Regardless of its original causes, the Syrian collision quickly became a defining moment for the future of regional politics. The balance (or imbalance) in the entire Middle East now depends on what happens in Syria.

       The diplomatic saga of negotiating the end of the civil war in Syria has reached a critical point. The wave of expectations engendered by the removal of the first batch of chemical weapons from Syria and Geneva-2 has subsided. Analysts have started talking about political deadlock, reviving last fall’s rhetoric.

       The diplomatic process is obviously in crisis. The boost given by the Russian initiative last September is not enough to sustain the process. A similar impetus is required not only to step up negotiations but also to bring some new ideas to the table.

       Now it’s up to the diplomats to reach a political settlement. They have to somehow narrow the gap between diametrically opposed positions. So far they have relied on technical gimmicks, wording statements in a way that both sides would find acceptable. This is only natural. Considering the degree of mutual antagonism, it is necessary above all to bolster confidence, or to create it in the first place. This technical groundwork is essential, but substantial progress is only possible at the political level.

       Regardless of its original causes, the Syrian collision quickly became a defining moment for the future of regional politics. The balance (or imbalance) in the entire Middle East now depends on what happens in Syria. While ultimately only the Syrians themselves can come to terms, it is also obvious that they will be unable to reach a compromise without the consent of external forces.

       Syria’s future arrangement, its form of government, is the main issue at stake, not the makeup of the transitional government, as the opposition insists. And this should be the focus of attention at the Geneva negotiations. Any demand to change the government (for example, that Assad must step down) is doomed to fail – Damascus is not going to discuss surrender, especially since the regime is, at the very least, not losing on the battlefield.

       A secular Syria that guarantees the rights of all groups, both legally and politically, could become a common goal for the “healthy” core of the opposition and the regime. Obviously, the radical Islamists fighting to create a religious state will not accept this, but they will not settle for less than total victory anyway.

       A coalition of “healthy" forces in Syria will have to take shape outside the country. Surely Russia and the United States can rally around the idea of a secular country that respects the rights of different ethnic groups and religions. Syria’s neighbors are another matter. Saudi Arabia and Iran are more concerned about their influence in Syria than its stability. For this reason, they are more interested in strengthening groups loyal to them than striking a balance between competing interests. Riyadh and Tehran need to be given an incentive to compromise and assurances that their interests will be reflected in the new Syria.

       Finally, there are countries interested in minimizing the spillover effects of the Syrian conflict. These are Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. The extent of their involvement in Syria’s domestic affairs varies – from active political commitment (Ankara and Beirut) to relative neutrality (Cairo). These countries, especially those further removed from the conflict, like Jordan and Egypt, could potentially form the core of a group of “stabilizers” capable of facilitating compromise.

       There have been rumors that in parallel with Geneva-2 there may appear another consultative format involving foreign powers, including Iran, which has been excluded from the Geneva process. Hopefully, regional efforts will pick up pace. A deal between regional countries would considerably facilitate progress at the intra-Syrian talks. But to achieve this, the main patrons in the Syrian civil war – Russia and America – will have to convince participating countries, primarily Iran and Saudi Arabia, that their interests will be reflected in any external guarantees for an intra-Syrian agreement.

       Moscow and Washington are bearing the brunt of the burden. Only their tireless efforts can salvage the negotiations. They should bring home to their clients that neither side can win a decisive victory and that continued bloodshed will destroy their chances for the future. After all, the outside world can live with endless fighting in Syria. After all, it lived with the civil war in Lebanon for 15 years.

       The Syrian peace process is most likely to continue for the simple reason that nobody knows what else to do. The only alternative is rapid escalation of the war, which would plunge the Middle East into complete chaos, benefitting no one. So, the Russian and US mediators are likely to sincerely strive for success. Big-time diplomacy in the 21st century is being born in Geneva, and its midwives from Moscow, Washington, Paris, Riyadh and other capitals should do their best to ensure that the baby is healthy.

       Fyodor Lukyanov is the Chairman of the Russian council on foreign and defence policy, Editor–in–Chief of Russia in Global Affairs magazine.

       This article was originally published in Russian in Rossiyskaya Gazeta

       Views expressed are of individual Members and Contributors, rather than the Club's, unless explicitly stated otherwise.