The agreement on Syria is obviously the result of a compromise between the US, which insisted on an immediate ceasefire, and Russia, which offered to cease fire from 1 March, reports the website of TV channel Fox News. The authors of the article noted that Washington considered the Russian proposal as a ploy that would give Moscow and the Syrian army for three weeks in an attempt to defeat the rebels backed by Western and Arab countries.
A CNN correspondent on world politics Labatt Alice described the agreement as being both significant and not sufficient. She drew attention to the fact that it was used the phrase “cessation of hostilities” and not the word “truce”.
International diplomatic editor, CNN Nick Robertson described the agreement as the Foundation of a gradual process that might lead to more substantive negotiations, which, in turn, have the chance to complete a genuine truce.
Bi-bi-si in an editorial recalled that the heads of Russian and American diplomacy Sergei Lavrov and John Kerry have repeatedly recognized that progress exists only on paper. Some diplomats have said that the agreement “is not worth the paper it’s printed on”, reports the news service of British TV.
Senior international correspondent bi-Bi-si Lisa Doucet notes that the agreement left large gaps. In her opinion, one of the major flaws is that the Russian bombing of terrorist targets in Aleppo is not included in the draft of a possible truce, while many negotiators consider these actions as leading to the strengthening of positions of forces of the Syrian government.
Damascus has not yet responded to the proposal of diplomats, but a spokesman for the largest rebel coalition, Salim al-Muslat encouraged him. According to him, if you start practical implementation of the agreement, you will resume negotiations in Geneva between the Syrian government and the insurgents, transfers bi-Bi-si.
The British foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said Friday that the cessation of hostilities in Syria will be possible only when Russia will stop air support offensive forces of the Syrian government against the opposition, reports Reuters. “Russia, in particular, argues that the attacks of the terrorist group, but yet constantly bombards extremists groups, including civilians. To make this agreement work, these bombings should stop: the cessation of hostilities will not last, if moderate opposition groups will continue to remain targets”, — said the head of British diplomacy.
The New York Times writes that made in the Munich agreement meant that for the first time since the outbreak of the civil war in Syria in 2011, there was hope for ending the violence. The newspaper notes that it will be the first large-scale assistance to the country from which he escaped to 4.4 million people, and many millions became refugees.
Former British Ambassador to Syria Peter Ford warned that the agreement, in his opinion, is Russia’s attempt to split the ranks of opponents of Assad. He likened achieved in the Munich agreement, the so-called “Munich agreement” of 1938, when the Western powers agreed with the intention of Hitler to invade Czechoslovakia.
Western diplomats confirmed that Moscow had agreed to immediately halt the airstrikes that had been a key demand of the Syrian opposition, which is likely to be extremely skeptical to the results of the negotiations, writes The Guardian.
The agreement on a ceasefire in Syria during the week gives Russia and the Assad government time to continue the offensive, which expanded the influence of the Kremlin in the region, notes The Wall Street Journal. The newspaper reminds that Kerry and Lavrov stressed that a genuine truce became a more permanent agreement than the fact that the various parties to the conflict are willing to accept. In particular, the opposition groups said they will not agree to a truce, as long as Assad remains in power, writes the WSJ.
The agreement on cessation of hostilities in Syria, was reached in the night of Friday in Munich members of the International support group in Syria. It must be implemented within a week and does not extend to the terrorist group “Islamic state” and “the Front al-Nusra”, whose activity is prohibited in Russia by the decisions of the courts.