Here’s the conclusion to his article:
‘Without formal UN support, what is the legal basis for action? What are the goals and are they achievable? To scare Assad? He won’t be. To punish or remove him? The Russians will amorally ensure he clings to power.
The more honest admission would be that military action in Syria is a response to an instinct that something must be done, that the tyrant can’t get away with it. That might be an understandable moral reflex, but it does not make for long-term policy’.
Surely the more ‘honest admission’ – as Reuters have hinted at – is that any military campaign will, within the overall context of U.S., British and French policy towards Syria, be about securing strategic and economic advantage.
But no, just as I thought likely, Kampfner (as a fairly run of the mill corporate media liberal) thinks the Russians will try and maintain Assad in power because they’re ‘amoral’, but that the ‘West’ will bomb the country because of an ‘understandable moral reflex’.
They have selfish interests that they pursue with no regard for morality, we just have noble values that we want to defend, even if we might sometimes be misguided in doing so.
It’s absolutely typical liberal media war reporting.