Secretary of State John Kerry has demanded that Syria and Russia stop attacking al Nusra, aka al Qaeda in Syria, and other jihadist terrorists. In tortured English, he explained that "moderate" rebels could not separate from terrorists whilst Syria and Russia were able to conduct attacks on the terrorists. Therefore, using equally tortured logic, Syria and Russia should cease operations and their air forces should be grounded.
Kerry bolstered his absurd demands by his equally fanciful claim that Russia was responsible for an airstrike on a Red Crescent humanitarian convey near Aleppo. The evidence-free denunciation nicely served to deflect attention from the earlier US airstrike on Syrian forces that had killed at least six-two soldiers and enabled Islamic State to launch a mopping up operation.
Kerry's absurd performance at the UN reveals very clearly why the United States has been completely opposed to the publication of the cease fire agreement. The US is evidently determined to support and protect the jihadis regardless of the cost to the people of Syria.
The US position is impossible (for me) to understand when considered rationally. The US has no serious interests in Syria. The only plausible contrary to that assertion is the fact that some of Washington's allies have interests in Syria. This is true. But is appeasing those allies worth risking escalating the conflict with Russia? The question gains poignancy when one reflects on how Russia has so consistently been prepared to negotiate a resolution to this war.
Considered objectively, Washington's determination to support and protect the jihadis in Syria is nothing short of insanity.
Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad, as someone said.