Syrian rebels and government officials attended their first day of peace talks in Astana, which saw them meeting face to face for the first time in the entire war. The meeting was far from cause for celebration, however, as the two sides angrily traded barbs, and threatened to leave.
The rebels continued to accuse the government, and their allies from Iran, of violating the ceasefire by attacking targets linked to al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front. The Nusra Front is not party to the ceasefire, which has led to officials insisting no violation took place.
Syrian Ambassador Bashar al-Jaafari, the head of the government’s delegation, condemned the rebel leader as “insolent,” and encouraged President Bashar al-Assad to withdraw from the talks. This didn’t happen, obviously, but the sides quickly adjourned to separate rooms.
There’s no indication that anything worthwhile came of the indirect talks that happened over the course of the rest of the day, with the rebels insisting that all talks have to happen from separate rooms to punish the government for ceasefire violations.
This information is from AP. Other sources have a few extra items little more. The leader of the largest group, Jaish Al-Islam, declared he would go
very far for peace if opportunity for solid cease fire is agreed upon.
There are smaller groups that are complaining about Al-Nusra not included. UN special representative is doing all the negotiating, and he goes to Iran to intercede with the Government and to Turkey to intercede with militants.
They are not making things public but it does look like the key objective is to clarify and stabilize cease fire — and start regular deivery of humanitarian aid.
Al -Nusra has today attacked groups in Idlib that have been contemplating participstion in peace conference. Al- Nusra (Jaish Al-Fatah Al-Sham) has today cut internet service to all groups throughout Idlib and Aleppo province. Al-Nusra expelled one group today, as defections are increasing. Al-Nusra is trying to discipline the rebel ranks.
The most important thing we can look for now is how the US is going to tilt the negotiating table in favour of the terrorists. Otherwise, if the US doesn’t interfrere, there is a terrible possibility of peace breaking out!
If this article is accurate in reporting that the “rebels” are complaining of cease-fire violations by the government IN ATTACKING AL QAEDA/AL NUSRA/LATEST LABEL FOR AL QAEDA — which is admittedly not included in the cease-fire agreement — then why does the author try to make it appear that there is a legitimate disagreement between the “rebels” and the government? The fact is that the “rebels” are linked with and led by Al Qaeda, and there can be no successful cease-fire or peace agreement with any “rebels” who refuse to disassociate themselves from Al Qaeda. And it seems also to be that fact that there are really few if any “rebel” fighters not under the control of Al Qaeda.
Another silly Russian forced ceasefire when victory on the ground was at hand…
No baldric, Russia/Syria fought themselves into a position of strength which motivated the terrorist side to seek peace talks. Now, if the US doesn’t interfere, the Russian/Sryian side will achieve some very admirable results.
However, it’s a sure bet that the US will interfere in order to level the negotiating table and to even tilt if in favour of the terrorists. All of us should be vigilant in observing how that will be done, because it undoubtedly ‘will’ be done!
luv from Canada.
Informed readers might want to read a different point of view.
https://www.rt.com/news/374900-syria-talks-statement-russia/
The difference seems to be whether to view the glass as half-full or half-empty. The western, corporate, pro-war, fake news sources cited above don’t want any progress and they want the war to continue and they want to protect Al-Qaida, so the pieces in the article reflect this. The Russians want peace and an end to the fighting and to blast and hurt terrorists like Al-Qaida, so their article focuses on the progress achieved in the talks.
Not saying either is completely true, but for people who want to be informed they should at least read the alternative opinion that doesn’t come from western, corporate, pro-war sources.
The terrorists have entered into the peace negotiations from a position of weakness. That’s the first point to establish in your minds.
In order to change that to a position of strength, they require covert support from the US to even the playing field. This begs the question of what the US position is going to be and also illustrates that it’s most likely that the US won’t come on board for the side of peace.
If the US withdrew support for the opposition against Assad legitimate government then the peace talks would obviously succeed. That’s very unlkikely but still, it’s going to result in an opportunity for the world to see first hand why the war continues.