Elsewhere in the country, a new offensive has been launched in the far southern city of Daraa. The opposition termed it an “onslaught” on the scale of Homs, though indications are that it is targeting growing defections to the Free Syrian Army (FSA).

The latest upswing in violence comes as Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan heads to Russia to speak with President Dmitry Medvedev. Erdogan has been calling for international intervention against Syria, while Russia has been opposing such intervention and trying to negotiate a settlement.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov dismissed the reports of massive civilian casualties in Homs, saying there was no evidence of civilians being targeted by artillery fire. Since the Arab League has withdrawn all monitors from the nation, such evidence would indeed prove elusive.

The pledges from Assad seem to point to Russia’s efforts at mediation moving forward. A top member of the opposition Syrian National Council (SNC) says that the group is open to Russian-coordinated talks. This is also a positive sign, given that a previous SNC official had insisted that they were not open to talks under any circumstances.

At the same time, violence has continued in Homs, and the Interior Ministry is vowing a “continued offensive” against the rebel factions still active in the city. The number of dead today appears to be significantly smaller than in previous days, but the opposition still says shelling is ongoing.

Even if the SNC does join in the talks, it might not stop the violence. The Free Syrian Army (FSA) operates entirely separately and has ruled out any negotiated solution, saying only “military options” will be considered.

As violence escalates in Syria, rights groups say that up to 321 Syrians have been killed this weekend in the city of Homs due to shelling by the Assad government. The U.S. has been pushing to intervene and take Assad from power, and UN Ambassador Susan Rice used the recent killings to criticize the veto from Russia and China.

“The United States is disgusted that  a couple of members of this Council continue to prevent  us from fulfilling our sole purpose,” US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said. “For months this council has been held hostage by a couple of members,” she said, which she said had been “delaying and stripping bare any text to force Assad to stop his actions.”

The U.S. has predictably couched their push for intervention in humanitarian terms, while Russia does exactly the same thing, arguing that intervention, especially if led by the U.S., would cause more bloodshed and chaos.

In truth, geopolitical concerns are driving each of the postures. The U.S. and its Arab allies in the Gulf States, would welcome the chance to remove Assad from power and possibly replace the regime with a more Sunni-oriented, pro-Western dictatorship. Such a result would have the added benefit of eliminating Iran’s primary ally in the region, thus isolating the regime in Tehran even more.

On the other hand, Russia claims to object to intervention for the sake of the Syrian people, while it supports the murderous Assad regime with money and weapons. Russia is closely allied with Syria, a relationship that affords them a lot of influence in the Middle East, and has an interest in pushing back against Western imperialism for the sake of maintaining their own stake in the region.

Western powers, and the vast majority of the Security Council, continue to push for a plan that would sanction the Assad regime or even transfer power to his deputy and set early elections. Russia and China continue to argue for dialogue between the opposing sides in Syria. Meanwhile, the fighting in Syria continues and the humanitarian crisis worsens.

The new resolution saw a number of significant changes, including an explicit clause rejecting the “use of force or the threat of force” by the international community and calling for a resolution “without foreign military intervention.”

Russia had expressed concern that the original version of the resolution, which included vague references to “consequences,” would leave open the door for NATO to launch another Libya-style war of regime change claiming UN imprimatur.

The exact problems with the new resolution aren’t entirely clear, but reportedly the language affirming that all members of the Security Council “fully support” the Arab League’s plan is one sticking point, with Russia saying it does not want the resolution to “predetermine” the outcome of any internal negotiations on a settlement.

Indeed, Arab League leader Nabil ElAraby is backpedaling so quickly that he’s revising history, insisting now that the Arab League’s “Yemen solution” for Assad to step down in favor of his Vice President never really meant for Assad to step down but instead of delegate certain powers.

A new compromise resolution is reportedly in the works, and it will finally answer long-standing Russian demands for a resolution “without foreign military intervention” and expressly including a clause warning nations not to “resort to the use of force or the threat of force.”

