Response to interpellation 2024/25:101 on Sweden's engagement in Ukraine
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
I believe that it is morally right and an investment in Sweden's security to support Ukraine 1 2. The Government argues that Russia's war of aggression requires strong international support to preserve international law and the European security order 1 2. M emphasizes that Swedish personnel in Ukraine are making an indispensable contribution and that Russian threats should not deter Sweden from acting 1 2. SD stands fully behind the Government and sees the support as an investment in security, independence, and freedom 3. SD argues that Sweden should continue to support Ukraine as long as it is needed 3. SD stands fully behind the support for Ukraine and the Government, as it is about our independence and that the democratic global community must stand up against Russian aggression 4. M argues that NATO membership reduces the risk of armed attacks 5.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Madam Speaker! Elsa Widding has asked me about the reasons why the common funds of Swedish taxpayers, which are intended to pay for roads, schools, and healthcare in Sweden, are now going to Ukraine. Elsa Widding has also asked me if the government sees any reason to reconsider the decision regarding the Swedish presence in Ukraine after the catastrophe in Poltava where several persons from Nato were killed and injured. Elsa Widding has also asked me if the government stands by its plan to send Swedish personnel from the Defence Materiel Administration to Ukraine, if the government can then guarantee their safety, and whether the Ministry of Defence has made any analysis of how this can be interpreted by Ukraine's counterpart and enemy in this war.
Madam Speaker! Because of Russia, a major war is raging in Europe. The effects of the war have not been limited to Ukraine, and the conditions for Swedish security policy have therefore changed fundamentally. Supporting Ukraine is morally right, and it strengthens Sweden's security. It is in Sweden's interest that Ukraine regains its territorial integrity.
One of the government's most important priorities is to ensure strong and long-term international support for Ukraine. Together with the growth of capability within total defense and Sweden's membership in Nato, the most important investment in our future stability and security is that Russia does not reach its goals with its war of aggression against Ukraine.
Sweden, together with a large number of countries and the EU, has entered into bilateral security commitments with Ukraine. The security commitments and the government's overall priority to support Ukraine form the basis for the Swedish support for Ukraine.
To promote cooperation with and develop support for Ukraine, Sweden has a certain presence in the country. This consists, among other things, of embassy staff and personnel from agencies and organizations such as Business Sweden and Försvarens materielverk. In the sense of international law, Sweden is not a belligerent party in the war between Russia and Ukraine. The Government is at the same time fully aware of the risks associated with staying in Ukraine. The Swedish personnel who are on site make an indispensable contribution to both Sweden's and Ukraine's security.
During the last months, Russia's indiscriminate attacks against Ukraine have reached never-before-seen levels. These attacks have caused extensive destruction of critical infrastructure, while they have devastated peaceful cities, and entire families have fallen victim to the Russian aggression. On September 3 this year, Russia attacked a military installation in Poltava, and more than 50 civilians and military personnel were killed. In connection with the attack, disinformation appeared on social media, among other platforms, that, among others, Swedish instructors from the Armed Forces had been in the area and perished. I want to be clear that these are incorrect pieces of information. The Armed Forces did not have military personnel on site in Poltava, as was falsely portrayed.
Elsa Widding (-)
Madam Speaker! The war has now entered a new phase where Ukrainian units are constantly threatened with being encircled. Soldiers are fleeing across open fields.
Sweden has not contributed to peace talks to stop the killing. Instead, through arms deliveries, we have contributed to soon wiping out an entire generation of Ukrainian men. How can that increase our security?
A brief look back is in order. Nato was formed 75 years ago, in 1949, as a defense alliance to counter the communist sovereign Soviet Union. Nato helped us win the Cold War and to force the Soviet Union to give up the Warsaw Pact, Nato's natural enemy. The efforts included assurances from many Nato representatives, including the USA.
The Minister remembers surely Foreign Minister James Baker's statement: There would now never be any talk of any expansion of Nato eastward towards Russia. At that time, there were 16 members in Nato. Today, 33 years later, there are 32. Nato has been expanded eastward seven times since the agreement in 1991. Today, Nato includes three countries that border Russia. Nato and the USA broke the agreement.
Madam Speaker! Call it Russian propaganda or perhaps a conspiracy theory. I call it facts. The question is how the USA would react if China or Russia entered into a mutual defense organization with Mexico or Canada. We know the answer.
Was it not then very unfortunate that President Zelenskyy was persuaded by England and the USA to abandon the negotiated peace agreement in Istanbul just six weeks after the illegal invasion began in 2022? At that time, it was almost sufficient that Ukraine stood outside Nato. Today, unfortunately, the situation is different. Why in the name of peace did they stop the possibility of peace?
