I see that we have left the most difficult for last. You might remember that there was quite a bit of optimism in this room last year when we all met because on the eve of the munich security conference, the u. S. And russia had reached a deal on the cessation of hostilities in syria. I remember that i was quite skeptical but a lot of people convinced me that that deal was going to work. Sadly, it didnt. In fact, the war escalated and we saw some of the most horrific episodes with the humanitarian catastrophe that unfolded in eastern aleppo. So what now . The Syrian Regime is in control of four of the major cities in syria. Does it still need a political solution. Can the military solution that we have seen lead to peace in syria. Our first speaker in the sess n session, i have described your job as one of the most impossible in the world and i still believe that. Please join me to give us an overview of where we are now. Thank you. Thank you very much for that. Also, thank you for setting the message on munich. We are in munich and i think we should start from there. Youre right, one year ago we were here. We were together and there was a great moment of concern at the beginning because i had just a few days before blocked, changed, stopped, some syrian talks because there was major escalation on the military side and that was producing a feeling of lack of sign of hope. But like it often is in history, that produced also in every crisis, there is an opportunity, a wave of shock and the shock produced here in munich, the intention by that time john kerry and Sergey Lavrov to have a special meeting on the fringes of munich and we had the beginning of the issg, the beginning of the humanitarian task force, the beginning of the cessation of hostilities task force, we had a Contact Group of 22 countries and had even an operation of sanctions in u. N. And geneva to control a ceasefire. The ceasefire did hold. It was a miracle. Well, it did hold, we had 75 , 65 of reduction of violence but it didnt hold more than three months. During that period we had even a boom in a way of humanitarian access. So why did it not hold longer . Why did it break down . Because that is what can lead us to where we are today. Many reasons. The first was the socalled nonconstructive ambiguity. Everyone is saying al nusra is a terrorist organization, the terrorist organization according to the u. N. , is not everybody fighting the government is a terrorist organization. It is other than daesh according to the u. N. Therefore they should be exclude from the ceasefire. Of course, they became the main spoiler. Secondly others spoiling it by saying there are al nusra everywhere, therefore we have the need, the authority and responsibility to bomb there. Second, from the government side, there was not total genuine interest in negotiations at the time because they still felt that it was a military option coming up and a military option should have been given a top priority. And there was a hope by the opposition that they, too, could turn the whole atmosphere into a better military position so that they could negotiate from a better position. Well, then we had another reason. We didnt have a true leverage from the other side on the government. The u. S. Had decided it was just after the agreement as you know in other areas to actually get heavily involved and john kerry was extremely active on the political side, but not the real capacity of delivering, for instance, al nusra which became and is the ambiguity on which many of the spoiling elements have been playing on in order to break down a ceasefire. So there was another attempt on the ceasefire. We may have forgotten it because it lasted very little. It was in september when 2016 when in fact there was a long serious meeting until midnight, i was there between john kerry and Sergey Lavrov and they came up with a new attempt for a ceasefire. That one collapsed very quickly. How . With the incident or whatever we want to call it, the attack, whatever we want to call it, on the humanitarian convoy nearby. That produced a wave of militarization. We go back to aleppo. Aleppo is the first place i was focusing on because to everyone, to me, it was symbolic and it became the battle of aleppo. Terrible. Atrocious. We know about it. We made public appeals, we asked for this not to end up with the new type of but then something happened. We are getting closer to the period where we are today. There was a game changer. Russian federation and turkey started talking. And talking business. Both had interests. Russian position, my opinion, had a clear interest in not getting to christmas with a totally destroyed aleppo, basically only because 800, 900 people al nusra were in the city of 115,000 people. Turkey had clearly no interest obviously in seeing 110,000 refugees coming and the state being destroyed. Real politics but we live in real politic and should be helping real politic when it moves in the right direction. Thats when we did actually at the u. N. , too. There were nonsecret meetings in ankara and those meetings produced discussions between groups and Russia Military which develop the worst part of the battle of aleppo which would have led to the total destruction of the city plus 110,000, 115,000 between refugees and dead people. And the fallout to that was what we are seeing with our eyes. We are getting closer to the real moment today. This is a discussion which is ongoing between turkey and Russian Federation about a ceasefire. The ceasefire is holding more than previous ones and in my modest opinion has, if we all look at it carefully and support it, more chances to actually succeed than others. Why . Because both countries have assets on the ground so they can actually exercise leverage which is a Crucial Point and there is a mechanism being established which is needed. Ceasefires need mechanism, monitoring and support and deterrent. Thats why we are supporting astana and the meetings. Of course, based on the assumption that they are surgical, laser beamed on a very important