Moscow’s ‘Tactical’ Retreat in Syria, Shift in Priorities

The recent successive withdrawals of Russian military forces from observation points near the frontlines with the occupied Syrian Golan have raised questions about Russia’s positioning in the context of the escalating confrontation in Lebanon, which has quickly spilled over into Syrian territory. These withdrawals also prompt inquiries about Russia’s priorities in the coming phase regarding the anticipated developments, particularly in light of what Israel and the United States call the “rearrangement of the regional situation and the curbing of Iranian influence in the region.”
In recent days, reports have surfaced of Russian military forces unexpectedly evacuating sites described by Israeli sources as strategic. One of the most notable locations was an observation point on Tel al-Hara in northern Daraa province, followed by similar withdrawals from Tel al-Shaar and Tel Mashara in the Quneitra countryside. Russian forces collected their equipment and took down their flag before departing.
It is now evident that the Russian move followed military activities by Israeli forces a few days earlier near the border between Quneitra province and the occupied Syrian Golan.
These movements involved the deployment of a significant number of Israeli tanks and military vehicles in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights. Additionally, over recent months, Israel has been opening pathways in the Syrian Golan and detonating minefields near the ceasefire line multiple times, coinciding with increasing strikes within Syrian territory and reports from the Israeli side about the arrival of elite Iranian militia forces in southern Syria.
Moscow had previously established 17 military observation points in the area and patrolled the frontlines to maintain de-escalation between Hezbollah forces and Israel. Thus, the current withdrawals leave the region vulnerable to further escalation.
This indicates that Moscow is unwilling to engage in confrontation or keep its forces in the line of fire. It also appears unable to stop the ongoing deterioration.
Two hypotheses have emerged to explain these successive Russian withdrawals. The first suggests that Moscow received a warning from Israel about upcoming military operations in the region and that Israeli forces intend to target Hezbollah positions and other Iran-backed militias. The second hypothesis, which comes from Russian diplomats speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat, claims that Russia is not yielding to Israeli threats and that these withdrawals do not signal a green light for Israel to expand its operations in Syria. On the contrary, the move might aim to give Iran and its allied groups more room for military engagement against Israel.
In both cases, Moscow seems to prefer distancing its forces from potential developments. Some estimates suggest that Russian forces will continue to withdraw from observation points in areas experiencing heightened tensions. However, these “tactical withdrawals,” as described by Russian observers, do not indicate that Russia is planning more drastic actions. Instead, the increased significance of Russia’s military presence in Syria, in light of its escalating confrontation with the West, shows that Moscow is unlikely to reassess its strategic presence in the region in the near future, according to a Russian analyst who spoke to Asharq Al-Awsat.
This analysis, however, depends on the nature of future developments, particularly regarding Israel’s potential plans to expand its operations in Syria.
The Kremlin’s warnings on Thursday pointed to the possibility of wider deterioration in Syria. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stated that any potential expansion of Israel’s military actions in Syria could have catastrophic consequences for the Middle East. However, he refrained from answering questions about Russia’s potential response should Israel launch a ground offensive in Syria to pursue Iranian and Hezbollah forces. He only remarked that it is “not appropriate to speculate on future developments at this time.”
Simultaneously, Moscow appears to have escalated its rhetoric criticizing Israeli military actions in Syria. The Russian Foreign Ministry’s angry response, describing recent Israeli strikes as an “aggression targeting civilians and a blatant violation of international laws,” marked a significant shift in Russia’s tone.
Commonly recognized is the fact that Moscow began reducing its forces in Syria in the summer of 2022, a few months after the war in Ukraine began. At that time, Russia provided extensive support to Hezbollah and other Iran-backed militias in Syria, including facilitating the transfer of weapons and equipment to these groups after Syrian airports under Iranian control were bombed. Moscow also turned a blind eye to Hezbollah’s redeployment in southern Syria, despite this violating a previous agreement that required Hezbollah and its allies to stay 80 kilometers away from the Golan.
Russia has withdrawn thousands of soldiers and officers, moving them to Ukraine, where the front is more pressing and crucial at this time. Russian military circles explained this move by stating that Russian ground forces no longer have specific missions in Syria after accomplishing their main task of fighting terrorism and reinforcing the Syrian government’s control.
However, reducing the number of troops does not mean Moscow is deprioritizing Syria. According to a military analyst, the strategic importance of Russian air and long-range capabilities has grown beyond Syria’s borders, reflecting Russia’s broader interests in the Eastern Mediterranean and North Africa.
This reassessment of priorities predates the Gaza conflict, which has now spread to Lebanon and is seriously threatening Syria. It’s important to recall President Vladimir Putin’s remarks roughly two months ago when he warned, during Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s visit to Moscow, that the region was on the brink of very dangerous developments, with Syria not exempt from them.
Experts note that Moscow values its strategic military presence in Syria, but seeks to maintain it at minimal cost. Last year, Putin said that Russian forces’ presence in Syria is “temporary and will continue as long as it serves Russia’s interests in this vital region, which is very close to us.” He emphasized that Moscow is not planning to withdraw these units from Syria yet.
However, it was notable that Putin referred to Russian deployments in Syria as “points” rather than “bases,” indicating that Moscow is not constructing long-term structures there. He added that Russia could withdraw its military personnel “quickly and without material losses” if necessary.
Experts believe that Putin’s remarks precisely define the levels of Russian engagement should the situation worsen, particularly if Russian forces lose their strategic advantage in Syria. Nevertheless, according to some experts, Moscow is likely to continue complicating the situation for Washington by supporting the escalation of various forces against US interests in the region, especially in Syria and Iraq. This could also apply to Israel’s actions in and around Syria in the coming phase.
According to analysts, this policy will persist until Moscow formulates new strategies based on how the situation evolves.

Discussion in the West about arming Ukraine with nuclear weapons is "absolutely irresponsible", Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Tuesday, in response to a report in the New York Times citing unidentified officials who suggested such a possibility.

The New York Times reported last week that some unidentified Western officials had suggested US President Joe Biden could give Ukraine nuclear weapons before he leaves office.

"Several officials even suggested that Mr. Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union. That would be an instant and enormous deterrent. But such a step would be complicated and have serious implications," the newspaper wrote.

Asked about the report, Peskov told reporters: "These are absolutely irresponsible arguments of people who have a poor understanding of reality and who do not feel a shred of responsibility when making such statements. We also note that all of these statements are anonymous."

Earlier, senior Russian security official Dmitry Medvedev said that if the West supplied nuclear weapons to Ukraine then Moscow could consider such a transfer to be tantamount to an attack on Russia, providing grounds for a nuclear response.

Ukraine inherited nuclear weapons from the Soviet Union after its 1991 collapse, but gave them up under a 1994 agreement, the Budapest Memorandum, in return for security assurances from Russia, the United States and Britain.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said last month that as Ukraine had handed over the nuclear weapons, joining NATO was the only way it could deter Russia.

The 33-month Russia-Ukraine war saw escalations on both sides last week, after Ukraine fired US and British missiles into Russia for the first time, with permission from the West, and Moscow responded by launching a new hypersonic intermediate-range missile into Ukraine.

Asked about the risk of a nuclear escalation, Peskov said the West should "listen carefully" to Putin and read Russia's newly updated nuclear doctrine, which lowered the threshold for using nuclear weapons.

Separately, Russian foreign intelligence chief Sergei Naryshkin said Moscow opposes simply freezing the conflict in Ukraine because it needs a "solid and long-term peace" that resolves the core reasons for the crisis.

Moscow’s ‘Tactical’ Retreat in Syria, Shift in Priorities