Lindsey Graham, American senator and a driver in the proxy war against Russia, spoke on June 9 this year in CBS Face the Nation about Ukraine: "They are sitting on ten to twelve trillion dollars critical minerals in Ukraine. They could be the richest country in all of Europe. I don't want to give that money and those assets to Putin to share with China. If we help Ukraine now, they can become the best business partner that we ever dreamed of. This is a very big deal how Ukraine ends. Let's help them win the war. We can't afford to lose."
Madam Speaker! The question now is: How far is Sweden's government willing to go in this proxy war against Russia, especially now when the USA wants to shift the costs of the war onto Europe? Are we willing to support the war until the enemy is inside Kyiv and Zelenskyy has deployed the last teenagers in the defense of the city?
I naturally stand wholeheartedly on the side of the Ukrainian people, but we can no longer turn a blind eye to the realities on the battlefield. The energy system is largely knocked out as the country now faces a cold winter.
To incorporate Ukraine into Nato, Russia must be defeated. President Zelenskyy says that Ukraine can no longer defeat Russia on the battlefield without the support of Nato troops on the ground. Cities and villages are now being handed over practically without a fight.
The training center in Poltava was destroyed by two hypersonic missiles. NATO personnel from several countries died. It is correct that no one from the Swedish Armed Forces was present this time. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the same applied to civilian personnel.
Does the Minister perhaps mean that a third world war is a reasonable solution to defeat Putin and get Ukraine into Nato? Are we to fight against Russians and Chinese?
ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN
I just want to remind the members that speeches in the chamber shall be held in Swedish.
Lars Wistedt (SD)
Madam Speaker! I just want to clarify that the Sweden Democrats fully stand behind the government in the support for and to Ukraine. The Sweden Democrats see the support as an investment in our security, our independence, and our freedom to make our own democratic choices.
Sweden and the Sweden Democrats stand up for the rules-based world order and our Western values. And it is precisely this world order that Russia and its allies, in a form of an axis of evil, are now trying to dismantle.
Ukraine, the Baltic states and Finland have hundreds of years of experience of occupation and oppression from Russia and the Soviet Union, in like manner with other former Eastern European countries, for that matter. I also want to remind that in 1939 Finland stood up against Soviet demands and threats in the same way as Ukraine has now done. During five years of war against a vastly superior opponent, Finland admittedly lost 11 percent of its territory and nearly 100,000 in wounded, dead and missing soldiers, but it maintained its freedom and its national independence. Finland paid a high price, but it is still a free nation. For other countries, it did not go as well.
The Sweden Democrats believe that Sweden should continue to support Ukraine in their fight for freedom - for as long as is needed and with as much as we reasonably can - for freedom is always worth defending.
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Madam Speaker! There are many things in Elsa Widding's speech that I would like to address.
That we in Sweden are wiping out Ukrainian soldiers through our military support is a view that I believe Elsa Widding is quite alone in. The Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian political leadership express strong gratitude for the Swedish support. The Swedish support is among the largest in the world, and there are weighty reasons why Sweden supports Ukraine.
Firstly, it is about humanity and decency. It is Russia that has launched an illegal and full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It is Russia that has systematically committed crimes against international law in the war. I have personally been in Irpin and Bucha. We see the systematic Russian attacks against civil infrastructure and civilian targets. So, it is about humanity and about decency.
Secondly, it is about standing up for values that are important for Sweden and about standing up for Sweden's security. When we support Ukraine, we also stand up for international law. We stand up for international law, and we stand up for the European security order.
When Russia repeatedly invades and occupies other countries, it must have consequences. It is absolutely crucial. International law is important for smaller countries like Sweden, because we do not want a Europe ruled by great powers where small countries are the backyard of large countries.
Thirdly, supporting Ukraine is also actually an investment in our own security. It is Ukraine and the Ukrainian soldiers who now constitute Europe's shield against Russian military expansion. Should that shield fall because the West lacks the endurance, patience, or conditions to continue supporting Ukraine, the judgment of history will, for good reason, be harsh.
I was myself recently in Moldova. There is a significant concern in Moldova that Russia would be successful - it has been a Russian military objective before - and establish an immediate connection between Transnistria and Russia.
When we support Ukraine, we also invest in our own security. Should Russia win this terrible war, it would also have far-reaching consequences for Sweden.
Let me also say something about the Russian narrative. The Russian narrative says that it is expensive and dangerous to support Ukraine. Yes, we have invested 48 billion in our military support to Ukraine, but it is a support that we pay for with crowns and cents. The Ukrainian soldiers pay in blood. We should be grateful that Ukraine continues to fight and stand up for its territorial integrity and its freedom.
