Russia "to block" Syria vote at the UN

[Sisko]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16796616

What exactly is Russia's game here?? Everyone knows what is going on in Syria, and frankly the place is a complete mess I'm sure. All the UN is doing, on behalf and with the support of the Arab League, is calling for Assad to transfer power.

But why would Russia take such a stance that in the eyes of some, may even be seen as protecting Assad?? Is it simply because they can?? Are they just trying to get in the way?? Having said that, the UN is a pretty useless organisation unless some form of direct action is taken, of which I am against I have to say.

But, why would Russia seemingly want to protect the status quo in Syria?? Are their arms deals with Syria THAT important?? Granted I am aware Russia makes alot of money from weapons exports to other countries, maybe this is their way of trying to protect their interests in Syria.....continuing to sell weapons to Assad, that he can use to kill his own people!!

Anyone fancy a chinwag on this ahaha

[s.rwitt]

I suppose they simply don't want to lose one of their two (?) allies in the region. Makes sense to me.

[Heathen Hammer]

Syria buys Russian weapons and generally is more friendly to Russia than powers that support opposition and insurgency there. Russia is simply following its interests in the region, no more no less.

[karo]

Luke Stalin said it is in Russias interest to keep the regime in place. And last time they stayed neutral they lost one of their clients now they will try everything to stop that.

[Heathen Hammer]

It is pretty similar to how US protects Israel from possible international involvement.

[PointOfViewGun]

It is pretty similar to how US protects Israel from possible international involvement.

QFT.

[Sphere]

There is something hollow and circular in the idea that since a brutal and oppressive regime has overtime caused the disintigration of civil and political society, such that massive popular unrest has broken out and turned to outright rebellion, said oppressive and unpopular regime needs to stay in place or else the country will fall apart.

A post-Assad Syria, just like a post-Gaddafi Libya, may turn for better or for worse. But anyone who says that the Syrian people should have to submit to this hereditary dictatorship whether they like it or not because it is "what's best for them" should think long hard about taking such a position.

The freedom to fail is a freedom none the less. And an important one in my opinion.

[Heathen Hammer]

There is something hollow and circular in the idea that since a brutal and oppressive regime has overtime caused the disintigration of civil and political society, such that massive popular unrest has broken out and turned to outright rebellion, said oppressive and unpopular regime needs to stay in place or else the country will fall apart.

A post-Assad Syria, just like a post-Gaddafi Libya, may turn for better or for worse. But anyone who says that the Syrian people should have to submit to this hereditary dictatorship whether they like it or not because it is "what's best for them" should think long hard about taking such a position.

The freedom to fail is a freedom none the less. And an important one in my opinion.

I don't think that countries that either support or oppose Assad are guided by some moral or ethical considerations. Their policies are simply based on geopolitical interests.

[Blaze86420]

There is something hollow and circular in the idea that since a brutal and oppressive regime has overtime caused the disintigration of civil and political society, such that massive popular unrest has broken out and turned to outright rebellion, said oppressive and unpopular regime needs to stay in place or else the country will fall apart.

A post-Assad Syria, just like a post-Gaddafi Libya, may turn for better or for worse. But anyone who says that the Syrian people should have to submit to this hereditary dictatorship whether they like it or not because it is "what's best for them" should think long hard about taking such a position.

The freedom to fail is a freedom none the less. And an important one in my opinion.

ing exactly.

[Jaketh]

It is pretty similar to how US protects Israel from possible international involvement.

Thats true for the most part but Israel isn't massacring its own citizens at the moment.

[Krieglord]

Russias doing the sane thing In this situation

http://rt.com/news/russia-assad-talks-opposition-083/

Russia opposes 'Libyan scenario' in Syria and will block resolution






Russia will not bargain with the West over the fresh draft resolution on Syria, says Russia’s deputy foreign minister. The draft in its current form ignores the Russian position and therefore, has no chance of being accepted, Gennady Gatilov said.
*"It is not part of our political practice to trade our principles," Gatilov said on Monday as cited by Interfax. "We don't bargain, but seek consideration for our positions and our vision, which are based on our knowledge of regional realities and our historical experience.”
"Russia can only support the resolution if it fixes Russia's principled approaches, which I have mentioned and which are shared by many other countries," he added.
On Tuesday, the UNSC will hear the Arab League's report on the findings of its recent mission to monitor the ruling regime's response to the popular uprising in Syria. France and the UK are pushing for the adoption of a new resolution drafted by Morocco. The resolution would back the Arab League's plan for the transition of power in Syria from President Assad to a unity government.
Russia resists a swift vote on this, saying it wants to study the Arab League's report in detail before taking any step. Moscow has vetoed a previous UN resolution on Syria, citing its ambiguous language that could provide for a foreign intervention, and contemplates banning the new one.

