Syrian peace hopes: are Russia and the US really on the same page?

There comes a moment in even the most intractable of wars when those involved are so exhausted or so concerned about the widening of the conflict that a settlement suddenly becomes possible. Have we reached that point in Syria? Scepticism about the Munich agreement to work toward a cessation of hostilities in that country, announced on Thursday, must be very nearly automatic – there have been so many diplomatic failures before – yet there are some very small glimmers of hope.

The scepticism comes out of the observation that the participants in the war have always been ready to cheat, and that the newest entrant, Russia, is particularly given to talking the language of peace while continuing to pursue military objectives on the ground. The hope arises from the fact that those fighting or fuelling this war are all at a stage where they need to think very hard about what comes next, because what might come next could be so disastrous.

Russia’s successes have created dilemmas for all the countries involved, including Russia itself. Pressed too hard, the Russian-aided Damascus offensive in rebel areas, particularly around Aleppo, could lead to a confrontation with Turkey, which might in turn lead to a widening of the war which would make it far more difficult to control. So might the arrival of Saudi and other Gulf state forces in Syria, according to Dmitry Medvedev, Russia’s prime minister. And this would be at a time when what is arguably President Vladimir Putin’s main objective, to establish Russia as a major power in the Middle East, has already been achieved.

The United States, for its part, has no appetite for new commitments in Syria, other than the continuing campaign against Isis. Russia has filled the gap left by American inaction, and that is irreversible. Yet Washington can reflect that although Assad may survive for a while, and can do more damage and cause more suffering, he will never again dominate his country in the old way. Meanwhile America’s fundamental aims in the region, which are to defeat Isis and put Iraq back together in however loose a manner, could well be served if a ceasefire inSyria is achieved and proves lasting.

Against such optimistic speculations we must set the obvious difficulties inherent in a deal open to very different interpretations by those who have set their hand to it. The only new element, after all, is the aim of beginning discussion of the modalities of a cessation of hostilities within a week. Everything else, including the stipulations on humanitarian access, was already envisaged in the UN resolution on Syria in December but implemented in only the most fragmentary way, not least because of Russian-aided government offensives.