issue, establishing, stabilizing, reinforcing the cessation of hostilities plus confidence Building Measures which means, for instance, humanitarian access which by the way is not taking place at the moment, which is very sad. Since this is not stopped by wind or snow but stopped by war, when the war stops in theory we should have humanitarian access. This is not yet taking place. But i know and we push for that to be one of the consequences, collateral benefits rather than collateral damage, of the cessation of hostilities discussed. The other element is that we have seen armed groups being present and actually not called terrorists but being treated as interlocutors and sitting and discussing with the other side and discussing it with guaranteors of the ceasefire which is turkey, Russian Federation and i would say also iran, although less obviously that. Now, let me say where we are now, then. What we have seen is not perfect. Al nusra is still there as a spoiling element. The temptation by the government to want to accelerate as its happening while we are talking facts on the ground in order to be in better position on what is still a possible military option, and hesitation by the opposition to negotiate when they believe they are not in an ideal military position, is still a potential spoiling element. But what has been happening has been inducing us to say its time to try again some interceding talks. Keeping the focus only on the cessation of hostilities and geneva and therefore all of you, the u. N. , the International Community, involved in trying to see whether there is any space at this stage for a political discussion. In my modest opinion, we would see what will happen. That space begins to be there and we will test it. We have been sending invitations according to 2254 and on the substance, we are actually focused on 2254 again which is composed of three elements. All three are important. The issue about governance, which needs to be credible, inclusive, basically a new form of governance. Secondly, constitution but written by the syrians, not by foreigners or by yourselves. And the constitution which is new, not the old one. Otherwise why do negotiation. And elections under u. N. Supervision and including refugees. Are we going to see all these three pillars of 2254 moving forward in geneva . I cant tell you. Frankly, i like the secretary general dont make myself deluded about it. What i do know that we have to push for the momentum. Because even a ceasefire with two strong guarantors cannot hold too long if there is not a political horizon. That leads me to the big question mark. Forgive me but i have to raise it because i know it is in each ones mind. Where is the u. S. In all this . Well, i cant tell you because i dont know. But what i can tell you is that i understand that they do have in mind some clear priorities and they are three. One is fighting daesh. Second, how to limit the influence of some major regional players, you know. And three, how to actually not damage one of their major allies in the region. Now, how you square that circle in order to make sure that in fact, these three elements are properly taken into account is something that i understand they are debating in washington. Our contribution which is a modest contribution but based i would say on intellectual honesty, i want to hope that the u. N. Role and experience is that you are right, u. S. , in focusing on daesh. Daesh and al nusra are terrorists and they are the enemies of everyone. Here in munich, in the streets in belgium, in paris, in ottawa, in sydney, in istanbul. Youre right. Thats what the people are asking us and we are, my wife is asking me, my children are. At the same time, you are also right in wanting to find proper allies with assets on the ground like the Russian Federation and others who have the same priority. But are you interested in fighting or defeating daesh . If you are interested in defeating daesh, lets learn from what David Petraeus who was here this morning, we were together in a difficult environment in iraq and then in afghanistan and we learned some lessons. One lesson was that if you are not finding a political solution that includes those who feel excluded, it may not be called daesh anymore like it used to be called al qaeda in iraq. It may not be mr. Zarqawi. It is someone else. Bottom line, if you want to defeat daesh, we need even if it looks complicated, even if it looks remote, a political inclusive credible solution in syria. Thats the challenge that we are going to face in the next few weeks. Thank you. Thank you very much for a very comprehensive scene setter. I see that you are very cautious which is probably right. I have just before i call the panel, i have one question. You mentioned governance. You mentioned constitution. You did not mention political transition. Is the geneva process still based on a political transition . The answer is 2254 specifies very clearly that word and that concept. Thank you. Good. Okay. Thank you. 2254 is my bible, my koran. I have nothing else to which i can refer to. Now, how to get there, thats where politics, diplomacy and real politic can you just say political transition . Yes. I can say political transition. Through an inclusive credible person. Governance. Okay. I think constantine, you are going to explain this to us. Let me call our panel. Constantine is chairman of the committee on Foreign Affairs in the russian parliament. Welcome. Brett mcgurke is the special president ial envoy to the Global Coalition to counter isis. Hes from the state department. Great to have you. And the president of the Syrian National coalition. And ken roth, executive director of human rights watch. Im going to ask each of you to begin by making your fiveminute statement and please do try to stick to the five minutes and then we can get the discussion going. Constantine . Well, as the only russian here, im supposed to present the russian position on syria. There is one general perception on that, that russia is in syria in order to support mr. Assad and to let him stay