Response to interpellation 2025/26:158 on risks for Swedish soldiers in potential missions in Ukraine
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M argues that Sweden has a broad cooperation with Ukraine where no Swedish force participates in combat tasks 1 2. M emphasizes that an armed force abroad requires the Riksdag's consent and that the new legislation only applies to the Euro-Atlantic area 1 2. M argues that Sweden supports Ukraine to defend international law and humanity, and that it is in Sweden's own interest to weaken Russia to increase its own security 2 3. M claims that Russia bears the blame for the war and that the Western military support has prevented Russia from achieving its goals 2 3. M considers that Russian narratives about it being too dangerous to support Ukraine have been false 3. M wants Ukraine to decide over its own territory and that support for Ukraine is an investment in Swedish security 3 4. M emphasizes that it is not currently relevant to send combat units to Ukraine until there is a ceasefire 4. M argues that claims that Sweden has become a legitimate target for Russia are a Russian narrative 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)
Mr. Speaker! Elsa Widding has asked me if I have made an analysis of the implications of urgent situations, that is, situations that could prompt the government to send soldiers to Ukraine, and if I can, in that case, account for the results of that analysis. Furthermore, Elsa Widding has asked me if it is possible that Sweden sends elite units to Ukraine without warning and, if the answer is yes, if I can state whether Sweden has already sent elite units to Ukraine or not. Finally, Elsa Widding has asked me if I have made an analysis of how many Swedish soldiers risk losing their lives in an eventual Swedish intervention in Ukraine and if I can, in that case, account for the results of that analysis.
I want to begin by emphasizing that the Riksdag's consent is normally required for a Swedish armed force to be deployed abroad. If the purpose is to participate in NATO's collective activities for deterrence and defense, the Riksdag sets the framework for the participation, and if the purpose is something else, the Riksdag's consent is required in that specific case.
Regarding Swedish units in Ukraine, I want to remind that Sweden has a broad cooperation with Ukraine that covers both civil and military activities. Representatives from several different defense agencies have been and are currently on site in Ukraine. I want, however, to emphasize with all clarity that none of these have participated or are participating in combat tasks.
Out of concern for the staff's safety, I cannot go into details regarding which tasks the staff are performing in Ukraine.
France and the United Kingdom are leading the planning of a reinsurance operation as part of a package of security guarantees for Ukraine. Sweden is participating, together with over 30 other countries, in the so-called coalition of the willing in the planning and preparation of such an operation or intervention.
Prior to a possible Swedish participation, the Armed Forces conduct a risk and threat analysis covering current security aspects. A deployment is relevant only when a ceasefire is in effect or a peace settlement is in place.
Elsa Widding (-)
Mr. Speaker! According to the Minister for Defence, a deployment of armed forces to other countries, i.e., such a situation as the new law intends, is only relevant when a ceasefire applies or a peace settlement is in place. This is not true. Has the Minister for Defence, therefore, not read his own bill?
On November 5, the Riksdag approved that Swedish soldiers can be deployed in war if the need for participation arises on short notice. In urgent situations, the government does not need to ask the Riksdag but receives its own mandate to deploy armed forces for a limited period.
And who is creating the urgency if not the Minister of Defence himself, when he now wants to acquire long-range missiles that can strike Moscow? In the same breath, he urges the NATO countries to prepare for war against Russia. Does the Minister of Defence understand that he is playing with fire? Stop telling lies about what is stated in the bill!
If Sweden deploys troops against Russia or sends long-range missiles towards Moscow, Sweden has declared war on Russia, a war that the Defense Minister now wants to prepare us all for. Sweden is on its way to making itself a target for Russia, just as Ukraine did, gladly cheered on by the USA and Great Britain. What barriers exist now against sending Swedish soldiers to the war in Ukraine to meet a certain death there?
The government wants to sacrifice the lives of Swedish soldiers for the USA's and NATO's will to set up bases in Ukraine. This is a conflict that in no way affects Sweden's security. The Swedish people have not asked to become participants in a war. Therefore, it is important that everyone understands what the government may come to sacrifice our sons' and daughters' lives for.
