Russia and China blocked a draft resolution on Syria of the UN Security Council demanding withdrawal of Bashar Assad. The official representatives of Western countries, especially the U.S., provided an alarmed response to the incident. There were even comments that two permanent members of the UN Security Council, Russia and China, are abusing their right of veto. In other words, these estimates are a clear proof that the West does not consider them equal partners in the discussion of this important issue.
How will Assad opponents act in the current situation? Is it possible that the situation in Yugoslavia and Iraq will repeat itself and the U.S. and its allies will ignore the Security Council and carry out aggression against them?
Alexander Rahr, a well-known political scientist who has access to the offices of the Western power elite, a member of the German Council on Foreign Relations, shared his thoughts in an interview with "Pravda.Ru":
"Speaking about the situation in Syria, we should take into account the fact that we are not dealing with an isolated case, but the process of changing the world order on the planet, which began in 1999 after the events in Kosovo and the NATO war against Yugoslavia. It was then that the first serious breach of an already established world order occurred, where the alliance "did not notice" the presence of such organizations as the UN Security Council and decided to start a "humanitarian bombing to protect the civilian population in Kosovo." Then, after Milosevic's punishment, it was Iraq with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and now the "Arab Spring" with such manifestations as the departure of Mubarak's regime and the elimination of al-Gaddafi in Libya. Now it is the turn of Syria."
"How does the Western political elite imagine Syria without Assad?"
"Unfortunately, they do not take into account many important points. There is a threat that after the overthrow of the current regime of the country the region will plunge into a bloody civil war between Sunnis and Shiites, and the future of the Alawite and Christians in this situation is very alarming. Meanwhile, the West is confident that the Syrian people will make a democratic choice in favor of the values that guide the West. The Western elites will go to the end to build a "big fair world".
The events in Libya after the overthrow of Gaddafi do not stop them either. In the West, many believe that the situation in Syria will be determined by the "middle class", "educated people", and in a democratic system they will be able to iron out all differences. In other words, there is clearly unjustified confidence that the Syrians will choose money and wealth."
"Under what conditions can Assad retain power?"
"Syria is the cornerstone of the world being built by the West, and it will not be left alone. Rubicon has been crossed, and the condition of the West is the departure of the current Syrian leader. The Western political elite indicate that he has shed too much blood of his own citizens to be allowed to negotiate."
"The current Syrian president in a private conversation with a reporter of "Pravda.Ru" on November 24 complained that Syria has become the object of the conspiracy because it is an ally of Russia ..."
"The Russian factor is secondary. Can NATO be scared of a single object for military purposes in Tartus, which is not even a full-fledged naval base and where there is no permanent Russian naval squadron? Both levels of cooperation between Russia and Syria, the political, and even economic, clearly do not show that the former alliance between Moscow and Damascus since the Soviet Union continues to exist. The complaints of Assad are understandable. Iran, the only real ally of Syria, is threatened by very large problems, and China is too far away. His only hope is for the old ties with Moscow. However, it will not stop the Americans. The U.S. has virtually written Russia off as the power, and does not intend to listen to it. Take at least its behavior with the missile defense."
"China and Russia in particular by their actions make it clear that the Libyan scenario will not work here. Is the West going to ignore the opinion of these two powers?"
"Remember the situation with Iraq. Then Russia opposed the U.S. intervention and its allies with strong support of Germany and France. In fact, the West was then divided on the "Iraq issue". Moreover, most Western countries refused to participate in the intervention of the U.S. and UK. But even when Russia had a solid support, it was not heard, and the existing precedent of attacking another country bypassing the UN Security Council is repeated once again. Now the West, unlike in the situation with Iraq, is much more uniform. Does anybody really believe that numerous Assad opponents will notice the protest of Russia and China?
The West has a strong belief that Moscow's actions on Syria will be limited, and it does not want to end up quarreling with either Brussels or Washington out of fear of being isolated. Many in the Western political elite believe that Russia's behavior toward Syria is dictated by the vision of the world as it was in the twentieth century, during the Soviet era. Meanwhile, it is twenty-first century, and the situation has changed markedly, and Moscow sooner or later will have to take these realities into account. And if it persists, it will once again be demonstrated that they can do without its opinion, as it has happened before. In the meantime, there is hope that such hard-headed Russia's behavior is dictated by the upcoming elections, and after the election the situation could change."
"Does this mean that intervention in Syria is a done deal?"
"In fact, it is, although no one has said it publicly. It is practically inevitable. After Russia and China have blocked the resolution on Syria, the West has no choice other than force. Of course, economic sanctions have an effect, but they alone are unlikely to lead to a very rapid collapse of the Assad regime, which continues to suppress popular unrest. So, an armed intervention is a logical continuation of the started process. However, it should not be said that the intervention will start tomorrow. Apparently, the West with the help of the League of Arab States will increase assistance to the rebels, and a limited participation of Special Forces in operations against the regime of Assad is possible. In the end, the case should come to the bombing. The main motif is "to remove the dictator."
"But Syria is a far more serious opponent than Libya?"
"That's right, there won't be a clear repetition of the Libyan scenario here. At the beginning of the operation against Gaddafi NATO leadership was largely guided by the weakness of the Libyan army. In Syria, the situation is different, and the Assad regime is militarily stronger. But, first, day by day, it is weakened by the sanctions. Second, we must not forget that NATO forces are much stronger. Third, it is also impossible to ignore the Arab countries, most of whom favored the overthrow of Assad. And fourth, remember that Iraq (both in 1991 and in 2003) also presented a serious threat militarily. However, Hussein's regime has lost both campaigns and was dismantled.
The arguments of skeptics who speak of the impossibility of a military scenario in Syria are not entirely convincing. For the West, it is now vital to show the triumph of the liberal model at all costs. It is being renewed and strengthened, including through the overthrow of the dictatorial regimes."