The ceasefire plans for Syria don't seem to be a lasting success, and it really astonishes me why anybody ever thought such a thing could succeed.
I understand it's the UN's job to work for a non-violent solution to (international) conflicts and for some reason this has begun to include domestic conflicts (as long as no very important country is involved).
That's fine, as far as it's about the prevention of large scale violence.
What's badly lacking among foreign politicians is the insight that hot large scale conflicts can usually not be solved with a truce and negotiations. That only happens when at least one side is exhausted / defeated.
There has been some criticism directed at the UN about how its peacekeeping efforts often only prolong violent conflicts instead of allowing for the 'natural' solution by arms (which is usually unfair, of course!).
Could we please forget about stupid ceasefire plans? There's no way how the Assad regime and the minorities which back it can coexist with the rebels, and they won't give up without losing the fight simply because the repercussions for decades of oppression, corruption and discriminations are worse than giving the warfare option a chance. Likewise, the rebels obviously won't tolerate the regime any more. This conflict will almost certainly be decided by gunfights, not by pen and paper.
Let's look if the UN and other external factors can influence the fight for power in Syria towards a less bloody, even quicker course. You're not going to find a non-violent course. Period.
I fully understand the desire to do something about a horrible conflict, but ratio and the knowledge of history should tell us that at times there's simply nothing we can do about it without doing more harm than good.
It sucks, but you know what sucks more? To make it worse.
edit: Replaced "peace" with "ceasefires" in the title.