Response to interpellation 2024/25:657 on preparations in accordance with the DCA agreement
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
I believe that the DCA agreement is stabilizing, raises the threshold for attack, and is important for the defense of northern Europe 1. I believe that Sweden strengthens Ukraine through military and political support, which improves the possibilities for a sustainable peace 1. I emphasize that Sweden does not weaken its own war organization through the support as new-produced defense materiel is used 2. I reject claims that the support contributes to mass death and argue that Ukraine would not have survived without support 3. I claim that Russia shows no interest in negotiations 3. I believe that the best way to reduce the risk is to keep Nato strong and arm Sweden strongly 3. I emphasize that Sweden does not have American bases or warheads aimed at Russia 3 4.
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 what preparations are currently underway for the installation of various weapons systems aimed at Russia at the 17 bases and training areas stipulated in the DCA agreement, and in what way these potential preparations contribute to the peace efforts currently underway to end the war in Ukraine. Elsa Widding has also asked me how Medvedev's statement affects the potential preparations underway at the bases that the USA controls via the DCA agreement. Furthermore, Elsa Widding has asked me how I view the risk that Russia assumes that nuclear weapons have been deployed and therefore chooses to attack these bases with tactical nuclear weapons in order to rather preempt than be preempted in an uncertain situation.
Ukraine's defense against Russia's full-scale invasion continues. Sweden's focus remains on strengthening Ukraine through military, political, and civil support. 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 to contribute to ensuring that Russia does not reach its goals with its war of aggression against Ukraine. A strong Ukraine, backed by strong support from Nato, the EU, and others, improves the chances for a sustainable and just peace on Ukraine's terms.
NATO builds the overall deterrence on collective defense. A strong deterrence deters attacks. The DCA agreement is stabilizing, raises the threshold for attacks against Sweden and is important for the defense of northern Europe. It strengthens security for Sweden and for our Nordic and Baltic neighbors.
The cooperation according to the DCA agreement is based on Sweden's consent and sovereignty, Swedish legislation, and international obligations. The USA does not control any bases in Sweden. The DCA agreement contains a list of facilities and areas belonging to the Armed Forces, and in one case FMV, which the USA has the right to access within the framework of the agreement.
The DCA agreement does not change the position that was expressed within the framework of Sweden's NATO application and which is repeated in the bill on the DCA agreement. That position means that, in the same way as in other Nordic countries, there are no reasons to have nuclear weapons on Swedish territory in peacetime. The Swedish position is well known by other countries.
Elsa Widding (-)
Madam Speaker! I suppose I should go home and wash my ears, because I did not hear the answer to any of my three questions. Is that really how democracy is supposed to work? I do not know why we are even standing here if it is not possible to get an answer to a single question.
The Swedish people want to know if the Minister can confirm or deny that infrastructure work is underway for the deployment of American weapons systems on Swedish territory in this sensitive situation. That was my question. For certainly we are in an escalated situation – why in the name of all that is holy would otherwise Russia's former president Medvedev, also head of the Russian Security Council and head of the industrial weapons complex, clearly now state that Sweden and Finland could become the first targets in an impending war? He does not even rule out the use of nuclear weapons.
He says exactly what I warned the Minister of Defence about when we stood here a year ago and had our first debate. Then I quoted Jacques Baud, former colonel and NATO advisor, in the book Operation Z on page 33. He writes: "It is funny that Sweden and Finland do not seem to have understood that they, in the event of war, could be the first to be attacked with nuclear weapons, for preemptive purposes."
Madam Speaker! It is not at all funny, but it is very regrettable, that the Minister does not take this seriously. Robot systems aimed at Murmansk will obviously take a long time to get in place. It will need satellite systems, I assume, alarm systems, systems to link geographical locations, electricity and water. It is a lot of things that must be built.
I ask again: Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs guarantee that no such preparations are underway? The Minister of Foreign Affairs is speaking here of a membership in Nato as an investment for future stability and security and that Russia is not allowed to reach its goals. It is not about some distant future. It is about ending the killing in Ukraine now and not jeopardizing Sweden's security.
Russia will guaranteed reach its goals. And for Nato, it does not look particularly good. Sweden's defense is, as we all know, dismantled with only a few battalions remaining. Our own weapons the Council of State has sent to Ukraine. In the current situation, we can at best defend Gotland – please correct me if I am wrong. So much for that stability and security! USA with Trump at the helm will not defend Sweden, and to place one's hope in the other Nato countries is probably mostly a theoretical hope in this situation.
