So - last week's conference in Vienna, which attempted to lay out a framework for a way out of the war:
"The plan presented by the two appeared to draw heavily on a recently circulated Russian initiative. With just two weeks elapsed since the Syria talks first convened, it could mark a significant advance, if successful.
It sets a Jan. 1 deadline for the start of negotiations between President Bashar al-Assad's government and opposition groups. Lavrov said the Syrian government already had put forward its representatives, with the U.N. special envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura, to begin immediate work on determining who should sit at the table as part of the opposition team.
Within six months, the negotiations between the Syrian sides are to establish "credible, inclusive and non-sectarian" transitional government that would set a schedule for drafting a new constitution and holding a free and fair U.N.-supervised election within 18 months, according to a joint statement released by the United Nations on behalf of the 19 parties to the talks.
But holes remained."
Diplomats set plan for Syrian government, opposition talks, new constitution, elections
Those holes may be the death of this plan yet, I think. But what do the rest of you think? A fudge to let Assad remain in power, while letting the west save face, and Russia keep its strategic interests in the eastern Med? Would it really help defeat Daesh?
And what would it mean for the secular opposition? I notice there's no mention of a truth and reconciliation commission. Those things may be overrated, but they tend to be part of the peace process package in most but not all cases. Where they don't occur, it's because of the way the political balance of forces is configured. . .
Anyway, those are just some random thoughts off the top of my head.