In the recent interpellation debate with Elsa Widding, Defence Minister Pål Jonson said that ”over 80% of the Ukrainian people want to continue this fight according to the polls available”, But a July 2025 Gallup poll shows that only 24% of the population want the war to continue. A full 67 % want a negotiated peace.
In other words, this means that the Minister of Defence is riding roughshod over the Ukrainian people when he advocates continuing the war effort.
European leaders have reached a deadlock
Mr Jonson also supports the European leaders' negotiating proposal based on the return of all occupied territory to Ukraine, which after the end of the war will have a military force of 800,000 troops and the opportunity to become part of NATO.
Russia's goal with its military operation has been from the beginning that Ukraine should remain neutral and only be allowed to have a military force that cannot threaten Russia. You can say what you like about this, but I am only referring to what Russian representatives have said.
Does Mr Jonson really think that Russia, which has fought a very costly war for almost four years and lost hundreds of thousands of men, should just pack up and go home?
Such preconditions for a peace negotiation indicate only one thing. Mr Jonson and the government do not want to see an end to the war and one really has to wonder why at this time when the overwhelming majority of the Ukrainian people want a negotiated peace as soon as possible.
This is not hard to understand when Ukraine has lost more than 1.5 million soldiers in dead and missing. In the last exchange of bodies, there were 40 Ukrainian for every Russian.
Elsa Widding and Pål Jonson | Photos: T. Sassersson and Riksdagen
Pål Jonson calls for continued war effort
In this terribly pressurised situation for Ukraine, Pål Jonson wants to see a continuation of the war motivated by a lie about popular support. Pål Jonson says that Sweden will continue to support Ukraine's war effort as long as the Ukrainian people want it, but now the Ukrainian people no longer want it.
Will Mr Jonson bow to the will of the people or will he, like other European leaders, urge Mr Zelensky to continue sending his men into the Russian ”meat grinder”?
Ukrainian blood - Swedish security?
On support to Ukraine, the Minister of Defence says:
”It's support that we pay for in dollars and cents, the Ukrainian soldiers pay for it in blood and we should be grateful for that”.
Now, however, the Ukrainian people no longer want to pay with their blood, they want peace.
What is Pål Jonson missing here?
Sweden has not crossed its fingers that the Ukrainian people's explicit desire for a negotiated peace will be realised.
Mr Jonson says that aid to Ukraine is an investment in our own security! How can it be morally justifiable to encourage a war-weary and haemorrhaging people to continue bleeding for the sake of our security?
The whole argument is based on an intensive propaganda effort that has instilled such hatred of Russia in the Swedish people that they are prepared to sacrifice every fourth tax krona (5% of GDP) on weapons for an imaginary war against Russia that cannot be won. The people have been led to believe that after peace in Ukraine, Russia would immediately attack Sweden and other EU countries. A scenario that is completely unsupported in reality.
The war industry is always the winner
Those who benefit from this description of reality are of course the defence industry and its owners.
Trump and the US are seeking a negotiated settlement because their war industry does not need to rely on selling its weapons in Ukraine, they have made sure to sell lots of weapons to the EU which then donates them to Ukraine.
Trump who is a deal-maker has also managed to extract a promise from EU countries to spend 5% of their GDP on arms, equivalent to 23% of Sweden's annual budget. EU countries have also signed an agreement to buy US weapons worth €750 billion. Weapons that will make the EU ready for a war against Russia in 2030.
War against Russia - a project out of touch with reality
If Russia had any intention of occupying countries in Europe, it would have done so long ago, before we had time to build up our military forces. What do we need all these weapons for, anyway?
A war against Russia is impossible to win because Russia is a leading nuclear power with the world's most sophisticated nuclear weapons and a defence doctrine that says nuclear weapons will be used if the motherland is threatened. Does Pål Jonson want a nuclear war?
Everyone who has tried to defeat Russia in the past has failed, and that was before the nuclear era. To take a few examples, Sweden, Poland, the Ottoman Empire, France and Germany have all lost wars to Russia. Time for reflection?
In addition to nuclear weapons, Russia also has a whole arsenal of hypersonic missiles that no known air defence systems can combat today. The entire reasoning of Pål Jonson and the government is so crazy and out of touch with reality that it makes you scratch your head.