We have repeatedly had the discussion that it is dangerous to support Ukraine, and Russia tries to threaten and intimidate us all the time. We had that discussion when we had the discussion about small and light weapons. We had that discussion when we had the discussion about combat vehicles. We had that discussion when we had the discussion about main battle tanks. We had that discussion when we had the discussion about combat aircraft, and we have that discussion when we have the discussion about long-range weapons.
Ukraine has even entered Kursk. It has not had any escalatory consequences so far as Russia has made any increase in that regard. Russia is thus trying to threaten and intimidate. Our Ukrainian friends say: Do not be bought by the Russian rhetoric and by them rattling sabers! Continue to support us, because then you also support your own security!
Elsa Widding (-)
Madam Speaker! The Minister for Defence stated the following on SVT on 15 August 2024:
Sweden shall establish a presence in Ukraine with officials from the Defence Materiel Administration. The agency will assist Ukraine in purchasing weapons.
Given Ukraine's difficulties in the war and how NATO's resources, materiel, and personnel have been attacked by Russians with weapons that NATO and the West lack defenses against, I wonder: Is it really reasonable for Sweden to send more materiel as well as establish a presence of FMV's personnel on the ground in Ukraine?
How far must it go before the Minister can draw conclusions from what is actually happening on the ground in Ukraine and begin to act based on that? Would the Minister himself want to sit at the front in eastern Ukraine completely without his own air defense and with Russian bombers, drones, missiles and a constant rain of artillery shells over him?
It is not strange that Ukrainian men are now deserting or fleeing the country. All talk about Ukraine's high morale is but a memory. Continuing to push Ukraine in front of us as a weapon against Russia leads nowhere. It is immoral and unethical.
The death toll in the war is now approaching 1 million - Ukrainian and Russian soldiers as well as many civilians.
The Armed Forces, with the help of the media, have succeeded in frightening the Swedish people to the extent that we Swedes actually believe that after Ukraine, Russia will attack Sweden. There was no evidence for this until Sweden joined Nato and hammered through the DCA agreement.
What do we have to look forward to in Sweden in the event of an escalated conflict – that the Russians bomb the 17 bases and training areas that we have handed over to the USA, or perhaps something even worse?
If Sweden joins Nato, Russia's mistrust of the West increases - this is what the diplomats Hans Blix, Rolf Ekéus and Sven Hirdman wrote in a prominent article in DN already in 2014. Now we are unfortunately there. We can coldly state that these experienced diplomats unfortunately were right. The government's policy has made Sweden an insecure country. The article addresses Russia's lack of interest in Sweden. I quote:
A Russian attack where Sweden would be involved does not appear conceivable. A Swedish-Finnish NATO membership would, on the other hand, increase Russian mistrust.
This is, therefore, what three Swedish top diplomats are writing, whom the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the government have chosen not to listen to.
It is therefore the Minister, the government and the previous government who have issued a war threat over Sweden.
Madam Speaker! If my sons and the sons of others fall in a war between Nato and Russia, it is the Council of State and the government that have their blood on their hands.
Our government is now exposing the Swedish people to a gigantic risk, a risk that FOI, Must, and FRA have shown did not exist before Sweden entered the conflict through military support. As the crowning achievement, the government has invited Russia's current greatest enemy - the USA - to operate from Swedish territory through the DCA agreement.
Madam Speaker! If you wave a red cape in front of a bull long enough, it will go into an attack.
ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN
I want to remind us to express ourselves respectfully towards one another.
Lars Wistedt (SD)
Madam Speaker! In summary: As I said earlier, the support is ultimately, and just as the Minister for Defence said, about our independence and about the democratic global community having to stand up against the Russian aggression.
Again: The Sweden Democrats fully stand behind the support for Ukraine and will also continue to support the government in this. Of course, we believe that a country should be allowed to defend itself without having one arm tied behind its back. It is actually like this: Russia started the war, and they can end it at any time. They just have to stop shooting, withdraw, and provide reparations for the damage they have caused.
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Madam Speaker! I can inform Elsa Widding that I have been to Ukraine three times during the war. I have been in Mykolaïv, Chernihiv and Kyiv and also in many other places. It is an excellent way to gain a deeper understanding of the war.
I can state that the risk of Sweden being subjected to an armed attack is reduced through NATO membership. Through NATO membership, we are covered by Article 5 and NATO's collective defense planning. It raises the threshold for any form of temptation to subject Sweden to an armed attack.
I also want to remind that precisely the actors that Elsa Widding refers to, Must and FRA, and also Säpos annual report have repeatedly warned about the aggressive Russian actions, Russia's low threshold for the use of military force and that Russia has high ambitions when it comes to remilitarization. An ambition has been expressed that they shall have a higher military capability than when the war broke out.
