Plans to end hostilities in Syria within a week, revive peace talks, and deliver humanitarian aid to civilians have been unveiled during a press conference after the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) meeting in Munich, Germany on the 12^th of February. These plans, whilst optimistic, have been hailed as a considerable and positive step towards a lasting peace in the region by the powers involved, including Russia, Saudi Arabia, the US and Iran. However, as pointed out by US Secretary of State John Kerry, these agreements are only on paper, and the real test of progress will be demonstrated on the ground in Syria.

To this end, it is important to understand what the various parties to the negotiations want, why they are there, and whether they are likely to honour their commitments. The Syrian government has sent representatives, as have most opposition groups, with the absence of the Islamic State (ISIS). All parties to the negotiations have stated that their main objective is to destroy ISIS, but this appears to be as far as the various Syrian groups are willing to cooperate. So far, the Syrian government and opposition groups have been unwilling to be in the same room as one another and therefore had to undertake ‘proximity’ talks, utilizing U.N. envoy Staffan de Mistura as mediator. At this point, the direction in which negotiations will develop is unclear. Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, criticized Syrian opposition groups for putting forward preconditions to negotiations as ‘completely unconstructive,’ stating that, “the talks must resume as soon as possible in strict compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 2254, without any ultimatums or preconditions.”

However, whilst these preconditions and demands may seem undiplomatic, they simply reflect the reality on the ground. It’s not surprising that opposition groups are issuing demands and ultimatums to end the violence, especially when there is documented evidence that the Assad regime has been committing systematic human rights abuses. “If the Dead Could Speak: Mass Deaths and Torture in Syria’s Detention Facilities,” a report released by Human Rights Watch, contains thousands of images of torture in Syrian detention facilities, whilst there are numerous reports detailing the Assad regimes use of barrel bombs and chemical weapons. A refusal to acknowledge these crimes by the Russian delegation speaks of a dis-ingenuity that will only prolong negotiations.

This desire – to prolong peace talks – has been raised by activists within Syria and external commentators as a means to pacify international concern, whilst allowing the Syrian government to continue its campaign against opposition groups. This is reflected in the criticism projected at Russia during the peace process. The peace deal allows for Russia to continue bombing ‘terrorist’ groups, and allows for Russia to unilaterally define opposition groups to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as terrorists. Lavrov was quick to emphasize that Russia will continue to bomb ‘terrorist’ groups. At the time of the peace deals, Russian airstrikes were actually increasing in Syria, as Syrian troops advanced on Aleppo. This is problematic, as the longer Russian forces are permitted to bomb both legitimate terrorist groups and opposition groups, the less leverage opposition groups will have in negotiations with the Syrian government. It is possible that if Assad feels his position has become sufficiently secure, he may abandon the peace process entirely.

Whilst these criticisms are important to acknowledge, they shouldn’t be taken as undermining the importance of the peace process itself. Cease-fires have allowed essential aid into regions that have been suffering from extreme starvation, and the negotiations have gone some way to clarifying the interests of the parties on the ground. What is essential at this point is that an effective ceasefire is enforced. That way, even if negotiations are slow to find an acceptable compromise, there will at least be a modicum of stability for the Syrian people, allowing the region to address issues of humanitarian aid, refugee flows, and the continued threat of ISIS.