But while the “Yemen solution” appears dead so far as Syria’s government is concerned, and the UN Security Council resolution is not going to force the issue, US and European governments are hard at work looking for a potential exile locale for Assad, should he eventually decide to step down. His choices appear limited – reportedly no European nation will take him, and the Saudis, the default exile hosts for most Arab dictators, do not particularly like Assad either. The United Arab Emirates is reportedly “open” to the idea, but this seems far from a solid deal, presenting one more obstacle to a negotiated solution.

Russia has been fairly clear about this since before the resolution was even proposed, saying it would reject the vague draft over concerns that NATO or the Arab League would use the mention of unspecified “consequences” as an excuse to launch a military invasion.

After a day of long-winded speeches condemning Syria and Russia yesterday, mostly insisting that an invasion wasn’t even being considered, Russia’s ambassador Vitaly Churkin made the position clear again, saying any Syria resolution not explicitly ruling out military intervention would be vetoed. And despite the claims that Russia is merely being paranoid, there appears to be no interest in putting such assurances in writing.

Despite the resolution being dead on arrival, French FM Alain Juppe expressed hope that a deal could be reached with Russia that would allow the resolution to pass next week. He insisted the speeches by NATO members were “grounds for positive thinking.”

The Arab League is pushing a resolution demanding Syrian President Bashar Assad immediately step down. The resolution is eagerly backed by NATO member nations, but is almost certain to be vetoed by Russia.

Russia’s concern centers around fears that NATO or the Arab League would use the resolution as an excuse to invade Syria if Assad doesn’t step down. Most of the speeches from NATO and Arab League members consisted of mocking Russia and insisting this was a “conspiracy theory.”

And while everyone was insisting today that the threat of war was a myth, Qatar and Saudi Arabia have both been pushing for debate on putting Arab League troops on the ground in Syria, and NATO member Turkey is also seen to be considering an invasion to create a “humanitarian corridor” in the nation’s north.

Those pushing the UN resolution point to the growing civil war between the government and the defector forces loyal to the Free Syrian Army (FSA). There is significant doubt, however, that the resolution would settle anything between the two factions, even if it did convince Assad to transfer power to his deputy.

Russia, for its part, has sought to start negotiations between the Assad regime and opposition forces, but the interventionist elements in the international community seem to be averse to it, and the Syrian National Council (SNC) has ruled out any negotiations under any circumstances.

The visit was aimed at bolstering Georgia’s ambitions to join NATO, which are supported loudly by the US but appear overwhelmingly opposed across the rest of the alliance. The elephant in the room was the 2008 Russo-Georgian War.

In that brief war, Georgia attacked Russian forces in the secessionist enclave of South Ossetia. The result was massive Russian retaliation, which destroyed much of Georgia’s military and saw both South Ossetia and Abkhazia declaring formal independence from Georgia.

The US has refused to recognize the new republics, and even today Obama reiterated his support for Georgia’s “territorial integrity,” including reclaiming both of those territories. Saakashvili has vowed to reclaim them by any means necessary, but both have reached security deals with Russia which make such a reunification virtually impossible.

The security arrangements also stand in the way of Georgia’s NATO ambitions, as the alliance is never going to agree to admit the nation given the current situation on the ground. Both sides were careful not to mention the war in today’s talks, but it will cast a big shadow over all dealings with the Georgians going forward.

At the same time, Russia is pushing an effort of their own to settle the incipient civil war in Syria, calling for talks in Moscow between Syrian officials and some of the opposition leaders. Syria’s government has reportedly already agreed to this plan.

At least one of the opposition factions, however, is rejecting the call for talks. A top member of the Syrian National Council (SNC) insisted that his group rejects the notion of talks on general principle. So far there is no word if any other factions, like the Free Syrian Army (FSA), might take part.

Russia has expressed concern that any vague wordings in a UN resolution could be used by NATO for another Libya-style regime change. With some Arab League members, notably Saudi Arabia and Qatar, openly advocating a military invasion of Syria, it seems hard to deny the possibility.

In some ways this reflects Russia’s growing willingness to challenge NATO at the UN Security Council, but it is also a product of NATO’s increasing eagerness to use the council to rubber stamp its operations.

Click here to read more from the Washington Post