The Editorial Board of the Washington Post recently expressed its frustration with the current stalemate in the peace process, and called for the establishment of an arms embargo. But that is not enough. At the end of the day, even if the transitional government were established, the forces of both sides integrated, and meaningful security sector and governance reform undertaken, it is unlikely that the agreement would create a sustainable peace with Kiir and Machar at the helm.

As Ronald Krebs and Roy Licklider recently wrote, integrating former opponents may seem like a great idea, “[b]ut these are just hopes, backed by little evidence.” Krebs and Licklider studied multiple examples of reintegrating warring armies to determine whether the strategy works; their conclusion: “the international community’s faith in military integration is misplaced.”

One might question then, how bringing Kiir and Machar together — the two men who have dragged the world’s newest nation through a completely unnecessary and extremely violent civil war — will bring about peace. And there’s the rub, it won’t.

Unfortunately, the international system is built to deal with the powers that be, not the powers that should be. Placing the two leaders in a power sharing position is not the least bad option; it is the only proposed option. Given the current international relations paradigm, there is no stomach or precedent for doing what is necessary: telling Kiir and Machar that they had their shot, they have failed miserably, and now it’s time for new leadership.

If the United Nations and world leaders truly stood behind their commitment to the Responsibility to Protect, as affirmed in the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, they would “take collective action” to protect the South Sudanese people from war crimes and crimes against humanity. And the most effective way to do that: not allow Kiir or Machar to hold power. But, that won’t happen because the system is built to focus on ending the violence in the short-term, and not do what has the greatest chance to produce a long-term sustainable peace.

It’s time for some real talk and new ideas on how to end mass atrocity situations. Historically, negotiated settlements have not worked, and it’s clear the current peace process in South Sudan is failing. We need out-of-the-box thinking and new approaches to ending the conflict. Perhaps those ideas could be transferable and may help bring an end to the countless other state-led atrocity situations currently plaguing citizens around the world. It’s clear the current strategy isn’t working.