This is encouraging. To my surprise, and relief, it appears that Russia refused cave in the the US/NATO demands on Syria and that they two key provisions (regime change, weapons embargo) were dropped from the next UNSC Resolution.
Good.
As you probably know, I am not exactly an Assad fanboy, but turning Syria into the next Libya would be a disaster for the entire region and a calamity for the Resistance (to Israel).
I hope that Russia will stand firm and that it will not do what it did with Libya (which it deliberately betrayed at the UNSC – Lavrov and Churkin are both very savvy diplomats who must have known what they were doing).
More generally, considering the latest NATO attacks on Russia (ABM system in Europe and strategic psyops about “election fraud” in Russia) is it now time for Russia to bear its teeth and growl with a more menacing tone.
The West wants a “new Cold War”?
I say “let’s have it!” (they are imposing it on Russia anyway…)
The Saker
Well said and Well done Saker.
Do you mean to say that Lavrov and Churkin KNEW that after Libya will come the real hard choices for Russia, hence they “Gave” Libya to NATO in order to strike back afterwards where it hurts most….?
Are they that clever?
Best,
Joe
@Joe:Do you mean to say that Lavrov and Churkin KNEW that after Libya will come the real hard choices for Russia, hence they “Gave” Libya to NATO in order to strike back afterwards where it hurts most….?
No, if only because I have no basis to make such a conclusion. *All* I am really saying is that the idea that the Russians ‘trusted’ NATO to abide by a UNSC Resolution, which in itself had an open-ended and ambiguous formulation, is absurd. To say that they were ‘surprised’ or otherwise ‘disappointed’ (as they claimed) is also ridiculous. The Russians *gave* Libya to NATO, that is an indisputable fact.
However, I still have no idea as to why they did that.
As I said many times here, I do not, repeat, NOT, ‘trust’ the Russian government at all. It is possible that they made some back-room deal with the US, it is possible that they wanted NATO in Libya as a way to further over-stretch it, it is possible that there might have been some quid pro quo such as “you take Libya but leave Iran alone”, etc. etc. etc. Frankly, I would submit axiomatically that since the US/NATO cannot be trusted at all, it never makes sense to make a deal with them unless the deal is immediately executable and/or can be annulled.
There is one more possibility: that a power struggle is taking place inside Russia and that one faction is fighting another and that Libya paid the price of this infighting. For example, I am convinced that the folks who put Putin in power first let the Eltsin regime drive Russia to the edge of a precipice before stepping in even though they could have done that earlier. But they waited until there was a massive, huge, consensus inside Russia to get a strong power back into the Kremlin and mercilessly crush the Chechen insurgency.
Something like that might be happening with the US and NATO, but if it is, I am not detecting its contours yet.
If I find out I will definitely let you know.
Cheers!
The Saker
Saker,
Thanks very much for your input.
It makes a whole lot of sense and i fully agree with your analysis.
Best,
Joe