Response to interpellation 2025/26:230 on Sweden's support for 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 supports Ukraine's efforts for a just peace based on international law 1 and that it is just to use Russian assets because Russia must pay for its war 2. M emphasizes that it is important that Ukraine receives the support it needs 1 and that Russia, without provocation, attacked and started a war against Ukraine 3. M argues that Russia is not interested in diplomacy 3 and that the two-point plan with increased support for Ukraine and increased pressure on Russia remains firm 3.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! Elsa Widding has asked me in what way Sweden is helping Ukraine achieve peace, apart from through military support. She has also asked whether I have made an analysis of the Swedish people's will to contribute further tax funds given the occurrence of corruption in Ukraine. Furthermore, Elsa Widding has asked me what analysis the government has made of the conditions for using the Russian currency reserves, as she believes this would contravene international law.
First and foremost, Sweden supports Ukraine's efforts to achieve a just and sustainable peace based on international law, including the UN Charter. We are clear that it is up to Ukraine to determine which conditions are acceptable for such a peace. Respect for Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity are fundamental starting points for Sweden. Territory may not be conquered by force. The Government maintains a close and ongoing dialogue with Ukraine as well as with European and transatlantic partners regarding the way forward.
As long as Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine continues, the government has a two-point plan: more support for Ukraine and more pressure on Russia. Since Russia's full-scale invasion, Sweden has contributed a total of 111 billion kronor in both military and civilian support. The military support to Ukraine is central to Ukraine's ability to defend itself against Russia's aggression. The civil aid-financed support contributes to a functioning society and is fundamental to Ukraine's resilience.
Russia has escalated attacks against civilians and civil infrastructure despite ongoing peace negotiations. Sweden is working hard to increase the pressure on Russia through sanctions. Sweden is therefore pushing within the EU for proposals on expanded restrictions against sectors that contribute to Russia's financing of the war, as well as proposals for listings of individuals and companies that enable Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine.
The Swedish people's will to support Ukraine is very strong. From the latest Eurobarometer from December 2025, it appears that 97 percent of Swedes agree that the EU should contribute with financial and humanitarian support to Ukraine. This is the highest figure among all EU countries.
Support for Ukraine is not only an investment in Ukraine's future, security and existence but also in our own security and future. It is in Sweden's and Europe's interest to continue to support Ukraine for as long as is required.
In talks with Ukraine, the government underlines Sweden's support for Ukraine on its path towards EU membership, which requires continued reforms. Sweden is therefore actively working with reform support for Ukraine, including in the work against corruption. That Ukraine's independent anti-corruption authorities can also investigate individuals around the highest state leadership is a sign of progress.
The Swedish government and the European Commission assessed that the proposal to use the frozen Russian central bank assets for a so-called reparations loan to Ukraine was compatible with international law. The government wanted to proceed with this proposal, but ultimately the member states agreed on a different direction. The most important thing is that Ukraine receives the support that the country needs.
Elsa Widding (-)
Madam Speaker! Corruption in Ukraine is claimed to have swallowed in the magnitude of 54–108 billion dollars, according to Mykola Azarov, former Prime Minister of Ukraine. It is, if true, more than one-third of the Swedish state budget.
Zelenskyy's chief of staff has been forced to resign, and the ministers of energy and justice have moved to Israel after stealing enormous amounts. An investigation by the New York Times shows that the Ukrainian government over the last four years has done nothing to stop the corruption in the country, rather the opposite. The New York Times calls it the worst corruption scandal in Ukraine's history.
Now this regime is to receive an additional 90 billion euro, approximately 1,000 billion Swedish kronor, partly to keep the war going. The government is even trying to convince the Swedish people that a peace in Ukraine could pose a threat to us and that the war must therefore be supported with additional billions.
Nothing indicates, however, that Russia is after Sweden, unless we ourselves choose to make ourselves a target for Russia, that is to say, or the USA decides that so shall happen. The day the USA, with the support of the DCA agreement, sets up long-range weapons on our territory, it will be devastating for Sweden. Then we will definitely become a primary target or a pre-emptive strike target for Russia, and our security will become a mere memory.
Madam Speaker! The Minister for Foreign Affairs speaks of wanting to weaken Russia in a situation where Nato is about to collapse and Ukraine is losing the war. Why do we not try to conduct a dialogue with our close neighbor in the east through diplomacy? Both France and Italy seem to have realized the utility of this. Perhaps we should straight out apply for membership in BRICS and start trading with the whole world.
No, instead the Foreign Minister speaks about proposals for listing individuals who enable Russia's war of aggression. Is she perhaps referring here to Jacques Baud, former colonel in the Swiss army, intelligence analyst and former advisor to Nato? In December 2025, the EU placed him on the sanctions list, decided by the EU foreign ministers. Since then, his bank accounts have been frozen, and he is prohibited from traveling within the EU.
