Well, I call this the work-first line over Midsummer, and I'm glad I'm not alone — that you practice it too. Three things are especially important. The first is to confirm that the consensus on Ukraine is now greater with a new Hungarian government and a new Hungarian prime minister. We are doing our part with the Gripen fighter jets, but we also agree to actually begin the EU accession negotiations. A big step.
The second is, of course, the discussions about China in practice. It's not only about China, and we will remain a strong supporter of free trade, but it is also in Sweden's interest that trade with Europe cannot be abused so that it works against Europe in various ways.
It is perfectly obvious that when this free economy in Europe meets the kind of economic model China uses, serious problems arise. If we can agree on a number of common actions toward China — continuing to act with China, but also agreeing on a number of methods for this — that would be a big step forward. And the third is, of course, the long-term budget. No decisions are made this time; they are postponed to October and December. But the Swedish position, as you know, is very clear. It is good to have a better — shall we say — better content in the budget, with a focus on competitiveness and security, but it is far, far too large.
Sweden will not accept this kind of dramatic increase in the Swedish contribution. That is our starting point.
What kind of measures do you want to see in relation to China?
Yes, we have a number of instruments now that we must discuss properly. Fundamentally, it is about the fact that China often has access to the European market in a way that European companies do not have with the same self-evidence in China. It is often state subsidies. It is quite well documented that state subsidies lie behind some of the prices they can apply on other markets. There are significant surpluses that can be dumped on European markets, and then you can either see it as, well, then we get cheaper products in Europe, which many consumers would appreciate. But it can also seriously break down the entire competition between European and Chinese companies. I think this has been obvious for quite a long time. It is the third time during my tenure that we now have a proper strategic discussion about China.
The Swedish contribution is to focus on the fact that we want to trade with the rest of the world, but it must be fair trade. Equal conditions, equal rules of the game. We cannot in the long run let China have its rules of the game while European companies have completely different rules.
How concrete — what should be done to achieve a more level playing field?
One of my key points is that it is important that we agree that we act together, rather than exactly what we do. So far, we have had discussions at a principled level where many European countries think, as we do, that this is a problem, and yet each country has gone to Beijing on its own and signed its own agreements, very much on the rules of the game that China sets up, because China is an important country for each of them. So the most important thing, the single most important thing, is that Europe's countries now gather their joint action and stick to joint action. Then there are a number of different instruments we can discuss piece by piece.
On Israel's foreign minister breaking with Kaja Kallas?
Yes, that surprises me the most. I think it is strange behaviour.
We have two questions concerning Ukraine. The first question is: how do you assess the situation now regarding Russia's warfare? We have received the impression that there is momentum for Ukraine. What does this mean for Russia's behaviour towards its surroundings, which we are part of?
It is hard to assess. The intelligence picture is a bit unclear, but I still dare say that no one doubts that there is momentum for Ukraine right now. They have had spectacular successes over a period. I also thought that came through when I sat and talked with Zelensky in Uppsala just a few weeks ago. It is perfectly obvious. Russia is more pressed than before. They are gaining very, very limited terrain at extremely high costs. So there is no doubt about this. And this is good news. Then we see a Russian behaviour in the surroundings that is a bit hard to assess. Quite a few countries now — most recently the United Kingdom — are acting against the shadow fleet in a very decisive way. We have done so too, France has done it too. We have several incidents in the air where we think Russia is acting in an imprudent way. So there is no doubt that they are pressed, and we can probably suspect we will notice it in other ways. And that is why it is so important that we also mark very clearly, just as the Swedish Air Force did the other day.
There are a number of European leaders now who advocate establishing some kind of contact with Vladimir Putin. The latest I saw in my pocket is actually the Austrian chancellor. What is your view on this way of trying to reach Putin, of creating contact either through the EU or through individual countries?
That is exactly the position I both presented after the meeting with Zelensky in Sweden, but also the one I presented when we met in Norway together with Zelensky very recently. That is to say, that kind of contact — that Europe should be there and support Ukraine when peace talks take place. Note: when peace talks take place. We still see no signs whatsoever that Russia is interested in peace talks at all. But if that happens and Ukraine wants our support, which I believe they will want, then Europe will of course be there. No doubt about that. In Norway, quite a few of us pointed to what we call the E3 — that is, the United Kingdom, France, Germany — as the natural trio of countries that could also have broad anchoring across Europe, both within and outside the EU. But all of this is built on Ukraine wanting us to act, and on Russia wanting peace talks with Ukraine at all.
But contact doesn't necessarily mean peace talks. Establishing contact with Putin.
I don't see that we should not act in any way, but that it must be fully synchronised with Ukraine and that Ukraine sees meaning in such talks. The ones that have taken place so far — President Macron himself has presented the results of the exploratory talks that one of his staff members held, and they produced absolutely nothing. So the most important thing is that it is Ukraine that holds the baton for that kind of talk.
You say that the most important thing is that EU countries can stand united. What do you think — are there one or two tools that you might be able to agree on more than others?
That is hard to see, I think. It can also affect different countries differently. But when it comes especially to state-subsidised Chinese companies' opportunities to sell on the European market — the kind of products that risk wiping out European industry or that take over entire value chains. We have seen it in minerals, in mining, and we have seen it in other areas too. There we cannot be naive in the long run. So I think there are two key words here. One is that we must fundamentally stand firm on free trade as a central value. But we must not be naive if a country — in this case China — acts on the market economy with tools that no European country could or would even want to use. There we must put our foot down. There has been a lot of dialogue with China and various things. Now it is time for Europe also to decide on what terms we will have fair and successful trade with other countries. In the same way that we are now concluding free trade agreements with more areas of the world. So to put down the common European foot on these issues.
So restrictions on market access, for example — that could be one thing?
Yes, we have seen market access restrictions on the Chinese market happening very actively in ways we would not do in Europe. The toolbox that has been set up regarding, for example, security issues in the telecom industry is an early sign that people are gathering. But I think it is interesting that if we talk about such a large and, in some respects, successful economy as China — and we should be aware of that too — they do things very skilfully and well. Then Europe must act as a common bloc. 450 million consumers can put a completely different pressure behind a successful and constructive dialogue with China than if each country acts on its own.
On the long-term budget. How angry are you over the Cyprus compromise proposal?
No, I'm not the angry sort. I said directly to Cyprus that this isn't even a conversation starter. This means a violent increase in the size of the budget. We need a better budget, not a bigger budget. And I have said that together with several other colleagues, with a friendly clarity that neither the President nor anyone else could misunderstand. So this is not on the map at all.