Foreign policy failure
Sweden's Minister for Foreign Affairs, Maria Malmer Stenergard, recently expressed her views on the peace negotiations and the proposed 28 points. Her proposal is instead a two-point programme: 1, Strengthen Ukraine. 2, Weaken Russia. Why is it that Sweden's foreign policy has now degraded to the point of weakening other countries? Isn't foreign policy about creating good relations with other countries?
We must hope that our responsible ministers sober up soon, otherwise Sweden risks sinking deeper into the swamp of misjudgements and lies they have created for our poor, battered country.
Time for a referendum?
The Ukrainian people want peace. When will the Swedish people have their say? Would it not be appropriate to hold a referendum on continued economic and military aid to Ukraine?
Ulf Gabrielsson, Spokesperson Defence and Security for Ambition Sverige (A) | Photo: Torbjörn Sassersson, 18 Nov 2025, Spain
Elsa Widding, an independent member of parliament and party leader of Ambition Sverige, fears that Swedish NATO soldiers will end up in Ukraine. She confronted Defence Minister Pål Jonson. NewsVoice interviewed Widding after the debate.
Widding writes that the US has realised that the Ukrainian war is lost. Therefore, the US has withdrawn and seems to have no plans to supply Ukraine with more arms, but despite this, Sweden continues to send both money and weapons to Ukraine, prolonging the suffering of the Ukrainian people.
In October 2025, the Swedish Parliament approved a decision to participate in NATO's collective deterrence and defence activities. This gives the government a mandate in urgent situations (for example, when a war is being lost) to deploy Swedish armed forces for a limited time.
However, all wars are limited in time, so there is a wide margin of interpretation when it is ”urgent” and how long Swedish soldiers should be replenished as they die on a front to ”deter” and ”defend” Sweden in neighbouring Ukraine, which is not really a geographical neighbour.
This amendment is about NATO collective defence and operations, not specifically about a peacekeeping force in Ukraine, but Widding concludes that the government can still send soldiers to a war zone such as Ukraine.
Widding believes that Pål Jonson, who governs Sweden in all defence matters, is exposing Sweden to security risks with his general defence policy:
”Sweden's military support for Ukraine and the DCA, which allows US weapons on Swedish territory, constitute a strong provocation against Russia that exposes Sweden to extreme risks.”
Our young conscripts are being sacrificed by Pål Jonson and Ulf Kristersson when they are lured into the narrative of an imminent Russian threat," Widding told NewsVoice.
”They will face certain death if they are sent to Ukraine via NATO.”
Swedish young soldiers. Press photo: Jonas Helmersson for the Swedish Armed Forces
Swedish NATO soldiers
Elsa Widding put the following questions to Pål Jonson during the interpellation debate:
Has Pål Jonson analysed the meaning of ”urgent situations”? What situations might prompt the government to send Swedish soldiers to Ukraine?
Can Sweden send elite troops to Ukraine without prior notice?
How many Swedish soldiers are at risk of dying in a Swedish military operation in Ukraine?
On 5 October 2025, Parliament approved a new decision-making regime for participation in NATO's collective deterrence and defence activities. This means that the government gets its own mandate in urgent situations to deploy armed forces for a limited time.
The amendment is about NATO collective defence and operations, not specifically about a peacekeeping force in Ukraine. This would still require a special parliamentary decision under the current rules. There is, of course, a risk of arbitrariness if the government can take such far-reaching measures for a certain period of time without either informing Parliament or allowing Parliament to make a decision.
My question is whether the Minister of Defence and the Swedish people understand what this means. If Sweden deploys troops against Russia, Sweden has declared war on Russia (without time limit).
What barriers are there now to the government sending Swedish soldiers to the war in Ukraine - to face certain death?
I would therefore like to put the following questions to the Minister for Defence, Pål Jonson:
Has the Minister analysed the meaning of ”urgent situations”, i.e. situations that may lead the government to send soldiers to Ukraine, and if so, can the Minister explain the results?
Could there be talk of Sweden sending elite troops to Ukraine without warning, and if so, can the Minister indicate whether or not Sweden has already sent elite troops to Ukraine?
Has the Minister analysed how many Swedish soldiers risk losing their lives in the event of a Swedish operation in Ukraine, and if so, can the Minister give an account of the results?
