Russia Is Saving the World in Syria

Perhaps it is worth it for Russia to agree with the U.S. and the EU, approve the Syrian resolution pushed by the West, and quietly, perceiving itself to be part of an international community ready to crack down on Syrian leader Bashar Assad even now, observe another attempt by Washington to force “democratic” order in yet another sovereign state?

In reality, there is a different question: Is it worth it for Russia and the countries that are not ready to blindly support any initiatives of the American president’s administration to step on the same rakes twice, thrice, even four times? The most recent example is Libya. On March 17, 2011, Moscow, by refusing in the U.N. Security Council to veto Resolution 1973 on implementing a no-fly zone above Libyan territory, was in fact trying to prevent the international community from getting itself in another deadlock and international relations crisis. Even then, Russian diplomats were suggesting that the Libyans should choose a common road by themselves, and the Security Council must simply help them sit down at the negotiating table. Russia was not hiding its dependence on the wisdom of the West, on its ability in a critical moment to forget the power of weapons and remember the power of reason and diplomacy. However in reality, the worst fears of those who were sure that NATO could only speak to opposing parties in the language of bombs and missiles, came to be true. And that’s exactly what happened in the end.

What is more, if one digs deeper in history, one can find many examples (Iraq and Afghanistan are the greatest) where the U.S. brings its order to other countries with methods that are far from being democratic, all the while uttering, “This will be better for you.” The truth is, no one in Washington ever wondered who it was that gave Americans the right to decide what is better for others. God, Allah, Buddha, or all of them together?

Not that long ago (at the beginning of the 1990s) America, which at that point of time had plenty of money while the world financial crisis was disturbing the minds of the most incorrigible pessimists, was leading many countries to a common victory of American dream, exclusively by the power of the dollar. Hostile governments were being bought off with credits, gratuitous financial aid, and virtually free military supplies. For those who continued to resist, an opposition was formed against them into which countless sums of money was pumped. Elections were then held where pro-American politicians won with favorable odds. That’s what happened in practically all of Eastern Europe after the disintegration of the Warsaw Treaty Organization. There, though, it didn’t take big financial sacrifices from American taxpayers – the USSR was for too long working “successfully” against itself in European lands.

Soon, however, Washington was no longer bathing in dollars, though its national interests were still demanding that the White House have its finger in every pie around the world. Then, American analysts had to hastily search for a new model of American influence on global processes. The military replaced the dollar.

In fact, a new American tactic of imposing its rules of the game in any sovereign state was successfully tried out in Libya. Weapons are given to the poor (a couple of million of which can be found in any country, even in a quite civilized one). Moreover, there is no need to even explain to the armed crowd who they are supposed to overthrow. When the authorities try to bring constitutional order, mass media gets involved and starts vying to accuse the president and the state’s government of crimes of humanity and efforts to exterminate its own people. Then the following occurs: the U.N. Security Council issues a strict resolution mentioning Article 7 of the U.N. Charter, a no-fly zone is implemented and the regime breaks down. What happens next? Libya is the most striking example: anarchy, lawlessness of the militant groups and a puppet government, which is ready to execute any request from those who once gave them weapons.

Today in the Security Council, Russia and China are, in essence, trying to defend the right of any country to self-determination and independence. Undoubtedly, some countries’ regimes do everything in their power to make the international community pay attention to what is happening within their borders. However, does that mean someone has the right to decide when and who will govern one or another nation? Are those nations really so foolish as to not be able to decide their own fate? Do they need to be pushed towards civil war or is it by means of diplomacy that all opposing parties need to be convinced that solving the problem by using force is hopeless?

So, is it worth it for Russian and China to support the Western version of a Syrian resolution, after which, most likely, will follow a repetition of the “Libyan scenario”? In my opinion, it’s not worth it. Otherwise, having trained on “small fish,” Washington may one day decide to move to the “democratic” elimination of bigger opponents. Why not aim a blow at Moscow?

“They won’t dare. We have nuclear weapons,” most Russians will say. But what are the countries that don’t have nuclear weapons supposed to do? Create them? And how will that end?