Now, i'm not one to start many threads, nor am i massive on politics, but what the hell were Russia and China thinking by veto'ing the resolution on Syria? I can maybe understand them not wanting to 'take sides' in a so-called 'civil war', but surely they can see something needs to be done there, it's not a civil war, it's a dictator(ish) suppressing the people with violence.

I don't get wound up much about politics but this has my back up.

I need to read up on this tbh, but on the face of it, the whole thing is incomprehensible. I can't believe that Russia and China want to seen to be complicit in the deaths of thousands so there must be more to it.

Aye, let's push and agitate for regime change. It's been such a success in the brave new worlds of Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt etc.

I would guess:

1. Sensitive region - do not wish the US to wield any more influence there
2. To stand up to the USA, who have been having things their own way too much
3. Both countries may well have to get tough with their own populations shortly if their economies stall.

The first two are pretty much right IMHO.
Not saying I agree with their view but I reckon that's their reasoning.

Sounds about right.

I almost laughed out loud during the BBC2 series on Putin and Russia when they showed a clip of Putin sat talking to eager young supporters about Britain still thinking it was a colonial power. I hope he saw the irony of what he was saying, but somehow I doubt it.

The wording of the UN resolution I heard on the news struck me as too open ended to get their support. Can't remember exactly what it was but it struck me at the time that these two countries would never back it so you have to ask why come up with a resolution that was 99% certain to be vetoed? To make Russia and China look bad?

Diplomacy at this level seems to be more about playing diplomatic games than sorting out obvious problems.

Give the way the USA has pretty much vetoed every single UN resolution against Israel over the past half century it's hardly surprising though is it. Perhaps Russia and China are tired of American moralising whilst they continue to turn a blind eye to Israel's antics.

Russia have got a massive naval base in Syria, and are probably heavily dependant on the status quo being maintained.

I would guess:

- Neither Russia or China can kick off about totalitarian regimes given their recent history. If they support the Syrian demonstrators they can't then clamp down on pro-democracy demonstrations on their own patch and they send the message to their own people that demonstrations work.

- While they may appear harsh to the Western mindset, totalitarian regimes in the Middle East can be a buffer to keep extremism in check - in particular Muslim extremism. Remove a strict regime and extremism could flourish. While I agree the UN should step in to prevent massacres, we have to be wise to what could follow.

- Russia and China have adopted a policy of non-interference with such regimes, giving them an advantage when it comes to trading rights. As such, both are heavily invested in such areas. Russia has large and ongoing arms deals in place with Syria.

- Of course there's also the general anti-USA/Israel factor, as well as the feeling that the 'Arab Spring' has been supported unilaterally by the West without care for the interests of Russia and China (and others).