal nature, and one must probably have answers to those. I do not therefore underestimate them. Belgium's Prime Minister presented them with a force that I do not think should be read as a veto, but as strong objections against the technical solution. I know that the Commission will continue to work on this, and in the best case, one can land on a proposal that evokes agreement and where the reasonable question marks regarding the legal frameworks are clarified. That would be very good.

When it comes to drones, it is about two things. The first is that there are some misconceptions in this. Drone capability is very important. There were reasons why Sweden was on the spot with a military unit and helped Denmark physically. I saw this unit myself, which is newly developed, on Gotland this summer. It is an incredibly impressive cooperation between the Swedish defense industry and the Armed Forces. There is therefore no doubt about this, and many countries, especially those that have been under pressure, realize the importance of it.

A drone wall is probably the right expression if one speaks of a national level. The EU has no conditions to build up a drone wall. It is a 3,000 mile border. It is not feasible. This was pointed out not only by me but also by Germany, France, and the United Kingdom. The idea is correct. We shall build drone capacity in Europe. We shall do it nationally. We shall do it within the framework of Nato. The EU can contribute and facilitate some of these things, not least economically and regulatorily, but the EU as an organization builds no drone wall.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Madam Speaker! I will probably continue to insist on seeking a little more concretization regarding what the Prime Minister and Sweden consider and pursue. This is important; it is about Swedish security.

Chiefs of Defence and several other experts have pointed out the need for the EU to build up a common capability to defend us against drone intrusions, as a complement to national drone defense.

Sweden's geographical location and technical competence and capability, which the Prime Minister highlighted, are strong reasons why Sweden should be part of the discussion and push forward, but after having listened to the Prime Minister here and now and ahead of the meeting, my impression is that we are sitting a bit in the back seat and waiting for other countries to push the issue of a common drone defense further. Why? What is the reason for this?

Sweden has everything to gain from giving the signal that we are prepared and ready to do everything we can to defend ourselves and more. What is the reason?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! Why do the Social Democrats always seek conflicts where they do not exist? They do it with infallible precision – it is almost a bit charming. There is no conflict in this. I am merely pointing out that the EU is a European cooperation that can create conditions, among other things, for different countries to build up a better drone capacity, for example through standardizations, joint procurement, a lot of regulations – all of this.

The EU is not a defense organization. The EU will not take over NATO's responsibility for military drone capability, whether on the eastern flank or anywhere else. On the other hand, the EU has an important border surveillance mission, as the friends from Italy and Greece pointed out, regardless of whether it concerns military purposes or refugee smuggling, for example. All of this is the EU's task.

I can guarantee that Sweden is at the forefront when it comes to drone capability. That is why we were asked and were present in Copenhagen. We are happy to act together with others to increase capacity, but the EU will therefore not build a military drone defense.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the report!

The informal meeting had a slightly shorter agenda than is customary at the European Council. In the media's reporting, there is some variation in how the meeting is viewed.

One media company reports that great progress was achieved in all areas and that it looks like they will have concrete proposals to take a position on at the next meeting, while it states in Politico that the commission crashed with reality when it comes to drone defense, that the issue of frozen assets was not resolved, that there was opposition from Hungary, that Belgium had sharp objections, and that there was no support to move to qualified majority to move forward in Ukraine's membership negotiations.

My question to the Prime Minister is quite simply: Is it the mix of reactions that we have seen in the media that is closest to reality, or how would the Prime Minister describe it?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! It is an interesting question. Unlike these media outlets, I was on site, so I can tell how it was. It is quite simple to summarize.

Regarding frozen assets, we did not reach a conclusion, as I said, but it was an unambiguous success. Belgium, and perhaps others behind Belgium, are now coming forward with legal objections in a completely different tone. The large countries, which previously said the issue was excluded, are now the opposite. The Commission did an excellent job and really got the wheels turning. One can now proceed with frozen assets. It is an incredibly important step – ask Ukraine!

The EU negotiations involved no progress whatsoever. No one had expected this either. A discussion was held on whether one could imagine taking small steps between the large steps with qualified majority in order to practically bypass Hungary. One could say that Hungary, with some expected clarity, closed that door. No progress was made whatsoever.

