The Swedish Migration Agency has refused to issue a new travel document to Russian political refugee Alexei Makarov, who fought on Ukraine’s side after Russia’s full-scale invasion.
The basis was a conclusion by the Swedish Security Service (Säpo). The agency considered that issuing the document would contradict national security interests. Makarov has lived in Sweden since 2011 and retains refugee status and a permanent residence permit, but he can no longer leave the country.
“Exiles” lawyer Dmitry Zakhvatov considers the Swedish authorities’ decision unlawful and hopes that this case does not reflect Sweden’s true attitude toward defenders of Ukraine.
Alexei Makarov is a Russian political refugee who has been involved in opposition activity since 2004. Because of persecution, he left for Ukraine in 2009, and in 2011 he received refugee status and a permanent residence permit in Sweden. But after the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion, Makarov returned to Ukraine and for about two years defended the country from Putin’s aggression with a weapon in his hands. During that time he was seriously wounded twice.
Makarov left Sweden for Ukraine on the basis of a refugee travel document. But in the autumn of 2024 its validity expired, so Makarov returned to Sweden and applied for a new document. A year later, in February 2026, Sweden’s state security body, Säpo, recommended in its conclusion that the Migration Agency refuse Makarov a new travel document. And in September 2026 the migration authority did just that.
I studied the Migration Agency’s decision. It gives only one reason for the refusal: a reference to the aforementioned Säpo conclusion: “Taking into account the information contained in the Security Service’s conclusion, the Migration Agency considers that there are such weighty grounds relating to national security that your application for a travel document must be rejected.” Moreover, the conclusion itself is classified, so Makarov was not shown it.
Let’s consider the situation that has arisen from the standpoint of the law.
Article 28 of the Refugee Convention and Sweden’s Aliens Act provide that a refugee may receive a travel document for trips abroad if this does not contradict state security and public order.
At the same time, Swedish legislation does not prohibit residents of the country from serving in the armies of foreign states. Such a prohibition applies only to servicemen of the Swedish army, to whom Makarov never belonged.
Despite this, Makarov was refused a travel document. Even though earlier, before his participation in the war on Ukraine’s side, he had received such a document twice. At that time, the Swedish state security authorities had no questions for him.
So there are no other possible explanations for the refusal other than Makarov’s service in Ukrainian volunteer units. That is, Säpo believes that defending Ukraine is a circumstance directed against Sweden’s security.
I would note that in the summer of 2025 the ECtHR published a judgment in the case of Cimpaka Kapeta v. Belgium, in which it stated that in some cases authorities may restrict the right to freedom of movement. A Belgian citizen convicted of taking part in hostilities on the side of the terrorist group Jabhat al-Nusra complained about the Belgian authorities’ refusal to issue him a travel document. They feared that he would return to Syria and continue to take part in the activities of the terrorist group. Following the proceedings, the ECtHR recognized that the actions of the Belgian authorities constituted an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of movement, but that it was justified, since it pursued a legitimate aim: ensuring national security. I hope the Swedish authorities do not intend to equate terrorists with defenders of Ukraine?
By refusing Alexei Makarov a travel document, the Swedish government essentially forbids him to take part in activity aimed at defending Ukraine, and sends a signal to all foreigners residing in Sweden that such activity risks a ban on travel abroad. It is unclear how this squares with the support that Sweden expresses for Ukraine and its fight against Putin’s aggression.
Alexei has already filed an appeal against the Swedish migration authorities’ decision. I am confident that he will succeed in having it overturned in court, because it is unlawful. One hopes that this case does not reflect Sweden’s true attitude toward defenders of Ukraine.
If you need our lawyers’ help, write to our direct messages or use the feedback form.
Leave a Reply