The rapid turn in events in Libya has put Russia in an awkward situation. Russian public opinion was overwhelmingly in favor of Qaddafi and clung to the belief that Western intervention was motivated purely by oil interests.

While the |good cop" President Dmitry Medvedev did criticize the Qaddafi regime, his Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was severely critical of the NATO intervention.

At one stage. Russia was setting itself up as a possible mediator and, in a seeming disconnect from reality. Medvedev is still offering Russian mediation. Mediation requires two sides that retain serious strength and it is difficult to see what strength Qaddafi retains.

Russia is reminding the West of previous cases where the West had prematurely said that its mission was accomplished only to discover that the other side had just begun to fight. This was the pattern in Afghanistan, where the West created a monster in the form of the Taliban, and now it will be the turn of the French to discover that a quick successful intervention was a mirage.

One Russian commentator approvingly cited the British aphorism that an "Arab cannot be bought, he can only be rented". The West may have won a pyrrhic victory that could end up helping radical Islamists and Al Qaeda supplant the Qaddafi regime as a serious force in Libya

Other Russian leaders appear to be bowing to reality and attempting to assess and limit Russia's losses. Konstantin Kosachev, head of the State Duma's International Affairs Committee said in an interview with Russian Today TV channel that Gaddafi must recognize his defeat and Russia is ready to recognize Libya's National Transitional Council.

Russian oil experts believe that the new regime could give Russia a cold shoulder at first and Vitaly Kryyukov even speculated that Russia could lose its entire presence in Libya, while key sections would be handed over to the Americans, the Italians and the British. The new regime has stated that it would honor previous contracts provided these were reached in the absence of corruption, but it would decide for itself when corruption had occurred.

Russian commentators have already begun debating the effect of Qaddafi's downfall on Russian policy in Syria. Those in favor of continued support for Assad mention the fact that Syria has been a Soviet ally since the early 1970s and hosts Russia's only naval supply and maintenance base outside the former Soviet Union. Russia should stick with its ally.

Vladimir Karyakin from the State Institute for Strategic Research said. "If we lose such an ally, we will lose our foothold in the Middle East.".

Vladimir Isayev from the Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute for Oriental Studies said Moscow had already "given up" too many of its interests in the region since the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union and should remain firm in backing Assad.

In contrast, Yevgeny Satanovsky, who heads Russia's Middle East Institute, is skeptical about whether Syria - or any other country in the region - can be considered Russia's "ally."

"We have never had 'allies' [in the region]," he said. "We have just stuffed Middle Eastern countries with money, weapons and military advisors... But what has Russia, or previously the Soviet Union, ever received in return?"

Then we have the lonely liberal commentator Konstantin von Eggert in RIA Novosti who consistently condemns Russian fears of the West. He claimed that Russia, because of domestic issues, could not and would not follow the lead of the West in Libya

"One moment you support some faraway Arab civic activists – and the next you have to listen to your own ones." It was therefore simpler to retreat to false slogans such as "Qaddafi created a paradise on earth for the Libyans." The Russian leadership could have been expected to rise above popular prejudices but it did not.