I think the drone issue should be described as follows: Yes, the Commission received some criticism for implying something that is incorrect, namely that the EU would take over military tasks. I do not believe it was ill-intended by the Commission; they wanted to emphasize the importance of a broad European capability to counter drones, currently especially for military purposes. They were, of course, encouraged by flanking states who think this is extremely important, probably for economic reasons. They want to release funds to be able to create this, and there the EU can perhaps contribute.

So, some criticism was received because it was suggested that the EU would take over NATO's tasks. I can guarantee that the large countries closed that door with significant force. It is not relevant. But there is great interest in building drone capacity. There is great interest in what Ukraine has succeeded with and for what we physically had on site in Copenhagen.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Prime Minister for the answers. I am satisfied with that. I have no further questions.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Prime Minister for the report. I also wish to agree on the positive aspect that the EU now seems to be able to reach an agreement on how the frozen Russian assets shall be used and how they shall be distributed to Ukraine to a greater extent.

The shadow fleet, however, seems to be more difficult to access. It is both an environmental threat and a way for Russia to bypass blockades and sell oil. Now there are also suspicions that the shadow fleet is used for deliberate violations of other countries' territories. Even though it is not confirmed, one can suspect that the shadow fleet is used for drones. Regardless of whether that is the case or not, we need to see the shadow fleet as a possible means for Russia to threaten EU member states and not just as a fleet that risks the environment in the Baltic Sea and bypasses blockades. I want to ask what discussions were held regarding measures against the shadow fleet. Can more, for example, do what France does?

More must also be done for the EU's member states to free themselves from the dependence on Russia's oil and gas. As it is now, the EU's member states contribute to Russia's warfare. What measures and steps were discussed to reduce the dependence on Russian oil and gas? Did the Council also discuss how to prevent products manufactured within the EU from being sold on to Russia, for example Swedish ball bearings?

At the EU Committee's meeting before the European Council, the Prime Minister raised the issue of Gaza. Therefore, I would like to ask if Gaza was raised during the Council's meeting.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I fully share the multiple descriptions of the shadow fleet's risks: the flow of money to Russia, the acute environmental threats, and the poor vessels. We have seen the threats of intentional and unintentional damage to infrastructure, but also the military threat that one can imagine with drone-carrying vessels. All of this is bad. Therefore, we and others constantly return to new listings. Now we have listed many hundreds of vessels, and more remain to be listed. Everything that can be listed, we will truly strive to list.

France raised the reasons for how they had acted against such a vessel – I will not quote exactly what was said. I think this is very interesting. Different countries have slightly different interpretations of the law of the sea. Many countries, not least seafaring countries, have an extremely strict interpretation, because they do not want to themselves be subjected to a bold interpretation. That can naturally be understood – as one treats others' ships, one can suspect that others will treat one's own ships. But I think the French example really deserves to be analyzed very carefully, because they had a number of very clear reasons for choosing to act very forcefully. The more such vessels that face that action, the higher the cost of continuing to operate a shadow fleet.

We will proceed with all conceivable sanctions. We have legislation in Sweden against the companies that may attempt to circumvent them. It would be good if more had it. Then there is also piracy, quite a few report. It is not about sea pirates but about piracy of things. Products come in that are intended to look like a specific company's products but are manufactured illegitimately by other companies.

Gaza was, of course, in the margins as a topic of importance but was not on the agenda at all. Every meeting does not deal with every issue.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Prime Minister for the answer.

It is a pity that the question of support for Gaza did not come up. We need to consolidate forces to stop the genocide and to rebuild Gaza again after this ends. Gaza shall be an independent state within the framework of a two-state solution. The EU probably needs to discuss more on how to achieve that than it has done so far.

During the consultation before this meeting, I also raised Morocco and Western Sahara. The Commission has presented a proposal for a trade agreement with Morocco where Western Sahara is included. The European Court of Justice has annulled the agreement, but the new proposal does not fully comply with international law and what the European Court of Justice says, for example, that the population in Western Sahara and the Polisario should be heard and be involved in the decision-making. The Prime Minister said that they are listening to the European Court of Justice, but nevertheless, Sweden voted yes on Wednesday. Can the Prime Minister comment on that?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I cannot do that any further. I naturally have all respect for the members' desire to discuss all important issues in the whole world. But this is a report from the half-day meeting on an informal basis that we had in the European Council in Copenhagen. It is the things that were on that agenda that we are discussing. Then we have many occasions to discuss Morocco, Gaza, and completely other issues. But they were, therefore, not up at the European Council summit the other day.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Prime Minister very much for the account and the answers to the questions.

