Special debate on continued support for Ukraine

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The war in Ukraine is Europe's great issue of destiny right now. We Social Democrats requested this debate after the leader of the Sweden Democrats, Jimmie Åkesson, in an interview a few weeks ago reflected on the fact that there is an upper limit to the support for Ukraine. We and many others interpreted this as that the Sweden Democrats have begun to waver in their support, just as many other right-wing parties in the EU have done for a long time. This is a major issue in the EU election. I hope that is not the case, but that SD in this debate can give a clear statement that also the Sweden Democrats stand firm on Sweden's support for Ukraine and that Sweden needs to provide that support as long as it is needed, without any upper time limit.

Another announcement we hope to receive is from the Minister for Defence. We have long demanded that Sweden should contribute combat aircraft to Ukraine, and it is also in high demand by Ukraine. It has been investigated by the Armed Forces, but we have still not received any announcement. We hope that the Minister for Defence has that announcement with him here today.

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The defense of Ukraine's freedom and sovereignty is the most important foreign policy task of the coming years. We support Ukraine out of humanity and decency, but we also support Ukraine for our own sake. Ukraine constitutes today Europe's shield against Russian military aggression. Ukraine's security is our security. Supporting Ukraine is therefore also an investment in our own security.

Support for Ukraine is also a clear stance for international law and for a rules-based world order where all countries have the right to determine their own security policy choices. Russia and Vladimir Putin want to turn back the clock to a time when small countries were the backyard of large countries and the right of the strongest applied. We are not going back there. That is why it is an obligation for us to support Ukraine.

The government also went to the election on a pledge to powerfully increase support for Ukraine, and we have delivered on that promise. The Swedish military support to Ukraine has so far amounted to just over 30 billion since the war began. Earlier this week, we were also able to announce that a long-term economic framework for the military support will be established, which will amount to 75 billion over three years.

Mr. Speaker! In addition to the military contribution, Sweden contributes support in a long number of other areas. We have provided approximately 2.1 billion in humanitarian aid and approximately 4 billion in financial reconstruction and reform support. Via MSB, we have also provided 800 million in civil support.

Sweden is also active within the EU to push for increased aid, both military and civilian. The EU has established the Ukraine Facility, which covers 50 billion euros for the reconstruction of the country, and a special Ukraine envelope of 5 billion euros for military support has been adopted within the framework of the European Peace Facility.

The military support that Sweden has decided upon has been designed in close dialogue with Ukraine and based on Ukrainian needs. We have also had a clear focus on rapid deliveries of high-quality systems. We have not only sent combat vehicles and artillery pieces but also assisted the Ukrainians with holistic solutions where training, maintenance, spare parts, and ammunition have also been included. The objective has been to build military capability together with the Ukrainians so that they can achieve success on the battlefield.

Sweden's military support to Ukraine is divided into four pillars: military donations, training, financial support, and procurement and industrial support. When it comes to weapons and materiel, Sweden initially began with simpler weapons but has gradually moved to sending more advanced and heavier defense materiel, such as main battle tanks, combat vehicles, artillery systems, combat boats, and artillery and air defense systems. Ukrainian soldiers have also been trained within the scope of Swedish contributions. We have contributed to this in Lithuania, Germany, the United Kingdom, and here in Sweden, and the feedback I receive from Ukrainian soldiers and the Ukrainian political leadership is that the Armed Forces are very skilled at training Ukrainian soldiers and that the Swedish support is highly appreciated, not least on the training side.

Mr. Speaker! Let me conclude by saying that the support Sweden has given Ukraine has also occurred with unique political breadth. Of the 15 support packages Sweden has sent so far, 14 have been backed by all parties in this chamber, and that is a strength for Sweden. I look forward to continued broad consensus in the design of the long-term support to Ukraine.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Ukraine's cause is our cause. The fight Ukraine is fighting against Russia to save its country from the Russian invasion is also a fight for the fate of Europe. History teaches us that if you let despots and dictators like Putin remain and let them do as they please, they will never stop. If Russia takes Ukraine, they will move on to other countries such as Moldova, Georgia, and so on. Recently, Russia has also started talking about the maritime border against Finland to intimidate and throw us off balance. That is how dictators act, and that is why it is so important that they are stopped and that the democratic world stands up against the despots in a united, firm, and long-term resistance.

But unfortunately, not everyone does this. In the USA, the American right, the Republicans, are wavering in their support. No one knows what will happen if Trump becomes president again. Also in the EU, there are forces that cannot hold out. This is primarily about the far-right movements that for decades have been processed by, and sometimes even directly financed by, Russian interests: Le Pen's party in France, Alternative für Deutschland in Germany, and Orbán's party in Hungary. They all say roughly the same thing: We cannot afford to support Ukraine any longer.

In an interview with Jimmie Åkesson in Göteborgs-Posten a month ago, an echo of this message was heard. He began talking about that there is an upper limit and that we will soon run out of our own materiel if we continue to send materiel to Ukraine. This cannot be interpreted in any other way than that, according to the Sverigedemokraterna, there must soon be an end to the weapons deliveries to Ukraine. All such reasoning is nothing other than a gift to Putin. Aron Emilsson speaks after me and can hopefully clarify what Jimmie Åkesson meant. If he meant something else, I look forward to this clarification.

Mr. Speaker! We received no notification from the Minister of Defence regarding Jas to Ukraine. We have been in agreement on all support until now. It was the Social Democratic government that initiated the support immediately after the invasion, in the spring of 2022. We know that air defense and combat aircraft are in high demand by Ukraine and can be completely decisive for the outcome of this war.

The issue has been investigated by the Armed Forces. The basis arrived in December last year and has thus been on the government's table for five months. Now it is starting to be time for the government to clarify what the government's position is on the issue. We Social Democrats have, as stated, demanded that Sweden should also contribute with combat aircraft to Ukraine. Now we want a statement from the Minister of Defence on what position the government has on the issue.

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! That the support for Ukraine continues and remains crucial for the security of Sweden, Europe, and in the long run the world. In my own home region, the Russians ravaged about 300 years ago. Today, civilians are being bombed and massacred in Ukraine and the security in the Baltic Sea region is being threatened; if this is the case, there should be no doubt.

It is a strength for Sweden that all support packages to Ukraine, except for the first one, have been able to be decided in the Riksdag in unity, as the Minister for Defence presented. These decisions and how the Swedish state has implemented them speak for themselves. It is the real effect that is decisive. What we, together with like-minded people, contribute has an effect daily on Ukraine's defense capability.

The Sweden Democrats advocated for increased military and civilian support for Ukraine even before the full-scale invasion. We were proactive for military support at a time when the then Foreign Minister Ann Linde incorrectly claimed that Sweden, due to current regulations, could not support Ukraine with war materiel. Linde was subsequently condemned by the KU for this statement. From the Sweden Democrats' side, we were then, together with the government, proactive for more and advanced weapons systems, including main battle tanks, at an early stage.

I am proud that the coalition partners in the government base have been able to significantly increase the support since the autumn of 2022. I also want to take this opportunity to thank the Social Democrats and the rest of the opposition for having signed on to this in the chamber. Combat vehicles, combat boats, and the world's most advanced artillery in the form of Archer are examples of defense materiel that we have jointly proposed to support Ukraine with and which have been delivered to the country.

Mr. Speaker! This week we are writing new history regarding the support for Ukraine. The Government and the Sweden Democrats have presented a Ukraine framework which entails three years of military support amounting to a total of 75 billion kronor. This concerns donations to Ukraine but also financial contributions as well as economic support in the procurement of defense materiel. This will mean that weapons from the Swedish defense industry can go to Ukraine. By providing a large support to Ukraine now, a long-term war and long-term needs for support are countered.

We are proud but not satisfied. The support is existential. It is about what we de facto do and decide, not about the political game, who can shout the loudest, or to dishonestly claim that the support would waver from any side in this chamber.

Of course, it is possible to discuss the difficult trade-offs we as a state make between, on one hand, the materiel we need for our defense of Swedish territory and shared responsibility within Nato, and on the other hand, what we withhold for what today is our ultimate line of defense, namely the front in Ukraine. It is responsible and happens daily, not least at the agency level.

But what great things happen, they happen quietly. A Swedish tiger, but even more persistent in working in a Lutheran and dutiful manner for continued support for Sweden's blue and yellow brother people, who are currently fighting for our common freedom in the beautiful but ravaged Ukraine.

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

Hanna Gunnarsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! Hello to all of you listening at home and in the gallery! It is now more than two years since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine began after years of occupation of Crimea. A terrible war has followed, with many casualties, shattered families, great devastation, bombed-out cities and bombed-out infrastructure, and many refugees. Generations of children will grow up with the sorrow and the memories.

Russia's invasion, occupation and war is of course completely unacceptable and violates everything international law stands for. It must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. The attack is a violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty and entails great suffering for the Ukrainian people.

Russia's imperialist war against Ukraine requires the rest of the world to support Ukraine militarily, humanitarily, economically and diplomatically. The military support from Sweden concerns weapons systems, ammunition and training. I am very proud of all the training of Ukrainian soldiers that Swedish soldiers from the Armed Forces and the Home Guard have contributed with, both here at home and in other countries.

