December 8, 2024 - 11:40am
Bashar al-Assad has been overthrown, fleeing Damascus after a rapid rebel advance. But the Syrian dictator is far from the only president likely to be despairing today, for Vladimir Putin is another big loser here.
For Putin, the collapse of the Syrian regime and removal of Assad from power poses two critical problems. Firstly, it represents a critical strategic loss. Secondly, it represents a stark decline in Russia’s global prestige.
Russia now seems almost certain to permanently lose both its naval base at Tartus and its air base at Latakia, its only such bases in the Middle East. The loss of Tartus is particularly painful, as the base allowed Russia to conduct sustained surface and submarine operations in the Mediterranean Sea, and served as a conduit for operations into the Indian Ocean. This power, and the global prestige it granted, is now gone. With the Russian Black Sea fleet already locked out of most of those waters under threat of Ukrainian attack, Moscow has lost permanent access to any warm-water ports — a huge dent to Putin’s global ambitions.
The entire world has been shocked by the speed and success of the Syrian rebels, particularly those led by Abu Mohammed al-Jolani and his Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS)-led alliance. But the shock must be especially profound for Putin, given that Russia’s 2015 intervention in the conflict had seemingly swung the military initiative in Assad’s favour, essentially subjugating the Syrian regime to the Kremlin’s whims.
This dramatically increased Russia’s influence with Sunni Arab monarchies such as the UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, which detest Assad but had accepted that Putin’s success meant he was a forceful actor who had to be dealt with on his terms. They were pursuing increasing normalisation with Assad. Putin’s success also enabled him to leverage Israeli intelligence and political cooperation in return for his tolerating Israeli strikes against Iranian forces in Syria. Israel can now pay Putin back for his political support of Hamas.
Making matters worse, the Syrian rebel narrative has now changed. Putin could once rely upon the extremist influences of the Syrian opposition and the power of Isis and Syria’s al-Qaeda syndicate to present Assad to the world as the unpleasant but acceptable status quo. But Jolani, at face value at least, has cleverly embraced more moderate Islamist politics in recent years, knowing this transformation only has to be real enough to convince the West and Middle Eastern powers.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIt seems to me that dreadful dictators and bad international actors all eventually get their Dickensian comeuppance. If you treat ordinary people bad enough, for long enough, in a totally inhumane way, your days are always numbered. That’s Assad. As for Russia, they have made a very bad strategic error that will affect them for decades, and possibly finally lead to the demise of Putin. His geopolitics are a resounding failure.
I accept the most likely outcome is that Putin will die of old age in his bed, but I haven’t given up hope that he will meet his end like Mussolini did.
Blair, Bush, and a host of Neocons responsible for a million-plus deaths seem to have gotten away with it.
Or does this “Dickensian comeuppance” only apply to leaders the West doesn’t like?
Graham Bennett did refer to “dreadful dictators” and “bad international actors”.
Ah, yes, let’s celebrate the overthrow of a rusia-friendly autocratic regime by extremist Islamists supported by the US. It went really well the last few times, like in Libya and Egypt, and let’s not forget CIA’s greatest hit, Afghanistan.
Surely the greatest hit of the extreme Islamists was New York…or was that someone else?
Some say it was the US government or at least government sponsored …
Where would the US get the money for that?
The US doesn’t even talk to HTS never mind support it.
Really? Allegedly the USA didn’t support IS but “mistakenly” parachuted forty tons of ammunition to it at one point…lol…
“Al Qaeda are on our side in Syria” – Jake Sullivan.
What’s more, when various Iraqi Shia militias attempted to cross the border to help Assad’s forces they were mown down by USAF A-10s.
Turkey, Israel and the US coordinated this Takfiri takeover of the country.
… the fallout from which remains to be seen.
Afghanistan didn’t go that well recently, but I am old enough to remember a US -backed Mujahideen killing lots of Russian soldiers.
And later lots of New Yorkers…it’s called “blowback”
I did agree that the whole episode was not universally good, but it worked for a while there. I mean, when they contented themselves with killing Russians, everything was fine and dandy.
Plenty of Ukrainian soldiers too.
It was the USSR who were in Afghanistan, remember?
Sure. I appreciate that Ukraine was once part of the Soviet Union. However, it has seen the light since then.
They allowed their country to become a Western proxy, and are now seeing generations of their men either fleeing the country or being maimed or killed. That kind of light?
