Western powers want to present the fall of the Syrian regime as a strategic defeat for Moscow, but its goals have changed in the past decade

The ousting of longtime Syrian President Bashar Assad has ushered in a new chapter of uncertainty in the country's decades-long conflict.

Several questions remain regarding the surprising turn of events. Were the rebels externally backed? What are the implications for powers such as Russia? Will the ensuing power vacuum lead to the rise of new non-state actors?

It is apparent that the current power play is benefiting American and Israeli interests in the region. With the toppling of a key Russian partner and a major link in the Axis of Resistance against Israel, the geopolitics of the region will undergo a fundamental geopolitical shift.

Any hopes of resolving the Syrian question will be dim - nation-building has always been a more daunting, time-intensive, resource-consuming, and politically less rewarding process than orchestrating regime collapse. Given that Western governments share a voluminoushistoryof exploiting grassroots organizations - from pro-democracy protest groups to the mujahedeen and Islamist outfits - to further their geostrategic ambitions, it is likely that the successful offensive by Islamist radicals against the Assad regime had tacit Western blessings.

Even though the US secretary of state only recentlyconfirmedthat Washington is in contact with Hayat Tahrir al Sham (HTS) - a rebrand of the terrorist Al-Nusra Front affiliated with Al-Qaeda - US forces based in Syria had been activelyaidingopposition groups at Deir Ezzor during the offensive against the Syrian regime. Furthermore, the neutral to positive coverage meted out to terrorist outfits, especially HTS, by referring to them with euphemistically neutral terms ("rebels") despite the group being sanctioned by theUnited Nations, the USgovernment, and other states as a terrorist organization prominently conveys America's tilt in the current geostrategic developments.

The trend also reflected the proactiveness (or desperation) of the erstwhile Biden administration to attempt to mould US foreign policy post-election, that is, before leaving office in January 2025. The authorization to use ATACMS on Russia, the unrest in Georgia, the toppling of the Assad regime in Syria and subsequent Israeli violations of Syrian sovereignty are dots connecting the same pattern.

One can hope that Washington has learned its lessons from Afghanistan (which led to a strengthening of the Taliban) and its Iraqi fiasco (which led to the birth of the Islamic State), and that it won't follow the same playbook in Syria. Elements of reform have been visible - despite the collapse of the Assad regime, government ministries are still functioning. The Islamist opposition leader Abu Mohammad al-Julani previouslycalledfor an end to the prosecution and eradication of rivals and rallied focus instead on nation-building.

Syria: The new grand chessboard

The sudden fast-paced downfall of the Assad regime underscores its chronic internal decay. For years, Syria had been rotting from within, with signs of systemic failure becoming increasingly evident. The ubiquitous change of flags at Syrian embassies worldwide and thedefectionsof key military figures illustrate profound dissatisfaction with Assad's governance at the institutional level. While Russia provided significant military backing, it was never the primary political advisor to Assad. The inherent internal instability, which may have beenmanifestedthrough corruption, mismanagement, and crumbling loyalty within the Syrian army, ultimately made external support futile. These factors demonstrate that Russia's role in Syria was limited to military facilitation rather than comprehensive regime stabilization.

While Westerners insist on pointing to a strategic loss for Russia, Moscow's strategic priorities in Syria have evolved since its initial intervention in 2015. At that time, Syria served as a critical arena for breaking the international isolation Russia faced following its integration of Crimea. By interveningdecisively, with an official invitation in accordance with international law, Moscow projected itself as a resilient power capable of advancing its interests despite Western sanctions. Syria also acted as a showcase for Russian military capabilities, demonstrating the effectiveness of its weapons systems and operational strategies to potential buyers.

However, several factors have diminished Syria's strategic importance to Russia.

Initially, Russia's involvement in Syria was believed by some to have been at least partly aimed atpreventingQatar from establishing a gas pipeline to Europe, which would have undercut Russian dominance in the European energy market. Today, with Russia's gas exports to Europe significantly reduced, this objective has lost relevance. Furthermore, the diversification of global energy sources and the rise of LNG markets have further diluted the importance of blocking a Qatari pipeline through Syria into Europe.