Hereby notifies the undersigned Member of Parliament, Elsa Widding, the Minister for Defence, Pål Jonsson, and the Prime Minister, Ulf Kristersson, for knowingly acting unlawfully, or aiding and abetting unlawful acts, in connection with the exercise of their respective ministerial roles.
The Minister of Defence and the Ministry of Defence, representatives of the armed forces, as well as responsible representatives of SAAB are now preparing further deals with Ukraine that risk damaging Sweden both economically and through a deteriorating reputation as a rule of law in the world.
A sale of up to 150 JAS Gripen is being prepared for Ukraine, which, as everyone knows, is in a very difficult economic and political situation. This means that the financing of this project is very uncertain. It has been discussed that the JAS plan will be paid for by EU countries by borrowing on the market which will further burden the economy of EU countries negatively.
Furthermore, these loans are to be secured by the utilisation of the illegally confiscated (”frozen”) foreign exchange reserves of the Central Bank of Russia recorded in Euroclear, Belgium's central securities depository.
All parties involved know that this is a violation of verified treaties, including Article 2 (sub-paragraph 4) of the UN Charter, which requires respect for the sovereignty and assets of all states, including central bank reserves.
Sweden's sale of JAS aircraft thus requires Sweden and the EU to violate the UN Charter. The Swedish government and parliament are thus deliberately violating internationally recognised statutes.
Parliament's duty is now to ensure that the government does not act in contravention of UN treaties, according to Parliament's primary mandate under the Swedish constitution.
On 14 November, Pål Jonson arranged a new deal for SAAB by signing an agreement with Colombia for the sale of 17 JAS Gripen aircraft. The problem is that the US considers the Colombian president to be a drug lord.
Gripen is a unique and flexible fighter aircraft that can take off and land on a straight road just 500 metres long. Now 17 of these aircraft will be sold to Colombia, writes Government Offices.
Benjamin Dousa hails the $4.3 billion deal:
The sale of JAS Gripen to Colombia is one of Sweden's largest export deals ever. It is a deal that strengthens both Swedish security and economy, and demonstrates the clear link between trade and security.
Pål Jonson, who acts as sales manager in the deal, says in a press release from the Government Offices that the sale is ”a clear acknowledgement of the competitiveness of the Swedish defence industry”. He adds: ”I look forward to deepening defence cooperation”.
In other words, Mr Jonson wants to sell more arms to Colombia.
The question is what the Pentagon thinks about it after the US implicitly threatened Colombia (like Venezuela) with military action to stop Colombian drug cartels.
Minister for Foreign Affairs Maria Malmer Stenergard who visited Colombia in January and participated in the first high-level dialogue under the bilateral partnership between Sweden and Colombia, also praised the sale:
Sweden and Colombia have very good relations that go back a long way. I look forward to continuing to strengthen and broaden the co-operation between our countries.
The Swedish ministers who sell fighter jets to SAAB, instead of SAAB's own salesmen, are entangling themselves in the arms industry and ending up in a geopolitical loyalty soup because Trump also considers Gustavo Petro to be a drug lord in Central America.
Last month, Donald Trump called Colombian President Gustavo Petro an ”illegal drug lord”. That gave Colombians cause for concern: the last country whose president Trump accused of running a drug business was Venezuela, and those accusations were used as justification to send a flotilla of warships to lie in wait off its coasts and blow up boats.
The war in Ukraine is coming to a head, with Russian forces facing less and less resistance and Ukraine struggling to find both soldiers and armour to send to the front. Foreign support has fallen by 41 % over the past year. Independent experts such as Professor John Mearsheimer, Alexander Mercourios, Colonel Douglas McGregor, Professor Glenn Diesen and many others agree that Ukraine's army is breaking down and the war is rapidly coming to an end.
JAS to Ukraine
In this critical situation, our Minister of Defence Pål Jonson and Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson, together with Volodymyr Zelenskyj, step forward to present a ”Letter of Intent” under which SAAB will sell 100-150 JAS 39E to Ukraine. The delivery is planned to start in three years, which raises questions. Do we not need to rejuvenate our own air force when many of the oldest JAS aircraft are now beginning to show their age? Nothing in these far-fetched plans seems to have any ground contact.
