Politics in Sweden: How Trump’s victory let Sweden’s PM show off his gravitas

The shock election of Donald Trump provided the perfect opportunity for Sweden’s prime minister, Ulf Kristersson, to display his statesmanlike qualities, Nordic Editor Richard Orange explains in this week’s Politics in Sweden.

Advertisement

The victory of Donald Trump in last week’s US presidential election was in Sweden, as everywhere, a shock but not exactly a surprise.
It provided a suitable moment for Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson to show himself as “statesmanlike” or statsmannamässig: a calm, strong, considered voice at a time when less cool-tempered souls are panicking. 
“We planned for different developments and that we are well prepared for this,” he said at a press conference held in Stockholm after the result came in. 

The statsmannamässig approach went so well that Kristersson did it again at the end of the week, sitting down for a rare one-on-one interview on SVT’s Agenda news programme, one of the most high-profile interview spots on Swedish media. 
At the press conference, he congratulated Trump on his victory, but also laid out the lines that Sweden wanted to defend against this unpredictable, highly transactional president, who has threatened to hit Europe with tariffs, to end the war in Ukraine “on day one”, and who is likely to once again pull the US out of the Paris Climate Agreement. 
“There is no issue which has the same existential importance for countries in our part of the world than Ukraine,” Kristersson said, while adding that continuing Swedish military support to Ukraine would “improve our relation with the USA.”
“There is a very real risk of increased economic protectionism,” he added. “It’s a risk that means a lot for a country as dependent on experts and trade as Sweden.” 
As well as seeking to be the voice of calm, Kristersson sought to claim the higher ground on what he called the “stone hard and polarising tone” that has done so much damage in US politics. 
“This is a dangerous development,” he said in the press conference. “Let us not take that road. Let us maintain a level-headed tone and let the facts and the íssues stay in the centre of the political debate. This is my appeal.” 

Advertisement
Mostly, Kristersson’s appearances were well received, but some centre-left commentators did raise questions.
In the En Runda Till Podcast from Aftonbladet, the paper’s political commentator My Rohwedder pointed out that lamenting polarisation was a bit rich given that much of the polarisation in Swedish politics came from the parties backing Kristersson as prime minister. Indeed, she pointed out, part of the definition of polarisation is that you are blind to its existence on your own side. 
Others questioned how much of a strong, calm hand Kristersson would continue to have should Trump spring an unexpected and completely impossible demand on him, as happened at regular intervals to European leaders when Trump was last president between 2016 and 2020.  
Look back to the position faced by Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen when Trump as President in 2019 proposed that the US should be allowed to buy Greenland from Denmark. Would Kristersson be willing to face Trump down and publicly call the request “absurd”? as she did, leading to a cancelled state visit for her “nasty” remark. 
Or consider when Trump rang up Sweden’s Prime Minister Stefan Löfven demanding that he order the US rapper ASAP Rocky to be released from pre-trial detention after suspected involvement in a brawl? Would Kristersson, like Löfven, calmly seek to explain that this was not, in fact, how Sweden’s legal system worked? 

Advertisement
The answer given by the Aftonbladet columnist Zina Al-Dewany in a scathing article headlined, “Soon Kristersson will learn to bow before Trump”, was basically “no”. 
“A ‘renowned bendable back’ was the gist of the criticism against Kristersson,” she recalled of the time when Sweden’s Prime Minister sought to win the backing of two lesser strongman leaders, the leaders of Turkey and Hungary, for Sweden’s Nato bid. 
“How much more could Kristersson bend for Trump and US foreign policy?” she asked. “Things do not look bright for either Sweden or our government if what you are looking for is backbone and integrity.” 
Politics in Sweden is The Local’s weekly analysis, guide or look ahead to what’s coming up in Swedish politics. Update your newsletter settings to receive it directly to your inbox. 

More

#Politics in Sweden
#Sweden and the US
#Donald Trump
#Ulf Kristersson
#Politics

Comments

Join the conversation in our comments section below. Share your own views and experience and if you have a question or suggestion for our journalists then email us at [email protected].
Please keep comments civil, constructive and on topic – and make sure to read our terms of use before getting involved.

Please log in here to leave a comment.

See Also

The victory of Donald Trump in last week’s US presidential election was in Sweden, as everywhere, a shock but not exactly a surprise.
It provided a suitable moment for Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson to show himself as “statesmanlike” or statsmannamässig: a calm, strong, considered voice at a time when less cool-tempered souls are panicking. 
“We planned for different developments and that we are well prepared for this,” he said at a press conference held in Stockholm after the result came in. 
The statsmannamässig approach went so well that Kristersson did it again at the end of the week, sitting down for a rare one-on-one interview on SVT’s Agenda news programme, one of the most high-profile interview spots on Swedish media. 
At the press conference, he congratulated Trump on his victory, but also laid out the lines that Sweden wanted to defend against this unpredictable, highly transactional president, who has threatened to hit Europe with tariffs, to end the war in Ukraine “on day one”, and who is likely to once again pull the US out of the Paris Climate Agreement. 
“There is no issue which has the same existential importance for countries in our part of the world than Ukraine,” Kristersson said, while adding that continuing Swedish military support to Ukraine would “improve our relation with the USA.”
“There is a very real risk of increased economic protectionism,” he added. “It’s a risk that means a lot for a country as dependent on experts and trade as Sweden.” 
As well as seeking to be the voice of calm, Kristersson sought to claim the higher ground on what he called the “stone hard and polarising tone” that has done so much damage in US politics. 
“This is a dangerous development,” he said in the press conference. “Let us not take that road. Let us maintain a level-headed tone and let the facts and the íssues stay in the centre of the political debate. This is my appeal.” 
Mostly, Kristersson’s appearances were well received, but some centre-left commentators did raise questions.
In the En Runda Till Podcast from Aftonbladet, the paper’s political commentator My Rohwedder pointed out that lamenting polarisation was a bit rich given that much of the polarisation in Swedish politics came from the parties backing Kristersson as prime minister. Indeed, she pointed out, part of the definition of polarisation is that you are blind to its existence on your own side. 
Others questioned how much of a strong, calm hand Kristersson would continue to have should Trump spring an unexpected and completely impossible demand on him, as happened at regular intervals to European leaders when Trump was last president between 2016 and 2020.  
Look back to the position faced by Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen when Trump as President in 2019 proposed that the US should be allowed to buy Greenland from Denmark. Would Kristersson be willing to face Trump down and publicly call the request “absurd”? as she did, leading to a cancelled state visit for her “nasty” remark. 
Or consider when Trump rang up Sweden’s Prime Minister Stefan Löfven demanding that he order the US rapper ASAP Rocky to be released from pre-trial detention after suspected involvement in a brawl? Would Kristersson, like Löfven, calmly seek to explain that this was not, in fact, how Sweden’s legal system worked? 
The answer given by the Aftonbladet columnist Zina Al-Dewany in a scathing article headlined, “Soon Kristersson will learn to bow before Trump”, was basically “no”. 
“A ‘renowned bendable back’ was the gist of the criticism against Kristersson,” she recalled of the time when Sweden’s Prime Minister sought to win the backing of two lesser strongman leaders, the leaders of Turkey and Hungary, for Sweden’s Nato bid. 
“How much more could Kristersson bend for Trump and US foreign policy?” she asked. “Things do not look bright for either Sweden or our government if what you are looking for is backbone and integrity.” 
Politics in Sweden is The Local’s weekly analysis, guide or look ahead to what’s coming up in Swedish politics. Update your newsletter settings to receive it directly to your inbox.