For anyone who believes the new regime in Syria will be moderate, I have a bridge in London they may like to buy.
There will be a flood of refugees from Syria. No prizes for a right answer as to where they’ll be heading.
“Putin has not publicly commented on what is happening, aware there is no way to spin this crisis.”
I imagine the crisis will be greater for Europe’s peoples than for Russia. No doubt it is very inconvenient for Russia but situations and loyalties change rapidly in the Middle East.
Yes, whenever I read about Syrian “rebels”, it’s clear for me that there is hardly any point continuing reading.
Assad’s regime might have been unsavoury on many counts, but what is coming after it is extremely barbarous and murderous – first of all, for all non-Musilm religious communities.
Instead of acknowledging it, quite a few authors prefer to refer to “rebels” rather than “terrorists” and to turn a blind eye to the grim prospect of having an ISIS-like state instead of a secular regime that was tolerant to all religions represented in the country.
A bitter afterthought: maybe it is not that bad that the Islamist terrorists in Syria are called “rebels” by some. After all, they might have been proclaimed “human rights activists” or something of this kind…
Assad was an ally to Iran and Hezbollah and was a horrific dictator like his father. I never forget the poisoned civilians and the many children choking to death during the civil war. The current factions are probably all as bad as each other and nobody has a clue what will happen in the future. I assume Syria will become a fractured country with maybe different semi-independent regions, tribes and religions. It was after all artificially designed after WWI and a French mandate. It never existed as a unified country.
I hope that the West will stay out of recent events and leave it to its own fortune. I am glad Trump has good relationships with the big Sunni Arab countries as they will be probably the lynchpin in this whole story.
Agree with you re Assad. However, what has come to replace him is even worse.
Like in Iran in 1979: the shah’s regime was definitely unsavoury, but the ayatollahs’ rule was (and is) even worse.
We are witnessing the same in Syria now.
Saying that X is a lesser evil than Y is not an apology for X. It is just a realistic comparison based on weighing the pros and cons.
The Shah was pro-US, not pro-Russia, so it was completely different.
I don’t see any difference in the pattern. My point was “a secular regime” v “a theocratic regime breeding terrorists”.
I think this was clear that this was a point of principle, but if not, hope that my reply helps.
Of course they won’t be “moderate”, but no civilized human being could have an ounce of compassion for Assad or any member of his family.
No one’s arguing for compassion for Assad. They’re pointing out that Assad’s government was secular and didn’t persecute people for their religious beliefs. Unlike the Takfiris.
Yes they cracked down savagely on political dissent… but so do the Takfiris.
We’ll have to wait and see whether HTS’ new-found love of “diversity” is more than skin deep… but given the nature of Sunni jihadis, I’m not optimistic.
Neither am I.
And I sincerely cannot understand all this elation about yet another terrorist state emerging before our eyes.
Ok, but let’s work through the logic of this. Assad was pro-Russia. That is a “bad” thing over and above his human rights abuses. If the Takfiris commit the same number of human rights abuses as Assad, but are not pro-Russia, there is an argument to say they are “better”.
Yes. It’s just not a very good argument.
“There will be a flood of refugees from Syria. No prizes for a right answer as to where they’ll be heading.”
Russia? At least one of them has gone there, maybe his supporters will have to head there too.
Putin’s discomfort may be of passing interest …but what does this mean for China’s ambitions?
As in a Bond film, Xi is currently summoning his minion Putin to ask him why he has messed up, and considering whether he should be fed to the sharks.
This is a valid question, but I am much more concerned about what it means for the West…
I’m not sure it makes any difference to China’s ambitions.
China is brokering “peace” between KSA and Iran, fragile though it may be, the two most important players in the ME excluding Israel. It isn’t doing it out of pure benevolence, and the Syria situation doesn’t seem to impinge on that.
I suggest that Turkey is now as influential as either Saudi Arabia or Iran. They seem to have played the Ukraine and Syria situations better than anyone. Which is not necesarily to agree with what they’ve done, just noting their influence.
Lots of food for thought here. The collapse of the Assad regime is due to the inability of its sponsors, Russia and Iran-Hezbollah, to continue supporting it. That, in turn, is due to the losses that Russia has suffered in Ukraine, and that Hezbollah and Iran have suffered facing Israel. That, in turn, is due to the decision of Russia to invade Ukraine and of Hezbollah to join the Hamas attack on Israel, which eventually led Iran to directly join the attack as well. So while Israel and Ukraine are not directly behind the rebel offensive in Syria – if anyone is, it is Turkey – the losses that they have inflicted upon Assad’s sponsors are definitely the main reason for the Syrian regime’s collapse. The law of unintended consequences …
All this does not mean that Assad’s collapse necessarily improves Israel strategic position in the long term – but it very well could, as well as Lebanon’s chances to recover from Hezbollah’s stranglehold.