Russia's objectives in the war
Since the start of the invasion, Russia has declared the following objectives: to keep Ukraine out of NATO, to demilitarise the country and to ensure that Ukraine's military does not pose a threat to Russia in the future. At the moment, there is no indication that Russia will not have its demands met in the near future. The US, realising that the war is largely lost, has more or less withdrawn and seems to have no plans to supply Ukraine with more weapons. Despite this, Europe's leaders, including Pål Jonson, are apparently convinced that the war will continue for at least another decade, because that is the time SAAB needs to deliver these aircraft starting in early 2029.
SAAB and the government live in a fantasy world
By the time the planned JAS delivery begins, it is highly likely that the war will be over and Russia's demilitarisation demands already implemented. To think that Russia would accept Ukraine acquiring an air force of 100-150 JAS 39Es at that point is nothing more than childish wishful thinking.
Financing plans
How this whole dream project will be financed is even more baffling than the project itself. Pål Jonson stated in Aktuellt that Ukraine would be able to pay for the aircraft when the war is over. But how can a shattered country afford to buy fighter jets for around SEK 120 billion? There is also talk of possible export credits, which means that taxpayers will once again have to foot the bill for a massive state project. Even more serious are plans to use Russian frozen assets in European banks to finance this project, in effect pure theft. The European Commission plans to issue bonds with the Russian assets as collateral, which Sweden hopes to benefit from. So Russia will accept that their money is used to buy weapons to be used against them. Pål Jonson's plans are not only unrealistic, they are morally reprehensible. One day, the Russian money will be demanded back with interest under international law. Already now, the freezing of Russian assets is illegal because no European country is formally at war with Russia. The European Commission is acting as if the EU were a state, while seeming to forget that the EU is made up of many sovereign states with their different views on debt and decisions to declare war.
Marketing Yippee?
Pål Jonson and the government's spectacle, which took place in Linköping on 22 October, increasingly appears to be a publicity stunt commissioned by SAAB and its owners to promote the new JAS 39E Gripen. The new JAS aircraft is an absolutely world-class product and something we can be proud that our small country has managed to produce. But the marketing ploy launched by Pål Jonson and SAAB leaves a bitter aftertaste in that they are exploiting a desperate Mr Zelensky, who represents a country that is falling apart. For the government to engage in such activity is not only misguided; it goes against all norms of a civilised society. This is another example of the offensive cooperation between the state and capital, a so-called ”public-private partnership”, which definitely deserves to be scrutinised by the Constitutional Committee.
Major and former fighter pilot and spokesperson for defence issues, Ambition Sverige (A)
Sweden's defence has been dismantled since the Cold War. What remains largely follows the same thinking as then, both strategically, tactically and materially. While the modern battlefield has developed at breakneck speed, Sweden seems stuck in yesterday's solutions. So warns Göran Reuterdahl, a former intelligence officer and battalion commander in the navy and national defence forces.
Text by spokesperson Göran Reuterdahl, former intelligence officer and battalion commander in the Navy| This article was previously published in NewsVoice and Epoch Times (behind paywall)
The Ukrainian war has shown that classical military doctrine is dead. War today is no longer about large tank formations, company assaults or air dominance by air forces. Drones, UAVs, missiles/rockets and satellite surveillance have revolutionised the nature of combat.
Both Russia and Ukraine now utilise small, mobile units supported by drone technology. An artillery system, a tank or a gathering of soldiers is detected and engaged almost immediately, regardless of the weather or time of day. Traditional units are simply too vulnerable.
This does not just mean a technological shift, it requires a total re-think of how we think, organise and train our forces. Continuous innovation, tactical adaptability and rapid transfer of experience must become the norm.
Sweden's defence currently consists of two mechanised brigades. By comparison, at the end of the Cold War in 1991, Sweden had 26 brigades. Today's 10,000 soldiers are barely enough to defend half of Gotland.
The Swedish Armed Forces must be restructured from the ground up.
Our equipment is also outdated. The 122 (Leopard) tank, the Archer artillery and other Western systems sent to Ukraine have largely proved ineffective or outright unsuitable on the modern battlefield. The German armoured officer who compared the Leopard 2 in Der Spiegel to something better suited to a parade than to combat was painfully honest.
