we didn't veto the resolution to protect assad and have no duty to talk to him either. and as i repeatedly said, russians and chinese seek influence over their small neighbors but this influence comes in a very different form from the kind of influence anglo-americans yield and as such we cannot influence assad to do anything.
and secondly, like the russian envoy said, now the rebels are also well armed and also going for the kill, and it is ridiculous to ask russians to ask assad to disarm himself. again, we aren't talking about syrian people here. the people was killed when the first drop of blood was drawn and what we are witnessing is opposing factions who have lost the will to share the same political body with each other. no other nation in the world is entitled to dictating to the syrians how they are going to refashion themselves as a people and how they are going to emerge from this as a reconstituted people
and i cannot stress this enough: yes, china vetoed this thing out of strategic calculations, but since our strategic calculations always favor less interference than anglo-americans' strategic calculations (subversion is everything to anglo-saxons' politics and policies) and always accord other nations more protection and freedom, the most cynical chinese vote is always going to be nobler than the most "altruistic" american vote.
This sounds kinda "romantic" ... but the 3rd paragraph is unfortunately hogwash. PRC and Russia do subvert less because subversion is an art in which they are less adept.
PRC could be making the same mistake here as having supported Pol Pot. Having said that, this seems to be a sheepish "loyalty" vote for Uncle P.
There are no domestic struggles that are absolutely domestic. When a weak and prostrate China struggled against the Samurais with sharper swords, even old man Nehru lent material and moral help. We shouldn't forget that.
Having said this, I hold the same doubt as others whether Asad suffering the same fate as Qaddafi counts as "progress" or "democracy".