A World in Turmoil — What Role Can Sweden Play?

We are living in a time when the global order is being challenged on multiple fronts. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, a tense security situation in the Baltic region, continued conflict in the Middle East, and accelerating climate change—all of these developments affect both our security and our ability to cooperate internationally. In this new landscape, the question arises: what role can—and should—a country like Sweden play?

What responsibility do you believe Sweden has in the work for global peace and security, particularly now as geopolitical uncertainty is increasing? And when it comes to international cooperation, in which Sweden has traditionally been deeply engaged, which concrete initiatives should we prioritize in order to strengthen that cooperation and help sustain a functioning global order?

Erik Ullenhag:

We are living in a time when almost everything is in motion. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine marked a geopolitical turning point. For Sweden, it meant a dramatic shift—suddenly, there was a majority in favor of NATO membership. Twenty years ago, that would likely have seemed unthinkable, but today, here we are—together with Finland.

At the same time, we are facing climate change which, even if it does not always dominate the agenda at the moment, will create enormous challenges going forward. This is not only about the environment and weather, but about future conflicts—over resources, migration, and security.

Then there is the Middle East, where human suffering continues on a daily basis. It is not only a matter of armed conflict, but of deep and ongoing humanitarian crises that require long-term, coordinated efforts.

So what can Sweden do? I strongly believe in international cooperation—particularly within the European Union. The EU is a peace project built on democracy, human rights, and cooperation. That is where Sweden belongs, and where we have the greatest opportunity to make an impact.

During my time as ambassador to Jordan and Israel, I saw firsthand how important it is to work strategically and systematically, together with other countries and actors. Sweden should be a voice for long-term thinking, for dialogue, and for concrete action—both in our immediate neighborhood and globally.

 

Europe’s New Security Landscape — How Do We Confront the Threats?

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 has redrawn the map of European security. A war on our own continent, with immense human suffering and far-reaching geopolitical consequences, has become a brutal reminder that peace can never be taken for granted. The European Union has responded with extensive support, sanctions, and a historically united front—but the question is how to ensure long-term sustainability, both for Ukraine’s sake and for Europe’s own security.

What do you believe Sweden and the EU should do to provide long-term support to Ukraine while also preserving stability in Europe, in a security environment that has fundamentally changed?

Erik Ullenhag:

Europe must remain committed to supporting Ukraine over the long term—both militarily and civically. The reality is that if Russia and the Putin regime were to succeed, security across all of Europe would be undermined. It would send a signal that aggression pays. Supporting Ukraine is therefore not only an act of solidarity—it is also in our own strategic interest.

At the same time, I want to highlight something positive: I am genuinely impressed by how the European Union has acted in unity. We often hear that 27 member states have such divergent views that reaching agreement is difficult. But following the invasion of Ukraine, we have demonstrated that we are indeed capable of making decisive decisions together. The long-term support we have established—this is the best course of action we can take.

We all hope, of course, for peace. But it must be a peace on Ukraine’s terms—not Russia’s. It is about respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity, and international law.

The Ukrainian people have shown extraordinary strength. They are the true heroes—they defended their country with a determination that Putin never anticipated. Their resilience surprised—and perhaps even unsettled—the Kremlin.

At the same time as Ukraine has fought for its survival, the EU has demonstrated a renewed capacity for unity and responsibility. That is something we must hold on to—not only for Ukraine’s sake, but for the security of Europe as a whole. And for Sweden. When we stand up for Ukraine, we are also standing up for our own future.

The Baltics and the Threat from the East — Is There a Risk of the Next Conflict?

Since the invasion of Ukraine, increasing international attention has turned toward the Baltic states. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—with their Russian-speaking minorities and strategic geographic location—now form the front line between the EU/NATO and an aggressive Russia. At the same time, the Russian regime has become increasingly open in expressing its imperial ambitions. The question gaining urgency is this: how great is the risk that the Baltics could become the next target?

How do you assess the risk that Russia may in the future lay claim to parts of the Baltic countries?

