Flags of BRICS, China, and Russia, with Palestinian resistance soldiers in the background. Illustration: Zeinab el-Hajj/Al-Mayadeen English.
By Tim Anderson – Nov 29, 2025
Russia and China are not part of the Resistance Front, but they are playing an important role in building structures to bypass US power and thus facilitate a multipolar and freer world.
Supporters of the Resistance Front in West Asia are understandably disappointed by the failure of Russia and China to fully oppose Washington’s machinations at the UNSC over Gaza. This follows Syrian disappointment over Russia’s rapid engagement with al-Jolani’s regime in Damascus and Moscow’s ongoing relations with the Israelis.
However, there are common pro-Resistance misunderstandings of the great counterweights in the world, which lead to inaccurate claims that the BRICS leaders are ‘selling out’ or ‘betraying’ the Resistance. Those misunderstandings deserve some attention. At the core are principles of identifying the real enemies of the Resistance, as distinct from those with whom there might be normal or productive relations. We should neither exaggerate the ‘saviour’ status nor the failings of our potential allies.
The Resistance Front in West Asia (Iran, the Palestinian Resistance, the Lebanese Resistance, Syria pre-December 2024, Ansar Allah-led Yemen, and the Iraqi Resistance) shares some important principles or assumptions which are NOT shared by many of its friends and allies. These include: (1) “Israel” is a cancer in the region which must be excised or dismantled, (2) the Palestinian Resistance guarantees the future of Palestine and the Palestinian Authority has become a corrupt traitor; (3) the PLO-PA supported “two state solution” is cruel myth which sustains the occupation (4) the regional Resistance, led by Iran, is the essential core of an independent West Asia.
Very few outside the Resistance Front subscribe to all these ideas, yet many still become allies, at times, supporting or at least having normal relations with the Resistance, bypassing Washington’s unilateral coercive measures (UCMs or “sanctions”). We should not suggest that such allies have ‘betrayed’ principles to which they have never subscribed. Better to understand their interests and the limitations of their assistance.
In recent times, only two states, the Islamic Republic of Iran and Cuba, have pursued longer-term foreign policies with substantial elements of altruism—that is, they did not materially gain from their contributions and often suffered from it. All other states look to their own interests and engage where they see common interests. This is normal for states that must remain accountable to their own people.
Russia is neither a liberator nor a traitor to the resistance, but rather an important potential ally, within some constraints. Russia has some historical and oligarchic compromises with “Israel.” Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah made this clear some years ago when he said that Russia was an ally against Takfiri terrorism but not against “Israel.” Our logic is not necessarily theirs, and we should try to understand theirs.
Even now, Russia and China bypass US UCMs to have normal relations with a range of countries, including Iran. At the same time, Venezuela tries to increase Russian investments in its Orinoco oil fields to induce it into greater defense of Venezuelan sovereignty.
Even strong friends of Palestine and the Resistance Front, like Cuba and Venezuela, both of which broke relations with “Israel” (in 1974 and 2009, respectively) and both of which provide medical training and other support to the Palestinian people, have distinct compromises. Both continue to support the PLO-PA and the “two-state” solution, while refusing (so far) to recognize the revolutionary Yemeni government in Sana’a. Cuba, for its own economic survival, also pursues economic relations (through medical cooperation) with Gulf monarchies, which oppose the Resistance Front. That might place some constraints on Cuba’s political options. Yet, both Cuba and Venezuela are also committed to the rise of BRICS and multipolarity.
The widespread historical support for the PLO and the PA, and therefore also the “two-state” notion promoted up to now by the PLO, is largely a consequence of Palestinian disunity and the failure of Resistance factions to be properly represented in the PLO, the only Palestinian body that has UN status. This is a problem for the Resistance. It is hard to expect allies in other continents to contradict the PLO-PA on this and opt for (without Palestinian leadership) a single democratic state in Palestine.
Those who have worked successfully with Russia and China appeal to common interests, a totally normal process. Back in 2015, IRGC’s Quds Force Commander General Qassem Soleimani convinced Russia to intervene in favour of Syria against the Washington-backed terrorism imposed on the region. This argument prevailed because it addressed Russian interests (a) to help prevent the resurgence of Takfiri terrorism into southern Russia (as had already happened in Chechnya) and (b) to build a strategic position for Russia in West Asia. Yet, President Putin was keenly aware of the trap into which the USSR had fallen back in the 1970s, moving from support for the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (1978-1987) into a substitute for its army. The Soviet Union was successfully portrayed as an occupation force and was eventually driven out by CIA-mujahideen forces. That experience helps explain why Russia limited its ground commitment to Syria and could not “save” Syria after the command of the SAA collapsed in late 2024. Even Iran (the core of the Resistance Front) came to the same conclusion, that they could not “save” Syria if Syrians would not fight for their own survival. After all, most of Syria’s gains in the long, dirty war were paid for by sacrifices of the SAA.
