It is too early to rejoice over the “breakthrough” represented by the “cessation of hostilities” in Syria, agreed upon at the end of the meeting of the 17-member International Syria Support Group in Munich, which both US Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov took turns to announce.

For starters, the “cessation of hostilities” will presumably start after a week. 

This delay is worrisome. The Syrian army, with the support of Russian aerial bombardment, is tightening its grip on Aleppo, a major, pivotal, city in the north of Syria, and this means more casualties and hardened cornered opposition fighters.

Moreover, the cessation of hostilities does not apply where Daesh or Al Nusra Front are concerned. Lavrov already served notice that the bombing of these opposition groups will not stop even after the cessation of hostilities takes effect.

The pause in the fighting is mainly intended to give peace talks a chance and to allow the flow of humanitarian aid to civilians, often caught in crossfire.

But with Russian and Syrian bombs continuing to fall on targets that are surrounded by civilians, it is difficult to see how the ceasefire will take hold.

Kerry also made a distinction between “ceasefire” and “cessation of hostilities”, describing the former as having a “great many legal prerogatives and requirements while the latter does not”. 

A great deal of help this semantic precision will be to the beleaguered Syrian people!

And to complicate things further, Lavrov added to the ambiguity and uncertainty by saying, at the press conference he held jointly with Kerry to announce the “breakthrough”, that “the real test will be how we implement what we have agreed”, whatever that means.

Actually it means that “the modalities of implementation have yet to be determined”, again showing that decisions are taken on the spur of the moment, with no real vision and planning.

Damascus’ reaction to this “breakthrough” was timid; the main opposition groups welcomed the declaration of cessation of hostilities.

Damascus is clearly buoyant, sure a military victory is within reach due to the enthusiastic Russian support.

Unfortunately, as long as the carrot of a military victory is dangled, no amount of other incentives or sticks will convince Moscow or Damascus to give peace talks a chance.

That would be really dangerous, and will keep Syria embroiled in conflict and will take the lives of more innocent people.