Erik Ullenhag:

There is a clear risk—especially if we allow violence and aggression to go unchallenged. Had the Western world failed to stand up for Ukraine after the invasion, and instead retreated, we would have sent a signal that military aggression can pay off. That would have increased the risk not only for Ukraine, but for other countries as well—particularly the Baltic states and Moldova.

The Putin regime has been quite open about its intentions. When you listen to the Russian leadership, their statements should be taken seriously—they mean what they say. We see clear indications of an ambition to re-establish a sphere of influence, perhaps even, in practice, to restore parts of the former empire.

And when violence is met with appeasement, the risk that more countries will be affected increases. This is a serious security reality—one that Sweden must also take into account. It is one of the reasons why there is now broad political consensus in Sweden on strengthening national defense.

But the most important factor for Swedish—and European—security, both in the short and long term, is that Ukraine succeeds in defending its territory. Their struggle is not theirs alone. It is also about our shared future in a free and peaceful Europe.

Energy Security in the Shadow of Geopolitics — A New Route Through the Caucasus?

For decades, Europe has built up an energy dependence that has proven vulnerable in times of crisis. This is especially true of its dependence on Russian gas, which Russia has used as a political instrument. Added to this are Iran’s recurring threats to close the Strait of Hormuz—a chokepoint for nearly one-fifth of the world’s oil shipments. As a result, global energy supply rests on increasingly fragile ground.

In this context, the Zangezur Corridor—a planned transport link between Azerbaijan and Europe via southern Armenia—is attracting growing interest. The corridor would not only facilitate trade, but could also become a new strategic channel for energy, beyond Russian influence. At the same time, it challenges the balance of power in a region where Russia has traditionally exercised strong control.

How do you assess the strategic significance of the Zangezur Corridor for Europe’s energy security? Could it play a key role in reducing dependence on Russian energy, and could closer cooperation with countries such as Azerbaijan contribute to a more independent European energy policy?

Erik Ullenhag: When it comes to the Zangezur Corridor, one can generally say that anything which reduces Europe’s dependence on Russian gas and oil is a positive development. Despite the oil crises of the 1970s, Europe has often underestimated how strategic the energy issue truly is—both from a security and an economic perspective.

In the post-World War II era, many European countries gradually became dependent on Russian energy. Sweden, however, chose not to connect itself to Russian gas—and in hindsight, that was a very wise decision. Unfortunately, several other countries made different choices, and we are now seeing how vulnerable that has made them.

The Zangezur Corridor could play a role in increasing Europe’s energy independence. By creating new routes for transportation and energy flows, beyond Russian control, we also build greater political freedom of action. That is crucial—especially for a Europe that seeks to stand firm in defense of democracy and stability.

Moreover, if countries in the region such as Azerbaijan and Armenia move closer to the EU through increased trade, infrastructure, and energy cooperation, this could also have positive political effects. Economic cooperation often creates incentives for reforms, institutional stability, and alignment with democratic values.

In other words, this is not only a matter of energy—it is also a matter of peace, security, and long-term geopolitical balance.

 

Peace Between Armenia and Azerbaijan — A Step Toward Stability in the Caucasus?

After decades of conflict, war, and mutual distrust, there is now a historic window of opportunity for peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia. A peace agreement would not only bring an end to a bloody conflict—it could also create new conditions for economic development and regional integration. For Armenia, which has long been economically isolated and heavily dependent on Russia, it could open the door to a new direction—toward Europe.

What do you see as the most important steps toward achieving a lasting peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia? And can Sweden play a diplomatic role in this process?

Erik Ullenhag:

Together with the European Union, Sweden can play a role in ensuring that it truly makes a difference to stand up for democratic values, peace, and cooperation. At its core, this is about a principle—that the EU must never turn its back on those who strive for democracy, peaceful solutions, and the building of strong, independent institutions.

The EU has historically been a remarkable force for democracy. Many countries that once lived under communist dictatorship were, through EU membership, given both the support and the tools to rebuild their societies. The role the EU played then—as a guiding force for democracy and stability—is just as important today.

Achieving a lasting peace will require political courage from both sides, as well as international support. Sweden, with its experience in diplomacy and its strong commitment to peace processes, can be a constructive actor—both as an individual state and as part of the EU’s common foreign policy.