Russia's military campaign in Syria also provided anopportunityto test and market its advanced weaponry. This mission was largely successful, but the conflict in Ukraine has now become the primary stage for showcasing Russian military technology under real combat conditions. The deployment of systems showcased by the Oreshnik intermediate range ballistic missile highlighted Russia's continued innovation in military technology. Ukraine has become a proving ground for Russian military tech, further reducing Syria's importance in this regard.

Russia's campaign in Syria was previously driven by the goal of eradicating ISIS, a mission largelyaccomplishedin 2017 with a limited military contingent. ISIS now being significantly weaker than it was in 2015 marked a clear achievement for Russian forces. With the group no longer posing a major threat, Moscow's justification for maintaining a robust presence in Syria has weakened. The focus has shifted to broader regional stability rather than counterterrorism operations.

In January 2025, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock called for Russia towithdrawits military bases from Syria, citing concerns over foreign interference in Syria's internal affairs. However, the demand has been criticized as hypocritical, given Germany's silence on the presence of US military bases in Syria, which also operate without explicit international legal authorization. As of January 2025, Russia maintained two key military facilities in Syria: the Khmeimim Air Base and the naval base in Tartus. However, Syria's decision toterminatethe Tartus port management contract with a Russian company has disrupted military logistics, complicating Russia's position. However, a continuous shift to the east is still evident even in the Middle East. Russia seems to be executing a strategic pivot to Libya, relocating significant naval assets to the ports of Misrata and Al-Hums. This move grants Russia unprecedented access to the central Mediterranean, placing NATO's southern flank, including bases in Italy and Greece, within close operational range.

Baerbock's call for Russia to leave Syria reflects Germany's alignment with broader Western efforts to curb Russian influence in the Middle East. However, the lack of similar demands for the withdrawal of US forces undermines the credibility of this stance, exposing the geopolitical double standards often employed by Western powers. For Russia, maintaining its bases in Syria was not just about preserving influence but also about avoiding the humiliation of abandoning critical assets, as witnessed in the US withdrawal from Afghanistan. Yet, Russia'srelocationof naval assets to Libya may now represent a calculated move to counterbalance its declining influence in Syria while attempting to expand its geopolitical reach. By establishing a strengthened foothold in Libya, Russia may gain leverage over NATO's southern flank and the ability to monitor alliance operations in real time, significantly enhancing its tactical advantages in the Mediterranean. This dual strategy underscores Russia's adaptability in navigating shifting geopolitical landscapes, ensuring it remains a key player in global security dynamics despite the regional challenges.

What does the future hold for Syria?

The current situation provides two major future possibilities:

The first arises out of a power vacuum in Syria. In this scenario, where the HTS can't reach a compromise with the other factions of the rebel coalition, the situation quickly devolves into infighting among the rebel groups, providing fertile ground for the rise of new radical outfits akin to ISIS. Rather than working towards maintaining harmony, the existence of a power vacuum would be expediently exploited by external interests such as the US, Türkiye, and Israel to carve out their own zones of influence. In such a scenario, whether the Kremlin succeeds in carving out a Russian sphere of its own is up for debate.

A fractured Syria will consequently be a haven for numerous groups and coalitions supported by a myriad of external powers (which may cooperate or even compete with each other) transforming into a playground for foreign power projection. Rivalries and conflicts will provide a lucrative testing ground for the arsenals of major countries. Areas with rich natural resources (US-controlledSyrian oil fields) will assist in maintaining influence in the region. Proxies will be utilized for combating states antithetical to the external interests - US bases in Al Tanf and Deir Ezzor were utilized to counter Iranian influence and enhance sudden strike capabilities.