Similarly, China did not invest much in Syria during the dirty war, as Beijing looked for greater stability. That was a reasonable calculation in China’s own interests, even if many wanted more. This recognition of distinct national interests is an important element of ‘realism’ for our understanding, and not just some dirty compromise.
It is true that critical realist analysts (like Mearsheimer and McGregor) often ignore the importance of resistance in their calculations, but it is also true that resistance idealists often misunderstand or dismiss the real interests of friends and allies. These considerations are important when we look at the ongoing relationship between the Resistance Front and the main agency of multipolarity in the world today, the BRICS.
Palestine, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Iran all need the medium-term support being developed by the BRICS and an escape from the dollar dictatorship, even while there may be important differences. After all, as Cuban leader Miguel Díaz-Canel said in 2023, BRICS plus the main Global South group, the G77 (134 countries), represent 80% of the world population and are the “only alternative” in a world still dominated by Washington.
How then should a realist-tempered resistance view the recent compromises by Russia and China over Palestine and Syria?
Venezuela Condemns Zionist Bombardment of Palestine, Lebanon, Syria
Neither Russia nor China felt able to oppose Trump’s Palestine “peace plan” at the UNSC, although they did present an alternative motion. They criticized and then abstained, rather than oppose, as they did not see any regional allies. They surrendered the field to the US, possibly even hoping to let Washington fall further into a Palestinian quagmire, while they address matters closer to their own interests. Even Algeria joined the regional collaborators. The US had the Gulf Arab regimes plus the PLO-Palestinian Authority in its pocket. Russia and China had no allies and would have had to oppose the PLO and bear the blame for blocking a PLO-supported end to the bombing. In the past, Russia has invited the resistance (led by Hamas) alongside the PA to Moscow for talks, yet at the UN, only the PLO has official status.
UNSC resolution 2803 is a horrific colonial act that seeks to perpetuate the Israeli occupation of Gaza (in exchange for a supposed cessation of the bombing), overlaying that with a US occupation plus attempts to disarm the resistance. “Accept formal colonization or face renewed genocide” was the effective ultimatum. The motion has since been attacked by more than one UN expert. There may be Arab or Muslim states (like Indonesia) that will participate in this “stabilisation force,” yet they will hesitate if (as is likely) they face serious Palestinian resistance. Former UN expert Craig Mokhiber says implementation of the Resolution (which contravenes much international law) should be fought at every step.
For any future political commitments, a challenge for the resistance is to reshape the PLO into a more representative body, reflecting the will of the Palestinian people. With that shift, broader alliances may be possible.
At the UNSC, the BRICS leaders argued against the US motion but then abandoned the option of blocking it, showing their weakness, unwillingness, or inability to impose an alternative against the will of the USA. Yet as they abstained, we should not exaggerate their participation in the crime, even while they certainly abandoned the Palestinian people. Nonetheless, they remain committed to reducing the global power of the US and the dollar, in the medium term, a movement that is necessary for all liberation struggles.
In Syria, many criticized Russia for not “saving” the independent nation from the disaster of an al-Qaeda (HTS) takeover. However, this is misleading. Russia entered the Syrian theatre in late 2015 to assist the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) in its fight against US-led sectarian proxies; they did not aim to replace the SAA. Mindful of the experience of the USSR in Afghanistan, Putin did not want to end up running an occupation force. So when the enemy (Qatar and Turkey) bought much of the SAA command and then made them stand down in the face of an HTS resurgence, Russia had to make the best of a bad situation, evacuating the loyal Syrian commanders and trying to maintain its own bases in Syria. Bad feeling in Syria persists over Russia’s limited and contradictory efforts to protect the people from the coastal massacres, which took place very close to their airbase at Jableh. But Russia could not ‘save’ Syria when the Syrian army was no longer able to fight.
Exaggerated blame on third parties has also caused confusion over the Emirati backing for the vicious RSF militia in Sudan. Some media outlets point to Chinese weapons being used by the RSF, or to China buying UAE gold extracted from Sudan, drawing attention away from the traditional masters of the Emiratis. Washington has long used the Gulf monarchies as proxies across North Africa – like Boko Haram, al Shabaab, and RSF – just as it did in West Asia, to weaken and divide independent nations and extend US hegemony.
In short, as Yemen’s Hussein Badr al-din al-Houthi said, it is important to first identify one’s real enemies, those driving today’s wars of hegemonic decline. After that, we should understand and build realistic relations with a range of allies that may not share all our values. Russia and China are not part of the Resistance Front, but they are playing an important role in building structures to bypass US power and thus facilitate a multipolar and freer world, which will help all independent peoples. We should neither exaggerate their “saviour” capacities nor their failings. They will have an important place in the future as the only strategic alternative to the current global dictatorship.
Tim Anderson
Australia-based writer, internationalist, and academic. Director of the Centre for Counter Hegemonic Studies.
