Getty ImagesRussia's military intervention has dramatically changed the calculations of all involved.The Russian proposal on Syria - it is perhaps an overstatement to describe this yet as a peace plan - represents the first statement of Moscow's view as to what should happen on the political front to bring about an end to the crisis.
Russian air power may not yet have rolled back President Bashar al-Assad's opponents on all fronts. But it has produced some local successes for the Syrian government forces.
Above all, it has signalled that Moscow will not allow the Syrian government to fall. And thus it has made clear, for the immediate future at least, that the path to any settlement runs through Moscow.
But President Vladimir Putin is hard-headed. He knows if Russia's intervention is to be "successful" in his own terms, then it must be limited in both scope and duration. A more expansive role risks entanglement or worse.
AP
That is why Russia is now rolling out its proposals on the diplomatic track, and they make interesting reading.
Two problems
Moscow wants to see a new Syrian constitution within 18 months. This would be put to a popular referendum to be followed - if approved - by presidential elections.
It builds upon a plan agreed in June 2012 by the major powers calling for the establishment of a transitional governing body for Syria, with full executive powers, that would itself lead to fresh elections.
In this sense, the Russian proposals, which appear to have been leaked at the UN, are in part a restatement of the Geneva communique of 2012, but recast in a Russian accent.
But two fundamental problems are immediately apparent:
- First, there is the position of President Assad himself. The leaked document makes no mention of Mr Assad standing down during the transitional process, though it does say: "The president of Syria will not chair the constitutional commission"
- The second problem is that of inclusivity - who actually will be asked to participate in the eventual peace talks?
Reuters
The Russian proposal speaks of the launching of a political process between the Syrian government and "a united delegation of opposition groups".
But what exactly does this mean? Will it include many of the rebel groups backed by Turkey, the Gulf Arabs and the West, some of who have taken the brunt of Russian air strikes? How can these diverse and in many cases highly fragmented and localised groups be pulled together into a delegation that can speak with a common voice?
Up to a point, the Russians are clear as to who will not be at the table. Moscow wants the UN to make a clear distinction between what it calls "opposition and "terrorist" groups. The so-called Islamic State clearly falls into the latter camp, but the Russians say they also want "other terrorist groups" to be excluded.
Who is fighting whom in Syria?
Difficult path
Leaving aside these essential details, there is much in the broad lines of the Russian proposal that other key players might agree with. And in terms of maintaining momentum ahead of the next round of formal talks in Vienna on Saturday, the Russian initiative is significant.
However, what it leaves out underscores just how difficult the path ahead is.
The Vienna talks do not involve either the Syrian government or the key rebel groups.
Vienna also does not simply represent a gathering of disinterested parties. All certainly want to bring peace to Syria. The regional instability and the refugee flows prompted by Syria's bitter civil wars present a crisis for both the Middle East and Europe.
Reuters
Add in the dangers of wider radicalisation, and this matters to Moscow too.
Russia and Iran are of course staunch allies of Mr Assad - at least for now. But other players such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf Arabs have all taken sides in this battle.
They want peace but on terms that leave a Syria that fits in with their particular security concerns and their perceptions of the future of the region.
This is only the beginning of what promises to be a long and complex process. But it is at least a start.
- US: President Assad must go, but that does not need to happen before apolitical transition process get under way
- Saudi Arabia: President Assad must go "within a specific timeframe" and before any elections for a new government
- Turkey: President Assad must go, though could remain for a "symbolic" six months
- SNC (main Western- and Gulf Arab-backed anti-Assad opposition): President Assad must go, and cannot be part of any political process
- Russia: President Assad should not be forced to go, Syrians should hold elections to decide who rules them
- Iran: President Assad should not step down, Syrians should decide their own political future
