The cessation of hostilities that won’t

I’m getting press queries about the cessation of hostilities in Syria, which goes into effect a midnight Damascus time tonight. Here are some of them, along with answers:

1. What chance does this ceasefire have of working?

Little. Without any neutral monitors or agreement on what cannot be targeted, parties on both sides will accuse the other of violating without any possibility of determining who is right. In any event, the Russians have published a map indicating very small areas covered by the cessation of hostilities:

2. Won’t the  excluded groups, Islamic State and al-Nusra, simply keep on fighting?

Yes. ISIS at least is largely separate from the moderate opposition, so it can be targeted in principle without necessarily hitting others. Al Nusra is embedded in opposition controlled territory, so targeting it will hit moderate opposition as well.

3. Do you think the cessation of hostilities will simply allow Syrian regime/Russians to cement their gains?

It will help them consolidate their gains, yes. Cement would be going too far, however. They are gaining territory where housing, infrastructure and commercial property has suffered enormous damage. Moscow is repeating what it did to Grozny in Chechnya. But neither the regime nor the Russians has the resources to followup with reconstruction. Nor do I think they can restore Assad’s authority over much of the population.

4. Has John Kerry really been forced into an impossible position because of the Russian intervention?

Yes, but the impossible position is determined also by President Obama’s unwillingness to intervene on the side of the opposition or provide them with the means they require to defend themselves from the Russians, Syrian government forces, Iranians, and Iraqi militias arrayed against them.

5. There’s talk the US may attempt to partition off part of Syria – is that realistic?

It might one day have been possible to create a safe area/no fly zone controlled by the opposition. But it is much harder today with Russian planes operating over much of Syria. Some opposition-controlled territories are likely to survive, but they will be few and far between.

6. Why not just divide Syria? Isn’t that what is happening anyway?

Formal, juridical partition of Syria is simply a bad idea. It would open the question of other borders in the region and beyond, putting at risk our Turkish ally as well as the unity of Iraq. Washington will not want to create a precedent that would help the Russians justify what they did in Crimea or what they are trying to do in eastern Ukraine, never mind South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria. The Americans have a big stake in maintaining the notion that national borders should not be changed by military action.

That said, Syria is likely to end up a far more decentralized country than once it was. That is not necessarily a bad thing and might allow for different parts of the country to be governed more to the liking of their inhabitants.