At the same time, Sweden has invested in the Patriot system, four batteries of around 100 missiles. These are not adapted to meet the kind of massive missile and drone attacks we are now seeing in Ukraine (and Israel), where Russia at times sends up to 700 projectiles per day.
For each incoming threat, 2-4 Patriot missiles are required, an unreasonable ratio both technically and economically. A missile equivalent to Shahed (about 50 kg payload) costs about USD 20 000, while a Patriot missile costs up to USD 4 million. Moreover, Patriot was originally developed to counter aeroplanes, and the system has great difficulty in dealing with missiles that are hypersonic.
The Swedish Armed Forces must be restructured from the ground up:
Focus on UAVs/drones, missiles (including hypersonic), electronic warfare and information superiority.
New tactics with small, mobile and decentralised units.
A highly developed intelligence service with the right skills.
A defence industry that values innovation over administration.
An officer corps that promotes entrepreneurship and innovation, not just tradition.
We live in a new era, but with a defence force and security policy thinking from another time. It is high time we asked the hard questions, questioned our assumptions and renewed Sweden's security policy from the ground up, with a mandate from the people.
Text: Göran Reuterdahl, former intelligence officer and battalion commander in the Navy, spokesperson for the Ambition Sverige party
President Donald Trump's speech at the UN was astonishing in many ways. With a clarity of language rarely heard from a politician, he reinforced a conflict that affects Europe and Sweden deeply. It is time to ask what the US has done to Sweden.
Since the explosion of Nord Stream 1 and 2, Europe's economy has been plagued by recession. There are many indications that the US was involved. Joe Biden was clear when he said:
”If Russia goes into Ukraine, there will be no Nord Stream 2.”
Six months after Russia entered Ukraine, the gas pipelines were blown up in September 2022. The detonations were so powerful that they were recorded by seismological stations around the Baltic Sea as a minor earthquake.
The official explanation, that five men and a woman from Ukraine, on a rented sailboat, carried out the blast, seems absurd. Yet we in Europe have bought this explanation without further ado.
One wonders whether our leaders are acting in ignorance or whether they are steadfastly loyal to a United States that now sells natural gas to Europe at a price several times higher than Russian gas. The result is a weakening of Europe's industrial competitiveness due to sky-high energy prices.
The trade war against Europe
The US has also launched a trade war against Europe with high tariffs on European goods, further destroying one of our most important export markets. President Trump is encouraging companies to move factories to the US and with it, ”USA is open for business,” he reinforces the divisions between us.
With a nationalist agenda, President Trump's willingness to protect his own country is honourable, but it is strange that European leaders accept this without resistance. How can the US act in a way that harms its main ally in this way?
US conflicts of interest
Since the early 2000s, the United States has taken a keen interest in Ukraine, with involvement in the Maidan revolution and subsequent regime change. During the civil war, which started in 2014, the US has helped build Ukraine's military into one of the most powerful in Europe.
The strategy against Russia has been to use sanctions and a protracted war to destabilise and divide the country in order to access its natural resources.
But now, as President Trump seems to realise the failure of this strategy, he is changing tactics and shifting the costs of the conflict to the EU.
In an agreement between the EU and the US, signed by Ursula von der Leyen, EU countries commit to buy €750 billion worth of US weapons and also LNG (Liquefied Natural GasThis is yet another reminder of how disastrous the US behaviour is for Europe and will put future generations in debt.
A dangerous future
President Trump makes the astonishing observation that European leaders, who seem convinced of Ukraine's victory, no longer need US support. First the US creates the conflict and then passes the buck to Europe. Europe's leaders have themselves helped build the myth that Ukraine can emerge victorious from its conflict with Russia by constantly distorting the truth and talking about Ukraine's coming victory.
It is Europe and Sweden that will pay a heavy price for this capitulation to President Trump and the US agenda. A continuation of the conflict benefits no one and only risks exacerbating the situation with further loss of life on the Ukrainian battlefield. The EU and NATO have once again proven to be a disaster for Europe and Sweden.
An alliance in crisis
Now President Trump is also demanding that we do not buy cheap Russian oil from third countries. He has not succeeded in destroying Russia, but he is well on his way to destroying Europe. By imposing a war we didn't cause, making it harder for us to buy cheap energy and imposing high tariffs on our exports, he is undermining our economic stability.
