Killing towards the end and killing afterwards. In Homs after Daraa, Hama and Edlib, Syria is continuing to bleed. And while Minister Sergei Lavrov is reassured by the fact that the Syrian command grasped Kremlin's belated message and believes that during his presence in Damascus he triggered the alarm against the mass suicide of the regime and the people, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was issuing a warning against the West's playing on the Russian arena. He condemned what NATO did in Libya, but his eye remained on the Kremlin's chairmanship, which is why Syria is present in the context of his battle inside Russia. Putin justified the second veto by resorting to moral arguments, saying it aimed at allowing the Syrian people to determine their own fate. But between the bombardments, the shootings, the destruction and the siege, who is really deciding and who would dare choose the timing of a decision? Among the Syrian oppositionists - as it is the case in Western capitals - some are comparing Lavrov's mission in Damascus at the last minute to that of Secretary of State James Baker in Geneva, back when he conveyed to Tarek Aziz the final warning prior to Operation Desert Storm. The only difference is that the Russian minister delivered to the Syrian command – from a position opposed to the American wish – a letter of reassurance toward the impact of the veto, provided that dialogue is launched with the opposition and reform is introduced. Among the Syrians, some also recall that the Iraqi command under Saddam's regime slept for a long time on the Russians' silk, until the American tanks stormed the heart of the capital of Al-Rashid. Moscow is pleased to defy Washington, Paris and London. Beijing on the other hand is hiding behind Putin's fake smile, i.e. that of the hero behind the revival of the “great” Russia via the Syrian gate and with Syrian blood. What Moscow does not want is to lose its Arab popularity! Certainly, the issue of Al-Assad's stepping down never crossed Lavrov's mind during his mission which he thought will launch the reform train, at a time when the sound of the bombings was much higher than the moaning of the victims from all sides. Dialogue? Why not? But in Moscow's opinion – which is reassured about the intentions of the Syrian command – it should be over a Constitution free from the Baath, embraced by the authority and not taking into account the aspirations of the oppositionists, regardless of their belongings. But what is the point behind dialogue if the solution drawn up by one side and imposed on all is already available? The Russian presidential envoy who did not hesitate to hold the oppositionists partly responsible for the violence and the killing, failed to defend the veto's reputation because the only alternative with which Moscow is fighting is a unilateral dialogue among the deaf. As to the pressures whose exertion Lavrov requested against the opposition to get it to accept dialogue, they were accompanied by the escalation of the killings in Homs, as though it was the final sprint before the impossible settlement. Morally, Russia is opposed to foreign intervention to change whichever regime, and what happened in Libya supports that argument. And if the question surrounds the comparison between the harvest and the cost, Moscow has earned points which it will soon lose, considering that the answer is incomplete without raising another question, i.e.: When was the greater massacre a passageway toward dialogue and reconciliation? The Syrian command is sleeping on the silk of the Russian rejectionism, while the Russian command is sleeping with dreams of an empire whose cards were folded many years ago. There is one reality which Moscow has not yet realized and it features two facets. The first is that America, Europe, Turkey and the majority of the Arabs have lost all hope in saving Syria under its current command, while the collapse of the role of the Security Council is placing all these sides in a difficult predicament, in parallel to the expansion of the massacres. As to the other facet, it is related to the fact that what is being witnessed in the streets of Homs and the cities' outskirts is not only targeting the civilians, but also besieging the authority with funerals, whenever there is an opportunity to stage such funerals for the victims. All that has changed since the birth of the Arab League initiative until its death and the withdrawal of the observers' team is that the killing machine has grown fiercer. The Gulf Cooperation Council states have lost all hope in reaching a solution with the Syrian command to put an end to the “collective massacre targeting the Syrian people,” while the Western states' wager on a compromise that would alter Russia's rejectionism and Putin's attempts to revive a dead empire have failed. The Gulf states will deploy pressures to lift the Arab cover off any recognition of the Syrian regime, and could – if they want to – use the economic interests card with China and the Russians. For his part, and during his presence in Washington, Davutoğlu will turn the cards of an ambiguous initiative whose hefty cost is realized by Ankara in case it were to choose the bugger zone scenario. This is due to the fact that Tehran will be ready to correct the Turkish miscalculations. But can Khamenei defy NATO which is present at his waist? Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, Baghdad and Damascus, i.e. the rejectionist axis, is ready for the confrontation. However, the war calculations are much more complicated than Putin's presidential battle in Russia. At this level, his warning to the West against acting rashly in Syria, does not deny the fact that the muscles of President Barack Obama's administration – which managed to achieve a “successful” pullout from Iraq – will not become loose during the year of the American elections. Between the Russians' silk, America's leap and Europe's rise in parallel to the Arab spring to respond to Kremlin's provocations, the massacre is quickly escalating.