Sweden's support for Ukraine is and must be broad and long-term. Thousands of the millions of people who have been forced to flee from Ukraine have come to Sweden, and they need better opportunities to have a good life here during the time that the war continues. Vänsterpartiet considers that the low daily allowance for the refugees must be increased. To give those who have fled from the war a bearable and secure existence in Sweden is also a part of the support that Sweden gives to Ukraine and the Ukrainian population.

When the war is over, Sweden shall be an active party in the reconstruction of Ukraine in accordance with the direction that the Ukrainian population wants to see.

Mr. Speaker! Many of us in this chamber have visited Ukraine during the ongoing war and have been involved in receiving visiting delegations from Ukraine here in the Riksdag. In many ways, we have heard and seen with our own eyes what the situation is and what needs exist. We are all incredibly impressed by the Ukrainians' resilience and will to defend. We have also learned a lot from the defense, the struggle, and the reality that is unfolding in Ukraine. The war has shown how important European unity and solidarity are.

Mr. Speaker! Russia must lose this war. Ukraine must not be forced to surrender either territory or power to Russia. That one can defend its borders and its population is fundamental for Ukraine to be able to build up and strengthen its democracy and the welfare for the population in the future. Vänsterpartiet therefore stands behind the humanitarian, economic, and military support that Sweden sends to Ukraine. Vänsterpartiet also condemns the Russian invasion and the occupation.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! Listeners! Exactly two weeks ago, I visited Borodjanka. It is a village in Ukraine where the buildings still bear witness to the wounds from when the Putin regime turned the village into a bestial inferno where soldiers fired indiscriminately in 360 degrees at civilian adults and children.

What I took away from what I saw there was the determination in the eyes of the residents who showed us around and the determination in the eyes of the people from the Ukrainian leadership whom we met in Kyiv. Ukraine functions, despite the fact that the Putin regime is terror-bombing the country. Ukraine's army holds the border. Ukraine's companies are working. The trains run on the railways. The economy is growing - the currency stands strong, and exports are back.

But the determination and the seemingly inexhaustible courage are confronted by the fact that Russia has ten times more ammunition than Ukraine. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the Center Party's message today is that we must do more. Europe and Sweden must do more, and it is urgent.

There is a new front north of Kharkiv. It is now two weeks until the European elections, and there are forces - Putin-lovers - within the far-right and the left who do not want to increase but want to stop the support for Ukraine. It is half a year until the election in the USA, and the most important contribution to Ukraine's defense is threatened because of the far-right nationalists' mockery of Putin.

Centerpartiet urges the government to lead the way. Do not support Ukraine as long as it takes - not as long as it takes! Instead, do whatever it takes - as much as is required - so that Ukraine wins! Every day we will demand this. Sweden shall stand at the forefront. Sweden shall not stand in the middle or further back. Sweden shall not be one step behind but at the forefront in Europe.

Therefore, we must now send the Jas 39 Gripen, so that it flies in Ukraine's blue sky. We said that we would send the Jas 39 Gripen when we joined Nato. We said that we would send the Jas 39 Gripen when we were finished with an investigation. For God's sake – send the Jas 39 Gripen now!

The second thing that the Center Party pleads for is to send much more money to weapons. It is very good that the government, after long-standing pleading from us, has increased the support to 75 billion kronor - finally it is over 1 percent of GDP. But we beg you: Do not spread it out over three years, but send the money here and now! And do not let this be an upper limit, but a lower limit!

Our Nordic neighboring countries give more than we do. Our Baltic neighboring countries give many times more than we do. We must be able to do more.

Mr. Speaker! There is only one border in this war, and that is Ukraine's border against Russia. Every morning we must wake up and think about how we can do more to help Ukraine in this war.

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

Mikael Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Ukraine's fate is ours. The war is now entering its third year, as several have said. It is a war of aggression where the goal is to erase Ukraine as a state.

We have every reason to continue to support. We have done a lot from the Swedish side, but we need to continue, with perseverance.

I, together with several others here in the chamber, had the opportunity some time ago to visit Ukraine. It is very clear, Mr. Speaker, that the Ukrainian people are grateful for the support they have received, such as Stridsfordon 90, Archer, air defense and so on, but as several here have said, ammunition was needed. There is a great shortage, and we need to help and ensure that the production of ammunition is ramped up. More of all sizes are needed.

When we visited Ukraine, we met, among other things, a soldier, 25 years old, as old as my eldest son. When he was to defend a building at the beginning of the war, he had an artillery piece fired at him. The entire house was buried. It was very shocking to hear about this.

Since then, Mr. Speaker, the war crimes have continued, because Russia does not care about the laws of war. They target power plants, they target hospitals, and they target schools. It shows what kind of country and what kind of leadership we are dealing with.

What I started by saying, that Ukraine's cause is our cause, is truly important. We have done a lot, and we have now also decided on the long-term perspective through the 25 billion over three years. It is important to show both the people of Ukraine and Putin that we stand by Ukraine's side in the long term. Ukraine shall win.

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I welcome this special debate on continued support for Ukraine. For us in Miljöpartiet, it is clear that Sweden should contribute to Ukraine with both weapons and humanitarian aid as well as civil and financial support.

We have stood behind all support packages to Ukraine and demanded that the government produce a plan for how Sweden can support Ukraine in the long term. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is a step in the right direction that the government now proposes that Ukraine should be supported with 25 billion kronor per year for three years.

The support for Ukraine must, however, be even more extensive and long-term. It must be taken into account that Ukraine must be able to win both the war and the peace, as well as rebuild its country and achieve long-term security. Putin believes that he has time on his side and that we will grow weary. Therefore, we must show that we are serious about supporting Ukraine for as long as is required.

That we help Ukraine defend itself against the aggressor Putin is important for the security, democracy, and freedom of the whole of Europe. But, Mr. Speaker, the war in Ukraine is not important only for Europe. If Putin's violations of international law pay off, it risks affecting many conflicts around the world, and therefore the government must continue to work to ensure that the EU remains united in its support for Ukraine and put pressure on the USA to continue to contribute.

The government needs to contribute to building relations with countries in Africa, South America, and Asia in order to mobilize support in the UN and not give walkover to Russia's and China's neo-colonial actions around the world.

Unfortunately, the government, through its foreign policy focus on the immediate vicinity and a reduced aid budget, has turned away from the rest of the world. We in Miljöpartiet want to be clear that we do not want the government to reduce aid in order to finance the much-needed and necessary support for Ukraine.

Mr. Speaker! At the same time as we continue to support Ukraine, the government and the EU must stop playing double games with the Russian regime. Russia receives far more than half of its export revenues from energy, and by stopping all Russian energy imports to the EU, we can significantly limit Russia's financing of the war.

It is completely unacceptable that EU countries over the last two years have purchased Russian fossil fuels for nearly 200 billion euros. The Russian revenues from these purchases, which have gone straight into Putin's war machine, are significantly larger than the total sum of the EU's and the member states' financial, military, and humanitarian support to Ukraine during the same period. Still, Russian liquefied fossil gas is received in Swedish ports, even though countries in our neighboring area in the Nordics and the Baltics have taken the lead and banned imports.

Sweden's support for Ukraine must be long-term. In a first step, it must contribute to Ukraine winning the war but also include a reconstruction of the country.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! Yesterday, the General Assembly of the United Nations made the decision to establish July 11 as an international day of remembrance for the victims of the genocide in Srebrenica in Bosnia in 1995. This reminds us that during the last 30 years we have had two major wars in Europe and that our continent Europe has not managed to handle the wars and provide the support that would have been required to stop the bloodshed.

For Ukraine, the American support is existential, just as it was for Bosnia. It is important that we bring this with us. Europe has not done enough for Ukraine. We have done a lot, but we have not done enough.

Ukraine has heroically defended its country, its front lines, its cities and its population against the Russian attackers. The problem with the support to Ukraine now, Mr. Speaker, is that it is large enough for Ukraine not to lose the war but insufficient for Ukraine to be able to win the war.

Every day since February 24, 2022, the leaders of the Western world - the free world - have unisonsly and continuously repeated day after day that the goal is for Ukraine to win the war. That also requires support that allows Ukraine to succeed. The decision from the government yesterday is of course very important - 75 billion Swedish kronor over three years. It will help Ukraine.

I would like to conclude by saying that we often say that we stand behind Ukraine, but in practice, it is Ukraine that stands before us.

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Russian attacks against Ukraine have intensified during the recent period. Russia attacks indiscriminately both military and civilian targets. We can more or less daily see and hear how Russian missiles and drones hit residential buildings, hospitals, and power plants. Everything is done in open and with the intention to try to break down the Ukrainian resilience and the will to resist.

Russia has put its economy and its defense industry on a war footing, and Russia has also received extensive military support from both North Korea and Iran. The fifty countries that are now part of what is called the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, of which Sweden is one, must now increase their support efforts to Ukraine. It is in light of this that the announcement from the government, that we will support Ukraine with 75 billion kronor over three years, should be seen.