First, I want to draw attention to the horrific event in Manchester. That a wave of antisemitism is washing over Europe is immensely tragic.

On the other hand, one must also note Moldova and the admirable thing that has happened: that they have managed to carry out three elections and counter Russian influence. It was very interesting to hear the Prime Minister's reflection on this.

Now I heard that the peace plan for Israel was obviously not up for discussion at the meeting. At the same time, as I understand it, a statement has been made that the EU's leaders have stood behind. I wonder, however, if this was something that was discussed in the corridors behind, so to speak – how one relates to the peace plan, what one thinks about the package that Ursula von der Leyen has presented and which aligns with the Swedish line, how one thinks about legal certainty and so on. I wonder if this was up for discussion in any way at all.

Regarding the frozen Russian assets, it is fantastic to hear that so much progress is being made now. I wonder if the Prime Minister makes the assessment that a decision could be made before the end of the year that this should be implemented.

I also wonder if I understood correctly that it is only after the war that the Jas Gripen becomes relevant.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! There were many legitimate questions.

It was truly an incredibly shaken British Prime Minister who left the meeting when the extent of what had happened became clear. I believe that many not only felt for him, the victims, and the Britons, but also felt that this could happen in almost any major city. We take this very seriously, and I understand the Jews in Sweden who are now truly afraid.

We have talked about Moldova, and as was said, it was a joy. She sat on the stage and got to describe this quite substantially. It is clear that it was an unexpectedly large success. Then we shall see if Russia now releases Moldova – one can truly imagine the domino effects that would have occurred if Russia had won. Then one would have had new elections soon again to exclude exile Moldovans from voting, in order to change the majority.

As I said, the peace plan was not up at all. The agenda was quite compressed, and it is not possible to talk about everything – not even all the important things. But there were many side conversations, and I interpret them as cautiously positive.

There are a lot of question marks, not least how Hamas will position itself regarding this. Everyone understands that there is no plan if Hamas does not answer yes to the most fundamental things, such as that it shall be a future without Hamas rule and that all hostages shall be released unconditionally. But many probably still do not perceive, not least the Gulf states' support and future responsibility for this, as unexpectedly promising, just as that the American administration this time has been constructive in its work. It remains to be seen what happens, and I have no forecast.

When it comes to the frozen assets, we can reach a decision at best. I do not dare promise that it will happen. One never knows until the time comes, and there may be more countries than Belgium even if they did not say anything. It was, however, a step forward.

When it comes to the Gripen, I will take that in the next post.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Prime Minister very much for the answers to what were actually my main questions. I perhaps wonder about the possibility of opening some chapters for Ukraine and Moldova, but the Prime Minister judged that it looked very bleak. Otherwise, I leave it to the Prime Minister to answer.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! Before we enter into the question regarding the Gripen: Neither Moldova nor Ukraine want to be separated from each other, and neither do the EU's member states. It is clear that Moldova thinks it is unfortunate to yield to Hungary's veto regarding specifically Ukraine, but respect is shown for this.

As was said, there were no conditions at all for increased flexibility in making decisions on the small sub-steps in Ukraine's process. We also assess that all attempts to do this on a 26-basis, informally, are doomed to fail. Ukraine does not believe in it either. It is incredibly unfortunate that it is in this way, and for every meeting that goes, I would say that Hungary receives increasingly harsher criticism right to its face.

When it comes to the Gripen, it is quite true that there are no changes in the short-term view. There, we have our radar reconnaissance aircraft that are compatible with the F-16. This is exclusively about a long-term build-up of a Ukrainian full or half air force. It is therefore a very large potential business in the long term.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Prime Minister for the presentation and the report.

I want to start by talking about Ukraine and give the Green Party's support in the work with the nineteenth sanctions package. It is of utmost importance that we can move forward and also phase out all Russian energy from the EU market as soon as possible. That is what would become tangible for the Russian economy. I also welcome, of course, the successes that are now being reported regarding the frozen Russian assets. It is truly about time. We are not quite there yet, but that progress has been made is still worth rejoicing over.

