In a significant foreign-policy shift, the Swedish government recently announced that it will phase out development aid to five countries — redirecting part of that funding to support reconstruction in war-torn Ukraine.
The countries affected are Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Mozambique, Liberia, and Bolivia. The government plans to phase out assistance to these nations over coming years, freeing up more than 2 billion Swedish crowns over the next two years.
According to Benjamin Dousa, Sweden’s Minister for International Development Cooperation and Foreign Trade, Ukraine is now Stockholm’s top foreign-aid priority, due to the war’s widespread destruction of Ukraine’s infrastructure — especially its energy grid. As such, by 2026, Sweden aims to increase its aid to Ukraine to at least 10 billion crowns (roughly US$1.06 billion).
Sweden has long been among the world’s leading contributors of development and humanitarian aid. Over the past several years, its annual aid budget hovered around 56 billion crowns. Still, the new plan envisions reducing that budget to about 53 billion crowns per year for the 2026–2028 period. The government frames this not as abandoning international responsibilities, but as reprioritizing funds to reflect new geopolitical realities — including increased immigration costs and the ongoing war in Ukraine.
Unsurprisingly, the move stirred debate among aid experts, politicians, and the public. Critics argue that cutting aid to poorer countries may undermine Sweden’s long-standing reputation for humanitarian leadership. They warn that such decisions could leave vulnerable communities without vital support. Supporters, however, contend that reallocating funds to Ukraine is necessary — given the scale of destruction there and the potential global repercussions if Ukraine’s recovery fails.
For Sweden, the shift represents more than just a change in budget lines — it reflects a changing understanding of global responsibility. In an increasingly unstable world, the government appears to be betting that urgent, tangible reconstruction efforts — especially in Europe — take precedence over long-term development programs in distant countries.
Still, analysts urge balance. They note that easing long-term poverty, improving education, and supporting development in struggling nations are not only moral imperatives but also long-term investments in global stability. Diverting funds could compromise decades of Sweden’s reputation as a global humanitarian actor.
Whether this reallocation signals a temporary adjustment or a longer-term pivot in Sweden’s foreign-aid philosophy remains to be seen. But for now, the priorities are clear — and Ukraine stands at the top.
Leave a comment