Syria and Russia have entered a new era of negotiation following the fall of Bashar al-Assad in December 2024, culminating in a memorandum of understanding concerning Moscow’s Hmeimim airbase and Tartus naval base. This agreement, initially presented as a pragmatic realignment of military assets, has profound implications for both nations’ strategic interests, raising questions about the future of Syria and Russia’s role in the region.
Russia’s longstanding military involvement in Syria, beginning with its pivotal role during the nearly 14-year civil war, has been a cornerstone of al-Assad’s rule. Under the accord, Russia will retain control of civilian facilities at the Hmeimim airbase and the commercial section of Tartus port, transforming these facilities into joint Russian-Syrian training and qualification centres. This transition, expected to be completed within three months, represents a significant shift from Russia’s long-term commitment to supporting Assad’s regime.
The agreement signals a renewed focus on securing Syria’s coastal territories, with Moscow preserving a foothold and avoiding being entirely sidelined. However, analysts argue this dynamic is underpinned by a deeper, more pragmatic relationship – a strategic partnership designed to maximize Russia’s leverage while minimizing perceived risks to its own interests. Alexey Muraviev, senior research fellow at Edith Cowan University, noted that ‘the agreement represents a pivotal moment, paving the way for a new phase in Syrian-Russian relations,’ emphasizing that Damascus is unlikely to relinquish its extended relationship with Moscow.
Moscow’s continued military presence is largely driven by its longstanding economic and political ties to Syria. As a key guarantor of the country’s oil and gas revenues, Moscow holds substantial debt and reconstruction contracts, supplying subsidized oil and grain, and wielding veto power within the Security Council. Russia’s continued involvement allows it to exert influence over Syria’s economic trajectory and its regional strategic positioning, particularly in Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean.
This strategic realignment is not solely about military control; it’s about leveraging Syria’s political landscape for Russia’s own benefit. Russia is seeking to maintain its ‘only Mediterranean military platform for projecting power into Africa and the eastern Mediterranean,’ which provides a vital strategic advantage. In exchange, Moscow is demanding a new agreement that includes debt relief, economic cooperation, and UN cover on terrorism designations in exchange for Syria’s continued military presence.
The agreement has been met with cautious optimism from Western actors, recognizing the potential for Russia to use Syria as a strategic buffer against US and European pressure. However, the long-term implications of this shift remain uncertain. While the agreement does not necessarily signify a complete abandonment of Syria, it does highlight a crucial dynamic: Russia is adapting its strategy to maximize its influence in a region where it has historically maintained a significant presence, while simultaneously seeking to mitigate potential repercussions for its own security interests. The agreement also reflects the evolving geopolitical landscape, with Russia’s focus shifting to a more multi-vectoral engagement, seeking to leverage Syria’s political transition as a potential bargaining chip with the US, Turkey, and potentially Israel.
Furthermore, the initial negotiations were remarkably discreet, perhaps anticipating a potential push from the US and European powers to formally terminate Russia’s military presence. The very nature of the accord – its focus on the coastal territories – could be seen as a calculated maneuver, designed to constrain Russia’s ability to exert influence in Syria, thereby bolstering its strategic advantage in the region.”
This situation is further complicated by the fact that the agreement was initially proposed and negotiated before the toppling of al-Assad, suggesting a deliberate effort by both sides to manage the risks associated with a protracted relationship with Moscow.
To this end, Al-Sharaa’s government, chronically cash-strapped and needing wheat, energy and technical support, has visited Putin twice in Moscow since taking power, signaling a willingness to adapt to the new realities of the relationship.
Muraviev underscored that negotiations have been ‘very discreet,’ potentially due to Russia’s concern that ‘talking too much about the bases’ could trigger US and European demands for their closure. The protracted negotiations between Damascus and Moscow have, in essence, been a carefully choreographed dance of strategic maneuvering, ultimately shaping a new era of Russia’s engagement with Syria and its broader geopolitical ambitions.
Source: Al Jazeera
