THE UN-sponsored Syria peace talks in Geneva began on March 14th and are, all being well, scheduled to continue until March 24th. An initial attempt to get them going foundered in early February. The main opposition umbrella group, the High Negotiations Committee (HNC), said that negotiations were futile without either a suspension of air strikes on rebel-held areas being carried by the Syrian regime and its Russian backer or any measures to bring humanitarian relief to civilians in besieged towns. Both were requirements of UN Security Council Resolution 2254, which was passed unanimously in December and was meant to provide the basis for the talks. What hopes do the talks now have?

To get the talks going again, a “cessation of hostilities” agreement was hammered out by John Kerry, America’s secretary of state, and his Russian opposite number, Sergei Lavrov. Endorsed by the 20-nation International Syria Support Group (ISSG) on February 22nd, amid general scepticism, a fragile truce came into force a week later. The agreement excludes Islamic State (IS) and Jabhat al-Nusra (JAN), the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda: both are deemed terrorist organisations. But because JAN fights alongside many of the mainstream opposition groups, the truce was only ever going to be partial. Russian air strikes around Aleppo and IS-held Palmyra have continued. However, the truce is holding better than expected. And aid convoys have been reaching many thousands of desperate Syrians trapped by government forces. Against this improved backdrop, the show in Geneva is back on the road. It has been assisted by Vladimir Putin’s announcement that Russia was withdrawing a substantial part of the force it deployed, supposedly to go after IS but really to shore up the position of Bashar al-Assad’s imperilled regime. Since then, Russian aircraft have flown more than 9,000 sorties, dramatically changing the course of the war. With the help of Russian air strikes and Iranian-commanded militias on the ground, regime forces have recovered more than 400 “populated areas” and nearly 4,000 square miles of territory.

Unfortunately, these gains appear to have turned Mr Assad’s head. Even as the cessation of hostilities agreement was coming into force he was talking about achieving his ultimate goal of re-taking the whole of the country. He also made it clear that while his regime would go to Geneva, he had not the slightest interest in engaging with the UN plan to establish a “credible, inclusive and non-sectarian governance” within six months and set a schedule and process for the drafting of a new constitution, which would in turn be followed by UN-monitored elections. Mr Assad’s increasing intransigence appears to have riled Mr Putin, who is looking for a peace deal that serves Russia’s interests. He has no intention of writing his Syrian client a blank cheque that could result in lengthy, expensive and dangerous overstretch for Russia’s forces. Mr Putin is prepared to do what it takes to preserve a rump Syrian state, but most Russian analysts also believe that he is willing to drop Mr Assad and replace him with someone more malleable if necessary. The next few days should indicate whether Mr Assad has absorbed this reality.

The overarching question is whether Syria can be put back together under some loose federal structure that allows the regime or its successor to hold on to an Alawite enclave that runs along to coast from Latakia down to Damascus; gives the Kurds the territory they call Rojava; and leaves the rest of the country to Syria’s Sunnis, who would then have the problem of clearing IS out of Raqqa and the east, albeit with the help of Western (and possibly Russian) airpower. In the absence of such a deal, the only alternative is likely to be more fighting until exhaustion eventually leads to de facto partition along similar lines. The basis of a settlement is thus visible. But it looks messy and will require everyone to make compromises of a kind that until now has been anathema. If America and Russia are ready to knock heads together, there is more progress establishing what diplomats call “confidence-building measures” and, above all, if the partial ceasefire holds, something better than the current horrors could yet emerge.