Meanwhile, President Trump is trying to normalise US relations with Russia, while the EU and Sweden continue to isolate themselves and wage an unforgiving and provocative war of words against Russia. This is creating a deep rift between our countries that will be very difficult to bridge. With the current regimes in Europe, it seems almost impossible.
Russia is one of our closest neighbours and will not go away no matter how much our leaders would like to see this happen.
It is now high time for our politicians to realise that Sweden's interests do not coincide with those of the United States. Their interests do not benefit our country and therefore we must never let ourselves be ruled by external powers.
By: Ulf Gabrielsson, spokesperson for defence and security policy for Ambition Sverige (A).
The Prime Minister says in SVT's Agenda:
”How the war in Ukraine ends will determine security in Sweden for a generation to come.”
Mr Kristersson compares the ongoing peace negotiations to the way dictators were negotiated with before the outbreak of the Second World War - and how Germany then invaded country after country.
This comparison is unhistorical, as Russia's invasion of the eastern parts of Ukraine had a completely different background than Germany's war of invasion.
Russia entered Ukraine after an eight-year civil war in which the predominantly Russian-speaking population of the breakaway republics of Donetsk and Luhansk had been shelled with artillery into towns and villages - killing around 14,000 people.
What is the Prime Minister trying to achieve with these misleading and unrealistic statements?
Is the aim to frighten the Swedish people to the point where they will accept becoming NATO's springboard in a war against Russia?
Defence Minister believes he is making Sweden safer
Pål Jonson has repeatedly argued that NATO membership and the Defence Cooperation Agreement (DCA) with the US make Sweden safer. Making Sweden a staging area with NATO troops for an imaginary war of aggression against Russia - does that also make Sweden safer?
If not before, it is NOW high time for the Swedish people to wake up to what is happening.
The question that must now be asked is: What has Russia done to Sweden that justifies our participation in a campaign against this nuclear superpower? Is it because Russia attacked Ukraine? How many countries has the US attacked without any action from our governments? Is that reason enough to put the whole of Sweden and its people on a war footing for a war that cannot be won?
With these decisions, the government has grossly failed in its primary task - to protect the country and its people from conflict and war. This is not only irresponsible, it is national suicide.
Nuclear weapons - the biggest threat
Many people still believe that the US has the most and most advanced nuclear weapons. This is not true. Russia currently has the most modern nuclear arsenal in the world. Despite this, the government seems to believe that Sweden is now safe under the so-called nuclear umbrella of the US and NATO. But that security is illusory - a nuclear war cannot be won, only lost.
NATO leaders claim that Mr Putin and Mr Medvedev are bluffing when they have talked about the possibility of using nuclear weapons in certain situations. Now it seems that our leaders are ready to call that ”bluff”.
It only takes one missile to make the escalation unstoppable. The result? Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD).
Sweden - a proxy in the great powers' game
The government has given the US and NATO a free hand to use Swedish territory for a military build-up. Sweden is becoming a proxy in a conflict we cannot win. We only have everything to lose.
Since the end of the Cold War, Russia has not dismantled its defence industry - it was mothballed. Today it is rebuilt and modernised. New weapon systems have been tested in action during the war in Ukraine.
Russia can now produce three times more artillery shells per year than Europe and the US combined, a fact that should not be underestimated when artillery has proved crucial in a stand-off.
Russia has also refined its methods to neutralise NATO weapons such as drones and missiles, including through advanced electronic warfare.
Western military superiority is a myth
Sure, the US and NATO have superior air and sea power - but that is not enough. In ground combat, we will find it difficult to hold our own against a tank and modernised Russian military.
In recent wars, the US Air Force has had the privilege of operating in a state of total air superiority where the enemy's air defences have been knocked out first. This is something that will not be possible against Russia, which has the world's most effective and modern air defence systems in the form of the S-300, S-400 and the ultra-modern S-500.
Hypersonic weapons have changed the game
A frightening game changer is Russia's hypersonic missile systems. These weapons, such as Kinzjal, Tsirkon, Avangard and Oreshnik, are virtually unstoppable with today's Western air defence systems. They travel at up to 8-12 times the speed of sound, can manoeuvre in the atmosphere and take out targets with surgical precision - including aircraft carriers.
