The Russians are very serious about combating Islamic terrorism, having fought numerous brutal wars in the Caucasus region recently, and they will back Assad to keep a lid on it.
I fully appreciate that the Russian are deadly serious about combatting terrorism, especially within their own borders. However, Syria is a very different matter. Their real goal is to prevent the development of an energy pipeline across the Middle East, which would have a massive impact on the Russian economy as they dominate European energy supplies. The pipeline would bypass Russian channels have cripple their economy. I am sure they have concerns about the nature of some rebel formations in Syria but it is certainly not the driving factor. It is definitely not the case with Iran who have no qualms of funding Islamic Fundamentalists or any other terrorist organisation in the world.
It's nothing to do with taking a side, it's to do with flagrantly flaunting the biggest taboo in modern military conflict. If you stretched credibility to its highest and decided it was the rebels then they deserve a serious smacking down just as much as if it were Assad. If that means the other side gets a bit of a military tactical advantage then so be it, they get the "advantage" of not being the side to bring WMDs into play.
Smack on the money with that comment. There is no bigger taboo in military conflict than using WMDs, breaks numerous conventions and would set a very dangerous precedent if not tackled, not matter which side used the weapons.
*shakes head slowly*
But for the Russians and Iranians playing pathetic, narrow political games that go against every agreed principle on WMDs we'd already have a UN security council resolution authorising force to get UN inspectors on site regardless of consequences. We do nothing, they win. We do nothing, whoever fired the chemical weapons wins. We do nothing, the little wedge about "we don't really mean it when we say that's utterly unacceptable" comes into play.
Neither the Russians or Iranians (throw the Chinese into the equation as well) give a flying hoot about the use of chemical weapons in Syria otherwise they'd have acted straight away. They have shown their true colours by stalling at the Security Council whilst the affected areas have been blown to pieces by artillery from the Assad Regime. Only now are the weapons inspectors allowed into the area. As I stated earlier, if the UN does nothing, a huge and dangerous precedent will have been set. The world will be a much darker place.
Is it not for the UN to enter as opposed to the US?
The US, UK and France are not talking about entering Syria; they'll bomb known chemical weapons facilities and infrastructure as a warning that such attacks are not acceptable. It is up to the UN to put boots on the ground in Syria to stop violence but that will never happen as the UN is impotent and nobody (including us) actually gives a hoot about the plight of the civilians in those locations as we aren't willing to escalate the conflict to levels, which will follow.