Secretary of State John Kerry and the Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov have committed themselves in Paris to peace talks over Syria but this does not come anywhere close to indicating the beginning of the end of the conflict. Russia continues to insist on delivering S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Syria and there is no agreement on who should take part in the peace talks which supposedly will be dedicated to creating a transitional government.

In fact, Russia does not share the optimistic hopes for a peaceful settlement that are nurtured in the West. Russians know from Soviet experience that peace talks are not significant in themselves but depend on the real intentions of the parties. The Russians are unlikely ever to support U.S. and Western goals in Syria not only because Assad’s Syria is their only client state in the Middle East and they fear losing it but also because they quite sincerely do not believe that a non-totalitarian alternative to Assad is viable.

In light of Russian experience, the very idea of a transitional government is dubious because the communists always used transitional and coalition governments as the first step to gaining total power. Russians also know from their own history that when a power vacuum is created, it is the fanatics and not the democrats who are most likely to seize control.

The West is right to work for an end to the horror in Syria but if there is a clear path to a democratic future for that country, the West is unlikely to find it with the help of Russia.

— David Satter is affiliated with the Hudson Institute and Johns Hopkins University and is an advisor to Radio Liberty. His latest book is It Was a Long Time Ago and It Never Happened Anyway: Russia and the Communist Past (Yale).