We must be persistent in our support for Ukraine. Ukraine's military needs must be met, but we must also continue to work with broad support, both civil, political, economic and humanitarian. It is also important that Ukraine is given the opportunity to become a member of both the EU and Nato.

Mr. Speaker! In line with the military support for Ukraine, the government's aid strategy for Ukraine creates greater long-term perspective. In 2023, the government adopted a new strategy for Sweden's reconstruction and reform work in Ukraine between the years 2023 and 2027. The strategy covers a total of 6 billion kronor and is Sweden's largest bilateral aid strategy ever.

An important initiative in the humanitarian field is the support package for children in Ukraine and Moldova that the government recently launched. 135 million has been allocated for the most serious needs for children, so that they can have access to clean water, warmth, psychosocial support, and a roof over their heads.

Mr. Speaker! The Government will also continue to push to expand and broaden the sanctions against Russia. Here is also the important question regarding the use of the frozen Russian assets and whether they can be used to support Ukraine militarily.

The Swedish economic framework for the military support to Ukraine that the government recently presented is a central part of creating long-term perspective. By allocating 75 billion during the period 2024 to 2026, rapid interventions are made possible to address some of the most acute needs. It also creates an opportunity to build up a stronger Ukrainian military capability over time. The support becomes more long-term, and it becomes more predictable.

The support must also stem from Sweden's needs and be able to support Ukraine. Here, we will move from donation to production. It is very important that we work intensively to scale up the defense industry in Sweden, not least when it comes to artillery production and different types of air defense systems.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! First of all, we welcome the new support package. It is the latest in a long series that we have contributed to. There is a great consensus in the Riksdag regarding the support. The support packages were initiated by the Social Democratic government already in February 2022 - just four days after the invasion. We have, therefore, been with Ukraine from the first day of the war in that way.

I return to my question regarding combat aircraft. When the Committee on Foreign Affairs visited Ukraine last year, it became clear how important the air domain is with air defense and combat aircraft.

Ukraine has requested combat aircraft for a very long time now. We Social Democrats requested this already in August 2023, and I know that there has been an investigation on the Defense Minister's desk since December 2023, so for five months.

I would very much like to have a statement from the Minister for Defence on this issue. If he cannot provide a statement today, perhaps he can provide a statement on when he can provide a statement.

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Morgan Johansson for the question.

I am not seeking a conflict regarding the support for Ukraine, but for the sake of order, I just want to say that it is true that it was the previous government that initiated the support for Ukraine. During your eight months when the war unfolded, you donated defense materiel worth 3 billion, and we have done so for the remaining 27. You have stood behind all the packages we have presented. I say this only so that we have the proportion clear for us when it comes to the commitments.

Regarding the support to Ukraine concerning combat aircraft, I have previously stated that we are continuing our work based on how we can best support Ukraine. We are conducting a dialogue with the countries within the air force coalition, and we will provide feedback on that matter.

I have repeatedly informed the parties in the Riksdag about this issue and about the complexity it entails to introduce a new fighter jet system for a country that is in a state of war.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We are well aware of the complexity, but this is not a new issue. Ukraine has, as mentioned, requested increased support regarding combat aircraft for a long time. It has been investigated by the Armed Forces, and as mentioned, an investigation has been on the Minister for Defence's desk since December 2023.

I think that one should have been able to reach at least some kind of decision in this matter, but it seems that we do not get that today.

I just want to say that this is a weapons system that can be completely decisive for the outcome of the war. Therefore, Sweden, together with all other countries that support Ukraine, must do everything we can to ensure that the issue can be resolved.

But again: If we do not receive a decision today regarding this, can we at least be informed as to when we will be informed as to whether Sweden will contribute with Jas to Ukraine?

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thought that the Moderates and the Social Democrats were in agreement that it was not relevant to donate fighter jets before we were covered by Article 5, that is, March 7. That is also the message that Magdalena Andersson has given. We said that this was a first prerequisite for us to be able to donate fighter jets.

We have continued the discussions in the air coalition, and we will get back to you on this.

It is of crucial importance that Ukraine receives combat aircraft. It is primarily four countries that have donated: the Netherlands, Norway and Belgium have donated certain platforms and systems. We will return to the question of how we can best support the Ukrainian air defense, including various platforms and systems.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! My first question is a repetition - predictable but relevant. It has actually been one and a half years since we discussed the issue of sending Jas 39 Gripen to Ukraine. We have had a long time to prepare this. Why has Sweden in this situation still not been able to do it?

In Kyiv, the clear impression seems to be that it is needed now, in order to stop the so-called glide bombs, and that they have the capacity to receive it. That was my one question.

My second question concerns Sweden's only aluminum plant: Kubal in Sundsvall. Is it, according to the Minister for Defence, compatible with Swedish security interests to have such an eminent strategic industry in Sweden, in Sundsvall, in the middle of Sweden, as Rusal, which is part of the Russian military-industrial apparatus?

Rusal is controlled by Oleg Deripaska, an oligarch who is very close to Vladimir Putin and who also accounts for the production of some of the Russian military's most common troop transport vehicles. Is this compatible with fundamental Swedish security interests?

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Martin Ådahl, for the question and for the commitment to Ukraine! I prefer to come from a country where a defense minister receives criticism for doing too little and not for doing too much for Ukraine. So it is not in all national parliaments. I know that Martin Ådahl has a genuine commitment to these issues.

Regarding the donations of the Gripen system, we have said that before March 7, before we were covered by Article 5, this was not relevant. This was meant by the majority of the parties in the chamber.

We continue to work on the issue and see how we can best support the Ukrainian air defense. I rule out in no way that the Gripen system could also become relevant.

It is not as simple as just sending the Gripen. One must train pilots, which in some cases can take years, and one must ensure that there is ground personnel and logistics, that there is maintenance, and that they can be armed. I just want to emphasize that these are not simple commitments. The first F 16 planes are expected to arrive this summer after approximately one year of work. The complexity of the issue is therefore significant.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer. I must acknowledge that I also appreciate Defense Minister Pål Jonson's great commitment to Ukraine.

The possibility to train pilots has existed for a long time; I do not want to go into whether it has been done or not, but the possibility has in any case existed for a long time. We would actually wish for a bit more in this situation when it is so urgently needed. As the war looks now, the weapons are needed now.

Then there was the second question, the one about Sweden's only large aluminum factory in Sundsvall which is controlled by Rusal - a part of the Russian military-industrial complex - and by an oligarch who is to a large extent part of Russia's military apparatus. Is this compatible?

We want to place it under receivership, sell it and give the money to Ukraine, but in a first step at least remove it from Moscow's control.

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me answer very briefly. We have conducted an orientation training of the Gripen system where Ukrainian pilots and also ground personnel were able to come and familiarize themselves with the system. They were impressed by it. Again: I rule out in no way that it could become relevant to donate the Gripen system to Ukraine, but I must consider how it best works with other countries.

It is 16 countries that are involved in what is called the fighter jet coalition and in how we can best do this together with the efforts that exist in and with the introduction of the F-16.

Regarding what Martin Ådahl raised about Sundsvall, we have introduced a screening system for foreign direct investments in critical infrastructure and socially important activities. We need to build up stronger protective barriers given the risks that exist in the area.

This statement was of a more general nature because I am not to have views on specific cases.

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The government wants to support Ukraine with 25 billion per year for three years. At the same time, Sweden and the EU continue to finance Putin's war by importing Russian oil and gas. Over two years, it has amounted to 200 billion euros. It is counterproductive.

We want Sweden's support for Ukraine to have the best possible effect. How else is Ukraine to achieve success and defeat Putin?

Mr. Speaker! I would like to ask the following question: When can we expect the government to put a stop to the import of Russian energy? Countries in our neighborhood have taken the lead and shown that it is possible, but the government is slow and lagging behind. What is the government waiting for?

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Emma Berginger for the question.

It is not true that we are only providing 75 billion and that the support will then end, but we continue to design the support long-term and will also continue if required after these three years - just so that one is aware of that.

This is, however, a large contribution which, together with the 30 billion that we have already donated, amounts to over 100 billion in military support to Ukraine. It is an absolutely necessary investment in our own security.

Regarding the import of oil and gas, it is not primarily a question for me as Defense Minister, but the question should be posed to Minister for Energy and Business Ebba Busch, who can provide a better and more detailed answer. But we have, of course, worked intensively so that the EU can stop being dependent on oil, gas, and fossil fuels from Russia. It is absolutely necessary, because we cannot feed the Russian war chest.

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The war following the full-scale invasion has been ongoing for over two years. Still, ships with liquid Russian fossil gas arrive at Swedish ports. I wonder what the government is doing.

It is totally counterproductive to provide military aid and support to Ukraine with one hand and, with the other hand, give money to Putin's Russia so that he can continue with this horrific war. Our support for Ukraine becomes a bad investment when we simultaneously give money to Russia.

The government must step forward here and show initiative. If you ask Ebba Busch or Tobias Billström, you get the answer that we cannot go ahead and must wait for everyone else. At the same time, there are countries in our vicinity that have gone ahead and have stopped the import of Russian energy.

