The western media outlets (those the likes of CNN, BBC, Reuters, and now Al Jazeera) have a record of giving voice to one side, and silencing the other. Some even went to lows of forging evidence. Consequently, we have recently witnessed resignations of staff from Al Jazeera over bias directed at the Arab Spring.
For Russia, Libya was of little economical and geopolitical interest, thus they decided to leave it to its fate, and at the same time study UN and NATO further actions, in order to establish a firmer grip on Syria.
This of course by no means justifies the no-fly zone, which indeed is a military intervention into a sovereign state. A state which has not attacked its neighbors or any NATO member, for that matter. And those who attempt to justify US and NATO actions in Libya, are siding with a force which has destroyed the country's infrastructure, caused deaths of innocents and dubbed them as "collateral damage", and has promoted an un-democratically elected leadership, which now is forced to deal with a situation when several of the country's important regions are seeking partial or complete independence from the central government.
Syria is of great interest to Russia, not just because of a naval base, which is Russia's only link to the Mediterranean, but because Syria is an Iranian ally and poses important geopolitical significance to those opposing the constantly expanding NATO block.
US and European "democrats" became hesitant about imposing a no-fly zone right after Russian and Iranian military ships paid a brief visit to Syria. Their stay wasn't long and, in a sense, mysterious
it would be fair to assume the packages have reached their destination.
The resolution which has received Russia's and China's veto and caused an uproar in the media was strategically important, as it called for government forces to cease fire and withdraw. This scenario has already been played out in Yugoslavia, when the government forces were forced to lay down their arms and abandon their positions, letting the KLA easily seize control of the area. In Syria, such a scenario would be catastrophic. Firstly, because the opposition is divided among itself, unlike the government troops and police, who act as a unified force, and secondly, because the opposition isn't big enough to account for controlling half of the country. Giving the FSA more ground would only increase security risks. And I'm even not mentioning the reports of the FSA shooting civilians.
Russia's refusal to cease arms' trade with Syria is obvious. And no, it's not because Syria accounts for half of Russia's economy (which some probably believe). But because the FSA is also receiving arms from abroad, and this isn't even debatable.
As for Syria's probable future, its fate will be decided in the following months, depending on the internal political situations within Russia and Iran, and the west's level of despair to push forth with its agenda, before it's too late.