Why Russia is standing by Syria's Assad

BBC News ^ | 15 June 2012

[MinorityRepublican]

As the United Nations warns that Syria has descended into civil war, Russia continues to back President Bashar al-Assad in the face of growing international condemnation.

Konstantin von Eggert, political commentator for Kommersant FM radio in Moscow, looks at why the Kremlin is steadfastly supporting the beleaguered Syrian government.

Foreign policy analysts usually tend to explain Moscow's inflexible stance on Syria by evoking arms sales to Damascus (Bashar al-Assad's regime is said to have placed orders for Russian hardware to the tune of $3.5bn) and the Russian naval station in the Syrian port of Tartous.

But this alone does not account for Russia's seeming indifference to the adverse effect that its international advocacy of the Assad government has on its relations with the United States, the European Union and the majority of the Arab states.

The explanation has a lot to do with Russia's domestic policies and the obsessions of the Russian political class.

By standing up for Damascus, the Kremlin is telling the world that neither the UN, nor any other body or group of countries has the right to decide who should or should not govern a sovereign state.

If one looks at the Syrian crisis from this angle, many of Moscow's previously inexplicable actions take on a new, clearer meaning.

[MinorityRepublican]

Putin will be known in the history books as the “Savior of Russia”. The country was at brink of falling apart and Chechnya already declared independence. Now Russia is becoming wealthier due to their natural resources, their death rate has been reduced and even their birth rate is slowly increasing.

[ETL]

Putin will be known in the history books as the “Savior of Russia”.

Whose history books?

[Eleutheria5]

So, we need many chefs stirring the pot. While one is supporting the rebels, one must support Assad, and somebody else can make the popcorn:-E)

[odds]

Not a matter of semantics, but a fact. Was Iran an enemy (or perceived to be one) during the 50 yrs of the Pahlavi reign?

Since 1979, Islamic Republic of Iran is an enemy because the regime RULING Iran holds an Anti-American, Anti-Western stance, and has conducted many Terrorist activities inside & outside the country.

True, Iranian People are not all one thing. It is unrealistic to expect 100% of the population of any country to be against the regime or ruling gov’t.

But, then, nor are the American People are all one thing, are they?

I’d venture to say that there are many American People (natural born citizens too), who dislike the US - for whatever reasons - take a pro-moslem (Islam), pro-communist/socialist views, and generally are against what they call “American Imperialism”.

Am afraid, the mentioned Americans weren’t educated or trained in Russia or China either, but they were in US universities..

Now, what can be done about that?

Would you suggest that conservative/republican Americans literally kill off all liberals/democrats ? Or, do you think that, realistically & practically, anti-Islam Americans could go ahead demolish mosques & burn the Koran in the US, and annhiliate Islam in the USA, including any Muftis & Mullahs (whether those with radical or moderate views) ? - note that Islam has exponentially increased its presence in the US itself over the last 3 decades.

What I am saying is that your suggestion about what Anti-Mullah Iranian people in Iran should do, at present, is even less realistic than the possibilities & options open to Anti-Socialist & Anti-Islam Americans in the US.

HOWEVER, should there be a real opportunity, I can comfortably say that the chances of many many more Iranian People turning their backs on Islam & Islamic gov’ts (e.g. & incl. current Mullahs’ Regime) in Iran is far greater than any where in the ME, and perhaps even in the US.

I agree with Cronos that:

1) many Iranian People I know, and based on many blogs in Persian & English I read, written by Iranians, as well as what I hear indirectly through others currently in Iran, Iranian people, largely, are either indifferent towards the American People or actually admire the spirit and freedoms they lack in Iran.

However, I also know more than a few Iranian People, who are very critical of the US & certain Western Gov’ts. Why? Well, do you think the “Islamic Republic of Iran” (and yes, it is Islamic Republic of Iran, not Iran), which means the Mullahs’ Regime, could have lasted as long as it has, had it not been for the leniency, complacency & I’d go further and say even support of the successive US & Western govt’s for it ??

2) the same grps of Iranian People mentioned in point 1, do not see Israel as an enemy. In fact most don’t care about Israel or the Palestinians. Some even dislike the Palestinians, because of their experience with the ones who have been raping, arresting and torturing their sons, daughters and/or relatives. Israel & Israelis have done nothing to Iranian People. That fact is recognized very clearly by many Iranian People in Iran. Just as it is recognized that the Islamic Republic Regime is & has using Israel & the US as a political tool, and for its own political purposes.

This is a conflict instigated by and exists between Governments in both countries. American & Iranian people are pawns & meats in the sandwich. As always, on both sides, some hold pro views, others hold anti views..

[Cronos]

Russia is propping up communist regimes TODAY, 2012?

In the same way we are "propping" up the communist China regime? Or building relationships with the Vietnamese?

it's politically expedient.

The Russians desperately want to say "We're big boys, respect us. RESPECT US." -- it's whining. Their navy is a joke and hardly a threat to any European country bar the Baltics, leave alone the US.