We have an escalating global power conflict with primarily the USA, Nato and the EU on one side and the BRICS countries on the other side, where military means are used instead of diplomacy and where the situation in Ukraine has become central.
The conflict in Ukraine was started and is driven by neoconservative agendas in Washington that want to gain control over natural resources in Ukraine and Russia. Then we have an economic desperation in Europe where the EU leaders are trying to exploit an issue that overshadows the problems at home: Now it is just a matter of everyone becoming really afraid of Russia.
Sweden's Minister of Defence is being used by forces in the USA as a puppet in a larger game, and I wonder if he himself has even realized the consequences. Where did Sweden's diplomacy and focus on peace go?
So the war is not at all about defending democracy. EU's defense minister Kaja Kallas has expressed in an interview that she wishes to see Russia broken up into smaller, controllable republics.
Recently, Defense Minister Pål Jonson said that Ukraine is conducting our war against Russia. But what concrete threat does Russia pose to Sweden that justifies us sacrificing the lives of Swedish soldiers in combat far away from Swedish territory? The Defense Minister surely cannot mean that the fact that Russia entered the breakaway republics of Donetsk and Luhansk to protect the Russian-speaking part of the population was the beginning of a bandit raid in Europe where Sweden was on the list of countries to be invaded?
The war had nothing to do with Sweden before the defense minister here began his provocations. Initially, it was about protecting the Russian-speaking population in eastern Ukraine and stopping Ukraine's attempts to retake Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea. The war is, of course, also about stopping a Ukrainian membership in Nato.
Russia does not want to see the deployment of American nuclear weapons less than 50 miles from Moscow. On November 10, 2021, a strategic partnership was established between the USA and Ukraine which would pave the way for Ukrainian membership in Nato, where this would then become possible.
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Mr. Speaker! I believe it is Elsa Widding who needs to read the bill. The new legislation is adapted to Nato's activities for deterrence and defense. Is Ukraine a part of Nato? No. Would it be applicable if we were to deploy soldiers in Ukraine? No.
The new legislation applies to the Euro-Atlantic area, i.e., what we do within NATO's activities for deterrence and defense on the allies' territories. Should we send an armed force abroad, it is exactly as Chapter 15, Section 16 of the Instrument of Government applies: An armed force sent abroad shall always have the Riksdag's consent. The new legislation therefore only applies to the Euro-Atlantic area, not if we were to deploy forces in, for example, Ukraine, Afghanistan or Kosovo. It is important that we clear the cards here, because Elsa Widding mixes things up.
The second question concerns our cooperation with Ukraine and the issue she raises. We have a cooperation with Ukraine. Elsa Widding knows this very well. We have a defense attaché organization at our embassy. We have several agencies among the total defense agencies that are active in supporting Ukraine. FMV is on site to support Ukraine with procurement of materiel.
All of that is necessary, but there is no armed force from Sweden in Ukraine conducting combat activities. I want to be very clear about that. Furthermore, both the former Chief of Defence and the current Chief of Defence have visited Ukraine. It is not stranger than that, but Elsa Widding tends to describe various myths and things that are not in agreement with reality.
We have debated this before, and Elsa Widding says things such as that Sweden, through its support for Ukraine, contributes to the slaughter of Ukrainian soldiers. But it is Russia that has attacked Ukraine. We support Ukraine. It is obvious that it is Russia that contributes to the war, not Sweden. Sweden helps Ukraine so that Ukraine can defend itself.
The second is the Russian narrative that is spread in at least two respects, for the first that Russia wins the war. We debated this a year ago, and then Elsa Widding described it as if it were a rout at the front and that the front was about to collapse. I just want to say that during the past year, Russia has taken 0.4 percent of the Ukrainian territory at a cost of over 300,000 wounded and killed.
Until now, Russia has not been successful in this war. I wonder if Elsa Widding and I agree on this. She says all the time in these debates that Russia is grinding down the Ukrainian armed forces, but they still consist of approximately 850,000 soldiers. There is a very heavy pressure on the armed forces, but so far Russia has not achieved its goals. Those goals were, as Elsa Widding knows, to first take Kyiv within a week, to control all of Ukraine within some months, and then take Donbass now in the spring offensive. This has not been successful so far, and the reason for that, Elsa Widding, is largely the Western military support.