It is naturally the case that one keeps the focus on what is happening here and now. To base it entirely on Ukraine's needs, I think is completely right and wise, but I want to remind again that there will come a time after the war and that Ukraine will also then be in great need of support of various kinds, not least financially. There will be a very large task to do with reconstruction, demining, and restoration.

A question I have for the Prime Minister is whether any type of reconstruction and recovery fund for Ukraine has been discussed already. A follow-up question is whether the Prime Minister assesses that Sweden could play a role in the design of this. I believe that we in Sweden would have much to contribute.

The shadow fleet was also mentioned. There we can see that from the Swedish side, deficiencies in communication and the distribution of responsibility between authorities after oil spills have been criticized and evaluated. In the security discussions, has it been discussed how different countries can cooperate effectively to stop a spill if a spill were to occur across borders?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I will start from the end.

On the question of whether we have collectively discussed all these important issues, the concrete answer is no. It is not a matter of lack of interest, but we are not there yet. Then, one can still, which I think I hear indirectly, have one's eyes on both what is happening here and now and what is happening in the long term. I agree with that.

For my part, we are thinking a lot about what a long-term reconstruction of Ukraine should look like. I believe that Sweden has good potential to participate in all possible things, from resolving serious environmental consequences to state construction issues and building up a Ukrainian air force. There is a breadth of things where we have common denominators, but that is not where we are right now.

To some extent, this is about everyone being very focused on winning today's war, so to speak, every day. If you don't do that, you have no future to talk about, so it is no unimportant prioritization. It is, however, naturally also about the fact that we are not even close to the long-term financing issues and the long-term Marshall Plan aid to Ukraine. Half of the budget for Ukraine 2026 is not ready, at least not without the potential that exists in frozen assets.

When it comes to the ninth sanctions package, it is absolutely correct: The key now is to reach the countries that in practice benefit from, among other things, the shadow fleet. It is not easy. The USA is airing the idea that one would suddenly have one hundred percent tariffs on everything, which I believe very few countries perceive as a viable path. Instead, precise sanctions against those who circumvent this is by far the best. It is moving forward, but it is moving forward frustratingly slowly.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! After an informal meeting with a relatively narrow agenda, it can be difficult to come up with the relevant questions because one does not quite have a grasp on how the discussions are proceeding. In a second round here, however, I still intend to praise the government and the Prime Minister personally for the progress that I have been able to rejoice in regarding the issue of ecocide legislation.

Before the meeting, the Prime Minister mentioned that Sweden views positively the addition of a fifth crime regarding ecocide to the Rome Statute. It would be an opportunity for Ukraine to receive legal assistance to hold Russia accountable and receive help to clean up all this mess and the major environmental damages. I therefore wish success also in those matters. I do not know on exactly which agenda they will appear, but when they do appear, I hope that success is achieved.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Rebecka Le Moine for that and acknowledge it. I think it confirms what I have said here: Not all truly big issues are present every time, and this is one of the issues that is not discussed on the agenda but which will undoubtedly be part of a larger discussion about Ukraine in the long term.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Erik Ottoson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the account of the meeting!

During the EU Committee's meeting before the Council, the Prime Minister spoke about the message to those countries that may not be pulling their weight. This is central, as it concerns whether we can use the full weight of the European Union to support Ukraine in the very difficult situation the country finds itself in.

This is a completely new form of war. The nightly terror bombings of the civilian population continue, three and a half years later. It is clear that this takes a very heavy toll on the Ukrainian people and its cohesion, not least when it comes to the bitter pills in the form of Hungary's veto remaining in place regarding the EU process and membership for Ukraine.

Did the Prime Minister experience any movement from the countries that perhaps have the most homework, or is it still many words and little workshop?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! Is the glass half full or half empty? Germany is the EU's largest economy. If one asks us if they are doing enough in relation to their size, our respectful answer is no. At the same time, they are doing infinitely more than anyone would have expected Germany to do just a few years ago. It is both.

The message from the Nordic and Baltic countries, Poland and perhaps even the Czech Republic, which are going to elections now and have had a large ammunition program, is that more people must do more. This is currently felt right on the skin for countries that lie close to Russia, but ultimately it is a matter of concern for all of us. I think it is met with respect, but it is also a bit too often met with only political declarations.

Let me nuance this a bit. Southern countries, such as Spain, Greece and Italy, are with some right concerned about emphasizing that there are more threats to the European continent. None of them would in any way downplay Russia as the defining war threat, but they argue that there are also other borders that are important. There are other problems. There are hybrid threats that are not noticed as much. I think we have a decent discussion there.

