The hope that Russia could succeed where the United States has failed in brokering an Israeli-Palestinian peace often surfaces as frustration with Washington’s management of the peace process grows. In 2014, Russian officials and observers complained that the Barack Obama administration pushed Moscow aside and then failed to accomplish anything. This is largely true. But could Moscow do better? Almost surely not.

The desire for Russia to take center stage derives from widespread perceptions that the United States is too partial to Israel and that Moscow would be more balanced. But being a successful mediator requires more than a collection of diplomatic positions.

The most immediate problem is whether there is in fact any basis for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement, regardless of who tries to help. At this point, there is no clear basis for optimism. Still, the prospect of a full and final peace in the Middle East has long attracted a considerable number of professional optimists, apparently including Secretary of State John Kerry, who hopes that Israel’s March 17 elections might produce new opportunities for a deal. Nevertheless, even if one assumes that peace is within reach with the right constellation of external actors and pressures, Russia lacks both the capabilities and the will to serve as the principal mediator.

Moscow does indeed have a good relationship with Israel and has acted on that basis, including in its decision to withhold delivery of S-300 air defense missile systems to Iran. Moreover, Moscow has generally been able to compartmentalize its differences with Israel over the peace process while developing stronger bilateral ties. At the same time, Russia has a good relationship with the Palestinian Authority (PA), and PA President Mahmoud Abbas wants Moscow to play a bigger role in the peace process. (Russia, in turn, wants the Arab League more involved.)