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Mr. Speaker! With all respect for Emma Berginger's question, which is relevant, the focus of this debate is primarily the civil and military support to Ukraine. I must refer to the responsible minister who has better insight into the design of the sanctions policy.

Let me however be clear that we are working hard within the EU to achieve cohesion. We look forward to the EU now delivering a new sanctions package against Russia, the 14th, which among other things shall tackle the problems that exist with the shadow fleet. We have worked intensively so that the EU will also move away from the very unhealthy dependence on Russian oil and gas.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! This will, to some extent, be a follow-up on the questions that we discussed earlier.

First of all, I want to raise the issue of flights to Ukraine. Pål Jonson says here that it was only after March 7 that this could become relevant, because from then on we are covered by NATO's Article 5. That is correct, and that is the line we have had. But it has been two and a half months since then. Two and a half months ago, we would therefore have been able to contribute with combat aircraft. Now there are no announcements, not even announcements on whether we will contribute with combat aircraft at all. As stated, an investigation on this has been on the Defense Minister's desk for five months now.

In my reply, the Minister for Defence counted the countries that have already decided to contribute combat aircraft; there are a number of them. Now, it is therefore no longer about being first but perhaps rather about not being last. I would like to have a decision. If we cannot get a decision today, perhaps we can at least get a decision on when we can get it. But unfortunately, we have not even received that today.

I heard Aron Emilsson emphasize that the Sweden Democrats also support continued support for Ukraine. But the question is why Jimmie Åkesson expressed himself in the way he did in the interview: that there is an upper limit and that we will soon run out of our own materiel if we are to continue sending it to Ukraine. That is exactly what Åkesson said.

I do not believe this was a coincidence. In the interview, Åkesson polemicized with Magdalena Andersson, who had just expressed that she does not want to set any outer limit because she knows what signal that sends to Moscow. I therefore believe that this was intentional on Åkesson's part.

Aron Emilsson now has another chance to explain what Jimmie Åkesson otherwise meant. Why do you give such a gift to Putin, that is, reasoning around a far boundary and that we might soon be empty in our warehouses so that we cannot send much more? Have the Sweden Democrats now started to be influenced by how the other right-wing parties in the EU think or how Trump thinks? I want answers to these questions.

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The security policy situation has not been as serious as it is now since the Second World War. Both then and now, there is a great need for unity in security policy issues, for example in the support for Ukraine. In substance, there is actually unity between the parties in the Riksdag. We have discussed the pace and the possibilities.

The Social Democrats, on the other hand, tie a rope around their own backs in the debate by questioning the Riksdag's second-largest party, even though we, together with the government, have presented the lion's share of all support packages and are now moving forward with long-term and extensive military support to Ukraine. Nevertheless, they question our position in the support for Ukraine.

Who was it that set limits and even took a step back when the full-scale invasion was a fact? They had some idea that, according to the current regulations for the export of war materiel, we could not support Ukraine to the extent that was already necessary at that time. This was said by the Social Democrats' then Foreign Minister Ann Linde.

I do not think one should throw stones in glass houses, and nor should we focus on individual word choices, but instead look at what we do.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Taking a step back, says Aron Emilsson. I was responsible for arms exports in the Social Democratic government. I was responsible for the fact that we in the government, four days after the invasion, could make the decision that Sweden, for the first time since 1939, would contribute weapons to another country at war.

It concerned, among other things, 5,000 armor plates, which turned out to be a very important addition at that stage of the war. We have learned this after having been there and seen how important it was to stop the attack from, among other things, Russian armor, which was relevant at the time.

No, we did not take a step back, rather the opposite. We took a historic decision when we initiated the arms deliveries.

But the question I had concerned why Jimmie Åkesson expressed himself as he did. It is not I who spread mistrust about the Sweden Democrats' line, but Åkesson himself does that. Why did he express himself that way – that there is an upper limit and that we will soon run out of our own materiel if we are to continue sending it to Ukraine? This is what I want an answer on from Aron Emilsson.

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! This must seem somewhat ridiculous to an outsider listening to the debate. It is of course reasonable to speak of trade-offs, but as far as I know, no party leader or member in this chamber has spoken of a defined limit. On the contrary, Jimmie Åkesson has expressed that the support is entirely existential. He agreed with the Prime Minister's words shortly thereafter. In the party leader debate this week, Åkesson stated that we support Ukraine until the last Russian soldier has left the country. A clearer message than that can hardly be given. The war began already in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea, not on February 24, 2022.

Morgan Johansson claimed that this discussion is in some way a gift to Putin. What would be a gift to Putin is to paint some kind of picture that there is disagreement in the chamber regarding the support for Ukraine; that is not the case, and we all know that here inside. The Sweden Democrats' party group, together with the EPP, belongs to the most Russia-critical in the European Parliament, more so than, for example, the Social Democratic group in terms of the votes. We are, therefore, there at the front.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Now it was a month since he did this interview. It may well be that the criticism has forced you to try to express yourselves more clearly, Aron Emilsson. All of us others say that we will support Ukraine as long as it is needed to complete the task. It was when we suddenly received a different message from one of the Riksdag's largest parties, which spoke about an upper limit and about how we will soon have empty barns and so on, that this entire issue arose. But now we hear what Aron Emilsson says.

Aron Emilsson cannot, however, escape the broader European discussion that this is linked to. A number of right-wing parties out in Europe – it is very topical now ahead of the EU election – have a different line: Alternative für Deutschland in Germany, Orbán's party in Hungary, Le Pen's party in France. It is clear that it is not strange if one then connects new signals from the Sverigedemokraterna to the discussion being held among other right-wing parties out in Europe. That is what we did. But now we hear from Aron Emilsson that he – and also Åkesson, I hope – at least from now on will express himself in the same way as all the rest of us do on this issue.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! Morgan Johansson and the Socialdemokraterna have spoken here on behalf of Ukraine. The Socialdemokraterna also usually speak warmly for the socially vulnerable. But I want to raise a question about support for Ukraine where we wish that one had not turned away their gaze.

Towards the government, we point out that some of those we care about most, the Ukrainians who are here in Sweden, 10,000 adults and 10,000 children whose spouses, children or parents are fighting at the front, live in terrifying misery because the Social Democrats' government and now the Tidö government set the daily allowance to 71 kronor per day, something no one can live on. They are forced to stand in soup lines and beg for alms. I have spoken with people here in Sweden who have been forced to lie on the phone to their spouses at the front so as not to worry them about how badly they are doing in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! Can the Social Democrats not stand behind the Center Party's proposal to create a special temporary compensation for the Ukrainian refugees here and now, while waiting until they are eventually registered in the population register and can live decently in our country?

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I am generally opposed to the creation of special rules and separate rules for a specific group of refugees. It is actually the case that all asylum seekers live under these conditions, and that has been the case for a very long time.

Then I know that the government is moving forward with proposals to create a population registration for this group and thereby also give it an opportunity to the social benefits that exist. I can only say that I hope that work is carried out expeditiously.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! Then I want to remind Morgan Johansson, who actually knows this, that the Ukrainian refugees are not asylum seekers. They have residence permits in Sweden according to the mass flight directive. Morgan Johansson knows that. It is we who have created special rules for them. They live on half of what is done in Denmark and on a seventh of what is done in Norway. It is we who, by creating special rules just for this group with residence permits, have created a misery that is unworthy of Sweden. It is a shame.

I appeal again to Morgan Johansson and the Socialdemokraterna. You have the chance. We will propose a committee initiative on a temporary compensation to correct this, which has been ongoing for two years and driven these people into misery in Sweden, our country. The Socialdemokraterna can support our proposal to give them a temporary compensation until they are registered in the population register, which unfortunately lies six, seven, eight months away today; during that time, they must continue under these conditions.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! When such a proposal for a committee initiative is submitted, we will look at it. But generally speaking, I am against creating special temporary rules and separate rules for certain groups. It must be the same rules that apply to everyone.

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Just today, I was actually intended to be on my way to the funeral of my friend and colleague Sven-Olof Sällström, vice chairman of the Committee on Defence, until cancer took his life a few months ago. At the same time, I know that he would have wished that I and we were here for this debate. He was a devoted friend of Ukraine and was himself inspired by the support for the struggle for freedom that is being fought there and is being fought. The support lives on, even if human lives are extinguished. Thank you for your fight, Sven-Olof!

It is important to remember that the basis for our ability to contribute to Ukraine's defense capability is that we have weapons and ammunition as well as the production of these. It is not grand declarations or words that help Ukraine, but action. Crucial components are then a well-developed defense policy and a well-elaborated strategy for the defense industry. Sverigedemokraterna have pushed both these issues with offensive proposals for years. We have previously invested more in defense than other parties in our budget proposals. We have pursued a defense industry-friendly policy with less red tape and better conditions. That work continues in cooperation and constitutes a cornerstone for our ability to contribute military materiel to Ukraine.

