Remember what the Russian ambassador in Beirut said over
a year ago? "A compromise in Syria, means a compromise in our 'territories' and
ultimately compromises in Moscow!"
"... Moscow is deeply troubled by the West's increasing
support for humanitarian intervention in internal conflicts such as Libya and
Syria. It fears that this approach potentially sets a dangerous precedent for
situations much closer to home, including on the territory of the
former Soviet Union. While the Russians and Chinese were willing to
give the NATO-Arab League coalition a pass on Libya (both abstained on the
crucial U.N. resolution that authorized "all necessary measures" to protect
civilians from Muammar al-Qaddafi's murderous regime), they are trying to hold
the line in Syria. To their ears, U.S. claims about supporting the democratic
aspirations of the Syrian people and other parts of the Middle East are a mere smokescreen for America's
desire to promote regime change where and when it sees fit.
Finally,
there is the admittedly murky web of relationships between Russian and Syrian
military and intelligence officials, which stretch back many decades. On the
surface, the dollar value of some of these arrangements can seem fairly modest.
For example, from 2007-2011, Syria was only the 7th-largest market for Russian
arms, according to the
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, purchasing a mere 3 percent of
the country's exports. The dilapidated, small-scale Russian naval repair
facility at Tartus bears little resemblance to the strategically important
Mediterranean port depicted in press accounts. But it's worth asking
whether the parochial
interests of the Russian security establishment are a big part of why the
Kremlin is holding on to its longstanding partners in Syria so
tenaciously....
Whatever the reason, we should not be surprised if
Moscow's obstinance on Syria proves surprisingly
durable.
No comments:
Post a Comment