The civil war has not stopped in Syria for several years. The armed opposition forces are actively opposing the official authorities, which are headed by President Bashar al-Assad. Until now, all efforts of the state and international mediators have not led to an end to the armed conflict. Apparently, the only way to stop the war in Syria is to change the positions of the parties in relation to the situation.
The situation in Syria by mid-2014
Syria's armed opposition is extremely heterogeneous. Several groups with different political goals operate against the Assad regime. There is information that some parts of the rebels are supported by the international terrorist organization Al-Qaeda. Among the opposition forces one can find radical Islamists striving by all means to create a cohesive coalition capable of overthrowing President Assad.
There is no unity in the camp of the enemies of the incumbent president, which significantly constrains the actions of the opposition. Their Western and Arab supporters are making efforts to bridge the gap and put a united front against the Syrian authorities. But so far such attempts have not been crowned with success. One of the reasons that the conflict has dragged on for many years is precisely the fact that Assad is opposed not by a specific political adversary, but by several scattered and insufficiently armed groups.
The country's authorities periodically achieve local successes in hostilities, but after this the opposition strikes back. Lack of weapons, supplies and thousands of casualties on both sides do not stop the warring forces.
Assad's opponents are actively supported by the United States, while Russia and Iran traditionally stand on the side of the ruling political elite today.
Ways to end the war in Syria
Analysts agree that there is only one way to end the armed conflict in Syria. To this end, Western countries must stop their statements that a constructive dialogue between various political forces is possible only on condition of leaving the post of President Assad. The June 2014 presidential elections showed that the incumbent head of state enjoys the confidence of the majority of the country's residents who took part in the voting.
The opposition is angry at the mere thought that it will have to negotiate peacefully with the newly elected President Assad. But if the leaders of the forces hostile to the authorities and their Western patrons really intend to end the prolonged bloodshed, then negotiations and a reasonable compromise become the only effective means against war.
The beginning of the conflict settlement process should be a complete cessation of hostilities by both sides. When the cannons in Syria are silenced, the time will come for mediating structures to participate in the peace process. Their composition and representation should be such that the interests of all parties to the conflict could be taken into account in the course of negotiations.
It is quite possible that after a complete cessation of hostilities, it will be necessary to introduce international peacekeeping forces into the country and invite independent observers.
But such a scenario still seems unlikely, since there is an acute conflict between the countries claiming mediation. Relations between Russia and the United States were already quite tense. Now, the situation is mingled with disagreements on issues related not only to Syria, but also to Ukraine. Against the backdrop of an active political struggle between two powerful powers, it is difficult to expect that one of the parties patronizing both Syrian forces will be able to make concessions in the name of peace. It remains to wait, prepare arguments and counterarguments, and also hope for a change in the situation in geopolitics.