The UK urges Russia to stop blocking the UN move.
"We believe that the UN must act to support the people of Syria and that Russia can no longer explain blocking the UN and providing cover for the regime's brutal repression," the UK Prime Minister David Cameron's office said on Monday.
The UN estimates over 5,400 people have been killed in Syria since the popular uprising against the regime broke out ten months ago. Assad says he is fighting an armed foreign insurgency and bears heavy troop losses.
*Moscow offers Syrian parties a time-out

*The opposition Syrian National Council says it has not received an invitation to come to Moscow for informal talks with the Syrian government. While Damascus authorities reacted favorably to Russia’s initiative, the SNC doubts it would agree to join.
*“We have called on the Syrian authorities and all the opposition groups to send their representatives to Moscow for informal talks without preconditions,” read the official statement on the Russian Foreign Ministry’s website on Monday.

The Syrian government has already agreed to come to the Russian capital, says Moscow. Russia hopes to receive a reply from the opposition in the coming days, which would allow the talks to start “as soon as possible.”

But the diplomacy attempt does not seem to have changed the mood within the Syrian National Council, which had earlier said that it wants to see violence in the country stop, before any talks begin.

"We have not received any offer like that officially,” Abdel Baset Seda, an official with the Council told Reuters.

“I think, if such an offer exists, it will be no more than an attempt to influence the [UN] Security Council. But I say clearly that our position has not changed and it is that there is no dialogue with President Bashar al-Assad," he added speaking from New York, where he was following the Arab League's meeting with the UN Security Council.
However, political analyst Doctor Hisham Ghassib told RT the Syrian opposition is not a monolithic bloc, and the decision of any one group to come to the negotiating table will ultimately depends on its geopolitical alliances.
“This is a good initiative on Russia’s part, but I don’t think it will succeed because of this external opposition [the West and groups based outside of Syria].The internal opposition – the opposition I call the patriotic progressive opposition inside Syria – will ultimately agree to such an initiative. Unfortunately, the rest of the opposition, those who are organizing the armed gangs, I don’t think it is in their interest to accept such an initiative.”

[s.rwitt]

*"It is not part of our political practice to trade our principles," Gatilov said on Monday as cited by Interfax.

I wonder what principles he's referring to...

[a tw player]

Good article on this here:

http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16159355

[Manuel I Komnenos]

Russia has been a traditional ally of Syria, since the creation of Israel.

[Kanaric]

Russia has been a traditional ally of Syria, since the creation of Israel.

Yes unlike the US they do still like to support dictatorships against democracies.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

Yes unlike the US they do still like to support dictatorships against democracies.

It matters little. Don't tell me the US wouldn't have supported Israel if it was a dictatorship.

[Eskali]

Yes unlike the US they do still like to support dictatorships against democracies.

Are you being sarcastic? i cant tell.

[Kanaric]

It matters little. Don't tell me the US wouldn't have supported Israel if it was a dictatorship.

In 1979 yes in 2012 no.

Again its dictatorship vs dictatorship in to your case. If Syria was democratic and Israel was not you would be wrong. The US of 2012 would support Syria. All things equal it would be who best supports US interests.

[Heathen Hammer]

In 1979 yes in 2012 no.

Again its dictatorship vs dictatorship in to your case. If Syria was democratic and Israel was not you would be wrong. The US of 2012 would support Syria. All things equal it would be who best supports US interests.

It has nothing to do with either country being a dictatorship or a democracy. It only has to do with whether a particular government goes along with US interests in the region. Same thing with Russia or any other superpower involved in the region.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

In 1979 yes in 2012 no.

Again its dictatorship vs dictatorship in to your case. If Syria was democratic and Israel was not you would be wrong. The US of 2012 would support Syria. All things equal it would be who best supports US interests.

Should I mention the support of the USA towards the Iraqi dictatorship, during the Iran-Iraq War, when Iraq attacked Iran on the ground that the Islamist Revolution (much like what's going on in the Arabian World atm) was going to spread in Iraq as well? So, let's cut these ideologies. The USA act on behalf of their interests, just as Russia and every other state on the planet. They are not some super protectors of democracy and liberty. Let's just say more accurately, that neither Gadaffi, nor Assad are "friends" of America (= they don't/didn't buy American weapons etc) therefore it doesn't hurt to have them removed from power.