Ambassador of Ukraine to Sweden Svitlana Zalishchuk addressed the Folk och Försvar National Conference 2026, Sweden’s leading security and defence forum, speaking immediately after Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson and opposition leader Magdalena Andersson.

In her address, Ambassador Zalishchuk made it clear: Russia’s war against Ukraine is an existential threat to Europe and a defining test for the West. She emphasized that mutual security is not only about solidarity - it is about speed, decisiveness, burden-sharing, and the courage to act together to defend democracy, sovereignty, and peace in Europe.

Russia sought a submissive Ukraine, a divided West, and a weakened NATO. It achieved the opposite. However, this outcome is not guaranteed to last. The challenge ahead is to move from crisis management to a systemic, long-term security strategy, with faster decisions, deeper cooperation, and Ukraine treated as a full strategic partner.

Ambassador Zalishchuk expressed deep gratitude to Sweden and all international partners whose political leadership, military assistance, and unwavering support help Ukraine withstand aggression and strengthen Europe’s collective security.

Full Speech of Ambassador Svitlana Zalishchuk at Folk och Försvar 2026:

“It is a great honour - and a great responsibility - to speak before you today on behalf of a country that is fighting for its survival.

I have learned one important thing about Sweden: you prefer to discuss the most difficult questions over fika. So the fact that I was invited to speak even before Fika - and after the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition - tells that Ukraine is a strategic issue for Sweden.

Four months ago I left Kyiv for Stockholm. Before coming, I called Ukraine’s Ministry of Defence and asked them: “Show me Sweden’s weapons.”
They took me to the 43rd Separate Artillery Brigade, which operates the Archer system.

I asked soldiers: “Next week I go to Sweden. What should I tell them about their weapon?” And one of them - Andriy - said: “Actually, I have a story for you. The first shell ever fired into Russian territory - in Sudzha - was my shot. And it was fired from a Swedish Archer. Tell them thank you.”

That story is not about one shell. It is about what solidarity, burden-sharing and mutual security – my today’s topic – mean in practice.

Looking back almost after 4 years in this war – we can say that Ukraine supported by the West achieved extraordinary results. Russia failed in its core objectives - and that is not an accident:

1. Ukraine survived - and that was not supposed to happen in Putin’s mind. Ukrainian courage supported by Western weapons and financial aid prevented that. This alone destroyed Putin’s plan of a rapid imperial restoration.

2. NATO was reborn - and expanded. The defence budget was increased. The eastern flank was reinforced.

3. Ukraine was integrated into the Western system. Ukraine is is on a path to EU membership. Russia tried to pull Ukraine back. But the West pulled us in.

4. Russia’s conventional military power was shattered. Russia lost vast numbers of troops, weapon, plains. The myth of Russia as a dominant land power is gone. Rebuilding will take a decade.

5. The sanctions architecture was built. Unfortunately, sanctions did not collapse Russia, but they placed a ceiling on Russia’s future power.

Conclusion:

Russia wanted a submissive Ukraine, a divided West and a weakened NATO. It got a Westernised Ukraine, a larger NATO and a long-term confrontation it cannot win.

Now the hard question is whether the West will finish the job.

Talking today about a path to mutual security requires more than ambition — it requires honesty. We must confront what went wrong over the last four years and identify the weaknesses that undermined our response.

One point where I respectfully disagree with the conference organisers is their description of today’s security environment. It is described as “highly unpredictable.” I think it’s quite certain.

That the shocks we have faced since 2014 - and especially since 2022 - are not exceptional disruptions. They are a trend. The world order we once knew is being systematically dismantled. International institutions and value-based partnerships are no longer the pillars holding the system together.

We have entered a post-truth, post-West, post-order era. Only the first week of 2026 alone put Venezuela and Greenland on the global security agenda. Buckle up - we are only at the beginning of the take-off. The future of the world is being shaped right now, and it will not be shaped by those with the best values, but by those who are stronger. And the lessons learned in the war against russia will determine whether our states and societies are prepared to survive not just the coming years, but decades of geopolitical turbulence we face.

So let me turn to the challenging conclusions that matter most:

1. The West fought the war as a crisis while russia fought it as a system.

Russia mobilised its entire state for war: production, procurement, innovation. The West responded with short-term packages and ad-hoc coalitions.

Russia built a war machine. The West ran a donation model. This asymmetry was decisive. And it is decisive right now.

2. Escalation management replaced victory as the guiding logic.

Western strategy was driven by fear of provoking russia. Weapons arrived only after russia escalated - late, limited, and just enough to survive. Each “red line” proved illusory - but months were lost every time.

3. Energy money funded russia’s war.

For much of the war, Europe paid russia more for energy than it gave Ukraine for weapons. Europe financed both sides.

4. Psychological warfare was underestimated.

Russia fought Western fear, fatigue, elections, and media cycles. The Kremlin knew democracies tire faster than autocracies. The West never built a narrative of inevitable victory - only of crisis management.

5. Ukraine was treated as a recipient - not a strategic partner. 

On the one hand Ukraine became the world’s most advanced battlefield innovator with drones, data, technology. Yet it was treated mainly as a buyer of Western weapons, not a co-producer or integrated defence partner.

So the bottom line is: the West was not too weak to stop Russia. It was too slow, too cautious, too fragmented - and too afraid of its own power.

So today mutual security demands us to have very genuine answers to the question: are we ready and are we able to fix all this?"

Folk och Försvars Rikskonferens 2026

Photo: Ulf Palm