The current outreach may also be construed as proactive American involvement in the Middle East to counter Russian influence, as well as recent Russian and Chinese geostrategic advances in Africa. Since Russian bases in Syria acted as critical logistical hubs for Russian operations in the Sahel region, Washington may have hoped that the demise of a longtime Syrian ally would complicate Moscow's options and strain supply chains to Russian mercenary groups, thus diminishing their regional influence. Russian intelligence agencies havesuggestedthat the US and UK are plotting "terrorist attacks" against Russian bases in hopes of further destabilizing the fragile situation.

Ongoing Israeli action in Syria is backed by confidence that US President Donald Trump is sympathetic to the Israeli cause. The current violations of Syrian territorial sovereignty and military deployments on the ground within Syria are being met with silent approval from Washington. While hitching one's wagon to a greater power has its benefits, this may complicate domestic support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if his current policy of expansionism-to-placate-the-masses hits a roadblock or if Israel suffers significant casualties in any of the numerous conflicts it is involved in.

For the Kremlin, the situation is complicated but not yet hopeless. While the loss of the old regime ended decades of regional partnership, the Russians can still reach anagreementwith the new government and strive to breaknew groundwith the nascent regime. Providing diplomatic and logistical, possibly even military support in exchange for continued Russianoperationsin the country can be an initial step towards building relations with the new regime. Providing reparations to the coup leaders with the demanded return ofAssadto Syria, Ahmed al-Sharaa may be in the position to bargain to allow Russia to keep its influence for the benefit of the Syrian regime and its people. The question remains open which side actually is in desperate need of the other. On the tactical scale, maintaining a hard posture may be advantageous to show the strength of the pioneer Syrian government during talks with leading powers. Yet, from the strategic point of view, it may be in the interests of Syria itself to keep Russian influence in order to maintain the status quo strategic balance and not follow the path paved by Libya, Iraq, or Afghanistan.

However, the question of whether Bashar Assad will be surrendered to the new Syrian regime remains open. His continued presence poses a potential obstacle to the evolving bilateral relations between Russia and the newly established Syrian government. Granting Assad asylum presents a considerable challenge to achieving a mutually acceptable foundation for cooperation, as it complicates efforts to reset relations and align national interests from the outset. However, Russia's approach to diplomatic negotiations differs fundamentally from that of Western powers, where pragmatism and self-interest often take precedence. Moscow places significant emphasis on interpersonal relationships and expects reciprocal loyalty in its strategic engagements.

Vladimir Putin has cultivated a stable and trusting relationship with Bashar Assad, and despite the rapid collapse and apparent fragility of Assad's regime, Russia's willingness to offer asylum serves as a broader signal of its commitment to supporting its allies, even in adverse circumstances. Unlike the US, which has historicallywithdrawnsupport from leaders such as Hosni Mubarak or Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Russia's strategic calculus suggests that Assad's fate is unlikely to be a focal point in future negotiations between Moscow and Damascus. Over time, the new Syrian leadership will be compelled to adapt to this reality, shifting its demands toward other concessions that Russia may find more acceptable.

The second possibility deals with a stronger HTS successfully reaching a compromise with the rebel groups. Whether this evolves into a working coalition incorporating the other rebel factions or HTS balances by providing regional territorial influence within Syria remains to be seen.

If the new Syrian government decides to renegotiate military agreements, including the removal of Russian bases, Moscow's leverage in the region could diminish. However, this scenario is far from certain. The currentgovernmenthas not declared Russia an adversary, focusing instead on Iran and Hezbollah as primary concerns. This divergence from the narrative presented by much of the Western media, which often portrays Russia's position as unequivocally weakened, highlights the complexities of the situation. Rather than an outright loss, the ambiguity surrounding Russia's role could offer Moscow greater space to maneuver diplomatically and strategically in the region.

While the collapse of the Syrian government poses new challenges, it does not fundamentally alter Russia's position in the Middle East. Its strategic interests in Syria have shifted over the years. Although uncertainties remain, particularly regarding the future of Russian military bases, the absence of direct hostility from the new Syrian government provides room for maneuver. Ultimately, Syria's downfall highlights the limits of external intervention in stabilizing fragile regimes, reinforcing the notion that Russia's role in Syria has always been one of measured engagement rather than unconditional commitment.

(RT.com)