Nothing Changes in Moscow

Has anything ever changed in Moscow concerning Middle Eastern issues? Actually Russia is still following the footsteps of the former Soviet Union. We can find evidence of this by watching the last session of the UN Security Council in Washington. We can also have a look at what happened earlier in Cairo when the Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov was invited to the Arab League's foreign ministers convention. In both Washington and Cairo, Lavrov was unable to change the Soviet Union's wooden tone or offer any serious suggestions. Lavrov has repeated the same logic that doesn't distinguish between the offender and the victim. The man just couldn't admit that a real public uprising was going on in Syria. Russia is refusing to recognise the most obvious Arab uprising, insisting that history ended in this country 49 years ago, when the country fell under the rule of military regimes and security agencies, then under sectarian rule, and finally under the rule of a certain family. Nothing has changed in this world according to Lavrov. His position is typically in context with his countries' positions for six and half decades, even before the foundation of an Israeli state. "Opportunism" is the most accurate word to describe these positions, which may have been justified as part of the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the US untill 1992, when the Soviet Union collapsed. But 20 years after that date, the Russian position seems to be still imprisoned in the Soviet legacy. We cannot condemn the Soviet Union for being the first country to recognise the state of Israel, as it was holding a race with the USA in doing so. But the Soviet Union must be condemnned for exploiting the Arab countries and causing a non-ending chain of disasters in them, in the name of friendship and cooperation against occupation and imperialism, and for defending the right to self determination. I'm thinking that if  the Soviet Union was such a good friend to the Arabs, why didn't it help them avoid recklessness, especially before the 1967 war (only as an example)? We can mention thousands of accusations against the Soviet Union's strategy in the Middle-East, starting from the early 50s up until the 80s, including giving the green light to slaughter Arab communists in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Sudan in the hands of "national regimes". But the question which still stands todays:  Wasn't the Soviet Union able to warn Gamal Abd Al-Nasser from listening to the Syrian-Ba'ath's incitement, which enabled Israel to justify its assault,  by showing it as a "protective war"? While it is clear now that this was a fabrication, Israel still insists on occupying Jerusalem and part of the West Bank. If the Soviet Union was honest with the Arabs, it should have told them from the beginning that they had to accept the UN's decision on division, as the balance of power was not in their favour. Instead, the Arabs regret their rejection even today. Moscow should also have told the Arabs that the weapons it sold them will never enable them to liberate their lands, as they could barely be useful for defence or suppressing their people. Just like what happened to the people of Al-Ashrafeya, Sidon, and Tripoli in Lebanon, and what is happening now to the people of Idlib, Homs, Hama, Daraa, and all other Syrian cities. If the Soviet Union was ever that faithful to the Arabs, it should have alerted Gamal Abd Al-Nasser before he asked the UN to withdraw its monitoring officers before he closed the Tyran strait, to enter a war in which he was a sure loser. Was the Soviet intelligence really that dumb to not expect what followed? Or was Moscow always willing for the Arabs to be the weaker side, so the Soviet Union could score points at their expense in its war against "imperialism"? For all those years the Arab people never benefited from this Soviet Union, the real benefits were exclusively for oppressive regimes, which always hid behind struggles and resistances to occupation, while its only job was humiliating its own people. What was needed was to push every Arab citizen to feel that the Soviet Union was the Arabs' main protector, untill it was proved that this was just a big lie. The first to recognise that was the Egyptian president Anwar Al-Sadat when he insisted to drive the Soviet experts out of the Egyptian army a year before the 1973 war. From the Soviet Union to Russia, nothing has changed, both depended on the oppressive regimes instead of the people. The Syrian people suffer everyday from brutal suppression, while Russia is doing nothing but supporting the criminal responsible. The Syrian uprising was the last chance for Russia to show it had learnt from the lessons of the past, and has decided to make new choices. But it is sad to see the "Kremlin resident" unable to change old habits, whether he is hiding behind the red communist flag or the new tri-coloured one. What is worse is that Syrian people will be the victim of this opportunism, which cannot be justified, except by exposing Russia's real intention of dividing this country so that it can keep its military navy by the Syrian coast. The Soviet Union has always tended to push the Arabs towards wrong choices, the same choices selected by the Russian-Arabs now,  those who think that an oppressive regime can win the battle against a free nation. If that was possible, Eastern Germany would be alive now after East Berlin defeated the West, not the opposite.