In principle, the ceasefire agreement concluded by Russia with Turkey and Iran in preparation for a new round of talks in the Kazakhstani capital Astana is good. Ceasefire is very important for a political process expected to be very lengthy and complicated in view of the big differences between the two disputants: the opposition and the regime. The Syrian Free Army, a main component in the oppositional spectrum, wants the Astana talks to be consistent with the Geneva Talks which have not yielded any binding agreement to be taken as a basis or a starting point for a solution ending the extremely complicated crisis. The regime refuses any discussion calling Bashar to step down. It does not want any discussion of a point which is central in the dispute between the two sides of the equation. In any negotiations, there must be a common ground between negotiators so that they may embark on real negotiations yielding tangible outcomes. In the Syrian case, we do not see such common ground in view of the significant conflict of viewpoints. However, pressure exercised by Turkey and Iran over the two disputants may give rise to such common ground. Russia will assume the role of the party having the final decision or, let us say, the decisive pressure over either disputant to bring about enforceable results. We all know that Russia is more involved in the Syrian crisis than any other country. Russia is expressly aligned with the regime. Had it not been for the Russian support, the regime would have not survived so far. Therefore, betting will be on Russian neutrality at the beginning of negotiations, during the process of negotiation and thereafter.
