Fear for Chechnya and Tibet

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin advised the West that they should learn a lesson from the killing of the US ambassador in Benghazi at the hands of a radical Islamic group. He said that Westerners "overthrow political systems which they accuse of dictatorship, and replace them with a radical force that turn its back on them and perhaps direct their weapons against their supporters."
Projection on Syria here is clear. His goal is to intimidate them by saying what happened in Libya, in which the West had an active role and that eventually ended Qaddafi's rule. In fact, Russians are doing everything in the hope of keeping the Assad regime intact.
Of course, Bashar Assad of Syria, Qaddafi of Libya as well as the king of Afghanistan are not worth crying over because their regimes intimidated the world and helped in the spread of terrorism for 40 years, and therefore the worst-case scenario that could emerge as a result of the collapse of the two regimes will not be nearly as wicked.
Rogozin explains the Russian position that is hard for us to understand, saying “The chaos has spread to the international arena where the values that used to maintain peace and security of the world have eroded since the World War."
Indeed, which values have remained since the World War II ? Police regimes such as East Germany and Romania collapsed two decades ago and 14 countries that were within the Soviet Union seceded.
Russian official talk of peace on the planet is consistent with the interpretation of Fouad Ajami, a retired professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University, who in his new book, "The Syrian Rebellion," says that "Russia and China, used the veto in the UN Security Council against decisions on Syria, because, "on the minds of the Chinese was the issue of Tibet "which they occupy, and "The Russians are thinking about Chechnya."
This is peace for them. If the Russians, as well as the Chinese, fear that a day would come when it would be their turn to face foreign interference in their internal affairs, their protection of the Assad regime would not prevent the idea of intervention, but quite the opposite.
What Assad has committed in terms of continuous genocide has pushed even reluctant rebels to support international intervention, an option that has been called upon for the first time since World War II, and was supported even by those who were against the intervention of NATO forces in Libya.
The most important matter now is to stop the killing machine of Assad and his forces. Most Arabs were always against the idea of outside intervention, especially after the invasion of Iraq, but now they have started imploring the international community to intervene under any flag to stop the tragedy. This is all because of the Russian position, not only because they opposed intervention, but also because they supported the regime with weapons and experts against an unarmed people, and even denied the Syrian people an aviation-free restricted area.
We had never before witnessed such enthusiasm among the Russians about our region as they have shown in the defense of Assad’s regime. They have done it to the extent of putting their history, reputation and interests to risk and this truly remains a mystery. The more I read about it, the more I get confused, because this stance does not protect Russia or China, it does not prevent the fall of Assad, will not bring peace, and will not eliminate extremist groups.