Right now however, the Israeli Air Force is methodically bombing Assad’s remaining chemical arms stockpile and ground to ground missiles, just to be on the safe(r) side.
Good. Remind me to send the Israeli Air Force a couple of cases of beer.
Lol…
“Right now however, the Israeli Air Force is methodically bombing Assad’s remaining chemical arms stockpile and ground to ground missiles, just to be on the safe(r) side.”
Israel doesn’t give much thought to killing and terrorizing people in other countries just to be a little safer, do they?
It shouldn’t be hard to admit that keeping chemical weapons out of the hands of jihadists is likely to make everyone safer.
That was the kind of thinking behind the invasion and occupation of Iraq. It can be used to justify anything.
But we’re not talking about justifying “anything” nor even about the invasion and occupation of Syria. We’re talking about destroying stockpiles of poison gas. I struggle to understand what bothers you with that. Is it that you are fine with jihadists terrorizing everyone with poison gas, as long as they are terrorizing the Israelis as well?
Wants it in their hands?
Israel didn’t destroy stockpiles of poison gas. It’s unclear if Syria even has any stockpiles of poison gas, and if they did, where they were.
Israel systematically, and in violation of international law, destroyed all of Syria’s navy, air force and army assets it could find. The country no longer has any military capability. Shame on Israel for that.
Intelligent analysis.
Russia got outplayed.
They accepted the Turks’ request not to finish rolling up the HTS Takfiris and left them to consolidate in Idlib.
They stood back and allowed Israel to bomb the Syrain Arab Army every week, attriting them and destroying their morale.
Now that the “moderate” HTS headchoppers have won, the US is destroying their more radical ISIS proxies that were useful as an excuse to occupy the Northeastern (ie oil and grain rich) third of Syria and helped pin down the SAA
I presume Russia will be losing their Syrian bases as a result.
But… given their muted response to HTS’ win, some people are positing a secret deal between Erdogan, Putin and Bibi to carve up the country along the lines of the “Clean Break” strategy that arose from Oded Yinon’s proposals.
Either way it looks like Israel will resume their flattening of Hezbollah and extirpating the Palestinians.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Takfiris next assault Lebanon.
Expect even more Syrian and Lebanese refugees to swarm Europe as the Christians, Allowites and Shia flee the new Sunni Caliphate that has already said it wants good relations with Israel.
The most interesting feature of this whole saga is why no shots were fired by the Syrian army all 200,000 of them. Were they bribed as in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lybia and who did the bribing US, Turkey, Israel?
More likely, their meager pay was not reason enough for the Syrian army foot soldiers to die for Assad, and the amnesty promised by HTS to Syrian army soldiers who lay down their arms was all the bribery they needed.
Maybe they realized that once Assad had fled, there was little to fight for. Plus, I suspect that they might have had advance notice of the “enlisted men can change into civvies and go home” directive.
There was some fighting on the ground, but from videos being released by bitter SAA servicemen, it appears the general staff were bribed to stand the forces down.
Modern militaries require extensive co-ordination. And it’s the officers who do the coordinating.
If your superiors refuse to do their job, it’s suicide to continue fighting a better-coordinated enemy
“Moscow has lost permanent access to any warm-water ports”. Murmansk and Vladivostok are already ice-free all year round and Archangelsk is expected to be ice-free by 2027, given the rise in sea temperature. In the Baltic, Kaliningrad is also ice-free.
Not quite like access to the Mediterranean though. Anyway, the Baltic is now a “NATO Lake”.
Apart from Königsberg…sorry…Kaliningrad…
Yes, but that has the misfortune to not be contiguous with the rest of Russia.
My post is about the incorrect assertion that ““Moscow has lost permanent access to any warm-water ports”.
I’m not sure what the technical definition of a warm water port is, but even if ice free I’d say Murmansk, Vladivostok and Archangelsk are still pretty cold, and Kalingrad is an exclave.
I was in Helsinki and Tallinn last month. They were both pretty chilly, although there was no ice in the Baltic itself.
