Russia Wastes Its Most Important Imperial Achievement in 350 Years
By Hussain Jummo
Russia could not save former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad when opposition forces advanced towards the capital, Damascus. Ultimately, Moscow lost its most significant strategic investment outside the borders of the former Soviet Union, marking the furthest extent of Russia’s reach in the Mediterranean throughout its imperial history since Peter the Great ascended to the throne in 1682.
Moscow still hopes to maintain its two military bases in Syria under the same justification. According to Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov, this justification is to continue “fighting international terrorism,” of which Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) is considered a part – essentially terrorism according to Moscow’s official classification. Given that Bogdanov has revealed direct contacts with the political leadership of HTS, how does the Kremlin define international terrorism in Syria?
In any case, Russia is attempting to adapt to the new Syria, which is ostensibly American, imperialist, and Western – terms that Moscow employed when discussing the strategies of Assad’s enemies. Without its presence in Syria, Russia’s influence in Africa becomes logistically more complicated, prompting Moscow to confront the global repercussions for its influence.
Anatoly Kurmanev writes in the New York Times about what Assad’s fall means for Russia. He argues that this development is a humiliation for Russia and reveals the limits of the Kremlin’s military power and global influence. Simultaneously, for Russian President Vladimir Putin, losing his closest ally in the Middle East could represent only a temporary setback in his pursuit of a far greater geopolitical prize: victory in Ukraine.
It seems likely that the Russian leadership has developed an obsession with Ukraine – so to speak – that makes it view everything outside of it as peripheral, including the fall of Assad. This conclusion is central to Kurmanev’s analysis and his polling of various analysts.
Military and political analysts contend that winning the war in Ukraine has become Putin’s overarching objective. Such an outcome would justify the enormous human and economic costs of the conflict for the Russian leader, protect Russia’s statehood and global standing, and compensate for strategic failures elsewhere, such as in Syria.
Alexander Ponov, a political analyst at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, wrote: “Putin’s stakes in the war in Ukraine are so high that victory there would yield Russia a historic reward: all or nothing. If he believes the fate of the world is being decided in Donbass, then the future of Syria will also be decided there.”
In the near term, as Moscow attempts to retain its military bases in Syria, Putin may intensify his costly offensive in Ukraine to regain some prestige. Pro-war commentators in Russia have called on Putin to do just that while also demanding tougher peace terms in Ukraine to avoid the kind of inconclusive ceasefire that ultimately led to Assad’s downfall.
These scenarios could complicate the incoming Trump administration’s promise to swiftly end the fighting in Ukraine. As the Assad regime collapsed, President-elect Donald Trump mocked Russia for its failure to rescue its ally and urged Putin to reach an agreement on Ukraine, without detailing what that might entail.
The Ukrainian government has repeatedly rejected any peace terms that would formally acknowledge the loss of its territory or hinder the country’s pursuit of NATO membership. Moscow’s setback in Syria could further shrink the space for compromise. Pro-war commentators in Russia have reacted to Assad’s fall with confusion and anger, lamenting the lives of hundreds of Russian soldiers who died supporting a Syrian army that crumbled under opposition attacks. The demands of the war in Ukraine have diminished Russia’s ability to prevent a collapse in Syria.
A prominent Russian ultra-nationalist, Zakhar Prilepin, described Syria as “our catastrophe.” Oleg Tsaryov, a pro-Russian former member of the Ukrainian parliament now writing about the war from exile in Russia, stated: “The conclusion is clear: it is better not to let conflicts freeze. If the conflict is frozen, the enemy will undoubtedly take advantage of your moment of weakness.”
Tsaryov noted that to protect its interests, Russia should force Ukraine to accept a peace agreement that, among other things, bars it from NATO membership and compels Ukraine to accept the loss of territories annexed by Russia.
Some pro-war Russian commentators have gone even further than Tsaryov, calling on the Russian military to respond to the embarrassment in Syria with increased brutality in Ukraine. Alexei Bilko, a Russian ultra-nationalist historian, wrote on Telegram: “This is the right time to show extreme toughness, even cruelty” in Ukraine. He called for targeted killings of Ukrainian officials and more Russian airstrikes against government buildings and energy infrastructure.
Vasily Kashin, a political scientist at the state-funded Higher School of Economics in Moscow, characterized the surge of nationalist fervor following the disaster in Syria as “media hype.” He stated that the Kremlin will continue the war according to its plan and is unlikely to be distracted by peripheral events that have had little impact on the battlefield.
According to the New York Times, Putin has long cultivated an image as a master strategist undisturbed by the ebb and flow of daily events. However, the blow that Assad’s collapse has dealt to the Russian leader’s global reputation may compel him to demonstrate his strength in Ukraine, according to Tatiana Stanovaya, a Russian scholar at the Carnegie Russia and Eurasia Center.
She stated, “He may be tempted to show that Russia is undefeated, that it knows what it is doing. This may lead him to doubt what he is willing to concede in Ukraine.” To showcase his strength, he may impose new conditions for peace talks or escalate airstrikes, in line with his repeated threats. A U.S. official, speaking anonymously about sensitive intelligence, indicated that Russia could strike Ukraine with a new, powerful Orishnik ballistic missile in the coming days.
The Ukrainian government has repeatedly asserted that Putin’s threats of escalation are merely a bluff, as the Russian military is already fighting at full capacity as its invasion approaches its fourth year.
For some Russian analysts, the discussion surrounding the potential reaction to Assad’s fall disguises a more important lesson from Syria’s 13-year civil war: the difficulty of winning a protracted conflict. The Russian military’s campaign to squeeze Assad’s enemies into pockets ultimately proved futile, creating an illusion of victory that may resonate in Ukraine.
Ruslan Pukhov, a prominent Russian military expert, wrote in a column for the Russian business newspaper Kommersant: “In the modern world, victory can only be achieved in a quick and short war. If you can’t secure your military and political success quickly, you will eventually lose, no matter how hard you try.”
Comments are closed.