The Syrian case actually seems like a pretty unfair place to assess ceasefires, since many of them have been been based on incompatible demands. Just prior to

The Syrian case actually seems like a pretty unfair place to assess ceasefires, since many of them have been been based on incompatible demands. Just prior to the May ceasefire, the US suggested that it would only hold if Russia ceased bombings on moderate rebel groups. Russia replied that they would do no such thing, and that the ceasefire would only hold if the US considered treaties that would maintain Assad in power. The US, of course, had already rejected that possibility. The ceasefire was implemented, both countries condemned the other for doing the thing they had already promised to do, and it immediately dissolved. Everyone entered into the ceasefire with conditions they knew wouldn't be adhered to, so the whole thing has to be read more as an attempt to look devoted than an actual move towards peace.