So funny, your diagram won’t even work to sort this one out.
Confused yet?
Which is another reason why I think we should sit this one out. No matter who we “help” we’ll end up pissing off one or more allies and give aid to one or more enemies.
Let the UN decide that a war crime was committed and back them to vote to do something. Sure, Russia will veto it, but then they are the ones who look bad. Let the UN bluster on about Russia. For once, it will not be the US that is getting shat upon. If Russia gives in, then make the UN do something about it without us. We’re kind of busy trying to save the world from economic collapse here.
In other words, there are no fundamental principles involved, other than everyone will lie to and/or side with anyone at any given time for any perceived short-term personal political gain, which might change in a heartbeat if anyone else does or says something significant… for some sufficiently vague definition of significant.
To the gentleman’s list of who’s buggering who, now add the well-known Islamic principle of “taqiyya”, which says that for the purpose of advancing the religion, anyone may be lied to at any time. Over the years, this Qurannic principle has been modified in it’s usage to mean, “tell the truth to muslims you like, lie to every one else”.
We would be well advised to use two rules of policy: trust no one from that region OR religion, and verify everything before acting on it or even discussing it.