He is not accused of being a Russian agent, but we are talking about a private individual who is very expert in the area he represents. He has written a number of books and appeared in interviews to convey his rather critical view of how the West handles the war in Ukraine. Now he is accused by the EU of spreading pro-Russian propaganda and disinformation, including the alleged dissemination of a conspiracy theory that Ukraine itself would have orchestrated Russia's invasion in 2022. This is strongly denied by himself. He has only cited statements from 2019 by Oleksij Arestovytj, then advisor to President Zelenskyy, regarding the risk of war if Ukraine were to seek NATO membership.
Angela Merkel actually said exactly the same thing in Bucharest in 2008; I do not know if the minister remembers that. I believe that even the US ambassador to Russia said the same thing.
The citation of a Ukrainian official is thus treated as evidence that Jacques Baud acts as a Russian agent, despite his claim that he has no connections to Russia. To maintain academic objectivity, he has based his work primarily on Ukrainian and American sources. The decision was therefore political, not legal. There was no court ruling, no indictment according to any law, no right to defense, and no real possibility of appeal.
What we see is evidence of a serious erosion of democracy and human rights, of which freedom of expression is actually a part. Is this a development that the Foreign Minister stands behind or has contributed to? If so, then many will soon have to flee our country.
Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! What is most likely to lead to people being forced to flee our country is if we let Russia win the war against Ukraine. How that war ends will have a decisive influence on our security for generations to come.
It is clear that Ukraine has long been willing to negotiate a just and sustainable peace. Russia has shown no signs whatsoever of being interested in that, and in that case, it is of course completely pointless to pick up the phone and call Putin.
Russia, instead, continues to attack civilian targets, including energy infrastructure and hospitals. 2025 was the deadliest year for civilians in Ukraine since 2022. It is against this brutal reality that the government's policy must be seen, and I am glad that there is such strong support among the Swedish people for precisely this policy.
We cannot change Putin's objectives, but we can change his calculations. Every sanctions package weakens the Russian economy, and that in turn affects Russian war-making capacity. We know that it works. Last year, Russian energy revenues decreased by 25 percent. The government is therefore working systematically to strengthen the sanctions and to close the loopholes that provide Russian revenues.
Before the next sanctions package, Sweden and Finland have recently submitted proposals for three additional measures: first, a maritime service ban that could reduce Russia's energy revenues, second, a total ban on the EU's export of luxury goods to Russia, and third, restrictions on the EU's import of Russian fertilizer.
The fastest way to peace is for Russia to withdraw its troops. It is very simple. A peace based on Ukraine being forced to capitulate would not be a peace. It would be a reward for aggression, and it would put the entire European security order at stake – and also Swedish security.
Elsa Widding (-)
Madam Speaker! You hear it: "If we let Russia win."
I completely agree that the war is brutal. But this government, with Sweden's Prime Minister at the helm, was nevertheless prepared to steal Russia's currency reserves despite the opposition within the EU being broad. I must bring this up.
In the German parliament, 87 percent were against this proposal. Unlike the Swedish government, they did not want to see these reserves as a tool in an ongoing war.
Central bank reserves are not like any other property. They are specially protected in international law so that the global financial system can function. The theft of the Russian assets was not stopped by a lack of solidarity but by law, economics, and pure self-preservation. Suddenly, the entire credibility of the euro was at stake.
Sweden has shown how easily one abandons international law, so I think one can speak a bit cautiously about it.
Sweden's goal is to strengthen Ukraine and weaken Russia, says the Foreign Minister. This means that the war must be allowed to continue. Sweden is therefore denying the Ukrainian people the peace that they so fervently want. The large Gallup poll conducted in July 2025 shows that only 24 percent of the Ukrainian population can imagine continued fighting. That many Swedes would gladly see a continuation of the war is quite irrelevant for Ukraine's part. It is therefore not over 80 percent who want to see a continuation of the war in an attempt to strengthen Ukraine, as the Defense Minister and I believe the Foreign Minister also claims. Sweden is acting completely in opposition to the Ukrainian population's will.
Iuliia Mendel, Zelenskyy's former press secretary, writes very pointedly on X that the belief in Nato implies an endless slaughter of human lives. She also writes: Nato membership as a goal directly drives the war today and guarantees instability tomorrow. To continue a war for an illusion and at the same time call every compromise "treason" – that is what risks betraying precisely those people who have already given everything.
It is now important that the government stops living in that illusion and looks to Sweden's security – and Ukraine's, for that matter.