Madam Speaker! To provoke the enemy and simultaneously decimate our own defense capability is roughly like eating ice cream when one wants to lose weight. There may be an ounce of truth in what Henry Kissinger said: It is dangerous to be America's enemy but deadly to be its friend.
Russia will not back down from its goals. It does not accept that Ukraine becomes a member of Nato. It wants to demilitarize Ukraine, and it wants to denazify, as it calls it, Ukraine. In all wars, it is the strongest party that dictates the terms, and unfortunately, it will be so this time as well.
This is what the state council and other war-mongering leaders in Europe must now contend with in order to guarantee their countries' security. The choice lies between negotiating now with the advantage of saving lives or letting Russia drive the war toward an unconditional surrender for Ukraine.
Madam Speaker! When we stood here six months ago, the Minister of State said: We have invested 48 billion in the war in Ukraine, which is also an investment in our security. We pay with crowns and öre, and Ukraine pays with blood. We should be grateful for that.
At approximately the same time, the cemetery administration was asked to reserve land areas for 500,000 graves. If the electricity doesn't work, it will therefore come down to digging. Surely there is no one who doesn't understand the connection. Or does the Minister of State think that even the cemetery administrations in Austria or Switzerland, both of which have chosen not to send weapons to Ukraine, are counting on these unpleasant scenarios?
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Madam Speaker! Elsa Widding is absolutely right that there is an elevated state of tension in European security policy.
The reason for it is very simple: Russia has repeatedly invaded and occupied other countries. That was done in August 2008. Then they entered and took South Ossetia, and then they took Abkhazia. Russia also did this in February 2014, when they illegally annexed Crimea. They also took parts of Donbass. They also did this on 24 February 2022, when they began an unprovoked and illegal war of aggression against Ukraine.
It is that which has raised the tension level in Europe, and it is that which has created the instability. We must contend with that, and we do so in different ways. We are upgrading our defense; we have doubled our defense investments over four years.
We have also joined Nato. It is also judged by the vast majority of parties in Sweden's Riksdag as stabilizing. It is deterrent and prevents war. It reduces the risk that Sweden is subjected to an armed attack. It is also the very reason why we need a DCA agreement that regulates the legal conditions for the American presence on the European continent and in Sweden.
It is true that we had our debate here in October 2024. I actually went back and looked at the minutes to see what Elsa Widding said then. She said that it was a rout and chaos on the Ukrainian front and that people were deserting in droves.
I can only state that since we had our debate, Russia has increased its gains in Ukraine by 0.2 percent. The Russian invasion has not been successful so far.
I very often hear the narrative that Russia is too strong and will win the war. Let us begin with where things stood at the beginning. Then Russia assessed that it would take Kyiv in five or six days and that it would control all of Ukraine. Now it has been over 1,000 days with this war, and Russia controls less than 19 percent of Ukraine's territory.
Why has Russia not been more successful than that so far? The reasons are two. It is about the resilience of the Ukrainian armed forces and that they have offered an enormously tough resistance because they know what the alternative is. The alternative is occupation.
We know what happens during a Russian occupation; we have seen it in Mariupol. Russia has deported more than 20,000 Ukrainian children to Russia. We see over 160,000 documented violations of international law in Ukraine. Russia has, especially during the recent period, increased its attacks against the civilian population in Ukraine. Systematic violations of international law were committed by Russia in Ukraine.
But so far, Russia has not been successful. The second component in the reasons for this has to do with the Western military support. It is extensive and important.
What Elsa Widding says about us now weakening our own defense force through the support for Ukraine is incorrect. Now we do not donate defense materiel from the defense force's own war organization, but we use the defense industry in Sweden and send newly produced defense materiel to Ukraine. In that way, we can strengthen Ukraine, and we do not weaken our own war organization.
The last and most important thing is that the domestic production of defense materiel in Ukraine is increased significantly. This is, of course, extremely important. Through that, we can donate financial resources to the Ukrainian defense industry, and they can also roll out defense materiel to the Ukrainian units.
Elsa Widding (-)
Madam Speaker! What sets us apart is our view on how the war in Ukraine is going. I can only say that I sincerely hope that it is I who am wrong and the Minister who is right. We will certainly find out that during this year.