If peace is truly restored in the region, how do you view Armenia’s prospects for economic recovery—and the Caucasus as a whole for moving toward greater integration and cooperation?

Erik Ullenhag:

At its core, this is about the international community—and the European Union in particular—helping to promote peace, stability, and development. It is also about creating the conditions for democracy to take root and grow. Armenia has significant needs when it comes to economic support, trade, and investment. If peace is achieved, the country will have the opportunity to reduce its dependence on Russia and instead strengthen its ties with the EU and other international actors.

Effective regional cooperation can lead to integration, stability, and long-term growth—benefiting the entire region. Peace, therefore, is not only an end in itself—it is also the key to future opportunities.

 

 

Iran and Israel — A Conflict With Global Consequences

The long-standing conflict between Iran and Israel constitutes a complex and serious security challenge—not only for Iran, but for the entire Western world. The Iranian regime’s repression of its own people, its nuclear ambitions, and its support for proxy groups in the region have created an unstable situation that requires both short- and long-term strategies. At the same time, there is a significant risk that violence and isolation may instead strengthen the regime and make peaceful solutions even more difficult.

How do you view the role of the EU and Sweden in this conflict? Which measures should be prioritized to promote peace and stability in the region, while also addressing the security threats posed by Iran?

Erik Ullenhag:

Iran and the clerical regime are without question a serious security threat to the West. The regime brutally suppresses its own population and has systematically repressed democratic movements such as the Green Movement. The fact that Swedish citizens are also being held imprisoned in Iran shows how far the regime’s repressive methods extend—even beyond its own borders.

At the same time, the regime most likely does not enjoy broad support among the Iranian people, who long for freedom and democratic reform. But we must also be realistic: violence and external pressure often risk strengthening the regime’s internal grip on power. That is why the international community’s focus should be long-term—to support democratic development in Iran and across the region, and in that way promote peace and stability.

In the short term, it is crucial that the ceasefire between Iran and Israel be maintained. International inspectors must once again be granted access to sensitive nuclear facilities, and a new agreement is needed to stop Iran’s nuclear program. A nuclear-armed Iran would constitute a direct threat to global peace and security.

At a fundamental level, Europe and the United States agree that allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons would be extremely dangerous. Sweden has long supported the international nuclear agreement, the JCPOA, which was intended to prevent exactly that.

It is, however, paradoxical that the United States, following a new attack, quickly called for peace and a ceasefire—a message that may appear contradictory and confusing to the international community.

I hope that pressure on Iran will now increase so that nuclear inspectors can return and the ceasefire can be secured. But we must also recognize that many of the conflicts in the Middle East are interconnected. Stability in the region requires that we also address the situation in Gaza. Israel must withdraw from Gaza so that reconstruction can begin—this is a fundamental precondition for lasting peace.

One potentially positive element in this difficult situation is that Iran’s military capacity has been weakened, as have several of its proxy groups in the region. That creates at least some room for diplomacy.

But long-term peace and security require more than a ceasefire—we must find a sustainable political process that can move the region forward.

 

 

Russia’s Role in the Ceasefire Between Iran and Israel

In a complex security environment where Iran and Russia are drawing increasingly closer, Russia’s influence in the region is becoming more pronounced. At the same time, Araqchi’s recent visit to Moscow has raised questions about the role Russia may have played in the latest ceasefire between Iran and Israel.

How do you assess Russia’s role in achieving the ceasefire? Has Iran been offered anything in return for agreeing to it?

Erik Ullenhag:

We have witnessed a clear phase of rapprochement between Iran and Russia, with Iran, among other things, supplying drones that are being used in the war in Ukraine. This is a troubling development—one I have previously raised in discussions with, among others, Israel, where the importance of actively supporting Ukraine has been central.

The growing alignment between Iran, Russia, and also North Korea—which is reported to have sent combat troops to Ukraine—forms a concerning power bloc. This authoritarian axis poses a direct threat to democratic values and international stability.

When it comes to the recent ceasefire, it is difficult to assess with certainty what role Russia has played, particularly in connection with Araqchi’s visit to Moscow. It appears that Iran sought increased support from Russia—both political and possibly military.