Step one is to familiarize oneself with both Ukraine's and Russia's security needs because it was this that was the origin of the war. It is not just about Ukraine's security but also about Russia's.
The EU has opted out of cheap energy from Russia and is now instead importing gas from the USA that is three to four times as expensive. What happens when Trump stops the LNG gas to Europe and the relationship with Russia as a gas supplier has ceased? What happens to Sweden's export market when Germany is forced to shut down at an ever faster pace?
Why did Russia consider that a Ukrainian membership in Nato would pose an existential threat to Russia? Why was the idea of long-range missiles and nuclear weapons aimed at Moscow along the 200-mile long border not liked? And why was it feared that the West wanted to divide Russia into several parts, which could more easily be controlled from the West? Was it because Rand Corporation already in 2019 described it as a desirable scenario, which politicians from the West have repeated?
What actually happened in eastern Ukraine in 2014 when Petro Poroshenko came to power after the regime change in Ukraine? Discriminatory laws were introduced against the Russian-speaking population in eastern Ukraine, which the Russians in Donetsk and Luhansk did not want to accept. Was it really that strange?
How could Russia take Crimea so easily? Could it have been because the largest ethnic group in Crimea consists of Russians? We, including myself, were horrified. But apparently, that did not apply to those who lived there.
Why did the Russians enter with 150,000 soldiers into the breakaway republics of Donetsk and Luhansk in February 2022, when Ukraine, with the help of the West, had built up Europe's largest army?
Europe is now stuck between its own narrative and the USA, which we have become far too dependent on.
Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! Let us talk about the frozen Russian assets.
This is Russia's war, and therefore Russia must also pay. The government therefore welcomed the Commission's proposal. Let me emphasize, as I also said in my response and in light of Elsa Widdings' statement, that the EU Commission judged that the proposal was in accordance with international law.
Sweden wanted to move forward with the proposal together with several countries, but we could not reach an agreement on the guarantees that Belgium demanded. In that situation, 25 member states instead agreed on common European loans to Ukraine. We secured Ukraine's financing for the next two years, which is the absolute most important thing. But it is also clear that it is not enough.
I and the government believe that the issue of the frozen Russian assets must be raised again. It is the most just, both for Ukraine and for European taxpayers. I am proud of Sweden's large support. I wish that more countries in Europe could deliver at the same level. But when they do not, the frozen Russian assets must also be taken.
I am proud that Sweden's aid contributes to the fact that society in Ukraine can function, that wages and pensions can be paid, and that hospitals can continue to save lives. In this way, we contribute to Ukraine's resilience and thus to all of Europe's.
These unreasonable claims are coming very quickly, but it is obvious that we stand far apart in many areas. A number of questions came in here that I do not think there is any point in addressing.
Elsa Widding (-)
Madam Speaker! I believe the Minister is glorifying the situation in Ukraine, and it is very tragic that the government does not stand behind international law.
The Swedish people have been robbed of billions and money has been sent to the most corrupt regime in Europe to prolong a war that was hopelessly lost from the very beginning. By drumming out an incorrect historical description of the Ukraine war, the government is trying to trick people into accepting war in our country. They have the help of the Digital Services Act, which classifies all deviations from the EU's views as disinformation.
That focusing on only two points in the peace agreement – to strengthen Ukraine and to weaken Russia – shows that Sweden is in no way interested in a negotiated peace in Ukraine. For every day that the war continues, Ukraine's possibility of continuing to exist as a nation decreases.
If we in Sweden and Finland accepted American long-range missiles from our territory, which can strike into Russia, we would, in exactly the same way as Ukraine, constitute an existential threat to Russia.
Why do we not try to calm the situation down with diplomacy? No matter how much we oppose Russia's analysis of the country's security situation, it is that analysis, Madam Speaker, that governs their actions. Consequently, it will also define our security – or insecurity.
According to Russia, it is not about imperialist ambitions, as the Foreign Minister seems to believe, but about survival as a nation. Nearly 2 million soldiers have lost their lives in this horrific war. Just as many mothers have had their lives destroyed. Let me not be one of them!
The government does not want to be held accountable for the origins of the war or for how our own actions and provocations affect Russia and thus our own security.
The Prime Minister speaks about us being in a pre-war state. Does anyone even know what that means? Is it perhaps like a prelude – that it is hoped that something else, more substantial, will come afterwards?
Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! The origin of the war is very simple, and most understand it. It was that Russia, completely without provocation, attacked, assaulted, and started a war against Ukraine. Russia is not interested in diplomacy, and that is why our two-point plan with increased support for Ukraine and increased pressure on Russia remains firm.
I am incredibly proud and grateful that 97 percent of the Swedish people stand behind both the military and the humanitarian support for Ukraine. I can only regret that Elsa Widding is not one of them.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.