Then I would like to know if the Minister believes that we can defend more than Gotland's area.
The Council of State and the government have invested money in mass death. It is thousands of liters of Ukrainian blood, as the Council of State itself expresses it. And then one has the nerve to claim that it is about our security! It is important that the Swedish people now understand how the DCA agreement in Sweden and Finland actually shakes the security in Scandinavia.
We can take a practical example. Before Finland joined Nato and signed the DCA agreement, the only route for military transports from Murmansk down towards Leningrad, which passes close to the Finnish border, was not challenged. Finnish neutrality guaranteed the security of this route. Now the situation is different. It is not unthinkable that Russia will neutralize Finland to ensure this important transport route and be able to get troops from Murmansk down to the Leningrad area.
That the Council of State and the Government rely on NATO's Article 5 in the event of an aggression against Sweden is a meager comfort when the majority of NATO's troops are heavily dismantled. But here, the Council of State may also have a different opinion.
By the way, how are we to get foreign troops to Norrland in a situation where Finland might be disarmed and Russia can roll in its troops from Murmansk? Is this not a logistical nightmare and something we do not want to expose ourselves to?
If the government is not clear about what does not take place at these 17 bases within the framework of the DCA agreement, there is a great risk that Russia will take the sure thing over the uncertain and eliminate these bases, in the worst case with tactical nuclear weapons, which they are now also indicating. How does the government view that risk? Why does the government want to make us in Sweden a target for Russia?
It is not about who is kind or mean in this. It is about our security.
Madam Speaker! I believe that Pål Jonson is tailing the weapons industry. He does not hesitate to make our country a hell on earth in his eagerness to get Ukraine into Nato at any cost – I also think his historical description is flawed, but I will not go into that. Anyone can understand that it is other things that lie behind.
Or does the Minister perhaps think that President Trump will jeopardize his country's security to protect Sweden in the event that we are subjected to tactical nuclear weapons?
Russia's nuclear doctrine says: If the motherland Russia is threatened, all means at disposal will be used, including nuclear weapons. The USA reasons in exactly the same way. And to threaten Russia is well exactly what Sweden is doing now.
How can we, for example, be horrified that the so-called Russian shadow fleet tears up some cable on the seabed? We might even have to be grateful as long as Russia does not attack our defense industry, which manufactures weapons that are sent to Ukraine to kill Russians.
Many are now asking whether the "threats" that Sweden experiences today are actually a direct consequence of Sweden's own provocations against Russia rather than an objective security assessment.
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Madam Speaker! I do not quite know where to begin.
That the Swedish military support would contribute to the mass death of Ukrainian soldiers is absurd – excuse me, Madam Speaker. It is detached from reality. If we had not supported Ukraine, Ukraine would not have survived as a free and independent state. Then we would have seen even more of the crimes against international law committed and even more deportations of children. I have been in Irpin. I have been in Bucha. I have seen the brutality that Russia represents and the brutal way Russia acts. To say that the Swedish military support contributes to the mass death of Ukrainian soldiers is simplistic, Madam Speaker.
The second dimension is that if Ukraine wants to negotiate, naturally Ukraine should do so. What we see now, however, is that there is no interest or commitment from the Russian side to negotiate. Zelenskyy offered to go to Istanbul, but Putin did not show up there. They have systematically postponed and delayed the negotiations that have been ongoing.
Then we are apparently supposed to be grateful if Russia does not attack the defense industry we have in Sweden, Madam Speaker. Again: It is almost a Russian narrative and Russian propaganda if one claims that.
We repeatedly hear the Russian narrative that Russia threatens with nuclear weapons. But Russia did that already before Sweden became a NATO member and before we had a DCA agreement in place. Elsa Widding surely knows about the Russian Easter, when Russia, according to NATO's then-Secretary General, practiced nuclear attacks against Sweden. That was done already in 2013.
There is no immediate connection between the NATO membership and the Russian threats. Russia has constantly used this type of deeply irresponsible nuclear posturing, which in itself is strongly escalating.
We have had a discussion about whether it is dangerous to support Ukraine. We had it when it concerned small light weapons. We had it when it concerned main battle tanks. We had it when it concerned combat aircraft. The whole time, that discussion has hovered over us.
