"This is a kulturartikel which is a part of Aftonbladet's opinionsjournalistik."
"Kragh-the story has gone on for seven weeks. What is it about – for me? I don't need to dig very deep."
"through the years I have written and published hundreds of articles criticising Putin from the left for the högerman he is. I am still branded a Putin-constrictors. The only thing that counts here is that it paints Russia as a military threat to Sweden, and I don't believe that is the case."
"When Martin Kraghs and Sebastian Åsberg report come 2017, I did not know where I would go. Their logic was the following: Putin is trying to win points on neo-fascism in Ukraine, thus they run, as worries about the Ukrainian neo-fascism of Putin's cases. It rang journalists from all over Europe who wanted to that I would respond to the accusation that Aftonbladet was Putin's Swedish tentacle. I didn't know what I would say more than that, well, we have written a lot about the rehabilitation of old nazis in the Ukraine. We should not have done it? thought I am."
"Stig Fredrikson is Sweden's publicistnestor with rare great knowledge about Russia. It meant everything when he 2017 directed very sharp criticism against how Kraghs and Åsberg report pointed out the Aftonbladet newspaper that ”Putin's host”. Under the heading ”do not Shout wolf if the Russian bear” wrote Fredrikson in Svenska Dagbladet: ”[D]et is a very serious accusation to claim that AB:s kultursidor is the main pro-Russian spokesperson in Sweden, and rapportförfattarnas evidence is not compelling.”"
"of Course Stig Fredriksson right when he warns that the ongoing debate ”risk scaring away the younger researchers and writers to devote themselves to the subject of the Russian federation”. In the same way as I fight for the right to be critical of Russia-reporting and the one-sided new cold war narrative, it is of course important that the call is not conducted in such a way that the opinion leaders and researchers with other input feel restricted."
"During these two years that have passed, for my part, I stopped writing about Russia and I refuserar texts without any other reason than that I am still plagued by 2017, the years of discomfort. No corresponding repression I do not want to inflict on others."
"this is my story with Kragh. It is of principle: the right to the free formation of opinion and research transparency and politicisation. It is personal: Kraghs report has restricted my and my skribenters freedom of thought."
"Now, on the seventh week of this deal, I'm trying to force myself to consider the Martin Kragh from a new angle. I see a man who is animated by to counter Russian misinformation, which I respect. I also see scientists who know a lot about Russia. As example of this is his book of Russian history, From Alexander II to Putin quite interesting. As Kragh is ekonomhistoriker he has a materialistic tolkningsram, and even if his perspective is marknadsliberalt and right, so there's something here that can be discussed, unlike the 2017 annual report."
"And, of course, I see a man who is furious, hurt and pissed that I raised the issue of the Integrity Initiative."
"When I saw Kraghs name in the leaked documents, I was not one bit surprised. But as I also already pointed out, it does not mean anything to Kraghs name appears there. And as I pointed out, he has a tweet admitted that he in 2016 was asked if the partnership with the Integrity Initiative, but he insists that he turned it down. He even contacted mean I should still lead to a lot of supplementaries."
"I have asked the question if there are any reasons to Kragh mentioned in one of the papers, and what it would mean if the data is correct. I have also been asked how the various arenas and spheres of influence – the free universities, domestic and foreign think tanks, hybridfinansierade institutions, miscellaneous department of state, authorities, the military-industrial complex with the multi – partnered."
"in Short, I believe that it is entirely legitimate to wonder: Who does what, who pays and with what expectations?"
"You may think that I give me on a single person, which is true, but this one is about a scientist with an international platform. The pardon, however, not everything I have written about Martin Kragh."
"I understand very well that some of my formulations, met with resistance, but I have still never spionanklagat Kragh or called him ”traitor” or ”MI6 agent”. These are claims that have been in my mouth by Kragh yourself, and then spread further by others. I have pointed out that there is a (reckless) law which prohibits that in the scriptures, or in other ways influence the Swedish opinion in security policy issues to receive financial support from abroad. The law has nothing with espionage, but refers to the just so-called påverkansoperationer – that is to say, what is considered to be Martin Kraghs area of expertise."
"in Spite of the discrepancy between what I actually wrote and claimed to have written, I understand the criticism. But what I at all do not understand, is why it should be impossible to talk about the substance of the item hangs around then 2017 Should really research be used to smear the regular journalism and the free formation of opinion?"
"That is what I have wanted to discuss in two years time. Martin Kragh has, as all other offered the ability to write replica. Of course, he is free to refrain, but the questions had dimensions great of he had taken an open debate."