When, in his second debate with Obama, Mitt Romney made his bizarre attempt to criticizing his opponent by citing the fact that Assad was still in power, I knew that there was no hope for Christians in the Near and Middle East. Not that I had a whole lot of hope in Romney, but my jaw still dropped "clean to the floor" when he made that awful and unconcerned statement.
Assad is not a nice guy, but we can say with absolute confidence that any type of Muslim, Alalwite, Christian, Druze, or any other religious group has been and would be far better off with his regime than they would be if the US, the EU and the other Progressive, Islam-admiring powers have their way. We must also note that far too many people have already died in this conflict.
We most also note that, after Iraq, Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt, there can be no possible way that the Western powers are not aware of what is in store for non-Muslims (Or Muslims of minority sects) if that nation falls to the rebels. I will not waste time going through that again - the links at bottom will take the reader to earlier posts on this subject.
As I have noted, previously, Russia is standing almost alone in speaking out against the arming of the Syrian rebels. Putin has been calling for talks to end the war without the West choosing who gets to win (In that case it will always be the most radical of Muslims). Although they have up until now restricted their assistance to the regime to a limited amount of armaments (Apparently only to offset what the West has been giving the rebels) and have so far been content to function as the sole voice of reason in regards to the conflict, the Russians have become more assertive recently:
"Russia on Tuesday harshly criticized Europe's decision to allow the arming of Syrian rebels, saying it undercuts international efforts to negotiate an end to the civil war, and a rebel general said he's "very disappointed" weapons won't come fast enough to help opposition fighters defend a strategic Syrian town..........
The possibility of an arms race in Syria overshadowed attempts by the U.S. and Russia to bring representatives of the Assad regime and Syria's political opposition to peace talks at an international conference in Geneva, possibly next month.
The talks, though seen as a long shot, constitute the international community's only plan for ending the conflict that began more than two years ago and has killed more than 70,000 people.......
However, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned that recent actions by the West "willingly or unwillingly are undermining the idea of the conference." He denounced the lifting of the EU arms embargo as an "illegitimate decision," saying that supplying weapons to non-governmental groups "goes against all norms of international law."
At the same time, Lavrov's deputy affirmed Tuesday that Russia won't abandon plans to send long-range S-300 air defense missile systems to Syria, despite strong Western and Israeli criticism. It is not clear if Russia has already sent some of the missiles, which would be a major boost for Syria's air defense capabilities, including against neighboring countries that oppose Assad's regime......."
Although her record is inconsistent on this issue, she has historically been the only nation that has made any effort to assist Christians in Muslim-ruled nations. Russia has had decent relations with the Assad regimes. The Christians of the Near and Middle East are mostly Orthodox (with some Catholics). If Great Britain (Along with France) had not started the Crimean War to help the Ottomans and thus keep Russia from controlling the Black Sea, Constantinople and much of modern Turkey may have very well have been liberated. Once that occurred, there is do disputing that, even if other Christians were not liberated, the knowledge that a great power was close enjoy to assist their brethren would be cause for Muslims to think twice about committing acts of violence. In the latter days of the Ottoman Empire Russia pressed for being recognized as having sovereignty over the Christians under Islamic rule.
Personally, I could not care less if Russia had so much influence in a region close to the sources of much of our oil supply. The Russians aren't dummies, and they have no reason to shut down shipments that would be headed our way. It would also be nice to know we would not have to be virtually the only appreciable naval presence in the region.
Russia is close enough geographically to send and maintain sufficient troops and equipment for such a campaign. She is not destitute financially. Her people are not milquetoasts like many of the US and Western Europe; I don't see many Cindy Sheehans among them. Russian soldiers are as manly as ours and they routinely go long periods without the comforts that many US military personnel enjoy.
It is time that Russia fixes the mess created by GW Bush and perfected by Obama. A move into Syria would be the first logical step. Russia has a naval base in the region, and Lebanon could be occupied at the same time. Once her position is consolidated, the message can be put out that no further acts of violence against Christians in the region will be tolerated. Call him a thug if you want but don't dismiss the man - if I heard such a warning from from Putin, I would not doubt that he was serious.
I would not doubt that such a bold move would result in throngs of foreign volunteers to assist Russia in her efforts. The UN, with its massive Muslim nation voting bloc, will go bananas, but who cares? Unless I misunderstand this, Russia can still exercise a Security Council veto.
We need to accept that things need to change. Russia is still a major power, and an extension of her influence has the potential of making her an even greater one. If the arrival in that region of a nation that maintains a paternal attitude towards Christians can afford them some reasonable protection, and this leads to a further strengthening of the Russian state, I can find no argument that this could be a problem. Russia has no designs on conquering either Western Europe or China, and the US has far more in her favor in encouraging mutual business interests between the two nations. Russia is not a true Republic or a Democracy? So what? Russia did not have the benefit of developing free of foreign rule as did the nations of Western Europe. She only fully shook herself free from the rule of the Mongol Khanates when Western Europe had a firm foothold in the modern era. Until that point the Russian principalities were either tribute-paying vassals or frontier states dealing with the last of the Asiatic nomads.