This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/world/middleeast/us-russia-cease-fire-in-syria-obama-putin.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
U.S. and Russia Set Date for Cease-Fire in Syria to Begin U.S.-Russia Deal on a Partial Truce in Syria Raises More Doubt Than Optimism
(about 5 hours later)
WASHINGTON — The United States and Russia on Monday announced plans for a nationwide cessation of hostilities in Syria, the latest effort in what has been a fruitless diplomatic campaign to halt the five-year-old civil war. WASHINGTON — The United States and Russia announced an agreement on Monday for a partial truce in Syria, though the caveats and cautious words on all sides underscored the obstacles in the way of the latest diplomatic effort to end the five-year-old civil war.
The cease-fire, which would take effect on Feb. 27, does not apply to two of the most lethal extremist groups, the Islamic State and the Nusra Front, raising questions about whether it will be any more successful than previous peace efforts. Under the terms of the agreement, the Syrian government and Syria’s armed opposition are being asked to agree to a “cessation of hostilities,” effective this Saturday. But the truce does not apply to two of the most lethal extremist groups, the Islamic State and the Nusra Front, raising questions about whether it will be any more lasting than previous cease-fires.
President Obama called President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia on Monday to discuss the terms of the agreement, but the White House acknowledged that obstacles remained. “This is going to be difficult to implement,” said Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary. The agreement calls for the Syrian government and the opposition to indicate by noon on Friday whether they will comply with the cessation of hostilities, a term carefully chosen because it does not require the kind of agreement in a formal cease-fire. The United States is responsible for bringing the various opposition groups in line while the Russians are supposed to pressure the government. Washington and Moscow also agreed to set up a hotline to monitor compliance by both sides.
Secretary of State John Kerry, who has been heavily involved in previous negotiations on Syria, reacted with similar caution. In a statement Monday, Mr. Kerry did not mention the Feb. 27 date and said that although the agreement represented a “moment of promise,” the “fulfillment of that promise depends on actions.” President Obama sealed the final terms of the arrangement in a phone call with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, who has become perhaps the most influential player in the Syrian war since Russia thrust itself into the conflict in September on behalf of its client, Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad.
The agreement calls for the Syrian government and the armed opposition to indicate by Friday whether they will comply with the cease-fire. The United States and Russia have agreed to set up a hotline to monitor the compliance of both sides. “I am sure that the common actions, agreed with the American side, are capable of radically changing the crisis situation in Syria,” Mr. Putin declared. “Finally, a real chance emerged to stop the longstanding bloodshed and violence.”
Analysts said the agreement was less an effort to end the fighting in Syria than to ease the bloodshed enough to allow more humanitarian aid to reach stricken cities like Aleppo. The White House was more muted, issuing a two-paragraph summary of the president’s conversation, in which he welcomed the agreement but did not celebrate it. The priorities, Mr. Obama told Mr. Putin, were to “alleviate the suffering of the Syrian people,” accelerate a political settlement and keep the focus on the coalition’s battle against the Islamic State.
“This is going to be difficult to implement,” the White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, said. “The fact is that the situation in Syria has been very difficult from the get-go.”
On the ground in Syria, the prospects for an end to the bloodshed seemed even more elusive. In the last week alone, more than 100 people in Homs and Damascus were killed by suicide bombings by the Islamic State. Airstrikes by the Syrian government and its Russian allies in Aleppo and elsewhere have killed scores of people, including in at least five hospitals, one aided by the international charity Doctors Without Borders. Farther east, scores of civilians were said by locals to have been killed in airstrikes by the American-led coalition fighting the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL.
The diplomatic efforts did yield a small victory: Aid was delivered for the first time in months to several towns after the combatants gave permission under intense pressure. But hundreds of thousands of Syrians remain trapped in areas that are classified as besieged or hard to reach, without regular access to food and medicine. Humanitarian groups caution that the more access to aid is used as part of political deals, the less the combatants will provide it unconditionally, as required under international law.
The agreement came after one false start: Secretary of State John Kerry announced in Munich on Feb. 12 that the truce would take effect in a week, but the target date passed as the two sides wrestled over how to carry it out. On Sunday, in Amman, Jordan, Mr. Kerry spoke three times by phone with Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, to iron out the details.
On Monday, while flying back to Washington, Mr. Kerry briefed ministers from Britain, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey about the agreement, according to a senior State Department official. He is expected to discuss the truce when he testifies at a budget hearing Tuesday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Mr. Kerry has tended to be more optimistic than the White House about the prospects for a diplomatic solution in Syria. But his statement on Monday was also notably reserved. He did not mention the Feb. 27 date and said that while the agreement represented a “moment of promise,” the “fulfillment of that promise depends on actions.”
“He is, of course, glad that we got the modalities agreed upon and a start date,” said the State Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss Mr. Kerry’s thinking, “but he isn’t prepared to take anything for granted. In his mind, this is not a time to celebrate.”
Analysts expressed skepticism about the deal, noting that in the five days before the truce takes effect, the Syrian forces and their Russian allies could inflict a lot more damage to Aleppo through bombing raids. Some speculated that Russia might expand its military campaign to Idlib, southwest of Aleppo, where Nusra fighters are also operating.
“This depends entirely on the good faith of Russia, Iran and the Assad regime, none of whom have shown much good faith in the last five years,” said Frederic C. Hof, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council who worked on Syria policy during the first term of the Obama administration.
“The Russians have it in their power to stop this in five days,” Mr. Hof said. “The fact that they’re taking five more days suggests that they will use Nusra as a pretext to go beyond where they are now.”
In Riyadh on Monday, a Saudi-backed consortium of Syrian opposition groups and political dissidents said they would agree to the terms of the truce. But Riad Hijab, who coordinates the group’s efforts, did not expect the Syrian government, Iran or Russia to abide by it since, he said, Mr. Assad’s survival depended on “the continuation of its campaign of oppression, killing and forced displacement.”
For the Obama administration, a partial truce in Syria may simply be a way to keep a lid on the violence there while it turns its attention to planning and carrying out military operations against Islamic State fighters in Libya. Some analysts said the agreement was less an effort to end the fighting in Syria than to ease the bloodshed enough to allow more humanitarian aid to reach stricken cities like Aleppo.
“Washington’s stated policy is not to end the Syrian war,” said Andrew J. Tabler, an expert on Syria at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “They just want to settle it down so it boils a little more slowly. It’s yet another attempt to contain a conflict that has been uncontainable.”“Washington’s stated policy is not to end the Syrian war,” said Andrew J. Tabler, an expert on Syria at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “They just want to settle it down so it boils a little more slowly. It’s yet another attempt to contain a conflict that has been uncontainable.”