(Image Source: ABC.net.au)

BY BLAKE HANSON

Just hours after a massive attack on the Syrian city of Homs -- the U.N. Security Council rejected a proposal calling for Syrian President Bashar Assad to step down. The New York Times writes...

“While the casualties were impossible to confirm, and were denied by Syria, reports of the bloodshed drew widespread international condemnation, and moved the Security Council toward a vote on an Arab League peace plan, despite new objections by Russia.”


Ultimately, both Russia and China vetoed the plan. The Guardian points to Russia’s history with Syria as a possible reason for the veto...

“Syria has been a key Russian ally since Soviet times and Moscow has opposed any UN demands that could be interpreted as advocating military intervention or regime change.”

Meanwhile, The Telegraph points to another part of the resolution it suspects Russia took issue with...

“... Russia said it could not support a resolution backing an Arab League plan for a swift transition of power and elections. It was said to have demanded a last-minute change dropping a call, already agreed by Syria in November, for tanks and artillery to be withdrawn from the streets.”

So what does this mean for progress in Syria? A CNN anchor and analyst react to the failed vote...

ANCHOR: “Months of paralysis inside the U.N. Security Council, now lead essentially to a diplomatic dead-end.”
ANALYST: “I think Western ambassadors will say it might all have been a charade a stall to the last minute.”
 

Shortly after the vote, U.S. United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice tweeted...

“Disgusted that Russia and China prevented the #UN Security Council from fulfilling its sole purpose.”