in power. And this is definitely completely wrong perception. I believe there are two major reasons why russia is involved in syria. The first one is iraq and the second one is [ inaudible ]. We have the experience, we believe that both experiences are absolutely negative in many or almost all aspects but it does have negative practical consequences for our National Security because daesh and other terrorist organizations after iraq, after libya have become stronger. They possess territories and possibilities of other countries, syria included, and we get more and more people from russia joining these terrorist groups, according to our intelligence, its Something Like 5,000 people at least who have trained, have gone through military actions and who are eager to come back to my country and to continue. We are not protected at all because we do not have borders with these states. So this is an issue for our National Security interest. Secondly, yes, i may confess that my former country, the soviet union, did have a special relationship with syria, during the previous times, and the soviet leaders had friendly relations with former syrian leaders but this is not the case any longer. Mr. Bashar al assad after coming into power has made so many moves towards the west, so to say, without further good relations with russia so the relations between russia and syria are now quite neutral. We do not have any specific interest in this country in comparison with our interests in other countries in the region, but we do respect the sovereignty of syria. We are the only country which participates in military actions in syria legally, on a legal basis because we have a formal request from the legal Syrian Government. And definitely most important in our view, we believe that we need the capacities of the syrian army, armed forces, in order to not just to fight, but to defeat daesh. Our program for syria is to unite as many armed forces in syria as possible both from representing the ruling authorities, representing their position, in order to fight together against daesh, nusra and others. We made so many attempts to have good cooperation on that with the United States of america. I was present in several meetings with mr. Lavrov and mr. Kerry personally. I could see how much they both invested in trying to reach a workable agreement but each time, they had succeeded a little bit later, we started to receive different signals from washington that commitments and obligations aprproved by the secretary of state did not get enough support from other branches in washington like pentagon or cia, i do not know american hierarchy and we could see there are different approaches to the cooperation with russia and syria, to the syrian issue in general in the United States of america. This is how we did not succeed in having better cooperation with our American Partners in this case, we have no doubt we could have been good partners. This is how we started to develop cooperation with turkey and with iran which was not mentioned here but we have trilateral cooperation now. And it does work well enough. But i want to stress immediately that astana is not meant to replace geneva talks. Definitely not. We are in favor of United Nations involvement in the Syrian Development and this is the clear russian position on that. I see that i have no time left. Thank you. Several points that i would like to pick up on, but lets move to brett. What lies in store for syria from the Trump Administration . So i said in the beginning im afraid i might be a fairly boring panelist because i dont want to get ahead of a process or any decisions in washington and obviously, we are relooking at everything which is a very healthy process from top to bottom. But i will just to kind of define how we are seeing things, follow up on stefans excellent presentation and also address some of the things you just said. Really three interests, u. S. Interests. We will be very selfish about protecting and advancing our interests as i think any nation would, but they are interests that i think many of our partners also share. Interest number one, it is we have to defeat daesh. And theres a real reason for that. It is a significant threat to all of us, again, as stefan said, we are here in munich where there have been attacks, but right now, daesh, isis, is sitting in raqqah and why is raqqah so important . Why do we keep talking about important . It is their they do it by using vi yans in shields. This is jihadi january, really a computer hacker would sit in an Apartment Building with hurricanes of people trying to inspire ta attacks around the world. We are not going to target an Apartment Building with civilians to get one person or plotter. As long as they are raqqah, they want to pull off an Osama Bin Laden attack. Theyre trying. I will also say we have been fighting isis for a couple of years. Working with local actor, enabling them to make sure the territory they retack can hold. B about 500 square kilometers. Every single inch of ground that has been retaken, isis has not retaken any of that ground. Its a contrast to some efforts against isis and syria. One major operation against isis, really, the only one, was the operation in el myra and isis came back and took it. And the operations weve been enabling, they have not retaken any speck. So i think we just do things dich differently. The strategy is different in quite significant ways. The second interest is dees deescalating the violence in the civil war, the underlying civil war. And this gets to all the excellent work that stephan is doing. My turkish counterparts here over the course of these few days and we fully support their successful decisioiscussions wi russians to deescalate the violen violence. I was here in munich and one of the reasons the process did not succeed is frankly, we were guarantor and russia was. It turns out when the u. S. Is a guarantor, we dont have people on the ground. We became a bit of a pong ball to control the situation. Its about the mechanics of the cease fire. The geneva process