By Ian Bremmer 

The G-20, meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia, has ended, with its meetings and dinner discussions reserved for what to do about charges that Syrian President Bashar Assad used poison gas to kill more than 1,400 of his own people. France, the United Kingdom, Turkey and Canada expressed varying degrees of support for U.S. President Barack Obama’s call for military action, while Russian President Vladimir Putin called U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry a liar and claimed that the evidence against Assad was inconclusive. Furthermore, Russia and China insisted that the United States cannot take action without prior approval from the United Nations Security Council, where they will veto any such move. From the sidelines, the European Union and Pope Francis warned that no “military solution” was possible in Syria.

 

In other words, it all went exactly as expected. The Americans, French, and others continue to push the Russians to accept that Syria’s government has used chemical weapons; the Russians, anxious to protect their Syrian ally, reject the evidence as inconclusive; and the carnage in Syria continues. The focus of the fight now moves to the U.S. Congress, where a rare coalition of liberal Democrats and isolationist Republicans will try to block the president’s plans to attack Syria militarily.

 

Those who would seek to halt the bloodshed have no good options. That is true for Obama, for the Europeans preoccupied with domestic political headaches, and for Arab leaders eager to see Assad’s government collapse but unwilling to say so publicly.

 

British Prime Minister David Cameron says that his government has new evidence against Assad, while the parliament has recently voted to withhold support for a military response.

 

France is ready to follow, but not to lead. The Arab League wants the “international community” to end the carnage in Syria, but without using force. Obama will ask Congress to approve limited airstrikes that may deter the future use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime, but that will not shift the balance in Syria’s civil war.

 

Assad, the Syrian rebels, the Americans, the Russians and the Arabs all merit criticism. But finger-pointing misses the point: Syria’s situation is the strongest evidence yet of a new “G-Zero” world order, in which no single power or bloc of powers will accept the costs and risks that accompany global leadership. Even if the United States and France strike Damascus, this would not end the conflict in Syria – unlike in the former Yugoslavia, where they halted the Kosovo war by bombing Belgrade. And this is the case for three reasons.

 

First, there are too many interested parties with too diverse a range of interests in Syria. While bombing would give Assad plenty to think about, it would not force his surrender or encourage his allies to turn against him. Nor would it clarify how to restore stability and build a more stable and prosperous Syria, given the need for cooperation among so many actors with conflicting objectives.

 

The United States and Europe want a Syria that plays a more constructive role in the Middle East. Iran and Russia want to retain their crucial ally. Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar want a Syria that keeps Iran at a distance and does not become a source of cross-border militancy that may ultimately harm them. As a result, Syria is most likely to become an arena in which regional powers, with the backing of interested outsiders, compete for leverage.

 

Second, the U.S. – the one country with the muscle to play a decisive role – will continue to resist deeper involvement in the Syrian conflict. Most Americans say that they want no part of Syria’s pain; they are weary of wars in the Middle East and want their leaders to focus on economic recovery and job creation. Obama will tread carefully as he approaches Congress and, even as his Republican opponents vote to offer limited support, they will make the president’s life as difficult as possible.

 

Finally, the U.S. cannot count on its allies to help with the heavy lifting. In Libya, it was relatively easy to bomb Moammar Gadhafi’s armies as they advanced through open spaces. By contrast, bombing Damascus – which remains a densely populated city, despite the flight of refugees – would undoubtedly kill a significant number of Syrian civilians.

 

As in the Balkans a generation ago, when Western leaders moved to end the bloodiest conflict in Europe since the end of World War II, the French are ready to send airplanes and pilots to Syria. But the United Kingdom is speaking with more than one voice on the issue. Moreover, most of Europe’s leaders are preoccupied with the domestic fallout of the eurozone’s ongoing struggles. In Germany, for example, Chancellor Angela Merkel will avoid unnecessary risks ahead of the upcoming general election.

 

Likewise, Arab leaders – mindful of the turmoil in Egypt, rising violence in Iraq and Libya, and the threat of social unrest within their own countries – will not openly invite Western powers to bomb a Muslim country. Even Canada will sit this one out.

 

This G-Zero problem will not last forever. Eventually, the political wildfires that are allowed to burn out of control will threaten enough powerful countries to force a certain level of cooperation. Unfortunately for Syrians, their suffering alone will not be enough.