What Russia wants is to intimidate and threaten us into submission. They want to create a Europe where small countries are the backyard of large countries and where they are to be the superpower at all times. But we do not want to live in such a Europe. I do not want to live in such a Europe, and I did not think that Elsa Widding wanted to live in such a Europe either. So why bow to that type of threat of submission? It is in itself foolish to adapt to the recurring Russian threats.
The best way to reduce the risk is, of course, that we keep Nato strong and that we arm Sweden strongly. It is deterrent and therefore stabilizing in itself.
When it comes to the DCA agreement itself, it is the same agreement that Estonia has, that Latvia has, that Lithuania has, that Denmark has, and that Finland and Norway also have. All countries in the Nordic region now have DCA agreements.
Elsa Widding claimed last time that this was security policy harakiri. In that case, all these countries have committed security policy harakiri. It is not only Sweden that has 17 designated sites where there can be an American presence. In total, there are 66 such sites in the region.
Then Elsa Widding says that these are American bases or that they are controlled by the USA. This is P 7 in Revingehed. This is P 4 in Skövde. This is A 9 in Kristinehamn. This is I 19 in Boden. Visit those garrisons and see if they are USA-controlled or Swedish-controlled! Talk to the regimental commanders! These are Swedish bases that the USA has access to and where the USA could, for example, pre-position defense materiel.
Elsa Widding (-)
Madam Speaker! I have still not received an answer to a single question.
I can only state that risk analysis is not the minister's strong suit. On the other hand, he is very much up to gambling with all of our lives.
Does the Minister mean that if the USA and England had accepted the peace settlement that was imminent in April 2022, an equal number of Ukrainian lives would have been lost?
Donald Trump was during his first term as president most involved in building up Europe's strongest army in Ukraine. He now has a short time to leave "Project Ukraine" before bloody events on the ground dictate the way forward with a Ukrainian military collapse. We will see how it goes. And then we have not even taken into account the humanitarian catastrophe that could occur in Europe and Great Britain when many millions of refugees flee from Ukraine and flood Europe.
If NATO does not withdraw, there is a risk that we face a third world war. Why is the government turning a blind eye to reality?
Russia will win this war on the battlefield if Ukraine does not quickly get to the terms that Russia has talked about since June 2024. I do not mean that they are good. I mean that it is the opportunity we have today. We will have to live with Russia whether we like it or not.
The risks of an escalation of the war, which will also affect us, are now extreme. Should Sweden really join forces with a number of war-mongering and reckless European leaders who do not seem to hesitate to expose their own populations to war and mass death? Or should we now try to back down and ensure that we avoid American weapons systems aimed at Russia on Swedish territory, which make us an obvious target for Russian weapons that no country can defend against?
Sweden's actions are increasingly resembling the little mouse that rotted.
One thing I am completely certain of: The Swedish people do not want to pay with their blood for the minister's reckless war games.
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Madam Speaker! Elsa Widdings analysis of the security policy leaves, in my opinion, some room for improvement.
Why do we have an unstable situation? Well, because Russia invades and occupies other countries. That is what creates tension in Europe. Then we must have the ability to deter Russia. That is completely central given that Russia is willing to take large political and military risks. That Sweden cannot manage this alone was the conclusion we drew in connection with the start of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. We must cooperate with others, and the best way to reduce the risk of ending up in an armed conflict is to keep Nato strong and upgrade our own defense.
Elsa Widding has asked me several times if there are American weapons systems in Sweden aimed at Russia. No, there are not. It is about a year since the Riksdag passed the DCA agreement, and at that time, there were many speculations about how this would develop. The DCA agreement regulates, among other things, the legal conditions when American military personnel operate in Sweden, but we have neither American bases in Sweden nor American warheads aimed at Russia. If Elsa Widding believes that they exist, she can point them out. I suggest, as said, that Elsa Widding visits the mentioned military garrisons. To believe that they are American or American-led is completely detached from reality.
Deterrence is absolutely crucial in a situation where Russia attacks other countries. Nato is based on both conventional and nuclear deterrence, and the threshold for attacking Sweden now that we are allied is higher than if we had not been included in Article 5 and Nato's collective defense planning. That is the whole point of being in Nato. We are, therefore, not in Nato to win wars but to ensure that there is no war, because Nato has very good deterrence capability.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.