A cessation of hostilities unlikely to last

It took a week or two, but the US and Russia have finally come up with a joint statement whose Annex specifies the terms for the cessation of hostilities in Syria.

Basically it says to the government and opposition fighters (other than those belonging to the Islamic State, Jabhat al Nusra and other terrorist groups) that they need to accept the terms by noon Thursday or risk attack from midnight Friday onwards. The terms include a commitment to participate in the UN-facilitated political process convened under Security Council resolution 2254, to cease attacks, to allow humanitarian access, to refrain from acquiring territory and to proportionate use of force in response to violations.

The US and Russia are to delineate territories the adherents control and provide the capacity to prevent attacks against those who adhere to the agreement, including a working group and communications facilities to investigate noncompliance. No neutral observers are to be deployed. The UN’s special envoy (Stefano De Mistura) is to provide the secretariat for the effort.

The Syrian regime responded quickly. It announced parliamentary elections for April 13, in an obvious effort to short-circuit the UN political process and present the international community with a fait accompli in the form of yet another fraudulent election outcome. No serious opposition will be prepared to participate in an election occurring that quickly under the disastrous conditions existing in Syria today.

I imagine many of the opposition fighting forces will accept the cessation of hostilities. They are on the ropes after weeks of ferocious and indiscriminate Russian bombing. The civilians in areas they control are desperate. The Americans will do their best to twist arms and deliver their friends, including by threatening to cut off support.

The Russians swear up and down they will do everything necessary to deliver the Syrian government. That is hard to believe after their mendacious behavior of the last few months, when they used the cover of international negotiations to mount their offensive. More likely, the Russians as well as the Iranians will use any lull in the fighting to reinforce the Syrian army, Hizbollah and Shia militia fighters from Iraq for the resumption of the war.

Unless someone comes up with a way of getting Bashar al Assad to commit to give up power on a date certain, I expect any cessation of hostilities to be a hiatus, possibly a very short one, not the beginning of a serious political process. Assad’s calling of elections is a clear signal of his disdain for the Geneva 1, Vienna 2 and other internationally negotiated agreements intended to end the war with a political transition.

The Russians aren’t going to force him out after doubling down on their bet last fall and winning back strategically important territory from the opposition. From Moscow’s perspective, this cessation of hostilities is an opportunity for its allies on the ground to consolidate control and get ready for the next round.

There is no indication that Washington is prepared to do likewise for the opposition, who not only lost important territory to the Russian-backed offensive but also find themselves without the anti-aircraft and other weapons they require if they are to perform any better next time around.

Russia is winning a war in Syria the United States refuses to fight, or let others fight. But in doing so, Moscow has alienated most of the Syrian population and guaranteed it will lose the peace.