Oreshnik, a new hypersonic system developed for a medium-range missile and capable of reaching targets across Europe. The missile can have up to 36 sub-warheads, each capable of hitting individual targets. This is not science fiction. It's reality - and it's already in use and being mass-produced.
These systems can be equipped with either conventional or nuclear warheads.
Sweden has become a catchment area
Now the Swedish government has gone so far as to declare our territory a deployment area - a military term for a place where combat forces gather for a military offensive. In other words, Sweden is becoming the launch pad for a war against Russia.
The United States has never fought a war on its own territory. Sweden is now next in line to become a potential battlefield, if the government's unrealistic analysis takes hold. Neither NATO membership, nor the DCA, let alone the decision to make Sweden a deployment zone, has been debated or even mentioned in any election campaign. A shame for a country that wants to see itself as democratic. To be prepared to throw a country's population into a war by pushing through a number of decisions behind closed doors is nothing short of dictatorial.
Let go of illusions - choose relaxation
We must stop closing our eyes to reality. Russia's nuclear doctrine is clear: if its territory is threatened, nuclear weapons will be used. Yet the Swedish government continues to act as if we are invulnerable - as if a war against Russia can be won.
The playing field has changed. The West's military advantage is no longer self-evident. To think that we can militarily penetrate Russia without consequences is not only irresponsible - it is downright dangerous.
If we want Sweden to have a future, we must change course now. The only reasonable response in this situation is détente, diplomacy and Sweden returning to being a force for peace - not a tool for the wars and strategic interests of great powers.
Unlike the United States, Europe has a huge border with Russia - a country that will be there for the foreseeable future, regardless of what our and other European leaders think.
By: Ulf Gabrielsson, former fighter pilot in the Swedish Armed Forces and spokesperson for defence and security policy for Ambition Sweden (A).
Sweden is today closer to the frontline of war than we have ever been in modern times - not because we have to be, but because our politicians have chosen to put us there. Through our NATO membership, through Swedish arms factories in co-operation with Ukraine, and through unconditional support for US military strategy, we are making ourselves a legitimate target in a future escalation between great powers. It is high time to say: Sweden must leave NATO - for the sake of peace and our security.
Sweden builds weapons for war
We now have Swedish components in weapons that can reach Moscow. The Taurus cruise missile - made partly in Karlskoga - is openly discussed by Germany for delivery to Ukraine. Meanwhile, Europe plans to finance US deliveries of weapons such as the MQ-1C Gray Eagle and JASSM, with ranges that make them capable of reaching Moscow.
This is no longer in defence of Ukraine. It is about provoking Russia - threatening its nuclear deterrence and war-fighting capabilities. Attacks have already been carried out inside Russia: against airbases, bridges and even the strategic bomber programme. Missile defence warning systems have been attacked. How much more will it take before the line is crossed and people demand retaliation?
On the road to disaster
The US is now putting advanced long-range weapons in the hands of Ukraine's leadership. If they are used against Moscow, there is a very real risk that Russia will respond with hypersonic missiles - perhaps against military targets in Western Europe. Perhaps against Sweden. Saab Bofors in Karlskoga and Saab Aeronautics in Linköping could be among the first targets.
And our Defence Minister Pål Jonson, along with Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson, have been among the most aggressive voices across Europe. Who has given them the mandate to turn Sweden into a frontline state? When did the Swedish people's will to make our country a potential target of retaliation in a world war become a reality?
A bloody high stakes game
The war in Ukraine has already cost hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian men their lives - or their futures. Those not killed will carry the trauma for the rest of their lives. But Mr Jonson says: “They are paying in blood and we should be grateful for that. It is a deeply undignified way to talk about human life.
And while this is going on, we hear the same scaremongering that “Sweden is next”.
Time to call a halt
We must start speaking plainly. Sweden's entry into NATO was hasty, undemocratic and deeply risky. We must demand a referendum on our future - and whether our children should grow up in a country built on peace or in a war alliance that risks dragging the whole of Europe into a global conflict.
Sweden has become a warmongering state. It is remarkable that Sweden's defence minister and prime minister have become the most aggressive warmongers in Europe. What drives them? Do they want to impress their European and American colleagues? Or what is behind it? It is now high time that Sweden once again becomes a country that stands for peace and not war. Leave NATO - before it is too late.
