The UN Security Council is playing the violins of florid US-Russian rhetoric while Aleppo burns and forlorn children scream.

Americans are riveted by the forthcoming debate between Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton but many in the world are riveted by America’s helplessness before the wanton destruction of historic Aleppo and the unrelenting ruthless killing by air attacks of hundreds of civilians.

Today, US ambassador Samantha Power told the Security Council, “Instead of pursuing peace, Russia and (Syria’s Bashar) Assad make war. Instead of helping get life-saving aid to civilians, Russia and Assad are bombing the humanitarian convoys, hospitals, and first responders who are trying desperately to keep people alive.”

“We have convened the Security Council today because the Russian Federation and the Assad regime have launched an all-out air and ground offensive against eastern Aleppo and its 275,000 civilians. Russia and Assad have reportedly launched more than 150 airstrikes over the last 72 hours, killing at least 139 people and injuring hundreds more, laying waste to what is left of an iconic Middle Eastern city.”

“This is not the day, this is not the time to blame all sides, to draw false equivalencies… It is time to say who is carrying out those airstrikes, and who is killing civilians.…this Council can at the very least have the courage to say who is responsible for this. And, in a single voice, tell Russia to stop.”

These words and the rest of her speech were fine examples of outrage and justified finger pointing. But to what practical end, apart from scoring points in the US-Russia war of words?

Russia is a veto-wielding permanent member of the Security Council. It is hardly likely to vote in favor of a censure or condemnation of its own actions.

Particularly as it thinks the prime purpose of the US and its allies is to depose Assad rather than first destroying declared terrorist groups, including the Islamic State (ISIL) and various al Qaeda affiliates.

Russia believes that the US provoked and worsened the current wars in Syria by training and arming hundreds of fighters in specialized centers in Turkey and Jordan during the past half-decade.

The fighters were trained to fight Assad’s forces and oust the Assad regime but many joined the jihadists. They felt that the US and its chief allies Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey did not give them enough heavy weapons for the fight on the ground.

The US was also too controlling and did not give them enough leeway to confront Assad’s forces using their own tactics.

So they joined jihadists, the side they thought was less domineering than their American paymasters and more determined to destroy Assad.

The US refused to transfer heavy arms fearing that they would fall into the hands of ISIL, al Qaeda affiliates and other jihadists who hate America.

It exerted close control because of fear that its mainly Sunni Muslim friends would go on a spree of revenge killings or human rights abuses against Shia Alawites and related militias.

Results included failure of the US-led coalition of 67 countries to stop Assad although he was helped by far weaker supporters, mainly Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah militia.

Shia Iran possesses weapons far less sophisticated than those of the US alliance and was reeling under draconian Western economic sanctions. It should have been no match for the US-supported local Sunni Arabs.

Then in late 2015, Moscow decided to teach the US a lesson to retaliate for the economic sanctions on Russia after it occupied Crimea and destabilized eastern Ukraine

Unlike Iran’s covert intervention, Russia openly sent warplanes and troops to Syria to prop up Assad. Now its actions are causing havoc in eastern Aleppo to break the backs of US-supported rebels who have held it for five years.

Among other things, the intervention has forced Washington to recognize Moscow as a kingpin for its efforts to bring peace however fragile to Aleppo and Syria.

For its part, Russia is in a bind. A decision to stop the offensive would amount to recognition that US-supported rebels should continue their control of eastern Aleppo. That recognition would imply acquiescence to an end to Assad and his regime.

At this stage, Russia has nothing to gain from abandoning Assad. Moscow’s earlier hope was to use the Syrian intervention as a bargaining chip to obtain US acquiescence to its annexation of Crimea.

It also wants to win autonomy for the mostly Russian-speaking east Ukraine, without breaking up the country any further.

Washington stoutly rejects such ideas, so Moscow continues on its bloody path in Aleppo while paying lip service to such American goals as destroying ISIL and the al Qaeda affiliates.

A core obstacle is the activity of al Qaeda affiliates alongside US-supported rebels in the Aleppo area. Their goal is to win enough prestige among Sunni Syrians to dislodge ISIL and be admired as the primary revolutionary force in Syria.

American inability to separate the al Qaeda affiliates from US-supported rebels is providing the diplomatic cover Moscow needs to continue bombing Aleppo.

Thus, it feels justified in disregarding its agreement with Secretary John Kerry to enforce a local ceasefire to permit delivery of humanitarian aid.

The maddening result is that helpless people continue to die by the hundreds in Aleppo as their beloved city, a cradle of Mideast civilization, is reduced to rubble.