Kanske är sanningen en aning komplicerad ?

Den internationella debatten om Ryssland/Ukraina är betydligt mera mångsidig än den svenska. För dagen tre exempel.

I New York Times skriver Samuel Charap ( senior fellow for Russia and Eurasia, International Institute for Strategic Studies) och Bernard Sucher (styrelsemedlem i UFG Asset Management) bl a om en alternativ amerikansk politik:

The alternative would be open-ended sanctions that escalate conflict between Washington and Moscow while influencing Russia’s economy and politics in ways that contradict American interests. Mr. Putin would gain greater control over the economy and rally the public around him, and Russia’s evolution as a modern, globally integrated country would be halted. Recognizing these risks is not an endorsement of Russia’s aggressive behavior. Just as opposing drone strikes doesn’t imply support for terrorism, highlighting the strategic costs of sanctions is about crafting an effective policy, not appeasing Mr. Putin.

It is worth recalling that after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the United States faced a nightmare scenario of Russia in chaos. The government was bankrupt, and its ability to control its territory and large nuclear arsenal was threatened. At that time, Washington concluded that such a weak Russia would pose a grave threat to American national security. Why should that calculation be any different today?

I The Guardian skriver Seumas Milne bl a:

In the west, Ukraine – along with Isis – is being used to revive the doctrines of liberal interventionism and even neoconservatism, discredited on the killing fields of Iraq and Afghanistan. So far, Angela Merkel and François Hollande have resisted American pressure to arm Kiev. But when the latest Minsk ceasefire breaks down, as it surely will, there is a real risk that Ukraine’s proxy conflict could turn into full-scale international war.

The alternative is a negotiated settlement which guarantees Ukraine’s neutrality, pluralism and regional autonomy. It may well be too late for that. But there is certainly no military solution. Instead of escalating the war and fuelling nationalist extremism, western powers should be using their leverage to wind it down. If they don’t, the consequences could be disastrous – far beyond Ukraine.

I The Specator skriver Peter Hitchens från Mail on Sunday bl a:

Fearing above all the irrecoverable loss to Nato of its treasured naval station in Sevastopol, Russia reacted. After 23 years of sullenly appeasing the West, Moscow finally said ‘enough’. Since we’re all supposed to be against appeasement, shouldn’t we find this action understandable in a sovereign nation, even if we cannot actually praise it? And can anyone explain to me precisely why Britain, of all countries, should be siding with the expansion of the European Union and Nato into this dangerous and unstable part of the World?

Vilka slutsatser ska man dra – utöver att den svenska debatten kanske inte är så heltäckande ? Tja det överlåter jag till de högt värderade läsarna. Jag är ju ingen säkerhetspolitisk expert men väl en omvärldsbevakare som i decennier vant mig vid att den enda för tillfället acceptabla åsikten i Sverige sällan är värd att helt och fullt förlita sig på. Så jag kommer fortsätta att lyfta fram sådant som annars sällan kommer fram i våra medier.