I have been trying very hard to understand the Russian logic in supporting Damascus every step of the way in its conflict with the opposition.
There has been some glimmer of hope that, in the Syrian crisis, Moscow could be moving in the right direction by championing the convening of the Geneva II peace conference and, more recently, inviting the opposition leadership to Moscow to engage it in a dialogue that may indeed open new vistas for peace in the country.
All signals that it aims to be even handed on Syria have long disappeared, however.
Unfortunately, Moscow continues to supply the Syrian government with a steady flow of sophisticated weapons; it even stood by it when it deployed chemical weapons last August, killing more than 1,300 people, many of them children.
Why does Moscow remain silent when so many innocent people are slaughtered? Why cannot the Russian leadership see what all other nations could see and hear in Syria over the past three years?
The masterful way Moscow handled the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian forces last summer, by striking a deal with Washington aiming ostensibly at getting rid of the Syrian chemical weapons, has now turned out to be a trap for US President Barack Obama who fell for it and aborted his initial plans to strike strategic Syrian military targets after it became clear that Damascus had crossed the infamous red line that Obama had drawn against the use of such weapons.
US Secretary of State John Kerry and senior US intelligence officials testified recently before the US Congress that Damascus emerged stronger in the wake of that Russian-brokered deal and, by the same token, the opposition weaker.
Now the world knows that Damascus is dragging its feet on its pledge to get rid of its chemical arsenal and has delivered less than 5 per cent on its promise.
Of course, only naive people took Damascus’ promise to fully honour its commitment to surrender all its chemical weapons seriously. Why would Syria get rid of its chemical weapons when they are its only weapons of mass destruction in a region where other forms of such weapons are proliferating by the day?
Now the US intelligence community claims that Syria has the capability to develop biological weapons, which are even more ominous than the chemical weapons that the US prided itself rather prematurely in having removed from the Syrian theatre.
Worse is the complete Russian silence on the deployment of barrel bombs by Damascus, during the Geneva peace talks.
Why cannot Russia condemn such use of indiscriminate bombing in Syria by whatever side?
To be sure, the opposition has also committed uncountable crimes that also call for condemnation, by Russia and other major capitals.
On top of all ominous signs is Moscow’s latest position at the UN Security Council against adopting a resolution on the opening of humanitarian corridors to supply urgently needed foods, medicine and water to thousands of besieged Syrians.
It is quite shocking to hear the Russian ambassador to the UN say that time is not appropriate any such UN intervention.
What message does Russia give to the warring sides in Syria and to the world?
Does it want to say that it does not care how many more lives are lost as long as its short-sighted strategic objectives are followed?
Moscow, and all other major capitals, can promote their long-term interests through promoting peace, democratic forms of government and respect for human rights.
If these were upheld, all other objectives would be short lived.
