Syria: in Astana reached an agreement for a ceasefire

In the Astana conference on Syria, the parties reached an agreement that would allow the monitoring and implementation of the ceasefire, in order, also, to avoid any provocative action which can reopen the conflict. It is a basis for agreement which certainly appears weak, a result due to insufficient involvement of the opposition to the Assad regime and the lack impartiality of the three countries that have promoted the conference, Iran, Russia and Turkey, too involved by their specific interests on the fate of the Syrian country. The opposition, which, it should be remembered, are Sunni matrix, while signing the agreement, expressed his dissatisfaction with Iran too invasive action, which continues its military action in Sunni areas, causing the population fleeing and the subsequent settlement of the Scythians. The signing of the agreement, including all the explicit effects, makes it effective also those implied, as, indeed, the Iranian action, why not express condemnation. Tehran garrison the Syrian territory has become a strategic objective, as the very survival of the regime in Damascus, considered a functional ally to the containment of possible actions of the Gulf monarchies, especially the traditional opponent of Saudi Arabia. But the rebels were also disappointed by Turkey's conduct, which was to be the country this just to ensure the Sunni opposition forces. Ankara has maintained an attitude considered too soft by the rebels, thus favoring Assad and Shiite forces. Turkey, seems to have used the rebels to gain credit to the Astana conference, without protecting them sufficiently, but only to advance their interest in the containment of the Kurds and eliminate any possibility of the creation of a state or of a Kurdish autonomous entity, on its borders. For Russia, the conference served mostly to credit Moscow, in front of the international stage, as a new player on the diplomatic theater and defend its military action, presented as terrorism, but in fact in favor of maintaining the power of Assad, that without the Russian intervention, it would have been in a different position from the current one. Even the positive statements of the head of the Russian delegation, seem to be easily contradicted by the climate in which the meeting took place, where the opposing delegations have never had direct meetings, but only mediated by the negotiators of the host countries and that they are carried out in a climate of clear imbalance in favor of Damascus. But the most negative factor appears the lack of a political program that sees involved effectively in the opposition, to build the future of the Syrian country. The movements opposed to Assad remain, for now, outside, by an organic process of reconstruction of Syrian institutions, firmly in the hands of Damascus. This fact could be crucial for the continuation of the truce reached with difficulty, since, from a political point of view, the opposition are left without any concessions, and in the medium term this lack might screw be an opportunity to resume hostilities. However, if you positively want to consider reaching an agreement, albeit inadequate, after so many failed attempts, diplomacy should not cease to look for new forms of dialogue and solutions that involve the opposition, in order to eliminate possible causes of reopening of the conflict, although it will not be easy to convince Assad, who always enjoys more of a position of strength.