They've stood behind and aided open enemies of the US, such as Saddam Hussein/Iraq, Hugo Chavez/Venezuela, Kim Jung-Il/North Korea, the Castro bros/Cuba, Ahmadinejad/Iran, -- Saddam Hussein was business -- they got money selling him weapons when we didn't allow that, Cuba, Venezuala -- this is posturing, and again, money.

they don't support the North Koreans -- our "Most Favored Trading Nation" China does that

Iran is little more than posturing -- he doesn't want a powerful Iran to his south.

[Cronos]

North Korea -- that's our "Most Favored Business nation" China. Why do we retain ties with China after the collapse of the Soviet Union? We made them our rivals

Iraq,Chavez,Cuba -- think arm sales to keep their flagging industry alive.

[Cronos]

Don’t you think one crosses the line between enemy and rival when they equip sworn enemies of ours with arms and other assistance to defeat us.

ha -- Chavez and his tin-pot army could be crushed by the US military in days. Forget that, Colombia would do the work for us.

North Korea is protected by China

Iran is more a threat to Russia than to the US or W. Europe

[Cronos]

MR -- well, the "Savior" and also the "one who snuffed the chance at democracy".

Putin did a good job between 1999 and 2002/2003. If he had left then, his reputation as "Savior" would have been permanent

But since 2004 he has been detrimental to Russia's growth, arresting businessmen, focussing on Central Europe rather than the threats he faces to the south and east

[Cronos]

So, we need many chefs stirring the pot. While one is supporting the rebels, one must support Assad, and somebody else can make the popcorn:-E)

Agreed. What should be done is to

• Tell the Arab league to go to hell -- if they want troops in Syria, let them send their own
• Israel to secretly give information to Assad about where the rebels are -- not all the time and not always accurate, but enough to make him think that Israel is a bulwark against Saudi and Moslem Brotherhood ambitions. He'll still attack, but he'll be a bit more thoughtful
• the US to make a public show of giving the rebels food and medicine.
• If the Sauds want to give weapons to the rebels -- let them
• If the Russians want to sell weapons to Assad -- let them, they'll make money off Moslem blood

The security of Israel is tied in to Assad winning, but NOT winning enough, so that he always has to focus on rebels at home and not have any time to focus on the near or far abroad.

[Eleutheria5]

Exactly. We need a broken Syrian/Hizbollah/Iran triangle, one that is at war with itself and no side capable of winning decisively. Welcome to Middle Eastern geopolitics.

[odds]

RE posts 109 & 110, I know it has not been a PC term to use, for a while, given the previous “era”, pre-Obi, but Key Solution to get things rolling, in the right direction, in the ME is:

“REGIME CHANGE IN IRAN”, to be replaced by a Secular Regime.

Anything else will only complicate matters further, as it has done already.

We will Not see a good future for Israel, US, EU, Russia or any other country in the ME, N. Africa, and generally the Moslem world, which if we continue to move in the same present direction, the Islamic Empire will expand, gradually but most certainly.

It all started with Iran in 1979, with Khomeini, Jimmy Carter, and it can start to stop there too. Somehow, I don’t think those who need to have that vision want it to stop it, so they will continue... but at a very heavy cost ... for all those concerned...

P.S. - A quick note on current Russia, previously USSR:

IMO, the reason Russia has been reverting to a dictatorship is because when USSR was dismantled, it was brought down by economic means, not cultural one or assisting with that cultural rebuilding...

Structurally & economically, you can bring down a Regime after more than 70 yrs (in Russia/USSR case), but then you can’t withdraw, declare success & then leave it to the Almighty, so to speak... it requires work much work thereafter to ensure the Structural, governmental change is SUSTAINABLE, in the desired direction, in the future...

That’s where I believe the American Gov’t Foreign Policy fails, every time, to deliver long term solutions... deliberately or otherwise (some call it “the New World Order”)... Anyhow, restructuring a country is not a matter of SHORT-TERM Financial reporting of Q1, Q2,Q3, etc...

Cradle of Freedom: Fyi, ping to article, post 104, etc.. - thought you might be interested.

[Cronos]

hmmm.... I was thinking more of aligning the SyrianShia/Alawi + Hizb'allah + Iran + Iraq triangle against the Egypt + Saudia + Gulf Sunnis

Syria, Iraq and Bahrain will be battlegrounds as will be to a lesser extent Yemen (Ismailis)

[ETL]

they [the Russians] don't support the North Koreans

I've caught you in, what, 5 or 6 lies/untruths now? If this were my site, your butt would be long gone.

The two sides [Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Russia] agreed to "promote and enhance friendly relations" in line with the joint declaration of July 19, 2000 and the Russia-DPRK friendship and good neighborly cooperation treaty of February 9, 2000.

Putin and Kim agreed during their talks to promote a Russian- DPRK political dialogue on the Korean issue and international affairs, and discussed many topical international problems, deputy head of the Russian presidential administration Sergei Prikhodko told reporters following the talks.

