Cold War Thinking

Its one of the more perplexing questions of the current strife in Syria that Russia continues to back the Assad regime against all comers .... there is no oil (and in any case Russia is a net exporter), and its not a rich country so why the reluctance to contemplate regime change? On the face of it, their siding with the regime is only likely to lead to the next regime (if anti Assad), rejecting them completely, and thus defeat any objectives that Russia has in the area.

A couple of reasons why the support, have been defence contracts of over $1bn, and continued access to the port of Tartus (a medium size deep water Mediterranean port that can't berth an aircraft carrier) .... but neither reasons hold water. The contracts would have to be honoured by any regime, and in fact if the regime is radical and Islamist then they will want the Russian weapons even more as insurance against Israel and to stop American influence over their foreign policies.

The Port Of Tartus In Syria - Worth Supporting Pres. Assad for?

No, the answer lies in the old cold war ... Russia's current leadership is all rooted in the Soviet era (Putin was a KGB operative), and this whole policy, which is obviously going to backfire as it stands, is based upon the old Soviet idea of stopping the west having influence and denying them another port .... as I have pointed out, there current policy may actually lead to the next regime rejecting them as allies, so it makes no sense to pursue this policy except as an example of old 'Cold War' thinking.

Band Aid or Gun Trade?

There's been a war of words between 'Saint Bob' Geldof and the BBC over the story that alleges that far from 'feeding the world', at least some of the monies raised by the Band Aid campaign were spent on Guns and Bullets to feed the wars that were a constant factor in Ethiopia at the time.

As a cynic, I am hardly surprised by the allegations as there have been similar stories about western charities monies being syphoned off through fraud or misappropriation in Africa before, so why wouldn't Eritrean warlords have been able to fool a bunch of musical 'Luvvies'?

The story has hung about for a few days, so it may have some legs as the BBC are showing no signs of retracting in the face of the Geldoff tirade. A few years ago, they would have collapsed under his frown, but his star has waned and the BBC obviously feel more able to stand their ground inspite of the challenge to its truthfulness.