The Swedish support for Ukraine is, however, present in the entire Swedish society, from the smallest association to the largest defense industry. Last week, the Committee on Foreign Affairs met Saab Aeronautics, Katastrofmedicinskt centrum, Act Svenska kyrkan and several others in Linköping in Östergötland. Ukraine was at the center of the conversations. It is evident how far-reaching the support is. It concerns everything from healthcare interventions to advanced equipment and aid efforts in local communities on site. It is a matter of acts of solidarity with the Ukrainians who have temporarily taken refuge in our country. This deserves to be repeated.

Mr. Speaker! The Government and the Sweden Democrats are not resting on their laurels but have also this week, as mentioned, decided on a total of 105 million kronor in support to strengthen children's rights and increase protection for children in Ukraine and Moldova. In addition, we have through Sida decided on 30 million kronor for Save the Children's work in Ukraine. This contributes to strengthening children's welfare and access to safe care in an extremely serious humanitarian situation.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! We have heard a discussion between the Social Democrats and the Sweden Democrats about what was said by the Sweden Democrats' party leader Jimmie Åkesson. I do not believe that the Sweden Democrats are so naive that they do not understand what they are doing. There is taking place, as the Sweden Democrats are highly aware of, parallel to the physical war a propaganda war. It is conducted by Putin's propaganda apparatus, which is constantly searching for weaknesses in our determination, in our rhetoric, and in the general debate.

One is aware of this. The troll factories working against Sweden morning, noon, and night use word for word the same expressions that have many times been heard from Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders, and Viktor Orbán, for whom you have otherwise expressed sympathy: Of course, there is an upper limit. It is the same expression. Do you not understand that it plays into Putin's hands, or do you not care?

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I fundamentally admire Martin Ådahl's commitment to Ukraine. I am myself chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and often work from early morning until late evening on the support for Ukraine in various ways. We receive delegations and travel there ourselves and work diligently and persistently to strengthen the support, as we have also described today.

If one contributes to maintaining the propaganda war, that is exactly what the Centre is now contributing to do. One prolongs some kind of imaginary and unnecessary discussion about whether there is some kind of disagreement in the support for Ukraine.

One only has to look at our sources and what is written in black and white today in what lies on the table. This applies in particular to what is happening during this week, which actually is historic. We could instead debate a long-term perspective and a stability with the 75 billion kronor in Swedish support.

I was myself in the USA a few months ago together with Nordic-Baltic chair colleagues in the foreign affairs committee to convince our colleagues there about the need for the support to Ukraine. Since then, the support package has been piloted through there. But we need to do what we can regardless of party or party group.

I can also state that ECR, the party group we belong to, and EPP in the European Parliament are among the most Russia-critical when it comes to votes there.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that the liberal group to which we belong, Renew Europe, is trying to push the hardest in these issues.

Someone says something, and then I point out that it is very dangerous. Then people say: You are not allowed to point that out, because we do not think so. In that case, there is a simple way out for the Sweden Democrats and Jimmie Åkesson, or the representative here today. Say that it was wrong!

Say that it was wrong to say that. Take it back. Regret it. Say that it was wrong. Why is it so difficult to say that it was a completely wrong expression? But that is not at all what happened.

Jimmie Åkesson repeated it and repeated it again. It is not us who are saying it. We are forced to point it out, because it is you who are repeating it.

My proposal is: Take this back now. Say that it was wrong. Say that there is no upper limit, and that the stocks are not empty.

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We can only note what Jimmie Åkesson himself has said. The support for Ukraine is existential. Most recently this week, he said: We support Ukraine until the last Russian soldier has left the country.

If you have follow-up concrete questions, I suggest that you direct them to Jimmie Åkesson, just as Magdalena Andersson and Muharrem Demirok have done. It is simple. That discussion is also ongoing outside of this debate.

This debate is about the continued support for Ukraine, which is compact in this chamber. The picture that Martin Ådahl is trying to paint is not shared by Ukrainians or other delegations we meet.

On the contrary, one is extremely positive about the support that the government parties and the Sweden Democrats give to Ukraine and has no concern whatsoever that it would falter.

It is not about that. It is about that we do what we can when it is required. We have been there all the way. We have also convinced our like-minded people that it is required.

One should look and sweep in front of the doors where one has not done so. There are many there who leave a little to be desired, but we do not have time to go into that here and now.

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is good that the Sweden Democrats are now showing that they stand behind the government's proposal for support to Ukraine. But only a few weeks ago, Jimmie Åkesson stated that there is an upper limit to how much support we can give to Ukraine.

We must assume that it was not a random statement, but a deliberate remark, and that he was also fully aware of what consequences it could have. It is a very unfortunate signal to send to Putin at a time when we need to demonstrate our cohesion and our long-term commitment to the support for Ukraine.

Obviously, the Sweden Democrats now see a need to tone this down. But I still cannot help but wonder, Mr. Speaker, where SD's limit for support for Ukraine actually lies. If Russia is allowed to win the war in Ukraine, the costs for us risk becoming significantly much larger than the costs of supporting Ukraine so that they can win.

With this in mind: Is it really reasonable to speak of an upper limit to our support for Ukraine?

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is not reasonable to speak of where an upper limit lies. My view is that no one has done so. People have spoken about trade-offs that need to be made in the relationship between Swedish territory and where our outermost line of defense lies in Ukraine. Otherwise, no one has spoken of and defined an upper limit, on the contrary.

It was asked if we stand behind the package. We have negotiated it jointly with the government parties. Instead, we should have a discussion about the importance of now creating stability and long-term perspective rather than having temporary amending budgets or ad hoc decisions. It should be extremely positive for both the opposition and the majority that it is on the table. I understand that Emma Berginger also feels that way.

Again: How long does it snow? It is not possible today to speak of where a lower or upper limit lies and to begin defining it. I believe that would be unfortunate. It also defines the question of boundaries. So that is definitely not the case.

Ukraine's war is also our common struggle right now for our rules-based world order and the security architecture in Europe. If Russia is not pushed back there, it will also affect our own independence and our autonomy in our own country. We cannot allow that to happen.

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is still commendable that Aron Emilsson does not stand behind his party leader Jimmie Åkesson's statement regarding an upper limit. That is what one can say.

Another question that recurs for me regarding the Sweden Democrats' commitment to Ukraine is the importance of cohesion in the EU. We are facing an EU election that is soon here. We know that extreme forces are mobilizing to undermine the support for Ukraine.

It is extreme forces that are found, for example, in Hungary, a country that the Sweden Democrats have had a weakness for, if I may say so, for a number of years and where one has very large contacts.

Hungary constantly blocks support for Ukraine. My question remains: What will the Sweden Democrats do to ensure there is a cohesion in EU support and so that Hungary does not continue to block support?

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! To begin with, one can only note that compilations have been made recently by various EU news agencies, European political think tanks and others. There, it is clearly shown how the party group the Sweden Democrats belong to, ECR, together with EPP, is among the most Russia-critical and anti-Putinist in all the votes that take place in the European Parliament.

Another measure to look at is that we have a socialist government in Slovakia, and we have in countries like Germany and in other countries had socialist governments that have rested on their heels and hesitated. We have the extreme right, and we have the extreme left. Above all, I would say that it is the extreme right and the extreme left that stand on the wrong side of history when it comes to the criticism of Russia and the support for Ukraine.

The transatlantic link is crucial and that we pro-Ukraine parties and movements hold together. I also want to point out how it would affect our own sovereignty, freedom and the world order in Europe if one does not do so.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! I have a question for Aron Emilsson. The Sweden Democrats sit in the ECR party group in the European Parliament together with, among others, Giorgia Meloni's Fratelli d´Italia, Polish Law and Justice, and also the Spanish Vox. It is a party group that has been clear, just as Aron Emilsson has mentioned, in its support for Ukraine.

Then I must ask one thing. On Sunday, a very large ECR convention was held in Madrid, organized by ECR and Vox. Parts of their election manifesto were presented there. It can be noted that two of Europe's most pro-Putin leaders, Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Marine Le Pen from Rassemblement National in France, also participated in that meeting. Neither of those parties are members of the ECR group, and their pro-Russia stance deviates strongly from ECR, which supports increased support for Ukraine.

My question is quite simply: Is ECR in a process of including Orbán's and Le Pen's parties as members after the election to the European Parliament in June?

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Fredrik Malm, for the question! I am personally not more familiar with the convention that was held. But we have been very clear, both from my side, from the party's side and from our top candidate Charlie Weimers side, that today there are no conditions to initiate cooperation with Orbán's party or Le Pen's party in these forums at all.

We stand on very different sides when it comes to the view on Russia, the view on the transatlantic link and so on. We have also communicated this in stages. We have an advantage from the Sweden Democrats' perspective in that a freedom is applied within the ECR group to vote according to one's own interests. This applies in particular to us Sweden Democrats; we often vote according to Swedish interests and not always according to the group's interests. The interests can, as we know, differ within larger party groups in the European Parliament. We have a very clear view on this.

There are no conditions for such a cooperation today, and I cannot see that it is on the table.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! I have noted the Sweden Democrats' clear statement in that part.

But the question is: What did Viktor Orbán and Marine Le Pen do at ECR's campaign kickoff in Madrid on Sunday? Why were they there? These are two of the most pro-Russia leaders in Europe, who are invited to participate. It should be said that one participated via link, but the other was on site.