Mr. Speaker! The worst hypocrisy is that Elsa Widding, during the previous interpellation debate, said that she obviously stands on the side of the Ukrainian people. The policy that Elsa Widding represents would, however, mean that Russia had won this terrible war and that the Ukrainian people would have had a Russian leadership.
Elsa Widding (-)
Mr. Speaker! I believe we must have a special debate on what Russia's goals are with this war.
I in no way stand behind the fact that they entered Donetsk and Luhansk and also with forces towards Kyiv, but I still think we must stick to the truth and consider what these exchanges of bodies look like today. The Minister for Defence surely has figures on that.
In 2021–2022, Ukraine was well-prepared for war and had Europe's largest and best army, just as the defense minister says. According to Ukraine, they had 700,000 soldiers to take back Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea by force. American training of these forces had been ongoing since 2015.
On February 17, 2022, Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister, Sergey Vershinin, claimed in the UN Security Council that Ukraine had stationed 122,000 men along the border with the republics of Donetsk and Luhansk. If you ask AI, the answer is that there were 330,000 soldiers at the border, if you include the reserve forces. I believe they arrived there in December 2021.
Kiev's forces had the capacity to launch a major offensive, which the liberation forces from Donetsk and Luhansk completely lacked defenses against. It would be a bit tougher to take Crimea, of course, because the Russian naval base is located there.
The USA and the Kyiv regime had managed to corner the Russians, so of course it is difficult. It was about an inverted Cuban Missile Crisis, where American weapons systems in Ukraine were perceived as an existential threat to Moscow in the same way that the USA perceived the Soviet missiles in Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. In both cases, one party tried to prevent the other from threatening its own country. On both sides, there were obviously also other reasons for the war, but talk of a Russian imperialism to subjugate Ukraine, as spread in this chamber, is grossly misleading and pure disinformation, Pål Jonson.
What is it then that we are to sacrifice our sons for? The Minister for Defence says that there is no risk that they will be deployed, but provocations are occurring around the border, and the Minister for Defence wants Sweden to be involved in these provocations.
For the USA, I mean that it is about weakening Moscow and eliminating Russia as a great power allied with China. But it has of course been just as important for the USA to weaken the European-Russian business cooperation and especially the German-Russian gas and industrial cooperation in order to thereby be able to sell, for example, American gas to Europe. We see the consequences in the form of the very high prices on gas.
For Sweden's Minister of Defence, I believe it is a matter of being at the service of the American neoconservative forces; I cannot see any other reason, because there are absolutely no rational arguments for Sweden to engage so heavily in this military conflict.
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Mr. Speaker! Does Elsa Widding dispute that Russia tried to take Kyiv after February 24, 2022?
I can only state that one stood for about an hour outside Kyiv before having to turn back. It is documented. It is also documented that one tried to take an airport outside Kyiv to carry out airborne operations. It is very well documented, Elsa Widding, that there was the ambition to try to control Kyiv within a week. After that, it is also well-documented that the FSB would roll out various execution patrols to execute the Ukrainian political leadership. This is a fact.
I also wonder if Elsa Widding disputes that Crimea is Ukrainian, that Donbass is Ukrainian, and that Ukraine has the right to maintain its territorial integrity. I think that is reasonable.
Elsa Widding asks me why we are engaging in this war, and it is fundamentally very simple: It is about standing up for international law. We are both in agreement that Russia has initiated the military aggression into Ukrainian territory, are we not? By supporting Ukraine, we stand up for international law and the territorial integrity of other countries. I actually also think that we are standing up for humanity and dignity.
The brutality that Russia is showing in this war is very obvious. I have personally visited both Bucha and Irpin. According to Ukrainian sources, and it is also documented by Yale University, approximately 35,000 Ukrainian children have been deported to Russia.
This is a terrible war, but the one who bears the guilt for this is Russia. It is not Ukraine that bears the guilt for this war.