At the same time, there are indications that neither Iran nor Israel currently wishes to further escalate the conflict. Iran’s military capacity has also been weakened, which likely contributed to its willingness to agree to a ceasefire.

So whether Iran received anything concrete in return remains unclear. What does seem evident, however, is that Russia is a key actor in the region and has the capacity to influence the dynamics of the conflict.

 

U.S. Foreign Policy and Trump’s Controversial Statements — What Do They Mean for Europe?

At a time when international relations are marked by change and, at times, unexpected statements, Donald Trump’s remarks about Greenland and Canada have sparked reactions around the world. These statements can be seen as reflecting a shift in U.S. foreign policy, where national interests are at times placed above international norms. How should Europe respond to this development?

How do you view Donald Trump’s statements about Greenland and Canada? How do they reflect changes in U.S. foreign policy, and what do they mean for Europe?

Erik Ullenhag:

Greenland does belong to Denmark, but it is an autonomous Danish territory with extensive self-governance—something we fully respect. In the same way, Sweden has always been clear in its support for international law and the principle of self-determination.

We cannot make exceptions depending on the country or region in question. This applies equally to the Panama Canal and to Canada—legal principles must apply everywhere, at all times. That is why it is particularly concerning when a major power, such as the United States under certain administrations, acts in ways that run counter to international law.

We cannot accept a world governed by the law of the strongest. For that reason, Sweden—together with our Nordic neighbors—fully supports Denmark in these matters. At its core, this is about defending a rules-based international order in which all countries, large and small, are respected on equal terms.

Peace Through Power and Threats — Does It Really Work?

In today’s world, we sometimes hear the argument that peace is best achieved through strength, and that threats can be an effective tool in foreign policy. But is this a sustainable strategy in the long term? Does it not risk deepening conflicts and creating instability?

Donald Trump has argued that peace is best achieved through strength—sometimes even through threats. How do you assess this type of foreign policy strategy? Can peace truly be built through threats, or does it risk exacerbating conflicts and undermining stability?

Erik Ullenhag:

In the long term, such a strategy is more likely to lead to conflict and instability. The idea that peace can be achieved through power or threats is rooted in a world order governed by the law of the strongest—something history has repeatedly shown us comes at a very high cost.

When Russia annexed Crimea, the international community did not respond forcefully enough, and that sent a dangerous signal. It demonstrated that a militarily powerful country could violate international law without immediate consequences—and this has contributed to Russia’s continued aggressive behavior.

It is entirely unacceptable that major powers, by virtue of their military superiority, should be able to seize territory from smaller or medium-sized countries.

The world is better served by a rules-based international order, where international law, cooperation, and respect for sovereign states form the foundation of peace and security—not threats and displays of power.

Iran’s Future — Heading Toward Fragmentation or Democracy?

Discussions about Iran’s future have become increasingly intense. With a population of around 80 million—of whom more than 35 million are ethnic Azeris—and several other groups, such as Kurds and Baloch, who have long faced discrimination, there are voices—both within and outside the region—suggesting that the country may be heading toward fragmentation. This has been further fueled by the fact that a number of Israeli parliamentarians have openly expressed support for the independence of South Azerbaijan. Many had hoped for a democratic transformation, but the regime has remained firmly in power.

How do you see Iran’s future—does the country face a possible disintegration similar to that of the former Soviet Union, or are there other plausible scenarios?

Erik Ullenhag: I am optimistic and do not believe that such regimes can remain in power indefinitely. However, for a transition to a more democratic system to take place—a genuine democratic development—it must come from within Iran itself. It is not enough to sit in New York or Sweden and wish for change; it must be built by the Iranian people. External pressure alone is very difficult to sustain or make effective.

At the same time, it is crucial that the international community—especially actors in the region—supports democratic forces and clearly speaks out when abuses occur, such as when a Swedish doctor is imprisoned or when others are subjected to repression.

Iran is a fascinating country with a large and valuable population, a remarkable academic tradition, and many minorities who face oppression and discrimination. Yet there is also a wealth of knowledge and potential that must not be wasted.

So fundamentally, I remain optimistic that change will come—sooner or later.