There is an ongoing discussion regarding the balance of power in the European Parliament after the election. It is, of course, about the election result but also about how one organizes themselves within the party groups. It affects how much speaking time one gets, how much rapporteur responsibility one can get, and things like that. If one wants to form a group and include Orbán's party, which has been expelled from EPP, and Le Pen's party, ECR takes on a completely different shape after the election. Are the Sverigedemokraterna not worried about if that were to be the case?

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I can only repeat what I have said. Naturally, we would be concerned about that, because it is not our starting point at all to bring these parties into the group. We have made that very clear. Then there are certainly different opinions within the group.

I am unfortunately not personally more informed on why and in what way one interacted with the convention on Sunday. I work on different fronts, not least to secure support for Ukraine, so I must pass the question to the one who can account more closely for the convention itself.

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

Hanna Gunnarsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! The debate is therefore about Sweden's support for Ukraine.

The war has shown us how important European unity and solidarity are. The Swedish defense industry is working at high pressure to produce weapons and vehicles for Ukraine.

I would like to take this opportunity to extend a big thank you to all Swedes who are involved in different ways in the support for Ukraine. I also want to thank the Minister for Defence for the good cooperation and the ongoing information we receive from the government regarding the Swedish support. The unity we have here in the Riksdag is very valuable.

It is clear that the world's support for Ukraine will need to continue for a very long time. It is with great sadness that we note that it is not quite possible to see the end of the war yet, and it is with great frustration that we receive the reports on the need for weapons and ammunition in Ukraine, which exceeds what we have managed to send.

The Left Party considers that all Swedish arms exports in this situation must be concentrated on Ukraine. It is, of course, Ukraine that needs the materiel we can produce and export right now the most.

Vänsterpartiet also considers that we must become much tougher when it comes to the sanctions against Russian energy, oil, and gas. Such transports still exist in Swedish waters and in Swedish ports, and this must be stopped.

Vänsterpartiet further considers that Ukraine's debts need to be written off so that the country gets a chance to recover and rebuild what has been destroyed by the war.

We consider it a matter of course that Putin must be brought to justice for the war crimes that he and Russia have committed during this war against Ukraine, which violates international law.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! At Europe Day this year, a panel debate was held between top candidates for the European Parliament at Kulturhuset in Stockholm. Marta Aguirre from Vänsterpartiet stands as number four on the list. She then expressed support for negotiating with Russia. She said as follows: So, what happened after 1918, when Germany felt so aggrieved that they failed and went to a second world war? We do not want to see the same development. I do not want to sound pro-Russian, but .

Marta Aguirre received a lot of criticism for this, and the moderator asked if she stood by what she had said. She answered then: I think one must explore all paths. To force someone to give up a part of their country through a peace negotiation is not to abandon the aid to Ukraine.

This is somewhat bizarre. One is sailing in some kind of own geopolitical orbit. I would like to know how Vänsterpartiet views that the party's top candidates express themselves in this way regarding Ukraine.

(Applause)

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

Hanna Gunnarsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! Vänsterpartiet considers, of course, that only Ukraine can decide if negotiations should take place and, if so, when, how, and on what. A peace clearly requires that Russia withdraws its imperialist troops completely from Ukraine's territory. It was Russia that invaded, and it is Russia that must end its war against the Ukrainian population, withdraw its troops, and end the occupation.

The opinion that the party's representative expressed in the debate in question is not the Left Party's opinion, and we have clarified that in several interviews.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! It is not the party's opinion, says the member. But it has been articulated by one of the party's top candidates, who may now be elected to parliament and who, despite heavy criticism from a number of other parties in the panel and follow-up questions from the moderator, still stands by their opinion.

The distancing seems rather to be some kind of retrospective coloring from the Left Party's communications department. The fact is that a number of the Left Party's sister parties have representatives who express themselves in the same way.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to ask how large, or perhaps rather how small, the Left Party's support for Ukraine actually is. Is it 70 percent, or is it 60 percent? Or is it 40 percent, but the pressure from the electorate makes it so that one accepts the support for Ukraine in any case? It is obviously not 100 percent, though.

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

Hanna Gunnarsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! The opinion that the party's representative expressed in the current debate is not the Left Party's opinion. We have clarified this in several interviews, including with our top candidate on the EU list, Jonas Sjöstedt.

Vänsterpartiet's support for Ukraine is self-evidently 100 percent.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to devote this second speech in the debate to the very important issue of the Russian blood money that we have parked in the West, in Europe, and in Sweden. At least 300 billion euros, over 3,000 billion kronor, they have been estimated to be. This concerns in particular the Russian central bank's capital, which is now piling up in an account in Belgium.

We are not doing enough today to seize these funds. It is good that the EU and the G7 countries are now taking the returns on the money. But now is the time to take the next step and actually seize the entire amount as an advance on a war reparations payment that we know will be at least this high.

Now it is time for the government to put into action the plan that the Swedish professor Torbjörn Becker has presented, to borrow the entire amount today and send it to Kyiv as a necessary contribution to the war. It is 120 billion euro that we can borrow, 1,400 billion kronor, to Ukraine. It is enough for Ukraine to be able to buy the weapons and make the contributions needed to be able to win the war. We must not miss this.

I want to repeat what was said earlier in the exchange, namely that we also must sweep in front of our own door. One of the most strategic industries in Sweden, the aluminum plant Kubal in Sundsvall, is controlled from the Kremlin. It is controlled from Moscow by an oligarch who is Putin's henchman. It is controlled by Rusal, a part of the Russian military apparatus. It is not compatible with Sweden's fundamental security interests. The factory must be placed under forced administration now. It must be sold, and the money must be handed over to Ukraine.

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

Mikael Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The ongoing war also sheds light on the deficiencies we have in Europe. I am thinking specifically of artillery ammunition. That the Allies were able to defeat Hitler at the end of the Second World War was because, in the end, they were superior in defense materiel. It reminds us of how important this is.

Last year, Mr. Speaker, Russia fired nearly 4 million pieces of artillery ammunition against Ukraine. We promised from Europe's side to send them 1 million. We have not fulfilled that yet. We also know that Russia is now joining forces with Iran but also with North Korea. They can deliver this.

Mr. Speaker! We must ensure that this is rectified.

In our own country, we also have a history of being good at producing defense materiel, not least ammunition, in Karlskoga. Here we must ramp up. An EU election is just around the corner, and something that the Christian Democrats have pointed out is that the EU needs to have a defense commissioner. Task 1 a on that defense commissioner's list must be to triple the production of artillery ammunition and also other ammunition.

This is not enough. It is truly dangerous. The Kingdom of Sweden, Europe, and our opportunities to help Ukraine depend on us having a production. This is therefore not a side issue but something that must now be followed by action. Both for our own sake and to be able to have long-term support for Ukraine for as long as it is needed, we must ensure that we have a production of defense materiel in general and something as important as ammunition in particular.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I want to emphasize what the Christian Democrat member says about the need for more ammunition. When one looks at this fantastic tripling of production in Karlskoga mentioned in the initiative, the only thing that can be said is that unfortunately, there might be a zero missing behind the three, given how the war looks.

My question to the Christian Democrats is the same as to the Social Democrats. I know that many of your members, along with our members, share a very great and admirable commitment in Swedish civil society for the Ukrainian refugees. They collect clothes, toys, and hygiene products and contribute with food and everyday efforts. I have been there myself.

These volunteers suffer with the Ukrainians who are forced to live month after month in misery on 71 kronor a day, a misery unworthy of our support for Ukraine and its struggle. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, my question to the Christian Democrats is: If we submit a proposal for a committee initiative to give them a temporary compensation that is worthy of Sweden and at the level of our neighboring countries, will you then support us?

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

Mikael Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Martin Ådahl, for the question! Thank you also for the commitment, which I know we share, for Ukraine! Ukraine's cause is ours, and Europe and Sweden have made important contributions to open up for the refugees who have arrived.

Then I must admit that I do not have full insight. I do not sit on the committee and do not know exactly what has been said and what the government plans to do. Naturally, however, it is of the utmost importance that we do what we can so that those who remain in Sweden are given the best possible conditions.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I acknowledge once again that I know the commitment is also there with the member from Kristdemokraterna, with full force. I see this as an opening. But civil society, which both you and we meet, says that this is no longer sustainable. Seven more months under these conditions for these people is appalling. They have to beg for their daily bread and are exposed to an enormous pressure that is also reflected against their relatives and friends at the front in Ukraine.

Therefore, I implore you to push for this within the government during the next six or seven months, at least until the population registration gets started – where there are also deficiencies, as it turns out now – and support our proposal for an initiative to at least reach the absolute lowest levels that other countries in Europe have by temporarily doubling the daily allowance to these refugees in Sweden: ten thousand adults and ten thousand children.

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

Mikael Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Let me just complete the picture by saying that very many of those who have come to Sweden are doing very well. They are enterprising and have worked from day one. They also want to return to their country.

Measures have been taken, and there will be measures in the future. What the relevant committee can exactly come to exactly, I leave in the hands of the committee.

