Syria: 'We are near another ceasefire' – Kerry

[webfact]

Syria: 'We are near another ceasefire' – Kerry
By Catherine Hardy | With REUTERS



"We have reached a provisional agreement"

- Kerry says US and Russia agree provisional ceasefire deal
- Obama and Putin to talk in coming days
- Deal excludes operations against “terrorist organisations” – Moscow

MUNICH: -- The US secretary of state says he and his Russian counterpart have reached a provisional agreement on another ceasefire deal for Syria.

Speaking while on a visit to Jordan, John Kerry said he has spoken to Sergei Lavrov.

“In the conversation that we had, we have reached a provisional agreement on the terms of a cessation of hostilities that could begin in the coming days.”

“It is not yet done, and I anticipate that Presidents Obama and Putin may well speak somewhere in the next days in order to try and complete this task.”

He added that US President Barack Obama will be speaking to Russian leader Vladimir Putin in the coming days to finalise the terms of the agreement.

In Moscow, the Russian Foreign Ministry insisted the discussions concern ceasefire conditions and exclude operations against organisations “recognised as terrorist by the UN Security Council.”

The Munich agreement

John Kerry and Sergei Lavrov are the principal actors behind what has come to be known as the Munich agreement.

17 countries and three multilateral organisations met in the German city on the 11th and 12th of February.

They agreed to end hostilities in Syria within a week, setting the date for the 19th of February.

Critics say that while those hopes came to nothing, the indication of a fresh agreement is a hopeful sign.

What they are saying

“We have reached a provisional agreement in principle on the terms of a cessation of hostilities that could begin in the coming days.” – US Secretary of State John Kerry.


-- (c) Copyright Euronews 2016-02-22

[ukrules]

I'm lost. They're still going to be fighting terrorists which presumably includes 'rebels' of all sorts.

So what exactly will stop ?

My prediction : nothing.

[ggt]

Word of the street is that this is more of the Obama administration's bunk...made for TV sound bites with no real meat to it...

I feel certain Russia, like Iran, N. Korea, and China...get a certain amount of amusement "cooperating" with the US in their delusional agreements...

America needs to clean house...if a representative government in not installed soon...the loonies will completely destroy the Republic...

[Krataiboy]

Now all we have to hope is that the Turks, who have been making a killing from IS oil sales, don' throw another spanner in the works.

[boomerangutang]

Just one little problem with plans for a ceasefire: There are millions of angry young men in that region - most of whom have no jobs, and no prospects with women. They're heavily influenced by a mean-spirited religion which compels them to hate and destroy everyone who thinks differently than their Iman. They're like a nest of army ants or hornets. Once activated, they don't stop looking for things to sting. Reason has nothing to do with it.

Other than that, it's a sound plan.

[connda]

This is completely 'one-way'. The Syria and Russia stand-down and the rebels re-arm.

Journalist William Engdahl breaks it down from a historical perspective through to this week's 'cease-fire' for everyone but rebels and ISIS: http://journal-neo.org/2016/02/17/washington-s-machiavellian-game-in-syria/

[connda]

Additional info from non-Western news source. Draw your own conclusions:

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/us-ignores-own-unsc-resolution-tells-russia-stop-bombing-al-qaeda/ri12980

Info based on UN Resolution 2249

[r]eiterates its call in resolution 2249 (2015) for Member States to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as Da’esh), Al-Nusra Front (ANF), and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al Qaeda or ISIL, and other terrorist groups, [...] and to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Syria, and notes that the aforementioned ceasefire will not apply to offensive or defensive actions against these individuals, groups, undertakings and entities, as set forth in the 14 November 2015 ISSG Statement;

Edited February 22, 2016 by connda

[Rancid]

Get the impression that the Russians don't plan to stop till they've sent as many ISIS and associated members as they can onto their just rewards. Seems they are aware that there are many local spawned terrorists there as well and are not planning on them returning home, would prefer to kill them all while they've got them concentrated. Not terribly PC but that will also mean a lot not coming back to Europe either.

