Meetings between US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov over a US proposal for military cooperation in Syria appear destined to fail. As they say, the path to ruin is paved with good intentions. In this instance, Russia has maintained good intentions throughout the war in Syria, while the US threatens to lead all participants on a path to ruin.

The details of the proposal were apparently hammered out over two days, which would see joint US-Russian airstrikes against Al-Nusra and ISIS; the grounding of Syrian air force planes in designated areas occupied by ‘other rebel groups’; and agreement that Russia continue conducting airstrikes against Al-Nusra and ISIS in defence of Syrian forces. While it is curious indeed to see the US engaged in dialogue rather than unilaterally conducting its own airstrikes, this proposal reads suspiciously like a plea: “please, Mr Putin, don’t bomb our ‘moderate’ terrorists.”

Aside from the dubious idea of grounding Syria’s air force from striking terrorist groups, the proposal would give the US a degree of control in subjecting Russian strikes against Nusra targets to American approval, according to the Washington Post, which broke the story last Thursday. Moscow, from the outset of its Syria campaign, has called for a truly international coalition in fighting all terrorists. Clearly this proposal would not achieve that. Moreover, with respect to policy in Syria, disunity among US diplomatic, military and intelligence circles (Hawkish generals, Ash Carter, Victoria Nuland, and the 51 State Department officials angling for a job under Hillary Clinton spring to mind) continues to grow, and this proposal is unlikely to reverse the trend.

Given that Washington has proven it can’t be trusted, there are a number of reasons why the proposal is likely to be dead in the water.

Many US officials are more interested in ousting the legitimately elected Syrian President Bashar al-Assad than ending terrorism. As Syria continues to burn, Europe reels from yet another terror attack and Turkey has just fended off an attempted military coup. We would be wise to remember the US’ objective when it started backing ‘the rebels’ in 2011. The US, along with its Arab and major European allies, wanted to overthrow the government of Assad and has employed terrorist tactics to do so, which has had major ramifications across the Middle East and beyond. Jason Ditz, writing for Antiwar.com, notes that many in the US intelligence community “have been pushing to stop fighting ISIS in general and shift the war to imposing a regime change on the Assad government.”

The White House may have approved the plan, but there appears to be resistance among Pentagon and intelligence officials. A Defence Department source told the Daily Beast that there are significant numbers who refuse to throw off the cold war shackles, not trusting Russia enough to share the necessary information for a successful partnership. These undoubtedly are some of the same voices who have deemed Russia an “existential threat” and pushed for increased military spending in Europe, the deployment of four permanent battalions in Poland and the Baltic states, and thoroughly denounced Russia in the NATO Warsaw Communiqué.

The incoherence of US actions in Syria is perfectly illustrated by the divisions between US intelligence and military establishments; for example, the extraordinary reality of CIA- and Pentagon-backed militias killing each other. Mark Sleboda, speaking on Sputnik Radio, exposed this ludicrous and confusing state of affairs, saying: “The CIA and Pentagon are actually in a proxy war with each other’s proxies killing each other in Syria, Kurds on one side and the so-called Free Syrian Army rebels on the other. So it’s not really clear.”

This is the calibre of foreign policy establishment that Russia has to deal with. It needs to get its own house in order before it can really be taken as an honest, trusted partner in the peace process in Syria. Try as Barack Obama might, he is unable to reign in the hawkish voices who insist that Plan A of regime change is the goal, and that the curtailment of these plans post Russian intervention, merely means strategies need to be devised to achieve the goal in another way. Viewed from the context of deranged neocon plans for the entire region, it is easy to understand their obstinance in refusing to abandon the vision of a Middle East dominated by US hegemonic neoliberalism.

Neoconservatives, who dominate the foreign policy establishment, have not abandoned their plans for Syria just because Plan A is failing. Their fundamentalist modes of thinking, driven by making the world safe for US corporate interests, has torn Syria apart and destabilises the Middle East region. In an article for Katehon, Dimitris Konstantakopoulos sums up their apocalyptic vision succinctly.

As for neoconservatives in general, one would be foolish to believe that they have left the place because their Plan A for Syria (toppling Assad, dismembering the country and destroying Hezbollah) has not succeeded, at least for the time being and after the Russian intervention. They are already looking for other ways to attain their strategic goals and they will go on trying to destabilize the whole region.

Added to all this, the US wants Russia to cease bombing its “moderate” rebels, who refuse to separate from Al-Nusra.

The US offered cooperation in bombing Al-Nusra, however it has been unable or unwilling to separate its so called “moderate” rebels from Al-Nusra forces. From the perspective of the “moderates” it is unsurprising due to 1) shared ideologies, 2) the strength of Al-Nusra, making them a vital asset in the anti-Assad campaign, 3) the shared supply lines from Turkey, 4) the “intermingling” as the State Department calls it, allowing them protection and opportunity to bring in new weapons and fighters, 5) the alliance against the Kurds – all of this being self-evident that it is in the interests of the US-backed rebels and Al-Nusra not to separate. Should the “moderates” want to take a constructive approach and become actual moderates, they should separate from Al-Nusra, enabling them to become a key element of any future Washington-Moscow partnership and of a Syrian-led peaceful transition. Optimism should not be held though, as these are the groups that in conjunction with Al-Nusra have committed numerous atrocities in Syria including the massacre at Al Zara and the killing of 270 civilians in a single day. Amnesty International on 5 July, reported that Al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, Nureddin Zinki, the Levant Front and Division 16 were committing “war crimes and other violations of international humanitarian law with impunity.” So, we can see there really is no distinction between these groups. The legitimate Syrian government is fighting terrorists on its soil — something which no one can seriously deny it a right to do — and is backed by the Russian government as it tries to rid Syria of the scourge of terrorism.

Russia is eager to work in partnership with the US in Syria, even prepared to spare US-backed rebels if they separate from Al-Nusra. This proposal bought to Moscow by Kerry however disappointingly falls short of the mark in terms of what is acceptable.

Alexander Mercouris echoes the disappointment sure to be held by serious analysts, sardonically stating:

the Russians were apparently expected to accept US leadership of the military campaign, cease bombing rebel groups in Syria aligned with the US, and agree to the eventual removal of President Assad. …

What the US offered Russia was essentially nothing more than a symbolic gesture in return for the sacrifice of Russia’s entire position in Syria. The days are long past when the Russians were prepared to sacrifice fundamental positions in return for symbolic gestures. It is the sort of offer a Gorbachev or a Yeltsin might have accepted.

Vladimir Putin, forever an optimist, said to John Kerry at the commencement of their meeting; “Our last conversation with President Obama convinces me that we are not just developing cooperation, but doing so with the aim of achieving tangible results.”

One has to wonder if Kerry was thinking about the arbitrary US deadline of 1 August, a date fast approaching, where the US threatens to up the ante in Syria. The implication is that Russia and Syria need to make tangible progress to be reliable partners in the peace process and that Bashar al-Assad better prepare to leave. The reality is that the US still needs to prove its credentials in the trust arena, and, as it stands, 1st August may mark the date where the 51 State Department officials may see their desire to bomb Assad fulfilled.