I would say supporting Syrian rebels is far worse then supporting Ukrainian ones at this point in time. I would also say that being outspoken against Russian actions, while ignoring the actions of others that did worse is silly at best, and in all likelihood just a political calculation. But my main issue here is her timing. It honestly looks like she's just backing up the USA on this issue, who are trying to bail out the more extremist portion of the rebels from defeat. Yes, I would say that trying to save al-Nusra, ash-Sham, and Jaesh al-Islam is worse then annexing Crimea. How many people died from the annexation of Crimea? And what happened to the quality of life in Crimea? How many civilians were killed by the three groups above?
It does beg some questions. Such as, why now? What makes Aleppo special? Did they also protest heavy French bombings of Raqqa? Or take such a decisive stand on Syrian use of barrel bombs? If the position is a humanitarian one, then it would have been consistent. But it's not. Which says to me that there is some other, political, motivation. I don't know enough about Swedish foreign policy to say anything specific there, but what someone doesn't do is as telling as what they do.
.
I hear what you are saying. Let me put it back to you from the point of view of generic "Western" eyes (by which I simply mean eyes divorced from the machinations of power and maybe naive as to deeper agendas).
A spontaneous democracy movement is crushed in Syria by a murderous dictator which gives rise to a civil war participated in (originally) by elements of the original democracy movement and a range of other players varying from (apparently) benign to being a threat to the whole world.
The latter factor means some sort of intervention is mandatory as much as many countries in the West hate the thought of yet another ME quagmire. No one wants to put boots on the ground. Supporting the regime after what it has done is intolerable. So you support the most benign factions you can find and use air power to try and degrade ISIS (not the regime).
I know your view would be that the US keeps supporting factions that turn bad and I can only take your word for that (which is not to doubt it; just admit I have no better source of knowledge). At some point they should have learnt their lessons and stopped that approach. I would get the impression they eventually did; putting more effort into the Kurds, who of course come with their own baggage. But at least the Kurds seem to be a viable force, but one with a limited idea of their area of operations.
The real problem with this approach turned out to be that it offered no long term solution. The US looked dumb in its choice of partners and slow learning, but not really malevolent. Its objectives seemed to be to get ISIS out and settle the country back down, but I've not seen evidence of more selfish agendas involving friendly regimes or bases (and frankly after their experience in the ME over the last 15 years if anyone did believe that, they should be taken out and shot for stupidity)
Ukraine was not a murderous regime killing its own people before Russia sponsored a civil war there. What Russia did was a example of 1937-9 like use of minorities to destabilize another country with a view to its annexation. That was all meant to be behind us; stuff you don't do any more because the world was meant to have learnt its lessons.
I think on the whole that's worse.
I can't comment on what the French did in Raqqa. I'll admit the reporting of the conflict here is weak. I do know that the ROE for Australian forces are incredibly civilian protective.
But as my previous posts have reluctantly admitted, the US lead approach and indeed any approach that doesn't kill a lot of people didn't look like it would ever get anywhere.
In the end a violent battle to reinstall the old regime might be the only answer. But I doubt the west could ever have brought itself to do that.