🌟 We briefly spoke about Swedish politics and the Liberal Party—and about the hope for a brighter day to come.

 

Climate Catastrophe or Global Unity

From Climate Crisis to Global Consensus: Sweden’s Path Forward

When world leaders gathered in Baku for COP29, one thing became clear: the climate crisis demands global unity now — or we risk a future defined by catastrophe. In a world marred by war, division, and economic turmoil, the climate stands as the shared challenge. Sweden has the opportunity — and the responsibility — to lead the way toward sustainable solutions. It is time to act together before it’s too late.

Introduction:

Climate change is no longer a future scenario or a distant threat — it is here and now. Wildfires in Canada, floods in Pakistan, heatwaves in Southern Europe, drought in the Horn of Africa, and the drying of Lake Urmia — once the world’s second-largest saltwater lake — all starkly demonstrate that the climate crisis is already impacting the entire globe. Each year, the severity and scale of the consequences grow, and humanity faces one of its greatest tests ever.

COP29 in Baku became a global hub where world leaders convened to do more than make promises — where concrete decisions and intense discussions about climate justice, financing, and technological innovation took center stage. Despite the fractured world we live in and concurrent crises, there is a growing consensus: the transition must be swift, forceful, and collective.

This demands that we break old deadlocks and build bridges — between politics and business, research and practice, local initiatives and global goals. Sweden, with its knowledge, technological innovation capacity, and historical responsibility, holds a unique chance to lead the way. But this requires harnessing the full potential of society.

Now is when we shape the future. We must do it together — to choose global unity and a sustainable world or risk climate catastrophe.

COP29 in Baku: When the World Meets in Hope for Solutions

The COP29 climate summit in Baku hosted intense negotiations amid a world wounded by war, conflict, and economic crises. Despite the difficult context, the meeting marked an important step forward. A key outcome was the adoption of common rules for international trading of carbon credits. Although some criticisms regarding transparency were voiced, this is viewed as a potential tool to stimulate cross-border climate investments.

Environment Minister’s Message in Baku: United for Solutions

At the climate meeting in Baku, Sweden’s Environment Minister Romina Pourmokhtari stressed the importance of unity and international leadership. In a speech well-received by many participants, she reminded the world that the climate fight cannot be reduced to domestic politics.

“We are here in Baku to remind the world that the climate crisis cannot be solved unilaterally. We must stick together. Sweden stands ready to contribute — with technology, innovation, and fair solutions. Together, we can show that a sustainable future is possible.”

This message echoed COP29’s focus: common frameworks for carbon markets, increased transparency, and for countries capable — like Sweden — to lead by example.

Social Democratic Optimism: Sweden Will Lead the Way

Isak From (S), one of Sweden’s most experienced climate politicians and a full member of the Environment and Agriculture Committee in Parliament, highlights Sweden’s strengths as a frontrunner nation. In discussions about just transitions at COP29, particular emphasis was placed on how industrialized countries can lead without dominating.

“We have the opportunity and the obligation to transform — and we can show the way for others.”

This aligns with the decisions discussed in Baku — about technology transfer, climate financing, and long-term goals that include both industry and justice.

Global Responsibility in Focus: Climate Policy for All

Joakim Järrebring (S), member of the Environment and Agriculture Committee, emphasized after COP29 that Sweden must not shy away from its historic responsibility. This was a central question in Baku: How will the world handle that rich countries have caused the bulk of emissions — and how can we support developing countries on the path to green transformation?

“Sweden bears great responsibility, both nationally and globally, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and push for a just climate transition.”

This is fully in line with COP29’s promises to strengthen climate funds and ensure climate justice is not merely a slogan — but practice.

Technology at the Core: Sweden Democrats’ View on Climate Work

Technological solutions were broadly discussed in Baku. Sweden was highlighted by several delegates as a potential testbed for climate innovation. Jessica Stegrud (SD) sees this role as Sweden’s strength:

“Through our wealth of innovation and ability to continually develop and improve, Sweden can particularly contribute with technological advances.”

This reflects COP29’s reasoning that technology must be made globally accessible and used to reduce emissions without hampering development.