Frankly speaking: Different countries have different voters. The voters who think that this is a more academic problem far away are not willing to make large economic contributions.

Different countries also have completely different economic conditions. Some countries have a poor economy and paralyzed budget processes. Then it is more difficult. This does not change our requirements that they must act according to what they say, but one still understands how it looks.

Some countries also have dysfunctional political conditions and do not gather majorities in a sensible way in their parliaments. In those cases, it is difficult. For example, it is much easier for a French president to be foreign policy-oriented than to allocate large budget funds.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Erik Ottoson (M)

Madam Speaker! So it is undoubtedly – we all have our different constitutional prerequisites. There are also countries that are militarily neutral and for that reason have domestic political problems when it comes to being able to act with full force. As the Prime Minister says, not everyone is also quite as close to Russia.

The latter, that not everyone is quite as close to Russia, is something that is affected by this changed form of warfare. Depending on technological development and choices of path, the target area for a Russian attack becomes significantly much larger when it is no longer about how far one shoots with a howitzer but about how far one can fly a drone and, as was hinted earlier here in the chamber, from which platforms. Can the shadow fleet be used? Can additional capacities be created for Russia without any enormous costs? No aircraft carriers are required – one can launch drones from old hulls.

Does this bring one closer to the insights required, even if one is not so close to the Russian border?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! The neutral states are positioning themselves very clearly on the common Ukraine policy. They may have chosen different alliances, but I do not think there is any reason for criticism there.

On the other hand, I see a number of risks. There are political risks in a number of countries. We have to see how the Czech election develops. There are significant risks in a number of countries where there obviously is a market for anti-Ukrainian propaganda. It is risky.

Some of these countries are also sensitive to what Russia thinks and intends. For us, it is quite foreign that Russian propaganda would change our perception of what is right and wrong, but in a number of countries, it is not that way. They are sensitive to Russian propaganda. They have sub-populations that are sensitive to Russian propaganda. They have historical experiences that make them terrified of standing up firmly and unambiguously.

There is truly a danger there. We must not take European unity for granted.

When it comes to drone capability, there is a broad insight that drones are redrawing the map for air defense in Europe.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the report and the answers to the previous questions!

I will begin with a few comments.

As a Swede, I am of course very proud that we were able to have an anti-drone unit on site that performed well. It is very nice that we were able to do that.

We are also very happy about the developments in Moldova. What they achieved there is impressive. I know that they have had to cooperate with many other states, but I believe that countries that cooperate with Moldova must also learn from them so that they can handle such threats in a good way in the future.

Regarding Russian assets, we finally see success in something that Sweden has pushed for for a very long time. This is a way forward to finance Ukraine in the continued fight and the reconstruction with all that it may entail in the future. Naturally, we also want to see a decision on this.

It is clear that there are countries that are currently not doing enough for Ukraine given the situation. It is very important that something is done right now. The Prime Minister has pointed out that some countries are pointing to other things. One thing that concerns me is that many of those countries are also those that are blocking some of the proposals on the table regarding competitiveness, which is a very important issue for us to be able to support Ukraine in the long term. It is also very important for Swedish business, not least in western Sweden. Furthermore, it is important for Sweden's defense industry and for Sweden to be able to provide the support that is needed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I divide this into two distinct parts.

I will start by going back to the drones and anti-drone capabilities. I personally thanked the Swedish contingent that was on site in Copenhagen today for being there. It is admittedly their job, but it is incredibly good. We have had a rapid development of technical capability, rapid contact with Denmark, rapid decisions, and rapid logistics. When we are good, we are really good. Then we can move with a speed that few other countries would be able to manage. It has been an incredibly good cooperation, and I really appreciate it.

There is also something else here. I have personally, over a period of three years, seen what we have learned from Ukraine, both regarding the drones themselves and regarding the ability to manage them. A dramatic development has occurred where a combination of established Swedish defense industry companies that have operated for a very long time – I am not naming any here, but there are many – have been able to cooperate with tech companies that are good at the absolute latest cutting-edge technology. Here in Sweden, we are using our old strengths and our new strengths in a completely unique way. Sweden can become one of the world's leading countries for precisely this. I think it is good – though for very boring reasons, I must say.

