From the OP: Russia has repeatedly objected to the current text -- introduced by Morocco and backed by Western powers -- saying any resolution must make clear it cannot be used to justify foreign military intervention in Syria.

Moscow is also vehemently against a call for President Bashar al-Assad to step down and opposes any arms embargo against Syria, which remains one of Russia's prime weapons buyers.

Analysts have said that Russia is defying the West despite the escalating violence in Syria that has already left thousands dead as it fears Assad's departure would cost Moscow its last remaining ally in the region.

The resolution should make clear that it does not authorize any military intervention in Syria. If makes that clear in addition to eliminating any use of sanctions or an arms embargo, Russia will be hard pressed to veto the resolution.

Russia obviously wants to protect its "last remaining ally in the region" and a "prime weapons buyer" but they run the risk of alienating most Syrians to the point that they will jeopardize both if they support Assad indefinitely and he falls anyway.

That's the side of the equation that the pro-interventionists seem to utterly ignore.

Unlike Libya, there's a solid basis among a substantial portion of the population for maintaining the regime. The Ba'athist government isn't just a fiefdom of one man or one family, it represents the ruling Shi'ia minority that's been in power since 1964. Given the history of the place, the Shi'ia will not just let go in the face of foreign pressure - they have good reason to fear a genocidal division of the country, and will fight to prevent that outcome.

All that this agitation has done is make the regime and its base dig in deeper, and lash out at the opposition, which has itself become enraged. Agitating the opposition without a probability of success is cruel and simply divides the country, which is what I believe is the true point of this who want to weaken Iran's Syrian ally.