The two leaders spoke for an independent and peaceful solution to the issue of reunification of the Korean Peninsula, and against "any outside obstacles to this process" as "unacceptable."

http://www.china.org.cn/english/2001/Aug/17008.htm
_____________________________________________________

"In August 1945, the Soviet Army established a Soviet Civil Authority to rule the northern portion of the Korean Peninsula until a domestic regime, friendly to the USSR, could be established. This became governed by the Provisional People's Committee for North Korea through 1948. After the Soviet forces' departure in 1948, the main agenda in the following years was unification of Korea until the consolidation of the Syngman Rhee regime in the South with American military support and the suppression of the October 1948 insurrection ended hopes that the country could be reunified by way of Communist revolution in the South. In 1949, a military intervention into South Korea was considered by Kim Il-sung, but failed to receive support from the Soviet Union, which had played a key role in the establishment of the country.[30]

The withdrawal of most of the United States forces from the South in June dramatically weakened the Southern regime and encouraged Kim Il-sung to rethink an invasion plan against the South.[30] The idea itself was first rejected by Joseph Stalin but with the development of Soviet nuclear weapons, Mao Zedong's victory in China and the Chinese indication that it would send troops and other support to North Korea, Stalin approved an invasion which led to the Korean War.[31]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_north#Division_of_Korea

[ETL]

well, the "Savior" and also the "one who snuffed the chance at democracy". Putin did a good job between 1999 and 2002/2003. If he had left then, his reputation as "Savior" would have been permanent

Yes, and Mussolini made the trains run on time.

[ETL]

Iran is more a threat to Russia than to the US or W. Europe

Are you nuts? They probably installed Ahmadinejad to be their puppet.

From the Russian News and Information Agency:
July 27, 2006
"'I am determined to expand relations with Russia,' Chavez, known as an outspoken critic of what he calls the United States' unilateralism, told the Russian leader, adding that his determination stemmed from their shared vision of the global order.":
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060727/51913498.html
______________________________________________________________

From CBS-News, July 29, 2006:

Chavez Vows To 'Stand By Iran'
After Oil Talks In Tehran, Venezuelan Leader Called 'Brother' By Ahmedinejad

"Chavez pledged that his country would 'stay by Iran at any time and under any condition,' state television reported. Ahmadinejad said he saw in Chavez a kindred spirit." "'We do not have any limitation in cooperation,' Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying. 'Iran and Venezuela are next to each other and supporters of each other. Chavez is a source of a progressive and revolutionary current in South America and his stance in restricting imperialism is tangible.'":
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/29/world/main1847331.shtml
______________________________________________________________

http://article.wn.com/view/2009/06/16/Iran_president_visits_Russia_despite_protests/

[ETL]

ha -- Chavez and his tin-pot army could be crushed by the US military in days. Forget that

"ha", your azz! Chavez would have the full support of Russia, Iran, and other tyrannical anti-American, enemy regimes. And do you really think an America, under "Comrade Obama", would ever attempt to "crush" Chavez's Marxist regime??

[ETL]

ha -- Chavez and his tin-pot army could be crushed by the US military in days. Forget that

There you go, sounding like Obama again...

May 18, 2008: Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us. ...they spend 1/100th of what we spend on the military. I mean, if Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance.

May 20, 2008 (2 days later!): Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the regions and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel's existence. It denies the Holocaust.

Source for these genuine Obama quotes: NewsBusters.org:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2008/05/23/fnc-shows-obamas-iran-flip-flop-colmes-might-talk-hitler

[Cronos]

Chavez would have the full support of Russia, Iran, and other tyrannical anti-American, enemy regimes

I don't dispute that Russia has a tyrannical regime. It's not the enemy though. the Iranian regime is, yes

Now you're saying Chavez "would have" and earlier you said that he already had. Be clear

Finally, even if Russia, Iran and China objected, poo-di-dooh, they could do nothing to stop a US force from crushing Chavez

[Cronos]

They probably installed Ahmadinejad to be their puppet.

Wow, talk of delusional. No, Ahmanutjob is not a Russian puppet -- the Ruskies are not that powerful in Iran

[ETL]

Venezuela Set to Develop Nuclear Power With Russia
September 29, 2008
CARACAS, Venezuela — President Hugo Chavez said Sunday that Russia will help Venezuela develop nuclear energy — a move likely to raise U.S. concerns over increasingly close cooperation between Caracas and Moscow.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,429441,00.html
_____________________________________________________

Venezuela's Chavez welcomes Russian warships
Nov 25, 2008
LA GUAIRA, Venezuela – Russian warships arrived off Venezuela's coast Tuesday in a show of strength aimed at the United States as Moscow seeks to expand its influence in Latin America. The deployment is the first of its kind in the Caribbean since the Cold War and was timed to coincide with President Dmitry Medvedev's visit to Caracas — the first ever by a Russian president.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22Venezuela%27s+Chavez+welcomes+Russian+warships%22&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz2

More Yahoo search results for Russia and Venezuela connections:
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu_X30pZJCJEAfCtXNyoA?p=Russia+Venezuela+bombers+tanks+arms&y=Search&fr=404_news
_____________________________________________________

From National Public Radio (NPR):
August 29, 2006
"Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has been visiting countries such as China, Iran and Russia as part of an effort to build a 'strategic alliance' of interests not beholden to the United States. He considers the United States his arch enemy.":
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5729764