Russia and China recently used their UN Security Council vetoes to stop a resolution on Syria. What is the real reason they did this? I know Russia is currently supplying arms to the Assad regime, but is that a big enough reason? And what is China’s motivation?
Thanks,
Rob
They’re against it because the U.S is for it.
They don’t want to set any more precedents.
Russia also has a naval base at Tartus, as well as significant gas and oil business there, and I believe they felt duped into allowing a greater military intervention in Libya than they intended.
They don’t want anyone condemning them if/when they crack down on their own populations.
Since all of Assad’s neighbors agree they want him gone (other than Israel, perhaps, which might prefer the devil-it-knows), I’m starting to imagine this just possibly being resolved by a joint Turkish and Arab League military intervention, without NATO (other than Turkey) or Western powers involved. And that could set a precedent. It would be the first time the AL actually acted as a military alliance like NATO.
Money.
Let 'em. The Chinese backed Gaddafi at the beginning of the revolt hoping to toady for oil rights and now they’re fucked.
There’s also the other nexus - the ba’athist party being socialist and Syria therefore being a long time ally of Russia. They are also China’s most important middle east ally - again the socialism thing is a factor there.
Now Iraq is no longer ba’athist, Russia and China see Assad as their last natural political ally in the area.
China has always come out that a countries business is it’s own internal matter. The **only ** exception I can think of is when we first took on Afganistan. China also gave some support and allowed some transit through China IIRC. Off hand, I can not think of a single exception to this. So, China is being very consistent.
Yes. Russia went along with Libya expecting protection of civilians. They did not expect protection only of rebel civilians.
Perhaps its just growing pains. America learned the hard way that over the long run it doesn’t pay to back the bad guys.
They’d be acting like NATO in the same sense that we used to act like cowboys with toy guns when we were kids. Even NATO can’t act like NATO without the US.
IOW, ain’t gonna happen because it can’t happen.
As for the OP, I have to go along with the geopolitical interests of the Russians and Chinese and the fear that they might be next. Well, not really, since the UNSC is never going to sanction either of those governments. Still, the precedent would be there and it makes their own people question their governments all the more.
Wait, what? You don’t think the Turkish Army and one or two Arab armies, allied with each other and with the Free Syrian Army (such as it is), could lick Assad’s?
You want that they should start a land war? Oy.
I don’t know if they could or couldn’t, or what would happen once they did. Are they supposed to occupy Syria afterwards and mediate the inevitable civil war? At least in Iraq you had basically just 2 ethnicities fighting each other (the Kurds were more or less comfortably safe in their own semi-autonomous region). In Syria, you’ve got the Sunni Arabs, the Christians, the Alawites, the Kurds, Palestinians, Turkmen… just to name the ones I’m familiar with off the top of my head.
Of course they wouldn’t stand a chance of handling it like we handled Libya. Like NATO, no. Like two countries going at it in an all out ground war, yes.
Well, I don’t. Syria’s Army is a professional, well-trained, and well-equipped army prepared at a moment’s notice for war against an equally professional, well-trained, and well-equipped army. You’ll note that the latter army’s political leadership, even with provocation, has hesitated to invade Syria.
Anyone know what Iran thinks about the goings on in Syria?
Since when? We do it all the time.
Sorry BG, but no…I don’t think the Turkish Army could invade Syria and capture the country (like John says, to what ends? What do they do when the whole place explodes in their faces?). They don’t have the logistics for it. The US makes stuff like this look easy because of all that money stuff we spend on our military that everyone complains about. No one else has even a fraction of the capabilities for large scale forced entry invasions, not against the kind of army the Syrians would have to put in the field (and they’d be fighting on the defensive)…and that doesn’t even count the multi-sided nature of such an invasion, nor the irregulars that Assad et al could draw upon if such an invasion happened.
As to the OP, pretty much what has already been said. Historically China doesn’t support stuff like this anyway, for their own internal reasons, and Russia has an economical as well as political stake in the status quo wrt Syria. Any military action or even action that tosses Assad and his merry men out of power in Syria potentially costs the Russians, so it ain’t gonna happen if they can prevent it. It’s the biggest reason that neither Russia nor China is all that keen on spanking Iran over their purported nuclear weapons program.
-XT
There was an article on this a couple days ago in the NYT. Basically, the official line is that the protests are the result of Israeli and American interference.
Turkey is not going to invade Syria. They have made it clear they have no intention to invade despite the talk of buffer zones and other threatening sounding noises from the government (they do this a lot - Turks are talking big to Iraq now with zero likelihood of action. It’s stupid behavior).
I disagree with the estimates of others that Turkey could not invade Syria. Its military certainly has the capabilities and manpower. I don’t know why logistics wold be a problem since they would control several land routes to Syria and actually have a Navy. Plus, as occupiers, Arabs generally favor Turkey as a country.
More importantly, what would be the point for them? They are doing enough and it’s up to the Syrian people to bring Assad down.