This morning John Kerry and Sergei Lavrov met in Vienna to chair a meeting of the International Syria Support Group. As February’s ceasefire agreement has almost completely collapsed now, with fighting taking place in Aleppo, Homs and Damascus, many are pinning their hopes on these new efforts at another truce. Though inherently problematic due to a lack of consensus on which groups are to be considered legitimate targets, and therefore unlikely to last (just like the previous agreement), a cessation of hostilities brokered by the US and Russia remains the greatest hope for a reduction of violence in the short term; images of people returning to the streets shortly following February’s agreement act as a reminder of what is at stake for ordinary Syrians.

Nevertheless, there are several reasons to be less optimistic this time: perhaps most importantly the lack of will to end hostilities by either of the main warring parties. The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) continues to consolidate its gains following the recapture of Palmyra from ISIS, and is finally making progress in the difficult arena of the East Ghouta region of Damascus. Likewise, an emboldened Jabhat Al-Nusra, having resupplied in both man-power and munitions, has seized several important sites from the Syrian government over the past few weeks – both in southern Aleppo and more recently in northern Homs – and is unlikely to be willing to give up its momentum.

Moreover, there is now less of an appetite for further agreements with rebel groups in much of government controlled Syria: It was in contravention of just such a ceasefire agreement that the rebel group ‘Ahrar Al-Sham’, alongside Al-Nusra, attacked the town of Al-Zara and massacred the civilians there. Events like this, alongside some important gains for the SAA, make further ceasefire agreements with the various Islamist groups even less palatable than before.

ALSO READ  Russia strengthens military base near US troops in northeast Syria: photo

This brings us back to a key point, and the central problem of both these and previous talks: Jabhat Al-Nusra was not included in the previous ceasefire, nor is it to be included in the current round of talks. And yet it is impossible to speak of military developments on the rebel side without invoking the Al-Qaeda franchise, which remains the most powerful and unifying rebel force, and which has been involved in almost all rebel offensives since the truce broke down.

The inability of rebel groups to separate themselves from Jabhat Al-Nusra has led to a situation of perpetual ambiguity with regards to which groups and sites are (and which are not) legitimate targets for the SAA and Russian Air Force.

Share this article:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Notice: All comments represent the view of the commenter and not necessarily the views of AMN.

All comments that are not spam or wholly inappropriate are approved, we do not sort out opinions or points of view that are different from ours.

This is a Civilized Place for Public Discussion

Please treat this discussion with the same respect you would a public park. We, too, are a shared community resource — a place to share skills, knowledge and interests through ongoing conversation.

These are not hard and fast rules, merely guidelines to aid the human judgment of our community and keep this a clean and well-lighted place for civilized public discourse.

Improve the Discussion

Help us make this a great place for discussion by always working to improve the discussion in some way, however small. If you are not sure your post adds to the conversation, think over what you want to say and try again later.

The topics discussed here matter to us, and we want you to act as if they matter to you, too. Be respectful of the topics and the people discussing them, even if you disagree with some of what is being said.

Be Agreeable, Even When You Disagree

You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it. That’s fine. But remember to criticize ideas, not people. Please avoid:

  • Name-calling
  • Ad hominem attacks
  • Responding to a post’s tone instead of its actual content
  • Knee-jerk contradiction

Instead, provide reasoned counter-arguments that improve the conversation.

5 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
andy
andy
2016-05-17 12:14

we don’t have any good hope,DUE TO THIS AMERICAN DIRTY DOG WHO GOING TO SOLVE SYRIAN PROBLEM

James Portugal Bustillo
James Portugal Bustillo
2016-05-17 13:02

these two guys talks for the “peoples of the world”…hahaha what a joke!

.
.
2016-05-17 15:44

Russian FM,do u trust this AMERICAN TERRORIST BREEDER,that he bring peace?or vesting time ?

PLK
PLK
2016-05-17 16:25

What a strange name, “International Syrian Support Group” for those countries that would destroy Syria. They should mind their own business, and go home. Syria needs to stand tough for the sake of their own country, and annihilate all foreign terrorists. The only legitimate foreigners there are the Russians who are there at the request of the Syrian government.
Why all the concern for Syrians, and none for Palestinians?

Catfish
Catfish
2016-05-17 23:39
Reply to  PLK

The syrian “support” groups tends to use what in the book 1984 as newspeak. They want to force the legitimate government to submit and support the terrorist groups destroying syria and its historic sites. Even two of the countries supposedly supporting democracy in syria are monarchies in which you will be labeled a terrorist for protesting and beheaded or worse. Syria, yemen and russia should promote democratic reforms in qatar and saudi arabia in retaliation for them meddling in Syria.