Then it is once again the Russian narrative that is being presented. It is that there is no point for Ukraine to resist. If one visits the areas occupied by Russia, one sees systematic arrests of actors in civil society. We have tens of thousands of documented violations of international law that Russia has committed against Ukraine. We see systematic examples of Russia having deported children from occupied areas into Russia. This can be a reason why Zelenskyy and Ukraine have a strong will to continue defending themselves - one knows that it is a terrible situation to be occupied.
Then it is about Russia being successful in this war. We hear this all the time and repeatedly from certain actors. They say that Russia has been successful in this war. Now we are almost 1,000 days into a war that Putin thought he would win in 5 days. That was the goal for Russia. One was to take Kyiv, roll in execution squads - this has been reported - and attack the political leadership in Ukraine and take control of the country. After almost 1,000 days, we can state that Russia continues to control less than 18 percent of the Ukrainian territory.
This has also had far-reaching consequences for Russia on the international arena. It has been met with the largest buildup of Nato since the end of the Cold War. Sweden and Finland have become Nato allies as a direct consequence of the illegal and full-scale invasion.
We have, of course, also seen that Russia has received 14 rounds of sanctions and increased international isolation. We have also seen that Russia has paid a very high military price for the war. People are talking about over 600,000 wounded, dead, or captured Russian soldiers. We are talking about over 10,000 combat vehicles and tanks that Russia has lost. Soon 1,000 days into the war, Russia has actually not achieved any of its strategic objectives. They did not succeed in taking Kyiv. After that, Ukraine succeeded in retaking 50 percent of the occupied areas. They have also not succeeded in taking Donbass.
To call this war a success for Russia is to distort the truth.
Elsa Widding (-)
Madam Speaker! I do not share the Minister's view, but one thing we can be completely in agreement on: The human suffering is absolutely enormous.
The EU has been defined as a peace project. Every time a conflict has arisen somewhere in the world, the EU has stood for diplomacy and negotiations. One does not need to agree on everything, but one must at least start talking. Now, the question of peace has suddenly become taboo in the Western world. Communication such as diplomacy and negotiations – the prerequisite for peace – has been removed from the agenda. In the war in Ukraine, the EU now openly distances itself from diplomacy and negotiations. The EU chooses war as the only path to peace.
How is it going to work? War can never lead to peace, only to ruin for at least one of the parties. Diplomacy now seems to consist of sitting in a room together with one's allies and jointly condemning the opponent, who is not even allowed to be present at the negotiations. It is no longer about discussing between the parties. Unfortunately, only a settlement on the battlefield remains, where the strongest will win.
The question is whether the Minister acts for the best interests of Sweden and the Swedish people or is primarily a mouthpiece for the United States' military-strategic interests, where Sweden is being exploited at the expense of our security.
Ukraine is today in a significantly worse position than two years ago despite Western arms deliveries and support. To continue with arms deliveries and an escalation in this situation defies all logic and shows that Sweden's government has drawn no conclusions or lessons from the outcome of a war lasting two and a half years.
Madam Speaker! I believe that the judgment of history will be harsh.
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Madam Speaker! I believe that no one desires peace more strongly than the Ukrainian people. But it must be a peace on Ukrainian terms. If Ukraine is to negotiate, the country must be able to do so from a position of strength.
The Swedish line is this: If Ukraine wants to negotiate, we will support Ukraine. If Ukraine wants to continue to work to regain its full freedom and its territorial integrity, we will continue to support Ukraine.
The fact is that both Donbass and Crimea are Ukrainian. They belong to Ukraine. We do not want to reward Russian aggression. But again: It is only the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian political leadership who get to decide whether they want to negotiate or whether they want to continue to fight for their territory.
I want to say a few words connected to disinformation. A great responsibility rests on everyone in Swedish society not to spread disinformation. It is happening systematically from Russia. We are being affected, and it is happening in a very extensive way. When it comes to claims that there are, for example, Swedish civilians or military soldiers in Poltava, it is documented that this is incorrect.
In conclusion, I would like to express a great appreciation for the broad support that exists in Swedish society when it comes to the support for Ukraine. Somewhere between 85 and 90 percent support, according to Pew Research, the Swedish military support to Ukraine or are willing to also increase it.
Even in this chamber, we from the government's side have presented nine support packages to Ukraine. All of these support packages have been passed by acclamation. All members of the Riksdag have voted for the support packages to Ukraine. It is a strength for Sweden that we can find broad security and defense policy solutions, especially in an issue that is so central to Sweden's security as continued militarily strong support to Ukraine.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.