We have good conditions to support Ukraine, and by doing so, I believe we are investing in our own security – we are not weakening our own security. There I know that Elsa Widding and I differ. If Russia were to control all of Ukraine and gain control over the Ukrainian armed forces, the threat, in my assessment, would increase against both Moldova, the Baltic states, and indirectly against Sweden. Therefore, it is also in our enlightened self-interest to continue to support Ukraine, while we stand up for important values.
In this discussion, we have constantly had the Russian narrative that it is too dangerous to support Ukraine. We had that discussion when we first were to make a decision about sending small, light weapons – then there were many who argued that then World War III begins. We had that discussion also when we were to send combat vehicles, Mr. Speaker – then there were those who warned that then World War III begins. We had that discussion when we were to send main battle tanks and also when we were to be involved in financing the production of long-range missiles in Ukraine.
Every time it has been wrong, Elsa Widding. World War III has not broken out, no matter what Russia tries to threaten and scare us with so that we do not support Ukraine.
What distinguishes me from Elsa Widding is our view that Ukraine should decide over Ukrainian territory. I do not want a Europe where small countries are the backyard of large countries.
Elsa Widding (-)
Mr. Speaker! The Minister for Defence says that Russia would go in and take Kyiv. I just want to inform that when Moscow occupied Czechoslovakia in 1968, they entered with 10–15 times greater force per capita than the force they entered with in Ukraine, so I don't think that was the intention.
Invading Europe would be totally illogical given Russia's wealth of resources. Europe has nothing that Russia needs except for a potential market for its oil and gas. There is simply no reason to sacrifice Swedish lives for this conflict.
To sacrifice our country for another country's strategic interest, which I assert is what it is about here, cannot be perceived as anything other than treason. The Defense Minister's description of reality is completely incorrect, and it is deeply remarkable. I am almost a little unsure how the Defense Minister stands regarding the Ukrainian units, for example the SS Galicia division, which during World War II committed massacres on Poles, Jews, and Russians. These political forces are still active in Kyiv – then the Defense Minister can call it Russian propaganda if he wants. After World War II, the CIA protected these Nazis and integrated them into their anti-Russian propaganda.
If Defense Minister Pål Jonson has access to Google, he will easily find 23 articles from the New York Times between the years 2010 and 2022, all of which address Nazism in Ukraine. What I understand is that it is a legacy in Ukraine that lives on even today with the Nazis of the Azov Battalion, who influence the military. Even CNN and many others have reported on this before the anti-Russian war propaganda started in earnest. We can only hope that this is something that the government and this chamber do not support.
Last time we stood here, the Minister for Defence said that Sweden pays with kronor and öre and Ukraine pays with its blood and that we should be grateful for that. Now apparently that is not enough. Now it is almost time to pay with our Swedish soldiers' blood, because the Minister for Defence so intensely incites war and in no way tries to achieve or contribute to peace.
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Mr. Speaker! Just to be crystal clear: It is not an option to send any combat unit of Swedes to Ukraine until there is a ceasefire or a peace agreement. I want to be very clear about that. We cannot send any combat unit, because then we become part of the war. Then we become combatants.
When Elsa Widding and I debated this the time before last, the member claimed that Sweden, according to the laws of war, has through its Ukraine support become a legitimate target for Russia to attack. Elsa Widding also said that we should be grateful that Russia has not done so yet. Two things are counterfactual in those claims. We adhere very clearly to the laws of war regarding what we can and cannot do in the Ukraine support, and we cannot send combat units. On the other hand, we are according to international law in our full right as an independent country to support another country that has been subjected to aggression. It is established that Russia is conducting an aggression against Ukraine.
What Elsa Widding presents – that it would be legitimate according to the laws of war for Russia to attack, for example, the Swedish defense industry – is unfortunately a Russian narrative. I am deeply concerned that this is being presented in the Swedish Riksdag, because it does not correspond to how Sweden acts.
Mr. Speaker! Elsa Widding claims that she stands on the side of the Ukrainian people. But over 80 percent of the Ukrainian people want to continue the fight, according to the surveys that exist. It is known that when one lives under occupation, as now in Donetsk and Luhansk, deportations of children, Russification, and pure Russian expulsions of Ukrainian citizens occur.
Supporting Ukraine is, in my opinion, both the right and the smart thing to do. It is an investment in our own security.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.