Talks between US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian minister Sergei Lavrov enter day three Saturday. As both sides, with UN representation, try to forge a deal on Syria there is still much work to do.
Early reports from Saturday's talks claim that the "US will drop its insistence that a UN resolution on Syria must be backed by military force, officials say, after strong objections from Russia."
How you view that will depend on your opinion on miltary strikes in the region. It may be viewed as weakness by some and common sense by others. Those opposed to conflict which could escalate out of control will see it as a step in the right direction. Inaction could be seen as strength of character.
The talks are edging closer to agreement as the technical details of chemical weapons disarmament in Syria are thrashed out. As reported Friday the UN Secretary says report will confirm use of chemical weapons. For many people though it will not crucially say by whom, nor who supplied them.
In comments which Ban ki-Moon did appear to not realise were being publicly broadcast he made no comment on who was to blame for the August 21 CW attack in eastern Damascus but said "Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had committed "many crimes against humanity", in comments at the UN Women's International Forum that were shown on UN television."
The US is now willing to change its stance that any chemical weapons disarmament in Syria must be backed by a UN resolution with military force part of the deal to ensure speedy compliance. However President Obama said earlier that "any agreement needs to be verifiable and enforceable", reports BBC News.
Whilst the talks play out in Geneva Assad's forces have stepped up bombardment of key areas in Syria and likewise the rebel armies are launching attacks.
All of this means that time is of the essence.
As expected all parties involved are trying to gain a political upper-hand, save face and avert military action which could easily help the rebels rather than the people of Syria.
The western allies though have one eye on North Korea and the other on Iran as the talks continue. Both could pose a much bigger threat to world peace and both have reportedly begun to rumble into action once again.
Early in 2013 North Korea and the US looked set to clash but the young Korean leader Kim Jong-Un pulled back leading the US to reposition itself. It was widely believed that China played a part in calming the volatile situation, as far as Kim Jong-Un went.
This week North Korea has reportedly re-started its nuclear facility, no doubt taking advantage of the Syrian crisis. There are only so many developments the west can police at any given time. Concerns over Iran and how it will view a possible back-down by the US over Syrian military strikes are also a cause for concern but it is supposed to be about helping the Syrian people.
Then of course there is Israel, a country that has signed up to the Chemical Weapons Convention but has not yet ratified its treaty.