Originally posted here by Negative
So, to get this straight... I was talking about the March 7 "Resolution" (the one with the March 17-deadline), while you were talking about the Februari 24 "Resolution"... right?

OK then.. about the Februari 24 "Resolution"...(the proposed resolution by the US and Britain, that is)
On February 24, France, Germany, and Russia submitted an informal counter-resolution to the Security Council that states that inspections should be extended and intensified to ensure that there is "a real chance to the peaceful settlement of this crisis," and that "the military option should only be a last resort." Belgium 'forces' the three countries to des-informalize (?) the counter-resolution, and really put it down at the Security Council.
A veto wasn't mentioned at this time as far as I know...

The first mentioning of using a veto is March 7, when France clearly stated that it would veto the MARCH 7 resolution.
Two days before that, the foreign ministers of France, Russia and Germany release a joint declaration stating that they will 'not allow' a resolution authorising military action to pass the UN security council. Doesn't 'not allow' not mean they'd veto it? France AND Russia?

So, unless I'm wrong: if you're talking about a French veto, you're talking about the March 7-"Resolution". A resolution that would be vetoed by Russia as well.
And if you're talking about the February 22-"Resolution"... could you guide me to a source where a French veto is mentioned? A veto that wouldn't be backed up by Russia?
There is nothing wrong with your timeline.
If you look at the bland comments made by Russia & France, it is true that France made its announcement after Russia. However, I think you are overlooking the way international diplomacy works. In essence Russia stated it would veto the resolution, whereas France stated it would veto the resolution (or anything similar) under any circumstances - I'll need to dig back to find a transcript of what the French foreign minister actually said. These statements could not be more different from a diplomatic point of view.

What this means in practice was that Russia was prepared to negotiate - at the time both Blair & Bush were having extensive discussions with Putin. My reading of the signals at the time was that Russia would have compromised on a modified resolution where Iraq agreed to cooperate with the UN Weapons inspectors under a strict timetable (say 3 months), and that any further obstructions by Iraq would enable the use of force, as long as Russia got guarantees about keeping its extensive oil interests in Iraq.

France, rather foolishly in my view, was taking the position that it was not prepared to negotiate under any circumstances. France attempted to backtrack from this position when it realised that the resolution was going to be withdrawn, claiming that its comments made on more than one occasion had been ‘mistranslated’ - one of the most feeble pathetic arguments I have ever seen. France might at least have adopted a consistent position.
I really do believe that if France had adopted a more reasonable position, then there is a good chance that war could have been avoided. After all the only reason the US didn’t invade immediately was because the UK was putting extensive diplomatic pressure on Bush to get a new UN resolution to give Iraq one last chance.

You have to remember a couple of things here - France is by far the most anti US country in the EU (for example France is the only EU state that is not a full member of NATO), so this unilateral position was very popular with the French voters. Secondly, France has (had?) extensive economic interests in Iraq - more than the rest of the EU put together, so it was very much in their interest to prop up the former regime. Not only would France keep its existing contracts, but Iraq would then reward France with further lucrative contracts.
Ironically I bet Russia was delighted by the French position, as hoped it would then be able to get the oil deal it wanted, abstain, and say "nothing to do with us - its the French who vetoed this".
We will never know whether Russia would have actually vetoed this, as the French prevented it from coming to a vote .....