By Nina Bachkatov
Russian President Vladimir Putin, during his annual televised Q&A session on 19 December, acknowledged that he had yet to meet Syrian President Bashar al-Assad but planned to do so soon. Putin dismissed speculation that the fall of the Assad regime represented a defeat for Russia or the loss of its military foothold on the Mediterranean. He conceded that the sudden collapse of Damascus without a fight had taken Russia by surprise but pointedly noted that this was true for all, including those preparing to engage not with a “democratic opposition” but with a group classified as a terrorist organisation.
On the same day, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky addressed Brussels, emphasising that only unified action by the EU, NATO, and the US could ensure Ukraine achieves “peace through strength.” His rhetoric reflected concerns over the EU’s ability to act decisively and the unpredictability of former US President Donald Trump, who could influence NATO and exert pressure on EU members through tariffs.
This summit marked the debut of Kaja Kallas as head of the EU’s external relations. Ukraine, placing high hopes on her leadership, aligns with her view that Russian military bases have no place in Syria after the Assad regime’s fall. Ukrainian officials argue that Moscow’s military presence would only exacerbate regional instability. Kallas warned against allowing Russia to exploit the Syrian power vacuum, although critics note her perspective may stem from her Estonian roots and a history of distrust towards Russia. In any case, EU is hardly an actor in this latest crisis in the Middle East, and regional powers have their own interests in keeping Moscow – and Washington – into the picture.
Complex Relations with Syria
The ties between Russia and Syria are long-standing but fraught. While Assad inherited Moscow’s historical ties with his father’s regime, personal rapport between Assad and Putin has been notably absent. Russian officials have often been frustrated by Assad’s obstinacy, which has undermined painstaking diplomatic efforts. Putin himself has reportedly been rebuffed by Assad, who clinged to the belief that Syria’s crisis can be resolved militarily rather than through negotiation.
This frustration is shared across the Middle East. Leaders in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Iran have all criticised Assad for failing to engage meaningfully in the Astana format talks, intended to address Syria’s internal conflict alongside Turkey and the opposition.
Despite these tensions, Syria remains a strategic asset for Russia. The Kremlin seeks to avoid appearing as an ally willing to abandon its partners. On 9 December, Putin granted Assad and his family political asylum on humanitarian grounds. The decision was partly facilitated by Mrs Assad’s ongoing cancer treatment in Moscow and the family’s children attending Russian schools. Crucially, Russian public opinion has been mollified by assurances that the Assads live off their own resources rather than Russian state funds.
The Future of Russian Military Bases
Following the fall of Damascus, questions have arisen over Russia’s ability to maintain control over its Syrian bases as it did under Assad. Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov revealed on 12 December that Moscow was negotiating with Syrian rebels, including discussions on the future of these bases.
These negotiations appear to have begun immediately after Russia recognised the scale of Damascus’s collapse and concluded that Assad was no longer worth direct military backing. Evidence of such discussions emerged as the bases served as evacuation hubs for Russian, Belarusian, and Korean civilians, as well as military hardware, with agreements reportedly struck with Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) to ensure safe passage.
Even Kremlin-aligned analysts remain cautious about the bases’ future. Bogdanov has expressed hope for ongoing dialogue with HTS, though the situation remains precarious, subject to the shifting dynamics among Syrian opposition groups.
The Kremlin has also engaged with regional powers who share its concern about Syria’s fragmentation and the emergence of jihadist forces in the ensuing vacuum. According to Putin, “the vast majority” of these actors prefer a continued Russian military presence in Syria. However, Turkey’s foreign minister recently voiced opposition to all foreign bases in Syria, highlighting the enduring complexities of the region’s geopolitical landscape.