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.

Mr Pål Jonson, our Defence Minister, is now opening the door to Ukrainian arms factories to be established in Sweden. The justification? That Ukraine needs continued military support - perhaps in for years to come. One has to ask: why are Mr Jonson and the government so convinced that this war will go on for many more years?

Have we already given up hope for a negotiated solution?

The reality is brutal: Russia's military goal - to demilitarise Ukraine - is very close to being achieved. Ukraine's air defences are largely depleted. Daily attacks with hundreds of drones, cruise missiles and artillery shells destroying the country's infrastructure, communities - and above all people.

A generation of young Ukrainian men sacrificed

The Ukrainian army is suffering huge losses. An entire generation of young men is now literally being sacrificed - for what? A war where the prospect of military victory is virtually non-existent. Even the US, which has been the largest donor, has increasingly cut back on arms supplies.

But Sweden is choosing to go the opposite way. We will now act as a base for the Ukrainian war industry, despite the fact that we have no experience of large-scale war, despite the fact that our own defence industry has been heavily dismantled for decades, and despite the fact that the Swedish people have not given their express support to prolonging this war at all costs.

What is the objective - to keep the war going at all costs?

We are told that we should be “thankful” that Ukrainian men bleed for our security. But should our gratitude really mean contributing to a war that cannot be won militarily - but only leads to further destruction, death and loss?

When Mr Jonson says we should help Ukraine to “resist”, he should ask himself whether this really helps Ukraine - or just postpones an inevitable end, at a terribly high price. In practice, it is the Ukrainian people who are paying the price - in blood, in ruins, in a shattered nation.

Sweden is also bleeding - economically and morally

While we spend billions on arms exports and new military infrastructure, we close hospitals, cut back on health and education, telling the Swedish people that there is no money for elderly care or healthcare.

But to arms - there it is unlimited. Those who benefit from this are not Ukraine. It is the owners of the war industry, large companies like Investor and other industrial players with strong links to both politics and arms exports.

Go down yourself, Pål Jonson

If Mr Jonson is so convinced of the necessity of this war, he can personally go down to Ukraine. Let him sit in a trench, without air defences, under constant fire from Russian artillery, fighter planes and drones. And if he were to die there side by side with his Ukrainian comrades-in-arms, that is also  something that ”the Swedish people should be grateful for”?

Or is it time to shifting policy - from military escalation to negotiation and peace?

It is not only Ukraine that loses from this war. We all lose. And if no one says stop, we will soon be another country that has built its future on perpetual war.

Below is a post by Ulf Gabrielsson (A), former fighter pilot in the Swedish Armed Forces and captain in civil aviation.

Imagine that a doctor makes a wrong diagnosis. Instead of understanding the real causes of the disease, he puts in place a powerful treatment - a treatment that makes the condition worse, weakens the patient and may even lead to death. This is exactly what is now happening to Ukraine and Europe: a misdiagnosis has led to a treatment that has not only cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of young Ukrainians, but is now threatening Europe's economy and prosperity.

The dominant narrative in the West has been clear: Vladimir Putin is the Hitler of our time. He has launched an unprovoked war of aggression, planning to re-establish the Soviet Union with the ambition to take country after country in Europe.

The diagnosis became an existential threat - the treatment: full militarisation of Ukraine, a massive influx of arms, ammunition and money, and a rhetoric that silences or discredits anyone with a nuanced view of the war.

But what has this treatment led to? Hundreds of thousands of dead Ukrainian soldiers, millions of refugees, a country in ruins - and now a Europe that is spending hundreds of billions of euros on military armament. Countries like Germany, Sweden, France and Poland are shifting resources from healthcare, education and other public services to artillery, fighter jets and mortars. With rising interest rates and squeezed state budgets, the price is huge for Sweden and other European countries that put in this wrong ”treatment”.

What if the diagnosis was in fact wrong?

An alternative diagnosis: geopolitical conflict - not imperialist conquest

If we instead interpret Russia's actions as an attempt to protect the Russian-speaking population in eastern Ukraine, prevent Ukraine from becoming a NATO bastion with US missile bases aimed at Moscow, and safeguard its security zone - then the treatment looks completely different. In that case, Putin is not after Sweden or the Baltics, but after strategic balance. In that case, a diplomatic solution could have been possible before the outbreak of war. Ukraine could have been declared a neutral country - something like the Austrian model - and a large-scale conflict might never have broken out.

BRICS - evidence of a different world order

Russia, together with China, India, Brazil, South Africa and others, is now building the BRICS - a co-operation of sovereign states that want to create a multipolar world where one power (the US) does not dictate the terms to everyone else. This is hardly a structure that an imperialist conqueror invests time in. Isn't it rather a sign that Russia - rightly or wrongly - sees itself as a power that wants to participate in a new global co-operation? How does one even come to the conclusion that Russia wants to dominate Europe?

Malpractice must be stopped

We must now recognise that the approach chosen by the US and NATO - mass militarisation, prolonged war and armament hysteria - risks destroying Europe's prosperity and future. This is in no way a defence of Russia's actions, but rather a recognition that we have failed to understand the conflict. No one gains from a war that could have been avoided. Now Ukraine is paying with its blood - and we in Europe with our future.

Source: Benjamin Abelow ”How the West brought war to Ukraine”