By Wen Shaobiao

Leaders of Russia, Turkey and Iran recently held talks on Syria once again in the southern Russian city of Sochi recently, as a continuity of the Astana process on Syria peace. They particularly discussed issues such as the situation in Syria’s Idlib area, the withdrawal of US troops from Syria and terrorism.

The “three-party” peace talks on Syria have been held among the three countries in alternation for several rounds. The mechanism aims to lay the foundation for political trust and cooperation to some extent through repeated talks, thus creating certain conditions for future political reconciliation of the Syria conflict.

At present, the “three-party” peace talks still face a series of problems, which may impede the mechanism from playing a greater role in the future.

First, the focus of Syria remains the situation of Idlib, which involves interest contentions among Russia, Turkey, Iran, the US, Syrian government and opposition forces, and the Kurdish armed groups in the area. As so many parties fiercely compete for interests, it is unlikely for them to completely place hope on political settlement. It will be hard to “achieve peace through talks.” On the contrary, it is more likely to “promote peace talks through armed conflicts.” That means involved parties will probably use established facts on the battlefield as bargaining chips in multilateral political negotiations.

Second, although the US announced the plan to withdraw its troops from Syria, the action has yet to be put into practice. The presence of US military in Kurdish-controlled regions and Idlib in Syria still has influence on the situation of those regions. Owing to the assistance of the US military, the Kurdish armed groups and Syrian opposition forces still have combat power and they will not allow Russia, Turkey, Iran and the Syrian government to determine their fate. Even if the US troops eventually retreat from Syria, the US will certainly intervene in Syria’s post-war arrangements by various means. In fact, the trilateral meeting mechanism among Russia, Turkey and Iran can only achieve a tactical suspension of violent conflicts in Syria, rather than a complete framework of political peace talks, which may be subject to the sabotage and interference from Western countries.

Finally, Russia, Turkey and Iran have motivations to seek cooperation on Syria, which is the foundation for their trilateral peace talks. However, their divergence of interests is also impeding the mechanism from playing a substantive role. The three countries are willing to collaborate in aspects such as building “conflict abating zones,” combating extremist groups such as ISIS, securing channels of international humanitarian aid, and preventing the refugee crisis from expanding. These are also where the third-party peace talks will most likely to make breakthroughs. However, the three countries have significant divergences in terms of the Kurdish issue, the political solution to establishing the new Syrian government, and attitudes towards the US. This determines that their trilateral peace talks will be a long-term process with turns and twists, and will not yield immediate results.

In a nutshell, the trilateral meeting mechanism among Russia, Turkey and Iran brings hope to the Syria peace process and to some extent, exerts positive influence. However, it is unable to solve the core problem faced by Syria in the short run. It is likely that the reality of superpower games and armed independent regimes and the logic of violence will still play a key role in the development of Syria situation. To achieve true peace in Syria, all involved parties need to correct their attitudes, communicate honestly and join hands to solve the existing problems.

(The author is from the School of International Relations and Public Affairs, Fudan University.)