Russia’s Mixed Signals in Syria

Russia is sending mixed signals about its intentions in Syria over the last few months of the US Donald Trump administration. It sometimes appears to swiftly look for solutions while in other instances it appears that Moscow is looking to buy some time.

The last escalatory signal was when Russia informed the UN Security Council that it no longer wants but a single border entry point to allow for UN humanitarian relief to flow into the war-torn country’s northwest and for six months exclusively.

The cross-border aid delivery mechanism has been in place by a UNSC resolution since 2014. It does not require any authorization from Damascus.

At the end of last year, Russia pressed and reduced the number of points from 4 to 2 to push the UN to deal with the Syrian government. Also, a few weeks ago, it rejected an international demand to open the Al-Yarubia crossing point in northeastern Syria with Iraq.

Today, before the international resolution expires on July 10, Moscow wants to limit humanitarian aid to one border point with Turkey for 6 months, without paying attention to calls by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres or to the commitments it made in the tripartite statement of the “Astana Summit.”

This step could be a response to the Caesar Act, US legislation which sanctions the Syrian regime, and to transform Damascus into a gateway for international institutions.

On June 23, Russia withdrew from a voluntary UN-led arrangement to protect hospitals and humanitarian aid convoys from military targeting.

This came after an international report accused Damascus and its allies of bombing medical centers in northwestern Syria, despite having been informed in advance of the locations of the targeted centers.

Other escalatory messaging was debuted at the Astana Summit held online by the presidents of Russia, Turkey and Iran two days ago.

Turkey, at the Astana Summit, succeeded in getting the other two guarantors, Russia and Iran, to slash criticism of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham from the joint statement. The new statement was transformed into a platform to direct criticism at Washington’s allies in Syria and reject any separatist agendas or autonomous regions in northeastern Syria.

This criticism was largely directed at Kurds who are backed by Washington.

The statement reiterated objection to Washington's support for Israel’s decision to annex the Golan Heights. It also denounced Israeli raids in Syria, saying that they threaten its sovereignty and security and stability in the region.

Referring to the latest action taken by Washington and Brussels, the statement rejected unilateral sanctions.

On the other hand, Russia could be testing solutions in Syria.

Since the signing of an agreement between Russia and Turkey on March 5, there has been an obvious commitment to the truce in Idlib. Ankara was given time to come forth on its undertaking to handle “terrorists.”

Moscow pressured both Damascus and Tehran into backing off from an all-out war on Idlib.

It is worth noting that the Astana Summit’s recent statement made an honorable mention of how the Turkey-backed Hayat Tahrir al-Sham played an important role against the Guardians of the Religion extremists.

This coincides with repeated Russian efforts to prevent a military escalation in Daraa. The Russians also intervened to control an escalation in Sweida where demonstrations and arrests took place, at a time when there is talk about forming an army of opponents in southern Syria.

Militarily, Russia has not interfered in the Syrian raids that last week affected 4 Syrian governorates, including Sweida.

Showing more leniency, Russian officials expressed on multiple occasions their willingness to discuss with the US the future of Syria. This came after a media campaign was launched in Moscow against Damascus and its officials.

Western analysts believe that Russia is rushing to find a solution in Syria because of the worsening economic crisis there and the imposition of US sanctions. Other factors are also at play, such as the crisis in neighboring Lebanon and sanctions against Iran.

Can Moscow hold an understanding with Washington in the last months of the Trump administration, because it cannot wait a year and a half until the new US administration is established, or will it wait and discuss with Tehran ways to buy time in the difficult months ahead?

The ground battles between Israel and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon remain intense, with no end in sight for the coming weeks. The arrival of winter will bring weather changes that could slow down operations. but won't stop the fighting.

Experts say that while winter weather, especially rain and fog, can make it harder for fighters and vehicles to move, it has a limited impact on the overall conflict. Air operations, which rely on advanced technology, are less affected.

The region’s mild winter conditions, unlike harsher winters in other countries, will not be a decisive factor in the battle.

Retired General Abdul Rahman Shheitly believes that modern military equipment is designed to work in any weather.

However, he told Asharq Al-Awsat that fog and rain can give both sides an advantage by obscuring visibility, making it harder to spot each other.

This benefits the attacking side, Israel, which has superior technology, while Hezbollah’s movements could be hindered by muddy terrain.

Shheitly also noted that weather affects displaced civilians, which could put pressure on political negotiations to end the conflict.

Retired General Hassan Jouni, former deputy chief of staff of operations in the Lebanese Armed Forces, argued that weather conditions affect the attacker more than the defender. Since Hezbollah is defending its ground, it is less impacted by the cold and rain.

The weather only slightly affects vehicle movement, and does not stop the fighting.

Jouni noted that the region doesn’t experience severe winter weather, so air operations will be unaffected by rain or cold. Modern drones, missiles, and aircraft are designed to function in such conditions, with GPS ensuring precise targeting.

Both Hezbollah and Israel rely heavily on drones. Hezbollah’s drones are noted for their accuracy and ability to avoid Israel’s Iron Dome defense, while Israel uses drones for surveillance and targeted strikes.

More than a year has passed since the conflict began after Hezbollah opened its "support front” for Hamas on October 8, 2023. The fighting, mostly limited to airstrikes during the winter of 2023, escalated with Israel’s ground operation a month ago, though its full goals remain unclear.

As the ground battles continue, Israel seems focused on creating a buffer zone in the South rather than occupying towns. Israel has destroyed over 37 villages to achieve this goal.

The next steps remain uncertain.

Israeli Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi has stated that the military is preparing for further ground operations in southern Lebanon, while Hezbollah remains determined to hold its ground and prevent Israeli advances.

Russia’s Mixed Signals in Syria