Here is my latest piece at Telegraph Blogs:

Our Ambassador to the United Nations Sir Mark Lyall-Grant has come out strongly against this further Russia/Chinese veto:

“Russia and China are failing in their responsibilities as permanent members, they are failing the people of Syria … The effect of their actions is to protect a brutal regime. They have chosen to put their national interests ahead of the lives of millions of Syrians. The consequence of their decision is further descent into bloodshed and all out civil war”

On such occasions there is a ritualistic exchange of diplomatic jibes. But not all such jibes make sense or hit the target.

First and foremost, it is not the main task of the Russian and Chinese leaderships to think much if at all about Syrians. They are paid to identify and advance their national interests as they see them. So criticizing them for doing that is strange.

In this case Moscow and Beijing have concluded that they are not going to accept a policy that aims substantively at regime change in Damascus. They have their reasons, not all of which are ridiculous. They suspect that any new regime may be less likely to warm to Moscow and Beijing. They also suspect (cynically) that a new regime may not be much of an improvement on the current one, especially if it ends up being more Islamistic. And, above all, they refuse to set a precedent for toppling unpopular autocratic regimes as and when other parts of the so-called international community wants to do so. Who knows where that sort of thing may end?

Second, the veto does not mean that Russia and China have failed in their responsibilities as UN Security Council members. On the contrary, their role as a UNSC permanent member with veto powers is to call ‘em as they see ‘em. Here they believe that on balance the resolution does nothing to improve the situation in Syria, and (perhaps) quite a lot to make a painful situation even worse. So, why accept it? The core purpose of the Security Council is to adopt legally binding international norms if there is agreement to do so. Here there was no agreement. That’s not a bug of the UN system: it’s the key feature.

Third, it is not clear that the veto will as Sir Mark insists have the consequence of a further descent into bloodshed or all-out civil war. A non-trivial case can be made that intensifying sanctions in the way proposed gives the Syrian regime less to lose in going after its opponents, and by generally screwing up the tension makes a grim situation grimmer.

This time it is even harder than usual to follow the stream of unconsciousness deployed in the Comments.

But I have had an interesting message from one reader which is worth sharing, who says he is disagreeing with me but maybe isn’t (too much):

Here is a relationship question for you:

Syrian uprising to the US southern states uprising in 1860’s is like Assad to ——–?

Answer: Abraham Lincoln

You may say that is ridiculous, however, you must agree with me that both sacrificed a lot of civilians and soldiers (in much larger numbers in Lincoln’s case) in order to maintain the integrity of their countries.

The Russian and the Chinese vetoes are motivated by that principle, of preventing outside interferences to break the integrity of states fearing that, if successful, their own states one day may become targets. Should that happen the analogy of Putin to Lincoln might be even more compelling.

Also in Russia’s case, a persistent Russian strategy since the 1700’s aims at not allowing the Turks to gain superiority in the area. With Turkey’s role in the Syrian uprising, it requires no in depth analysis to recognize that Russia will never willingly allow that to happen.

The West, mainly those states of the Anglo-Saxon predilection, i.e. Great Britain and the USA, are enamored with the idea of Turkey having the super power status in the region, thinking that she will always be under the thumb of the west. Well, Turkey’s behavior towards Israel in the past few years tells otherwise. Turkey will sever its relations with any partner whenever Turkey decides to do so.

To further illustrate the role of Turkey, two summers ago, she created the flotilla incident after the prime minister Erdoghan embarrassed Shimon Perez in Davos, thus firing a salvo announcing to the "Moslem" Middle East that she was throwing its relationship with Israel under the bus in favor for her leadership for the "Muslim" causes, Palestine and Hamas being at the helm of her priorities. To date, Israel still has not gotten the message and thinks that time will come where their chummy relationship will resume.

Of course, Tunisia’s uprising caught everyone with their pants down. When Egyptian uprising took place, Turkey rushed in support of the revolutionaries, knowing well that the Muslim Brotherhood will gain the upper hand in any democratic election. The AKP party and the Muslim Brotherhood are identical in their principals and policies and a "muslim" Egypt would be a boon to its strategy of establishing her super power status.

Ironically, this "freedom" loving Turkey opposed Great Britain, France and USA’s NATO initiative to interfere with Kaddafi’s squashing down the rebels in Libya, because it knew very well that Libya was composed of various and differing tribes and Muslim Brotherhood was not strong there. Later elections in Libya proved that Turkey’s calculations were correct. The Brotherhood did not win.

Syria is another potential fertile ground for Islamist elements; a lot of Jihadis there, deep in poverty after the county’s population swelled to more than 23 million from 6 million less than forty years ago, strongly believe 72 virgins are waiting for each one of them in Heaven. An Islamist success will really complete. And of course the Syrian crisis was escalated by the US ambassador 16 months ago, going to Homs   and messing around with Islamist element demonstrating after Friday prayers, a trip he was not allowed to make according to diplomatic protocols without the approval of the host state.

So what would the US gain by toppling the regime in Syria? Isolating Iran which has a very close alliance with Syria comes to mind as the only reason. Of course one should not forget the role of Saudi Arabia whose army is squashing the uprising in Bahrain and no one in the west is raising any crescendo. Is that hypocrisy, definitely, but hypocrisy and strategy are mutually exclusive.

It is in Saudi Arabia’s interest to keep trouble in Arab lands away from Saudi Arabia so that to suppress the possibility of uprisings in its on land. Thus, the plight of Syria, is not one of freedom loving people sacrificing their lives, rather, a collusion of several global strategies aiming to promote influence in the Middle East. When western foreign affairs secretaries and their ambassadors to the UN are appalled at the Russian and Chinese vetoes they are really expressing their frustrations that their unique strategies are facing obstacles.

The line has been drawn in the sands of Syria. Success of Islamists elements will put an end to the west’s influence and make life impossible for Israel, if not start the beginning of the end of the Jewish state. On the other hand, the success of Assad and the Baath party will also give the west a black eye of failure, will end Turkey’s dream of super power status and will enhance the status of Russia, for, after all, Middle Easterners like winners.

Unfortunately, it is a Lose lose hypothesis for the west and only 50-50 odds for the Russians. And the Chinese, they care less for Syria and Syrians but love Iranian petroleum. To appease the Iranians whose interest is to make Assad prevail, they oblige by using their veto power.

As for the Damascenes, they are survivors and like chameleons will change their color and turn on the dime, to support whoever comes up on top. I know them, I grew up there.