[boomerangutang]

Additional info from non-Western news source. Draw your own conclusions:

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/us-ignores-own-unsc-resolution-tells-russia-stop-bombing-al-qaeda/ri12980

Info based on UN Resolution 2249

[r]eiterates its call in resolution 2249 (2015) for Member States to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as Da’esh), Al-Nusra Front (ANF), and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al Qaeda or ISIL, and other terrorist groups, [...] and to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Syria, and notes that the aforementioned ceasefire will not apply to offensive or defensive actions against these individuals, groups, undertakings and entities, as set forth in the 14 November 2015 ISSG Statement;

If I fathom it right, it's understandable: There are so many disparate groups fighting, that it's better to try and get some of them to stop/slow their fighting than to try to get all of them to. It's not as tho there are two sides. It's not possible to get ISIS to agree on anything. They're bombing defenseless priceless ruins, for godsache. Plus everyone but ISIS wants to crush ISIS. So you get all the other parties to cease fire against each other, so everyone can focus on obliterating ISIS, or they can stand on the sidelines and watch the smoke rise, ....their choice.

I wonder how Republican candidates would deal with ISIS. Cruz hinted at nuking them. Trump hinted at charging in there with the full force of the US military force. Either one of those methods would likely result in a quagmire worse than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. It's the; 'bomb first, ask questions later' attitude. It didn't work in Vietnam and it won't work in the dunes.

[retarius]

Kerry is living in an alternate universe. You cannot have a ceasefire until you resolve which groups are terrorists and which groups are merely liver-eating moderate opposition. One might say well why not use the UN list of terrorist groups? And it seems sensible except for one small detail called Al Nusra which are on the UN's list and are recipients of US arms, money and training. They are also getting the shut kicked out of them near Aleppo and have US personnel embedded in their ranks. Al Nusra don't have discrete region where they and only they operate, they are intermingled with a whole lot of other liver-eating moderates. Now Russia uses the fact that al Nusra is operating around Aleppo to bomb both al Nusra and the liver-eating moderates…but every document that comes out of Munich, Geneva or the UN states that al Nusra are to be targeted. American duplicity in having them included in the UN list for several years and they providing them with arms and money has been exposed and played for all it is worth by Russia. The latest is that the Americans have given coordinates of areas where there covert ops are and have asked b=lease to avoid bombing these areas. I guess when you tell lies all the time you forget which lies you have told to whom and they come back and bite you.

Anyway back to the ceasefire….Russia are kicking bottoms around Aleppo why would they suddenly agree that al Nusra are not really terrorists after all?

[arjunadawn]

Is "near ceasefire" like near pregnant? I'd always thought that "near" has value with such things as horseshoes and hand-grenades (nuclear war), but with regards to war and peace, few other uses. Diplomacy has always been known as a language that says a great deal... and nothing at all- simultaneously. In this instance, it clearly says nothing at all. There is something staggering, unique, and quite confounding about this administration's recent Iran talks and these Syrian talks. While each issue has little in common with the other (primae faciae), the antics or choreography around the talks themselves seem unprecedented, circus-like, contrived. This simply must reflect the great genius or utter incompetence of the Americans.

Never has it been truer or more apparent than now that diplomacy is an extension of war rather than war an extension of diplomacy. Watch closely the manner in which America conducts its current foreign policy and this truth is palpably evident.

[boomerangutang]

Wouldn't it be nice if there were two fighting factions with level-headed leaders. You get them to the table, make them understand the sense of not fighting and ....voila, a cease fire. I don't put down Kerry. He's as good as it gets for his role. Can you imagine a negotiator like Trump at the table? He'd get angry in a NY minute and start throwing chairs around like a 5 yr old having a temper tantrum.

[Ghostnigel]

While the ceasefire is on....gather all our shit together, and get the hell out, and leave them to sort it out themselves. We have no right to be in the middle east fighting wars that will never end. All the years in Iraq, nothing accomplished. Afghanistan, the same. Now Syria will be the same, there are far too many nut-jobs in these countries to ever find a solution....get out, save our own people's lives, they don't even want to be there fighting for people that hate their guts, why would they?

[Ghostnigel]

Wouldn't it be nice if there were two fighting factions with level-headed leaders. You get them to the table, make them understand the sense of not fighting and ....voila, a cease fire. I don't put down Kerry. He's as good as it gets for his role. Can you imagine a negotiator like Trump at the table? He'd get angry in a NY minute and start throwing chairs around like a 5 yr old having a temper tantrum.

You cannot negotiate with these people, they know we are weak mentally. They will just wait us out, and just hit us when we are not looking....they don't even want to negotiate with their own kind, let alone infidels...pull out, and let them get on with it....