The big question is where Assad himself will turn up. I haven’t given up hope that the rebels will be able to capture him and hang him, but I suspect he will be in Russia soon enough.
Still earlier but there is speculation that his plane has been shot down
6 hours after your post, it turns out you’re right.
Unsurprising. That’s where Russian stooges tend to head when they are deposed (Viktor Yanukovych being a good example).
WRONG
Where is he then? The Russians say he is in Russia. Why would they lie?
I’m not sure the fall of Assad is a good thing for anyone. But it’s happened. I guess we’ll see.
I think that Iran in 1979 and later Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and the territory occupied by ISIS are reliable predictors of things to come.
Actually, it seems that these things are already there, judging by the first reports of beh eadings and summary exe cutions of unarmed people deemed Assad’s supporters. For me, it is not surprising at all. Unfortunately.
Pity Assad himself wasn’t one of the beheadings.
Presumably the down-votes were from Assad himself, and members of his immediate family.
The two most recent downvotes to your both comments were from me, because I am against any violence in principle and especially if it takes the form of extrajudicial killings – something you seem to advocate for. With a glee.
Assad was a butcher of rare proportions, who tortured and murdered tens of thousands, and possibly hundreds of thousands. What is wrong with him “getting a bit of his own medicine”? Gaddafi did. Saddam did. Mussolini did. Those were in my view entirely good things. I am hopeful that the same sort of treatment will come Putin’s way in due course.
The people of Syria seem pretty happy about it
They do now. But when a state is toppled by rival factions with no replacement ready, the resulting anarchy is usually more unpopular than the state was. Look for more death and destruction before there is peace and stability.
“The people of Syria seem pretty happy about it”
“Seem” is the operative word here.
If a bunch of headchoppers take over your town, are you going to make your displeasure obvious?
Not showing displeasure is not the same as showing pleasure.
Whether that pleasure is justified we will have to wait and see. But given how murderous the previous regime was, is it really so hard to think that some of the happiness is genuine, even if it’s for just some of the population?
People are missing the point here. It doesn’t matter if Jolani is a good guy (he is making the right gestures about not being extreme, which is better than the alternative). Let’s not waste time with moralistic pieties; there are no good guys in the Muslim middle east that have any hope of gaining and holding power.What matters is where his interests lie, and if they align with ours.
1) If he wants to consolidate his rule, he’ll want peace and stability in Syria; that’s aligns with Western interests. 2) As a fundamentalist Sunni he will not ally himself with Iran and Hezbollah; that suits Western interests, and will help stability in the region. 3) Since Russia supported Assad, he will kick them out of Syria, greatly diminishing their power in the Mid East, and humiliating Putin; that suits Western interests.
His rule would be better for the West than Assad, so why not give him the benefit of the doubt?
Quite a few people, far from “missing the point” have been making the same point.
Lots of people are calling him an “extremist Islamist”. Quite rankly he’s no more extreme than the Gov’t of Saudi Arabia, which we are allied to.
Hopefully we’ve found a strongman we can live with. That was our fundamental error in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Turkey at the end of the day. Don’t try to impose Democracy on countries where the people will vote for something worse than a military dictator.
Err…because it woud be rather naive to do so. A healthy scepticism would be best, none of the “Arab Spring” jubilation which the West promoted…and proved to be utter nonsense.
It’s time for the great state of Ishmael.
Go to Xwitter @Adler Pfingsten and read the article “A Viable Two State Solution”. Doing so will be well worth your time.
Give it a rest. If you’ve got anything to say, say it on here.
Thanks for dealing with his nonsense.
The USSR collapsed. So will Putin’s regime as it attempts to build a little of the USSR back. Just a question of time.
No doubt these events will have the Putin apologists scrambling for an explanatory narrative. It’ll be pitiful.
The situation in Iran now even more interesting and Khamenai doesn’t have long left. That could be even more tumultuous
Russian leaders can keep going – until they can’t.
The system is ALWAYS based on criminality and violence with the state captured fully by individuals, who expend financial and human capacity until the whole thing cracks. The securitate dregs who run things can’t see this. But with the people supine, there is no telling how long each version will last.
All changed, changed utterly.
Will there be a US-Israeli strike on Iran nuclear next year?
No, but the regime may fall fairly quickly. It’s support is even lower than Starmer’s in the UK.
One question is why it doesn’t seem to occur to Russian elites that their ‘system’ isn’t very good.