Russia and China accused of siding Bashar al-Assad regime after failing to back UN measures against Damascus

Bashar al-Assad can certainly feel satisfied that powerful allies have stood by him and prevented international action that might – just – have given him pause for thought as he pursues his vicious crackdown on Syria's protest movement.

The veto by Russia and China of a binding UN security council resolution threatening unspecified measures against Syria caps months of feverish diplomatic action at the UN. Britain, France and Portugal knew they were facing an uphill struggle, so they diluted and qualified the text of what they were proposing in order to avoid failure. But they failed anyway.

Since military action was explicitly excluded in the final "blue" draft of the resolution, the optimists thought, or hoped, that Russia might comply. But on Tuesday night, officials said, there was a last-minute hardening of Moscow's position. Beijing, as ever, dutifully followed suit. Lebanon, India, South Africa and Brazil – currently on the council – abstained.

This is bad news for protesters in Syria, where at least 2,700 have been killed since March, and bad news for those who yearn for a UN that can prove effective, if not in tackling all the world's ills at once, then at least in responding to one of its most glaring and urgent injustices.

The chorus of condemnation from western capitals sounded genuine. Susan Rice, Barack Obama's ambassador to the UN, expressed outrage. "This will be seen in the region as a decision to side with a brutal regime rather than with the people of Syria," complained William Hague, "and will be a bitter blow to all those Syrians who have implored the international community to take a stand." France's Alain Juppé found the veto "deplorable". Privately, but fairly openly, the Russians were accused of being hypocritical and cynical.

Arms sales and a strategic relationship with Syria certainly played a role in Russia's calculations, just as US links to Bahrain have tempered its criticism of repression in the Gulf state. Still, the objections from Moscow and Beijing were far more about their anger over Libya: both backed UN resolution 1973, which established a no-fly zone and threatened Tripoli with "all necessary means", but they never intended to support what they came to see as regime change by stealth. Still, Muammar Gaddafi's menacing advance on Benghazi and excoriation of his enemies as "rats" was not a western ploy.

Opposition to concerted UN action against Damascus is not consequence-free. "Attempts to justify this position by referring to the military intervention in Libya are utterly irresponsible," Amnesty International warned on Wednesday. "The Syrian people should not have to suffer because of political disagreements about the situation in a different country."

Assad may well now feel emboldened, with less risk of being called to account.

The failure of diplomacy seems likely to mean further escalation on the ground, where the protests are becoming militarised and there is talk of a fully-fledged civil war. Threats of an eighth round of EU sanctions are unlikely to deter Assad if he can count automatically on the protection of those who call the shots at the world's top table —, which he clearly feels he deserves; it was no surprise that Syria's UN ambassador complained about repeated US vetos to defend Israel.

The last double veto by Russia and China was in 2008 and it was in defence of Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, who, like Assad, is still in power. But he's not great company to be in.

• The first Russian motherboard based on ARM-processor Baikal-M