عربي English Türkçe اردو فارسى
Logo
Latest News
World

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

A billboard in the streets of Damascus for President Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin in March 2022. (Reuters)
A billboard in the streets of Damascus for President Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin in March 2022. (Reuters)
TT
TT

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

A billboard in the streets of Damascus for President Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin in March 2022. (Reuters)
A billboard in the streets of Damascus for President Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin in March 2022. (Reuters)

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.

Most Viewed

 
 
World

How Likely Is the Use of Nuclear Weapons by Russia?

This photograph taken at a forensic expert center in an undisclosed location in Ukraine on November 24, 2024, shows parts of a missile that were collected for examination at the impact site in the town of Dnipro following an attack on November 21. (Photo by Roman PILIPEY / AFP)
This photograph taken at a forensic expert center in an undisclosed location in Ukraine on November 24, 2024, shows parts of a missile that were collected for examination at the impact site in the town of Dnipro following an attack on November 21. (Photo by Roman PILIPEY / AFP)
TT
TT

How Likely Is the Use of Nuclear Weapons by Russia?

This photograph taken at a forensic expert center in an undisclosed location in Ukraine on November 24, 2024, shows parts of a missile that were collected for examination at the impact site in the town of Dnipro following an attack on November 21. (Photo by Roman PILIPEY / AFP)
This photograph taken at a forensic expert center in an undisclosed location in Ukraine on November 24, 2024, shows parts of a missile that were collected for examination at the impact site in the town of Dnipro following an attack on November 21. (Photo by Roman PILIPEY / AFP)

On 24 February 2022, in a televised speech heralding the Russian invasion of Ukraine, President Vladimir Putin issued what was interpreted as a threat to use nuclear weapons against NATO countries should they interfere.

“Russia will respond immediately,” he said, “and the consequences will be such as you have never seen in your entire history.”

Then on 27 February 2022, Putin ordered Russia to move nuclear forces to a “special mode of combat duty’, which has a significant meaning in terms of the protocols to launch nuclear weapons from Russia.”

Dr. Patricia Lewis, director of the International Security program at Chatham House, wrote in a report that according to Russian nuclear weapons experts, Russia’s command and control system cannot transmit launch orders in peacetime, so increasing the status to “combat” allows a launch order to go through and be put into effect.

She said Putin made stronger nuclear threats in September 2022, following months of violent conflict and gains made by a Ukrainian counterattack.

“He indicated a stretch in Russian nuclear doctrine, lowering the threshold for nuclear weapons use from an existential threat to Russia to a threat to its territorial integrity,” Lewis wrote.

In November 2022, according to much later reports, the US and allies detected manoeuvres that suggested Russian nuclear forces were being mobilized.

Lewis said that after a flurry of diplomatic activity, China’s President Xi Jinping stepped in to calm the situation and speak against the use of nuclear weapons.

In September 2024, Putin announced an update of the 2020 Russian nuclear doctrine. The update was published on 19 November 2024 and formally reduced the threshold for nuclear weapons use.

According to Lewis, the 2020 doctrine said that Russia could use nuclear weapons “in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy.”

On 21 November 2024, Russia attacked Dnipro in Ukraine using a new ballistic missile for the first time.

She said Putin announced the missile as the ‘Oreshnik’, which is understood to be a nuclear-capable, intermediate-range ballistic missile which has a theoretical range of below 5,500km.

Lewis added that Russia has fired conventionally armed nuclear-capable missiles at Ukraine throughout the war, but the Oreshnik is much faster and harder to defend against, and suggests an escalatory intent by Russia.

Nuclear Response During Cold War

In her report, Lewis said that nuclear weapons deterrence was developed in the Cold War primarily on the basis of what was called ‘mutually assured destruction’ (MAD).

The idea behind MAD is that the horror and destruction from nuclear weapons is enough to deter aggressive action and war, she added.

But the application of deterrence theory to post-cold war realities is far more complicated in the era of cyberattacks and AI, which could interfere with the command and control of nuclear weapons.

In light of these risks, presidents Biden and Xi issued a joint statement from the 2024 G20 summit affirming the need to maintain human control over the decision to use nuclear weapons.

The US and Russia exchange information on their strategic, long-range nuclear missiles under the New START agreement – a treaty to reduce and monitor nuclear weapons between the two countries which is set to expire in February 2026.

But, Lewis said, with the US decision to exit the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 2019, there are no longer any agreements between the US and Russia regulating the number or the deployment of ground-launched nuclear missiles with a range of 500-5,500 km.

She said short-range nuclear weapons were withdrawn and put in storage as a result of the 1991 Presidential Nuclear Initiatives but are not subject to any legal restraints.

The 10th NPT Review Conference was held in 2022 in New York. The issue of nuclear weapons threats and the targeting of nuclear power stations in Ukraine were central to the debate.

Lewis noted that a document was carefully crafted to finely balance concerns about the three pillars of the treaty – non-proliferation, nuclear disarmament and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. But Russia withdrew its agreement on the last day of the conference, scuppering progress.

“It was believed that if Russia were to use nuclear weapons it would likely be in Ukraine, using short range, lower yield ‘battlefield’ nuclear weapons,” she said, adding that Russia is thought to have more than 1,000 in reserve.

“These would have to be taken from storage and either connected to missiles, placed in bombers, or as shell in artillery,” Lewis wrote.

Increasingly the rhetoric from Russia suggests nuclear threats are a more direct threat to NATO – not only Ukraine – and could refer to longer range, higher yield nuclear weapons.

For example in his 21 September 2022 speech, Putin accused NATO states of nuclear blackmail, referring to alleged “statements made by some high-ranking representatives of the leading NATO countries on the possibility and admissibility of using weapons of mass destruction – nuclear weapons – against Russia.”

Putin added: “In the event of a threat to the territorial integrity of our country and to defend Russia and our people, we will certainly make use of all weapon systems available to us. This is not a bluff.”

There have been no expressed nuclear weapons threats from NATO states.

NATO does rely on nuclear weapons as a form of deterrence and has recently committed to significantly strengthen its longer-term deterrence and defence posture in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The current UK Labor government has repeatedly reiterated its commitment to British nuclear weapons – including before the July 2024 election, according to Lewis.

Therefore, she said, any movement to ready and deploy Russian nuclear weapons would be seen and monitored by US and others’ satellites, which can see through cloud cover and at night – as indeed appears to have happened in late 2022.

Lewis concluded that depending on other intelligence and analysis – and the failure of all diplomatic attempts to dissuade Russia – NATO countries may decide to intervene to prevent launch by bombing storage sites and missile deployment sites in advance.