I also want to say something about the issue of competitiveness, which I forgot to bring up in my report back.

It is always the case that the Speaker of the Parliament opens. She expressed a degree of frustration that I believe many heads of government share. It is moving too slowly in the EU Parliament. A unanimous council constellation has agreed to make simplifications, cut red tape, as it is called in English, and do a lot of things that strengthen European competitiveness in a critical situation. Then some are dragging their feet in the EU Parliament. I do not intend to say that it applies to the entire parliament – the parliament always consists of members, and I do not want to engage in collective criticism – but it is moving too slowly. The Speaker herself was very aware of this and urged heads of government to speak with parliamentarians at home to increase the speed in competitiveness issues.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Prime Minister for the answer to my question.

I continue where the Prime Minister left off and agree that it is very important that the simplification processes in the EU go much faster. We cannot just see it as an administrative issue because it is about Europe losing power, and if Europe loses power, Ukraine loses power and also everyone who stands for the rules-based world order. It is very important that we do this work together, and I hope that we can get both the European Parliament and those EU countries that have had it a bit harder to take steps forward on board.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me conclude by taking an example. Regarding the Commission's proposal, which has the unanimous support of the Council of Ministers, 1,000 amendments have been submitted in Parliament. One has the democratic right to do that, but if one does it, one does not want to achieve results. It is the opposite of a sense of urgency. I think it is bad. To simply stop, stall, and delay is a bad strategy when Europe is being tested in so many different ways.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Prime Minister for the report and previous answers.

I agree with the chorus welcoming the progress with the frozen assets. It is truly timely and much needed.

It is, however, not as welcome that progress is not being made when it comes to a Ukrainian or Moldovan membership. This issue, the Prime Minister and I have spoken about previously, and the situation is frustrating.

It would be interesting to hear something more about what the Prime Minister sees as possible paths forward for Moldova and what Swedish and European support could look like. I certainly share the Prime Minister's hope that Russia backs off and stops interfering, but it is doubtful whether that will happen.

How does the Prime Minister and the government intend to increase both the purely Swedish support and the support at the European level to continue supporting the Moldovan democratic institutions?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I believe that Moldova's president Maia Sandu, who was present, feels a strong support. One can always do more, but there is a strong mobilization around this. She is not afraid, and if she needs more, she will undoubtedly ask for more.

We cannot rule out at all that Russia will continue; it is rather likely. But there are three distinct electoral situations that have been the focus of Russia's activities: the referendum on an EU rapprochement, the presidential election, and the parliamentary election. All three have been won by proponents of the EU. My suspicion is therefore that Russia has lost momentum, at least for the time being, because there is no concrete electoral situation ahead.

I believe, however, that Moldova is fully aware that this will not end, but one continues its reform work aware that we currently cannot open any new chapters or clusters in the membership negotiations and that it is ultimately Hungary that is blocking Ukraine.

Both Ukraine and Moldova, however, take this with some equanimity, as they feel the strong support from others and continue nonetheless. Everything continues, and they are aware that it is an important formality that stands in the way.

We are not going to pledge anything, but even in Hungary, it is an election. All of this must therefore, of course, also be seen in the light of Hungarian domestic politics because everything that happens in the EU becomes Hungarian domestic politics. This, too, therefore has an end date. To have a little patience and not contribute to the Hungarian domestic political campaign, I think is a good rule of thumb.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! A new question arises. Ahead of the election in Hungary, what lessons can we draw from what we have seen in Moldova and other countries regarding Russian infiltration and Russian influence work? It is likely in the direction of danger that we will see these tendencies there as well?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I believe it should be seen as a mixture of lessons. It will be interesting to hear what the Swedes who were on site have to say. Some experiences may be more specific and local and not useful, while others may be more general.

My view is that Russia uses ancient methods such as pure bribery. You get cash in your hand if you promise to vote for a certain party, and Russia transports suitcases of cash into Moldova. But they also use digital technology. It is about systematic disinformation online, systematic misuse of social media, masses of anonymous accounts and masses of bots that do the dirty work. Russia uses this plus everything in between.

If one has a population group that, for many different reasons, is sensitive to Russian narratives, the risks increase, but if one has fewer in the population who listen to Russian broadcasters, the risks decrease. But we are all exposed to these attempts.

The reporting was hereby concluded.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)