- Vladimir Putin has been quiet about Syria since the end of Bashir Assad’s rule.
- Rebels deposed Russia’s longtime ally earlier this month, jeopardizing its military presence there.
- Any discussion about Syria may expose Moscow to further scrutiny, one expert told BI.
During an annual televised meeting between President Vladimir Putin and Russia’s top military officials on Monday, Putin was keen to keep the focus firmly on incremental successes in Ukraine.
But he was conspicuously silent about recent events in Syria — where longtime Kremlin ally Bashar Assad was deposed by rebels earlier this month.
Russia had long provided military support to prop up Assad’s government, but a lightning offensive by rebel groups that Russian intelligence failed to predict toppled Assad in just two weeks.
It also exposed the limits of Putin’s ambition to reestablish Russia as a great power, according to analysts.
“The fall of the Assad regime is perceived as a sign of Russia’s weakness in supporting its allies,” Yaniv Voller, a senior lecturer in Middle East politics at the University of Kent, told BI.
He added that under such circumstances, “any discussion of the situation in Syria may expose Moscow to further scrutiny about its capabilities.”
The loss of Assad also leaves the status of Russia’s crucial Syrian military bases in doubt — and means Putin needs victories in Ukraine more than ever.
Russia’s slow response to Syria
Putin has long boasted of Russia’s success in Syria. In 2015, it launched its first foreign military mission since the end of the Cold War, and successfully achieved its core goal of keeping Assad in power.
The Kremlin used the campaign to mock the US and its allies over their failed Middle Eastern policies. It also used its military bases granted by Assad to project Russian power into Africa and beyond.
Yet, with Russia’s military stretched by its costly war in Ukraine, Putin appeared unwilling or unable to divert forces to save Assad.
In the face of events unfolding in Syria, the Kremlin’s early comments were limited to confirming it had provided asylum to Assad and his family, who fled on a Russian plane as rebels approached Damascus.
Russian media, which is tightly controlled by the Kremlin, was also muted in its coverage of events, according to RFE/RL, while military bloggers blamed Russian military leaders for the debacle and the ineptness of Assad’s forces.
Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, meanwhile, sought to shift the blame to a familiar geopolitical foe: the US and its allies.
“All this is a repetition of the old, very old habit of creating some havoc, some mess, and then fishing in the muddy waters,” he said.
What has Russia lost?
The collapse of Assad’s government could have wider implications for Russia’s global military footprint, which might help explain Putin’s silence on the matter.
Nikolay Kozhanov, a research associate professor at the Gulf Studies Center of Qatar University, argued in a piece for Chatham House last week that it has damaged Russia’s reputation as a reliable ally capable of guaranteeing the survival of its partners.
Stefan Wolff, a professor of International Security at the University of Birmingham, went further.
In a piece for The Conversation, Wolff said that Russia’s failure to save a key partner like Assad highlights serious flaws in its capacity to act like a great power.
And four former US officials and military researchers even predicted that countries in Russia’s sphere of influence could break away in the coming weeks, as many did in 1991 after the Soviet Union collapsed.
“The house of cards that Vladimir Putin has so carefully stacked over more than two decades is folding before our eyes,” they wrote in Time Magazine.
Other analysts, however, are more circumspect.
Mohammed Albasha, founder of Basha Report, a Virginia-based consultancy specializing in Middle East affairs, told BI that “withdrawing from Syria would primarily impact Russia’s influence in the Middle East.”
He said that it might prompt governments in Armenia or those in the Sahel region, such as Niger and Burkina Faso, to reconsider their alliances with Moscow, and shift focus toward building closer ties with the West or China.
But when it comes to countries bordering Russia — such as Georgia, Tajikistan, and Belarus — he said those were likely to remain due to their deep economic ties and Russia’s national security mandate to protect its borders.
Putin stays silent
Some analysts believe that Putin’s silence on Syria may not just be about wanting to divert attention from an embarrassing defeat, but also about brokering a deal with Syria’s new government to enable it to retain at least some of its military assets in the country.
Reports indicate that Russia has withdrawn naval vessels from the Tartus base, but has kept planes and other air force assets in Hmeimim.
“Even if Russia withdraws its forces from Syria, Moscow will still try to negotiate so that this withdrawal will not be perceived as a flight,” Voller told BI.
Even so, Putin’s focus on Ukraine on Monday underscores, now more than ever, that the Russian president needs a win.
A victory in Ukraine, where Russia has been making incremental but important progress in recent months, would enable Russia to buffer its reputation as a military power, despite recent setbacks and losses.
“There should be no expectation of anything but Russia doubling down in Ukraine,” wrote Wolff in last week’s blog post. “Putin needs a success that restores domestic and international confidence in him — and fast.”