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I also want to emphasize that support for Ukraine is not just about sending weapons and ammunition to Ukraine. It is also about taking care of the Ukrainian refugees we have today in Sweden. It is about people who have fled these horrific atrocities that one experiences in a war. We have both visited Ukraine and seen Bucha and Irpin and what has happened on the ground in Ukraine.

The people who come here will have to deal with trauma and the anxiety for loved ones who remain. Every day is a struggle. It can be difficult to support oneself if one does not have the language. 71 kronor per day for an adult, 50 kronor per day for an 11-17-year-old, 43 kronor per day for a 4-10-year-old and 37 kronor per day for a 0-3-year-old - is it reasonable to be able to survive on that money?

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

Mikael Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Emma Berginger from Miljöpartiet!

I believe there is certainly reason to review this. If you take these 71 kronor times 30, it becomes a bit over 2,000 kronor a month. It is not much. But as I said before, there are very many—I know many Ukrainians in Sweden—who have succeeded admirably well and entered the labor market.

Then there are certainly adjustments that need to be made. I do not want to interfere in that. I do not have full insight into the proceedings that are currently taking place in another committee, Mr. Speaker.

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Of course, it has gone well for many Ukrainian refugees. But it does not help the single mother who has a three-year-old to make everyday life work, when every day is a struggle and one might be forced to consider returning. Is this what we want to be the consequence when we do not provide the support that is needed for the Ukrainian refugees?

When can we expect, Mikael Oscarsson, the government to come forward with a solution so that the single mother with a small child does not have to beg for alms at the church and live on poor food?

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

Mikael Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is not actually my view that we have that situation. The Ukrainians who are in Sweden have, to a very large extent, fared very well. Then there is always a reason to review how we can improve this.

As I have now said on several occasions, I know that work is ongoing. I am not the responsible minister – it would have been nice if I had been – and do not have direct insight into exactly all parts, into what can be done and what cannot.

But I know that we have the commitment to support Ukraine with defense materiel and to help them win the war. Ukraine's cause is ours. We will also do what we can to help those who are here in Sweden.

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet wants Sweden to support Ukraine in the long term, so that they can win both the war and the peace. It is important that Sweden, together with the rest of the EU, does not waver in our support.

Ukraine belongs in the EU. Supporting Ukraine in its endeavors to achieve membership on merit-based grounds is important for Ukraine's long-term security.

In order to be able to support Ukraine, the defense industrial capacity also needs to be increased. This requires the government to cooperate with the industry to enable increased production, not least of ammunition.

In order for Ukraine to be able to turn the tide of the war, an increased air defense capability is needed. Miljöpartiet wants to see Sweden contribute to an increased air defense capability with Jasplan, even though we understand that the issue is complex. But this must be a long-term effort.

It is not enough that we only provide support. It is totally ineffective when support is given to Ukraine with one hand and money for oil and gas is given to Russia with the other. We must choke off Russia's revenues from exports of oil and gas to the EU. Here, Sweden could show leadership and lead the way. But the government hesitates and waits. And the longer time passes, the more money Putin rakes in and the more soldiers and civilians are killed and injured in the war.

Mr. Speaker! It is a terrible war with great suffering and many killed and injured. Russia shows great ruthlessness, and the number of war crimes grows with every passing day. They target civilian goals, rape women and have taken away thousands of children. Children are separated from their parents, forcibly deported and subjected to indoctrination. It is urgent to make efforts to locate and reunite the children with their parents. Here the government should do more.

All crimes against international law in connection with the war in Ukraine must be investigated and those responsible held accountable. We want to see a special tribunal established.

Our and other countries' support for Ukraine must continue. Ultimately, it is about standing up for Ukraine's right to democracy and freedom.

Glory to Ukraine!

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

Mikael Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It was not on the grounds of the last thing Emma Berginger said that I requested the floor. When it comes to this matter of Slava Ukraini, we naturally stand together.

I have a factual clarification regarding what the member brought up about Russian gas. Gas is not covered by the EU's sanctions against Russia. It has been difficult to reach an agreement on this within the EU, but the possibilities for the countries to act individually will improve with the EU's new gas regulation, which is expected to enter into force during the year.

There are still some companies in Sweden that import the gas. We have, unlike other countries, thank goodness very little gas. But there are, therefore, some companies that must take their responsibility and stop the imports.

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The government is slow when it comes to stopping the Russian oil and gas. The war has been ongoing for over two years. One sits and waits for the EU's new gas regulation. Our neighboring countries in the Baltics have already stopped the gas. It is not reasonable that we should have to wait for this.

Enough that one wants to wait for the other countries in the EU, but here it is required that the government shows initiative and actually stands its ground.

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

Mikael Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! What I want to emphasize is that things are starting to happen. This has led to the Finnish Minister for Climate signaling that the country will be able to ban gas imports by 2025 at the latest.

If one broadens the question, this is also part of completely breaking free from the dependence on gas from Russia. Germany in particular has, tragically, been enormously dependent on that gas, which has flowed through Nord Stream 2 and 1.

It is important that there are alternatives. That is why it is tragic that Miljöpartiet is not part of the consensus that nuclear power is necessary for all of Europe to be able to truly and completely close the door on Russian gas.

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We cannot let the Christian Democrats get away with making this a nuclear power debate. This is about what Sweden can do here and now and should have done yesterday.

Sweden has nuclear power. Sweden does not have a large gas dependency. Sweden could have stood its ground and been clear regarding this. But Sweden has chosen to wait and wait, while Putin has collected more and more money, which has gone to killing and harming people in the war in Ukraine.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet has been a very tough opponent of a Swedish Nato membership. Now Sweden is a member of Nato. The overall argumentation from Miljöpartiet, and also from Vänsterpartiet it should be said, has been that they argue that Nato makes Sweden less secure.

Mr. Speaker! At the same time, we share the same threat profile with a number of other countries in Europe. My question to Emma Berginger is therefore: Would Ukraine have been safer or less safe if it had been a NATO member on February 23, 2022? And would Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Finland be safer or less safe if they were not NATO members today?

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

FÖRSTE VICE TALMANNEN

I want to remind that the subject of the special debate is continued support for Ukraine.

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Do I still have the right to answer the questions?

(FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER: Absolutely.)

Thank you! I still want to say that Miljöpartiet voted against NATO membership. We have constantly advocated for cooperation with like-minded countries in our immediate vicinity and with the USA and the UK, so that we in Sweden can build our security together with others. But now Sweden is a member of Nato, and Miljöpartiet decided in the autumn that we respect the decision that has been made. We will not strive for Sweden to leave Nato. From that perspective, we act forward.

We mean that it must be up to each individual country to independently make its own security policy decisions. Therefore, I do not wish to review how other countries choose to make their decisions.

I can, however, state that Ukraine has made the nearest steps and strives to become members of both the EU and Nato. I believe that we have a common responsibility to ensure that Ukraine will be a safe country for a long time to come.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that the question of NATO and the threat from Russia is linked to the question of the support for Ukraine.

We have had four major wars in Europe in the last century and a quarter: the First World War, the Second World War, the wars in the Balkans, and the war in Ukraine. In all those situations, a transatlantic link in the form of American support to Europe has been absolutely existential in order to be able to manage the wars and often also to rebuild Europe after the wars.

Mr. Speaker! I am not interested in the Green Party reviewing other countries' decisions. That was not what I asked about. I am interested in the analysis itself.

If we today have a common threat regarding the Russian aggression against our countries, it would be strange to argue that Sweden becomes less secure from a NATO membership. Ukraine has, after all, been invaded precisely because the country is not a NATO member but wanted to become one.

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Different countries make different security policy choices. Different countries have different experiences and different geographical positions or locations. It is clear that a country that was previously occupied by the Soviet Union has a different need than a country like Sweden, which has been alliance-free for 200 years, before we now joined Nato.

I have great respect for Ukraine's desire to be part of Nato and therefore also share the views that we should try to help Ukraine approach both EU membership and Nato membership if that is what they strive for.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! Russia invaded Ukraine in full scale on 24 February 2022. On the first Monday after that, I was at Norrmalmstorg. There was a large demonstration there. Norrmalmstorg is the place in Stockholm for protests against Russian or Soviet occupation. It was there that large demonstrations were held for the independence and freedom of the Baltics in the late 1980s.

I have, together with Gunnar Hökmark, a former Moderate politician, organized meetings at Norrmalmstorg every Monday since the outbreak of the war, with the exception of a few red days. We are talking about 115 Mondays. 300-400 people come there to show their support for Ukraine. What I have seen there, Mr. Speaker, is an enormous mobilization of Swedish civil society in the form of associations, networks, and initiatives such as Skicka vidare till Ukraina, Blågula Bilen, Operation Aid, Blå-Gula Styrkorna, Blåljus I Samverkan.

Ukrainian refugees in Sweden also collect money within the framework of Nordic Ukraine Forum, STFU Tacticats and a number of other organizations. They have collected millions for everything from drones to the front to various types of civil and humanitarian support and support for vulnerable children and abandoned animals - all sorts of things that Ukraine needs.

