The Kremlin's arguments for occupying Crimea are Jea Jonsson's arguments
Comment after Jea Jonsson's closing remarks on April 6 "Marcusson reads me like Lucifer reads the Bible".
Picture: New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/21/world/europe/ukraine.html
Original reply in Swedish can be found here
When the Kremlin's war against Ukraine began in 2014, Putin justified the illegal annexation of Crimea on the grounds that the Ukrainian peninsula was historically Soviet-Russian territory and inhabited by a Russian-speaking population.
In an exchange with Hodder Stjernswärd on November 21, 2021, Jea Jonsson repeated the Kremlin's argument:'
"Sweden as a new Ukraine is a completely irrelevant comparison. The Crimean peninsula historically belonged to the Soviet Union and the majority of the population is Russian-speaking.”
This is how the kremlin justifies its occupation of Crimea. According to Jea Jonsson, Russia had the right to violate international law and use military force to illegally annex Crimea. This position of the right to violate international law has since been defended by Women for Peace and their partners.
Jea Jonsson has been upset in the media that she was refused to carry a Natokritik placard in the Social Democrats' 1 May train.
A democratic party organizing a demonstration naturally has the right to decide which messages to put forward and to reject messages that do not accord with its views. It does not imply any restriction of freedom of expression, even if Jea Jonsson claims it. So it is a non-issue
However, it may be an urgent question for the Social Democrats whether Jea Jonsson's argument that Russia had the right to illegally annex Crimea is compatible with the party's values. Social Democracy stands up for international law and the territorial integrity of countries.