reply to post by intrptr
The following quote was taken from an article that you had provided in defense of Russia/China and why they used their veto powers:
s has overstepped their mandate for enforcing a no fly zone, escalating their action into one of enforcing regime change.
By which you hold the notion that vetoes were then justified, due to China and Russia not wanting the US to overstep their powers and enforce a regime
Again, a regime change... just because Russia or China or anybody in their defense simply says "it's because they fear that the US or any group will
over-step boundaries" doesn't mean anything. This isn't about 'playing by the rules' and 'morality'... it's about 1 thing. Keeping Assad in
Lets put it this way and maybe the situation becomes a little more clear...
Assad has been president since 17 July 2000. That's 12 years of holding it down...
Who was president before then?
His father Hafez al-Assad ruled Syria for 29 years until his death in 2000. So that brings us back to 1971, and a total of 41 years of holding it
Now here's the important part and please read it all...
First half of the equation:
The Syrian port city of Tartus hosts a Soviet-era naval supply and maintenance base, under a 1971 agreement with Syria. The base was established
during the Cold War to support the Soviet Navy's fleet in the Mediterranean Sea. Since Russia forgave Syria of three-fourths, or $9.8 billion, of its
$13.4 billion Soviet-era debt and became its main arms supplier, Russia and Syria have conducted talks about allowing Russia to develop and enlarge
its naval base, so that Russia can strengthen its naval presence in the Mediterranean.
After 41 years of Assad's holding it down... cold war, military, and so forth. Is it possible that a regime change is the most import aspect here?
Not convinced... ?
Second Half **the most important***:
Syria for the past few years has reached out to Russia to obtain modern weapons that included many modern anti-tank and anti-air missile systems that
will further improve its combat capabilities. In 2008, Syria agreed to purchase MiG-29SMT fighters, Pantsir S1E air-defense systems, Iskander tactical
missile systems, Yak-130 aircraft, and two Amur-1650 submarines from Russia. Russia's foreign minister said his country's sale of weapons to Syria
would not upset the balance of power in the Middle East. The sales he stated are "in line with the international law" and "in the interests of
strengthening stability and maintaining security" in regions close to Russian borders, Sergei Lavrov told reporters during a visit to the United
Nations in New York. As of 2011, Syria's arms contracts with Russia were worth at least $4 billion. Dmitri Trenin reports in the New York
Times that from 2000 to 2010 Russia sold around $1.5 billion worth of arms to Syria, making Damascus Moscow’s seventh-largest client.
If Syria were to all of a sudden tell Russia that they are done with their military relationship, Russia wouldn't veto
yada yada yada... there's much more to this story, but I feel like I'm trying too hard to convince you.
Assad will fall by March of next year and Russia will still retain their military relationship with Syria.