Mr. Speaker! I think it is important that we see the efforts being made all around Sweden and that we also facilitate them. Different types of rules for gifts and the like should be reviewed in order to further facilitate support to Ukraine. It is truly invaluable.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I have two questions for Fredrik Malm. I know it is sensitive for the Liberals to criticize the Sweden Democrats; we have seen that, not least in the last few days. But Fredrik Malm is usually outspoken, so I pose the question to him.

The origin of this debate was the interview with Jimmie Åkesson in Göteborgsposten a month ago, where he reflected on the fact that there is an upper limit to how much support one can provide, and also that our warehouses might soon be empty. What is Fredrik Malm's opinion on that? Should one express oneself in that way? Is it a reasoning that one should advance, and what signals does it send to Putin?

The second question I want to ask concerns F-16s to Ukraine. We have not received any information from the Minister of Defence today. We have not even received information on when we will receive information. Do the Liberals have any information to provide? You are, after all, part of the government. What is your opinion regarding fighter jets to Ukraine?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! It was a particularly poorly chosen moment to express what the leader of the Sweden Democrats expressed, I think. We should, of course, signal unity on this. On a purely philosophical, theoretical level, economy is defined as managing limited resources, or whatever it is they say. It is therefore clear that there is a ceiling in every budget. We have the money we have. In some kind of philosophical sense, it is clear that it is so. But it is also clear that the political implication of this is not good.

I have no problems whatsoever with criticizing either the Social Democrats, the Sweden Democrats, or others. I hope that the other parties also have no problems with criticizing the Liberals if necessary. I believe that we should have a bold and free debate in Sweden. That is what I welcome.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I note that Fredrik Malm can go as far as to say that it was a particularly bad timing. But the criticism must be stronger than that! It is not just the timing we are talking about, but the message itself, namely that there is an upper limit to how much we can send to Ukraine and that our warehouses could soon be empty. It is truly a gift to Putin when one expresses oneself in that way. I would perhaps have hoped that Fredrik Malm's criticism would be somewhat stronger than just saying that it was a particularly bad timing. It is the message itself that is deeply concerning and that is a present to Moscow.

I received no information regarding the Liberals' position concerning air combat forces to Ukraine. The government has investigated that issue for five months. We are not even informed as to when we will receive an update. I know that the Liberals have pushed the issue previously, and now I am just wondering if we can get any information from the Liberals.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! I maintain what I said in my first response to Morgan Johansson that it was not a good signal to send and that it was a very poorly chosen occasion. Morgan Johansson called it a gift to Putin, but I can say that we gave a gift to Ukraine yesterday in the form of 75 billion Swedish kronor over three years. It is the largest support package Sweden has given to Ukraine, and it will be very much needed.

When it comes to combat aircraft, these are long processes. I actually have no other information to give than what the Defense Minister gave here in a previous exchange of remarks about the fact that we are working for this. The Liberals' ambition is that it shall come to pass. But I also remember how one had to drag the Social Democrats along to accept that, for example, Archer was sent to Ukraine. Morgan Johansson should probably not throw too many stones in glass houses.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I really want to emphasize what Fredrik Malm said regarding civil society's efforts. At this very moment, our top candidates and Members of the European Parliament, Emma Wiesner and Abir Al-Sahlani, are on site in two blue and yellow cars and are delivering several million from the European Parliament's office fund directly to the efforts in Ukraine. I wish them all the best.

I am sorry that I still have to ask this question to Fredrik Malm. The member is, as is known, a representative for a party in the government that holds the Minister for the Environment post. Why can we in Sweden not stop the Russian gas when so many other EU countries are doing so? It is actually completely incomprehensible. And why do we allow the Russian shadow fleet, which lacks insurance and has rusty ships that threaten the entire Baltic Sea's sensitive environment, in addition to them pumping hundreds of billions into the Russian war chest?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Martin Ådahl, both for the agreement in support of civil society and for the questions!

Too many countries have built up too great a dependence on Russian oil and gas. That means it takes longer for countries to get out of it.

It is partly related to the fact that, for example, Germany has seen to it that they phase out their nuclear power and become even more dependent on Gazprom as a result of this. Sweden is better equipped in that regard, with hydropower, wind power, nuclear power, and so on. We are, therefore, not as dependent.

I would, however, wish that this went faster. I find it extremely uncomfortable to see the Russian actions in the Baltic Sea against Estonia and Finland but also with shadow fleets and other things.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I truly appreciate the support that I perceive exists in the government to actually do something. We definitely do not need any Russian gas in Sweden. We have more of our own production of biogas, even though it is now being phased out by the government's policy. But that is another matter.

Other countries have been able to do it. We hope that you make the efforts required both when it comes to the uninsured shadow fleet ships in the Baltic Sea and when it comes to stopping the unloading, so that something is done there.

I also want to ask Fredrik Malm about the many Ukrainian refugees – ten thousand children and ten thousand adults – who are living on extremely low benefits and will continue to do so for perhaps six or seven more months. Can we not get the Liberals' support if we propose a temporary benefit for them, so that they can live with dignity and feel secure in our country?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! I have no other opinion than Martin Ådahl's when it comes to shadow fleets, energy dependence and other matters. However, I would not place too great hopes on the fact that we in Sweden, individually with our national decisions, could be able to handle all that problematic issue. The Baltic Sea is an inland sea shared by significantly more countries. This is also an issue that must be handled at the European level.

Mr. Speaker! Regarding the second question, the Centre Party is trying to project some kind of smokescreen here, that there is a magic solution: Vote for our committee initiative, and then the Ukrainians will receive higher compensation! That is not the case. It must also be prepared, and the Centre Party's proposal would not go any faster. Nor does it meet the needs that the Ukrainians themselves state they have when it comes to, for example, access to healthcare, bank ID, bank accounts, and so on. The broad work that the government is now doing would still have needed to be done. The Centre Party's proposal only addresses part of the issues and would not have been faster to implement.

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I must begin by saying that Fredrik Malm said something good earlier. He said that the support is insufficient for Ukraine to be able to win the war. I can truly agree that is the case. At the same time, the cost becomes enormously much greater if Ukraine loses than what it costs to support Ukraine so that they can win the war.

One of the most important things we can do so that Ukraine has a better chance of winning the war is to provide Ukraine with increased air defense capabilities. When do the Liberals, as a governing party, mean that Ukraine should be able to receive Jas and that Sweden should be able to support Ukraine with increased air defense capabilities? That is what I wonder. We received no answer on this earlier, so now I ask again for an answer here.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! I truly agree with what Emma Berginger said initially. It was indeed a compliment for what I said from the rostrum, but she added further arguments regarding precisely Ukraine and how devastating it would be if Ukraine lost the war. It is a smaller investment to help Ukraine win the war than the cost would be if Ukraine loses the war. I completely agree with this.

When it comes to air combat forces, our view in Liberalerna is that Ukraine really needs it. Work is being done for this in the government. Then it should be said that I do not think one should only focus on Swedish defense materiel. It may be the case that Ukraine can obtain this faster if one enters into a facility for F-16 or other products. But Jas would, of course, be of great use to the Ukrainian Defense Forces. So that is the case.

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We stand here in the Swedish Riksdag, and we must start from what we can contribute to support Ukraine in their fight against Russia. Sweden has Jas. The government cannot continue to hide behind other countries that contribute other types of aircraft. There we have, despite everything, not seen particularly large results so far.

This is a complex issue. I acknowledge that as well, but we must start somewhere. This is a long-term commitment and long-term support. In that case, we must start at the right end, for example with the training of pilots.

I ask the Liberals again: When can we expect the government to do something so that we can contribute to increased air defense capability for Ukraine with Jases, which is what we can contribute?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! Let me correct two things. The first is that it is not only this that Sweden can contribute with. Sweden can contribute with economic resources for, for example, other solutions than specifically the Swedish Jas 39 Gripen. But the Jas would, of course, be of use in Ukraine. So it is.

The second thing is that the Green Party says that the government is hiding behind other countries. That is not the case. This is about international cooperation. It is about coalition building, about alliances, and about creating mechanisms so that we can jointly mobilize more support for Ukraine than if each country acts on its own.

It is absolutely not about Tobias Billström, Pål Jonson or the Prime Minister hiding behind other countries, but it is about us wanting to create added value by jointly taking responsibility to increase the support for Ukraine.

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I want to thank all the parliamentary parties for an important debate! Support for Ukraine is the most important foreign policy task of the coming years.

This debate has highlighted the support for Ukraine from many different perspectives and angles, and that is good. We need a broad debate on how we can best design a strong and effective support for Ukraine. I also have good hopes that we will continue to have broad support for the Swedish support to Ukraine. Again: It is a strength for Sweden when we can unite and find broad agreements. I find it difficult to see any issue where this would be more urgent than precisely when it concerns the collective support that Sweden is now providing to Ukraine.

Mr. Speaker! Let me conclude by saying that Ukraine's cause is our cause. Now, Ukraine needs Sweden's support more than ever. Sweden has taken a number of measures to contribute to the support for Ukraine. Not least, the announcement we made the other day regarding an additional 75 billion in long-term support will be extremely important for Ukraine and for it to be Ukraine that wins the terrible war and not Russia.

The special debate was hereby concluded.

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