The first meeting between the Syrian president and Russian president since late 2021 took place in Moscow, where Bashar Assad and Vladimir Putin discussed ongoing cooperation. Assad began the day by laying a wreath at the Unknown Soldier Monument before attending a public rally, signaling the ceremonial weight of the visit.
In his opening remarks, Assad described his Moscow trip as Russia’s first since the start of Russia’s military operation in Ukraine. He framed the Syria-Russia partnership within the context of this operation, arguing that it confronts neo-Nazism and extremist currents. He asserted that Western support for these forces persists, even as Western powers claim to advocate for peace and stability in the region.
Assad extended gratitude to Putin, the Ministry of Emergency Situations, and the Ministry of Defense for aiding Syria’s population in the aftermath of a recent earthquake, underscoring the humanitarian dimension of their cooperation.
Media reports from the previous day indicated that the talks between Assad and Putin were meant to cover Syria’s overall situation, bilateral relations with Russia, and developments in Russia-Syria political, economic, and humanitarian collaboration. A broader discussion was expected about the resolution of the Syrian conflict in the context of regional dynamics, including Syria’s relations with Turkey.
Alongside the leaders, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Syrian Defense Minister Ali Mahmud Abbas attended the Moscow talks. Both military chiefs noted progress in the fight against terrorism since Russia’s involvement in Syria began, highlighting advances by the Syrian authorities in reclaiming territory from extremist groups.
war in syria
Russia’s military campaign in Syria began in September 2015, when Russian aerospace forces targeted terrorist networks across the country. The campaign delivered crippling blows to the Islamic State, a designated extremist organization in Russia, contributing to a shift in the balance of power on the ground.
Over time, Moscow’s presence helped stabilize portions of the region and prevented a total collapse of the Syrian state. A key outcome was the permanent deployment of two Russian bases in Syria. The Khmeimim airbase near Latakia is capable of hosting various aircraft, while the Tartus naval facility features modern moorings and support infrastructure essential for sustaining maritime operations. These bases include life-support systems, repair capacities, and logistics hubs to support ongoing activities.
Despite ISIS suffering severe losses and Assad’s internal opponents being weakened, questions remain about the deeper causes and competing interests that fueled the conflict. The possibility of renewed clashes among Syria’s diverse segments cannot be ruled out, and the future of the Kurdish issue, American influence in certain areas, and Iran’s role remain points of contention. Tehran’s interests in the region do not always align perfectly with Moscow’s, adding a layer of complexity to strategic calculations. Turkey, under President Erdogan, has pursued operations in northern Syria with limited coordination with other powers, complicating regional alignment.
What to expect next?
There is ongoing uncertainty about how accumulated problems will be solved. Even with Russia’s military involvement, Moscow may find it difficult to provide extensive aid if the situation in Damascus deteriorates. Assad’s Moscow visit appears aimed at gauging the scale of military and economic support the government seeks.
Restoration remains a central challenge. Much of Syria lies in ruins, and estimates suggest well over $100 billion would be required for reconstruction. Sanctions and economic slowdown have strained Russia’s capacity to fund such a rebuilding effort, and questions persist about how any financial assistance would square with Russia’s broader national interests and its own domestic constraints.
One certainty is that Assad’s leadership in Damascus will influence Western perceptions and policy toward Syria. The possibility of informal, behind-the-scenes bargains cannot be dismissed, given historical precedents where financial incentives have shaped political decisions. In the near term, Moscow faces constraints that limit its ability to block such offers, especially with competing pressures in the region and the broader strategic agenda of Russia’s military operation.
Looking ahead, the fate of Russia’s military bases in Syria is tied to political developments within Damascus. History offers a relevant parallel from the early 1970s when Egypt suggested withdrawal of Soviet forces, illustrating how quickly regional realignments can reshape military footprints. The overall assessment remains that Russia’s military achievements in Syria are clear, yet translating battlefield gains into durable political outcomes remains an open question for observers and policymakers. This assessment reflects the evolving situation rather than a settled verdict. The author’s view does not necessarily reflect the editors’ position.