Market and Environment — A Necessary Combination

Many country delegations in Baku were clear: climate goals must not hinder economic growth — but rather become part of it. Helena Storckenfeldt (M), member of Parliament and the Environment and Agriculture Committee, articulated this view well in the aftermath of COP29:

“High climate ambitions must go hand in hand with competitiveness and growth, because this is the only way for Sweden to achieve the greatest possible global climate benefit — by being a role model and showing that emission reductions can coexist with increased prosperity.”

This echoed through several debates at COP29, where the synergy between environmental policy and business was emphasized as the path forward.

Green Future Through Investment and Education

At a climate meeting where investments were high on the agenda, Isak From (S) reiterated the need for political courage and long-term commitments to new technology, green education, and societal transformation.

“We need policies that equip Sweden; we want to drive new technologies, companies, and jobs... so that we can counter the growing climate threat and contribute to a just and credible transition.”

This directly connects to COP29 discussions on climate investment frameworks and support for innovation.

Circular Transition and Sustainable Consumption

Consumption and resource management were broadly debated in Baku. How can we reduce pressure on the planet’s limits without lowering people’s quality of life? Stina Larsson (C), member of Parliament and the Environment and Agriculture Committee, emphasizes clearly:

“Sweden must prioritize two areas: reduce emissions from transport and transition our consumption to become more sustainable and circular. When the government neglects climate issues, we should be glad the EU pushes forward. Internationally, Sweden should be at the forefront, a role model showing the way in the green transition.”

Her view aligns with COP29 priorities on circular economy and sustainable supply chains.

Historical Responsibility and Moral Obligation

COP29 became a forum where several countries questioned the responsibility of wealthy nations. Katarina Luhr (MP), member of Parliament and climate policy spokesperson, expresses this clearly regarding Sweden’s role:

“The Green Party wants Sweden to take greater responsibility for global warming. We have already emitted far more than our fair share of the climate crisis. Moreover, we are one of the world’s richest and highest per capita emitters — we have both the power and resources to do more... The most effective climate policy creates international legitimacy and shows that the climate transition is possible.”

Baku called for exactly such leadership — where credibility and action go hand in hand.

A Different View: Technology Over Panic

At the same time, COP29 sparked discussions about prioritizing climate work relative to other societal issues. Josef Fransson (SD) expresses a more cautious view:

“The climate issue is not urgent. The best Sweden can do is protect our business climate as well as research and development.”

This perspective was also present in Baku — where some delegations emphasized innovation rather than rapid political measures as the path to success.

Climate and the Present Day: Priorities in Turbulent Times

World leaders at COP29 agreed: The climate must have space and priority even when the world is burning in other ways!

In a time when the world faces multiple simultaneous crises — war, migration, energy shortages, and economic uncertainty — it is clear that the climate issue requires ongoing focus and prioritization. Despite these challenges dominating public discourse, COP29 participants stressed that climate cannot be sidelined. The climate crisis is an overarching challenge that impacts all aspects of our present and must be integrated into the debate, even when other urgent issues demand attention.

In Sweden, however, climate issues seem to be receiving less space in political debate, especially overshadowed by topics like crime, the war in Ukraine, law and order, and the economic situation. There is therefore a risk of marginalizing the climate issue.

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD), member of Parliament and deputy chairman of the Environment and Agriculture Committee, does not share the view that climate issues are losing ground in political debate:

“I would argue that climate remains a major part of the general debate, but of course we live in the present and other current issues must also have space in public discourse. It is therefore entirely understandable that the topics you list also take space — it would be strange otherwise, as they affect people’s everyday lives very directly.”

Conclusion: COP29 Showed the Way — Now It’s Up to Us

The climate meeting in Baku reminded the world of both the seriousness and the possibility. Through negotiations, agreements, and increased pressure on responsibility-sharing, the world took some steps in the right direction. But real work begins only when decisions are put into action — at home and globally.

We can no longer wait. The climate crisis is not just an environmental issue — it is a justice issue, a security issue, and a future issue. Sweden has all the conditions to lead. And COP29 showed there is hope — if we dare to cooperate, demonstrate leadership, and act together.