Russia ’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and the Head of Russia’s intelligence Service Mikhail Fradkov were accorded warm welcome in Damascus this Tuesday after New York rebuff following the double Russian-Chinese veto on draft UNSC Syria resolution.

While scenes of thousands of President Assad loyalists waving the Russian tricolor on the streets of Damascus were hardly expected by those who believe the Syrian leader enjoys no more popular support, what happened in UN headquarters in New York came as no surprise at all.

The double veto, imposed on the new UNSC resolution on Syria last Saturday after heated debates and a diplomatic deadlock, made all of us, regardless of whether we support this move or denounce it, experience a distinct sense of déjà vu. It looks as if it was a real déjà vu as Russia and China had already vetoed another Security Council resolution condemning President Assad's use of force last October.

However, this time Russia’s “no” to the new draft resolution on Syria, with its vague language, evoked a political tsunami. Commenting on the escalating diplomatic crisis, some even draw the parallel with the Suez crisis of 1956, when the Kremlin had locked horns with the West over Egypt in a classic scenario of the Cold War standoff.

Today, nearly 60 years later, with the Cold War relegated to history, the bone of contention is Syria. As the latest attempt to endorse a road map for Syrian settlement, proposed by the Western powers and Arab league under the umbrella of the UNSC failed, all eyes were focused on Russia, whose position was largely seen as a major roadblock to the all-embracing political settlement in Syria.

"What's happening is a scandal. We will not accept that the international community remains blocked," warned French President Nicolas Sarkozy, pointing the finger at “disobedient” Russia and pledging to raise the issue in his talk with President Medvedev. Nicolas Sarkozy was echoed by US Secretary of State Clinton and other ranking political and diplomatic figures from both the West and the Arab world, who viewed the Russian position as a “betrayal of the Syrian people.” Meanwhile, commenting on the outcry over the veto on the eve of his visit to Damascus, Foreign Minister Lavrov fired back, calling it “indecent” and “almost hysterical.”

While we are living in a post-Cold War world, the barricades of the Cold War are replaced with new invisible lines, dividing the Middle East into the “zones of interests”, and “areas of influence” you can never find on the world map. Politics and economy are tight into a Gordian knot along with the security and humanitarian issues. As a result, the real motivation of the major players and the logic behind their moves is often misinterpreted and misunderstood.

But is Russia’s present-day “no” on Syria equal to the traditional “nyet” of the unruffled Soviet Foreign Minister Andrey Gromyko? Or does Russia really behave like a naughty immature boy, driven by a childish egoism, but not a responsible global power with a UNSC veto right? To put it bluntly, has Russia really betrayed Syrian people, and if so, who are those people who were welcoming Lavrov and Fradkov, like heroes, for their readiness to rush to Damascus to hear their story, their truth?

Even if their mission fails, I think the world must thank the two Russian envoys for making a decent, last-minute effort to set in motion the defunct mechanism of political settlement in Syria. The effort, largely distorted, misinterpreted and misunderstood. At any rate, Lavrov and Fradkov did not come home empty-handed. As Minister Lavrov told the reporters on his way back to Moscow, President Assad agreed to enter into talks with opposition and pledged to follow the Arab League’s peace plan. Moreover, according to Sergey Lavrov, President Assad committed to end violence and hold a referendum on the new constitution – a key point of much needed democratic reforms.

Does it give us at least a glimmer of hope that the country would avert the scenario of civil war? Still, the chances for this look quite remote, to say the least. The West is stubbornly stirring up opposition by denying the very idea of any talks with embattled Syrian leader. In addition, the bitter irony is that it is not only the Western powers, but also President Assad who misinterprets Moscow’s initiatives. It is an open secret that he has already made commitments to stop the crackdown on the opposition and backtracked on the issue more than once.

As I see it, the main problem with Assad at this point is that he has understood Russia's Security Council veto and Russia’s official visit to Damascus as a sign of solidarity with his regime, a mark of unequivocal support. And if this proves to be true, it is unlikely that the Larvov-Fradkov mission will move him in any dramatic way.

According to reports coming from Damascus, Russian position is seen as an oxygen bag for Mr. Assad. Wiam Wahhab, a pro-Syrian Lebanese politician, who reportedly met President Assad last Tuesday said that he “found him relaxed and sure”. “He is confident in the Russian position," Wahhab told the Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar. According to Wiam Wahhab, President Assad told him he will end the uprising at any cost, because "the cost of chaos is much worse."

So while Russia has made itself clear that its opposition to the initial UNSC draft resolution was not equivalent to support for Assad's regime, it looks like this perception does not coincide with that of Mr. Assad. No surprise, that Russian diplomacy these days has found itself in an extremely difficult position trying to withstand mounting Western pressure and articulate its position on Syria, arguing, that it is neither betrayal of Syrian people, nor an oxygen bag for a suffocating President Assad, losing touch with his people and sense of reality.

­Sergey Strokan, for RT

­The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.