Now, i'm not one to start many threads, nor am i massive on politics, but what the hell were Russia and China thinking by veto'ing the resolution on Syria? I can maybe understand them not wanting to 'take sides' in a so-called 'civil war', but surely they can see something needs to be done there, it's not a civil war, it's a dictator(ish) suppressing the people with violence.

I don't get wound up much about politics but this has my back up.

I need to read up on this tbh, but on the face of it, the whole thing is incomprehensible. I can't believe that Russia and China want to seen to be complicit in the deaths of thousands so there must be more to it.

Aye, let's push and agitate for regime change. It's been such a success in the brave new worlds of Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt etc.

I would guess:

1. Sensitive region - do not wish the US to wield any more influence there
2. To stand up to the USA, who have been having things their own way too much
3. Both countries may well have to get tough with their own populations shortly if their economies stall.

The first two are pretty much right IMHO.
Not saying I agree with their view but I reckon that's their reasoning.

Sounds about right.

I almost laughed out loud during the BBC2 series on Putin and Russia when they showed a clip of Putin sat talking to eager young supporters about Britain still thinking it was a colonial power. I hope he saw the irony of what he was saying, but somehow I doubt it.

The wording of the UN resolution I heard on the news struck me as too open ended to get their support. Can't remember exactly what it was but it struck me at the time that these two countries would never back it so you have to ask why come up with a resolution that was 99% certain to be vetoed? To make Russia and China look bad?

Diplomacy at this level seems to be more about playing diplomatic games than sorting out obvious problems.

Give the way the USA has pretty much vetoed every single UN resolution against Israel over the past half century it's hardly surprising though is it. Perhaps Russia and China are tired of American moralising whilst they continue to turn a blind eye to Israel's antics.

Russia have got a massive naval base in Syria, and are probably heavily dependant on the status quo being maintained.

I would guess:

- Neither Russia or China can kick off about totalitarian regimes given their recent history. If they support the Syrian demonstrators they can't then clamp down on pro-democracy demonstrations on their own patch and they send the message to their own people that demonstrations work.

- While they may appear harsh to the Western mindset, totalitarian regimes in the Middle East can be a buffer to keep extremism in check - in particular Muslim extremism. Remove a strict regime and extremism could flourish. While I agree the UN should step in to prevent massacres, we have to be wise to what could follow.

- Russia and China have adopted a policy of non-interference with such regimes, giving them an advantage when it comes to trading rights. As such, both are heavily invested in such areas. Russia has large and ongoing arms deals in place with Syria.

- Of course there's also the general anti-USA/Israel factor, as well as the feeling that the 'Arab Spring' has been supported unilaterally by the West without care for the interests of Russia and China (and others).

They don't want to be complicit in using the UN to argue for regime change when the regime in question is suppressing dissent amongst its own people. The vote in the UN happened on a day of anti-Putin demonstrations throughout Russia, and China certainly reserves that particular right for itself.

Hmm, how about, as in the case of Saudi Arabia (to whom we sell arms) and Iran (to whom we say we don't sell arms) for example, where there is a totalitarian regime AND Muslim extremism?

Because there are never exceptions, of course.

Each country is different. You need to examine the geopolitical lie of the land, historical and current alliances, trade and commerce arrangements, international relations, etc, etc, etc.

Don't know why people can't stop bickering and help people in need.

Ah well, the human race aint long for this planet i'd imagine, less than 200 years we'll have wiped each other out.

Its election time in the FSU. Nothing wrong with sticking two fingers up at the Yanks to win a few votes.

At least in the eyes of the Kremlin.

Two countries lead, within many peoples lifetimes, by the two biggest mass murderers in history!?

The UN is toothless, a friends of Syria group, toothless. More EU scanctions, toothless.

If you want the violence stopped we all know what needs to be done. A Syria no fly zone and military action asap. Not saying it's the right thing to do but its the only way you are going to stop Syria doing what they are doing.

The way i see it is that the West is knocking over the regimes that have a history of not towing the party line.

In essence they are trying to create a Middle East totally under the control of the USA and Europe.

Russia and China know this is part of the great game of power politics and are therefore understandably trying to block what is in essence a land grab by the West.

Syria is just part of the overall battle plan. The main prize is the control of Iran with its vast Oil and Gas reserves, as well as vital trade routes between East and West.

In addition Iran borders the former Soviet republic of Turkmenistan which has massive reserves of natural Gas and Oil. This Gas and oil is exported to Russia, China and Iran. In part because in the past the Russians have blocked them from selling gas and oil to the west.
If Iran is run by the USA then Turkmenistan merely has to build a pipeline into Iran and out to the Persian Gulf to make all the west happy. Alternatively they could run the pipeline via Iran, Iraq and Syria into the Med. (I'm sure you can spot the pattern developing here.)

By taking control of the Iranian and Turkmenistan oil and Gas the West would then be able to control China and Russia. No play ball, no gas and oil.

A future Iran being run as a puppet state of the USA, would also provide an excellent location for the placement of strategic military resources.
These would allow the West to exert military influence on failed states like Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Emerging powers like India and China would also note that the USA would now have bases that allow their nations to be directly threatened by tactical, and not just strategic aircraft.

China in particular would probably feel boxed in by the growing American military influence via bases in Taiwan, Japan, Korea, and Iran

Control of Iran by the USA would give the Americans their desired FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE.

There was a speech given in 2007 to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco by former general and presidential candidate Wesley Clark in which he talked about discussions he'd had with officers serving under the Joint Chiefs within the Pentagon immediately after 9/11. He claims that [ino more than a week[/i after the disaster he was told that planning was in an advanced stage for the invasion of Iraq (NO ONE thought Iraq was [iin any way[/i tied to the bombings). In November he returned and asked why they were going into Afghanistan when he'd been told Iraq was the target. His source then said things were far worse. He'd been shown a memo from the Secretary of Defence ordering preparations for overthrowing the governments of SEVEN middle eastern states over a five year period. Starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finally Iran. He also made the point that Paul Wolfowitz was advocating precisely this action[i ten years earlier. [/i

Now, Paul Wolfowitz and his Neocon chums have been out of office for some time now. But if you look down that list it is obvious that - despite the brand image of Obama the peacemaker - the Neocon plans are still being fulfilled. The governments of Iraq, Libya and Lebanon have all been overthrown. According to the Washington Post recently, the US has escalated its proxy fighting and drone attacks massively whilst there is now a modest US military presence in the southern part of the Sudan. The two most important names on that list - Iran & Syria - have been subjected to all manner of covert regime change efforts on the part of the US and Israel.

The interesting thing is if you actually look at the US Congress' conditions when it enacted authorisation to use military force in the wake of 9/11 they are pretty unambigious and restricting. It says - [i"The President is austhorised to use military force against those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks and countries that harbour those individuals"[/i That's it.

So here we are ten years later and the US is conducting operations in numerous nations seemingly without authorisation not just from the UN [ibut its own government[/i. Moreover, another recent Washington Post article claimed that anonymous sources in the US DoD said that in essence Al Qaeda is DEAD. There are only two leaders left in the entire region and the group is now rendered [i"effectively inoperable"[/i!

Yet the United States continues to escalate operations in the Middle East. Right now it is using drones in six different countries - Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and Libya [iagainst groups that didn't even EXIST when 9/11 was perpetrated![/i