The last few days have brought a sudden revival of diplomatic activity over Syria. 

On Monday, Russian president Vladimir Putin met the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in Istanbul. Yesterday, US secretary of state Hillary Clinton, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov and Lakhdar Brahimi, the international envoy on Syria held a three-way meeting in Dublin. Today, UN secretary-general Ban Ki-Moon is due in Turkey at the start of a Middle East tour.

Underlying these moves is an apparent weakening of Russian support for Assad as the decline of his regime accelerates. 

Russia and Turkey have certainly not seen eye-to-eye on Syria up to now but following the Putin-Erdogan meeting the Russian Itar-Tass news agency reported that they had come up with a number of new proposals for a settlement which they would "work on".

“Russia and Turkey have so far not been able to come to agreement on how to settle the conflict in Syria, but their assessments of the situation are identical,” Putin said after the talks.

They also have agreed on “what kind of situation we should achieve”.

Itar-Tass did not elaborate on what these "identical" assessments of the situation are, but there are signs that Russia is becoming disillusioned with Assad. Yesterday, Vladimir Vasilyev, a key ally of Putin in the Russian parliament, was quoted as saying: "We have shared and do share the opinion that the existing government in Syria should carry out its functions. But time has shown that this task is beyond its strength."

Renewed diplomatic activity implies there is something new to talk about and perhaps even a prospect of establishing some kind of international consensus. The New York Times suggests the focus has now moved on from arguing about the current conflict to what should be done when Assad falls.

The CIA reportedly expects the regime to be gone in a couple of months or so, and the Obama administration is said to be worried about its lack of influence with the fighters who will then take control on the ground.

Russia, having previously hitched its colours too firmly to Assad's mast, has even less influence with the rebels. It also risks losing its naval facility in Tartus – the only one it has outside the former Soviet Union – as well as some business interests in Syria (including armaments).

Other countries with closer links to the rebels – such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar – will also want a say in what happens next, as will Turkey which has specific concerns about the Kurds.

This might be expected to lead to a squabble over the spoils – except that in the end there may be few spoils worth having, so it may be more a case of each country trying to allay its own fears. In the Telegraph today, Peter Harling of the International Crisis Group 
warns that we may be about to witness "the total destruction of Damascus".

There are two great dangers in the aftermath. One, which almost everyone is aware of, is the danger of sectarian and ethnic bloodletting along with continued jihadist activity – and obviously it is desirable to minimise that. 

The other danger, less often talked about, is that in an international effort to bring stability to Syria the aspirations of its people to determine their own future – the original goal of the uprising against Assad – will become submerged once again.

Posted by Brian Whitaker, 7 December 2012