Statecraft is simple, as long as the appearance of success matters more than results. Such a world view appeared to be the price of victory at the United Nations in December. No, I'm not harping on about the Paris global gabfest that reached a (non-binding, non-enforceable and non-verifiable) pact to reduce emissions. I'm referring to the unanimous Security Council resolution to end Syria's five-year civil war, which has claimed 250,000 lives.

The contradictions in the UN peace plan are overwhelming. Both Russia and the US are looking for a way to cease the escalation of the conflict between the Alawite/Shiite-aligned regime and the Sunni rebels, without giving up their radically different positions.

Washington – backed by its Sunni allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia – would like to see the end of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, who has slaughtered his own (Sunni) people and starved recalcitrant (Sunni) cities and regions into submission. Moscow – supported by Iran and its Shiite proxies in Iraq and Lebanon – insists the Assad regime is necessary to defeat Islamic State, the Sunni terrorist group now occupying large stretches of Syria and Iraq.

Complicating matters further, the opposition with which the UN wants Damascus to reach a negotiated political settlement is far from united. Islamic State is one of an almost uncountable melange of anti-Assad rebel groups with competing ambitions and interests. Welcome to the mess-in-potamia!