Follow us on social

Putin’s courtship of both Assad and Erdogan is spinning out of control in Syria

Putin’s courtship of both Assad and Erdogan is spinning out of control in Syria

Given the escalation of violence between Turkey and Syrian government forces, Putin's balancing act between Erdogan and Assad may no longer be sustainable.

Analysis | Middle East

Russian President Vladimir Putin prides himself on successfully pursuing good relations with governments and other actors even when they are simultaneously strongly opposed to each other. Up until recently, he has done this successfully along multiple dimensions in Syria alone.

Despite the bitter animosity between Israel and Iran, Moscow has been able to work closely with both governments. Similarly, Moscow has been able to balance between the Syrian Kurds on the one hand and Turkey on the other. Putin has even been able to balance between Turkey and the Assad regime where they oppose each other in Idlib and elsewhere in northwestern Syria. But this last balancing act has now broken down spectacularly as the conflict between Turkish and Syrian forces in the Idlib region has escalated.

Putin very much wants to maintain good relations with both Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad. The problem, though, is that these two leaders are strongly opposed to each other. Assad has consistently proclaimed his intention to retake every inch of Syria from his opponents, including the Turkish-backed Islamists who have holed up in Idlib as they have lost ground elsewhere. For Erdogan, though, losing Idlib to Assad would result in yet another massive wave of Syrian refugees fleeing north to Turkey which is having difficulty accommodating the ones who have previously fled there.

The success of Putin’s balancing between opposing sides simultaneously depends on the parties involved not being willing or able to pursue all-out conflict with each other. Moscow’s judiciously providing assistance to both sides is designed to reinforce this perception — as well as to make money for Russia by selling arms and obtaining other economic benefits from both sides. Each opposing side, of course, is not happy about Moscow also supporting its adversary. But the logic of the situation, as Moscow sees it, is that neither can afford to cut or curtail ties to Moscow over this for fear that Russia will help its adversary even more. Instead, Moscow hopes that its willingness to support opposing sides will encourage competition for Moscow’s favor through each side offering it favors and concessions. Most of the time, Putin’s approach has worked.

And from Moscow’s viewpoint, it should work now too. On the one hand, Assad owes his very survival to the Russian military intervention in Syria that began in 2015. The Assad regime was under serious threat up until then despite the massive assistance he was receiving from Iran, Hezbollah, and other Shi’a militias. According to this logic, Assad should not do anything that risks trying Moscow’s patience.

Similarly, Erdogan’s increasing animosity toward America and Europe (which Putin has encouraged) should result in making Turkey more dependent on Russia. Putin has already done much to accommodate Turkish interests in northern Syria. And with the Turkish economy dependent on Russian gas supplies as well as trade, Erdogan too should not risk trying Putin’s patience. The economic sanctions that Russia imposed on Turkey after Turkish forces downed a Russian military aircraft in late 2015 but then lifted as Russian-Turkish relations improved should serve as a warning to Erdogan.

Unfortunately for Putin, neither Assad nor Erdogan appears to accept his logic over how it is rational to behave. The very fact that Russian intervention has saved the Assad regime and re-established its rule over much of Syria has put Assad in a much stronger position to try to retake Idlib than he would have been otherwise.

Similarly, instead of seeing Turkey as needing Russia more than Russia needs Turkey (as Putin appears to believe), Erdogan sees Russia as needing Turkey more. Erdogan’s recent visit to Ukraine and statement of support for it as well as his newly rediscovered enthusiasm for NATO indicates that Erdogan believes that Putin has something to lose by displeasing Erdogan in Syria.

Further, since both Erdogan and Assad believe that they each have vital interests at stake in Idlib, neither is willing to back down despite a genuine Russian desire for a solution that accommodates them both. Instead of maintaining good relations with the two opposing parties as it has in the past, Moscow now faces the prospect of losing influence with one of the antagonists — or even both. Reports indicate that while Turkey is angry because of what it sees as Russian air support for Syrian attacks against Turkish forces, Syria is also angry because of what it sees as insufficient Russian support.

Moscow really cannot afford to let Turkey defeat Syrian forces in northwestern Syria, because this risks stimulating opposition to it elsewhere in Syria. But helping the Assad regime fight off Turkish forces in northwestern Syria could involve Russia in a much bigger and longer conflict than Putin wants. Even if successful against Turkey, the damage to Russian-Turkish relations could this time be irreparable. Putin’s balancing act between Erdogan and Assad may no longer be sustainable.


Analysis | Middle East
American guns are going to Gaza
Top Photo: Yousef Masoud / SOPA Images/Sipa via Reuters Connect

American guns are going to Gaza

QiOSK

The ceasefire in Gaza is not yet a week old, and Washington is already sending private U.S. security contractors to help operate checkpoints, a decision that one former military officer told RS is a “bad, bad idea.”

This will be the first time since 2003 that American security contractors have been in the strip. At that time, three private American contractors were killed by a roadside bomb while providing security for a diplomatic mission in Gaza.

keep readingShow less
Trump space force
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump participates in the presentation of the United States Space Force Flag in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, U.S., May 15, 2020 (Department of Defense photo)

Once ridiculed Space Force ready to blast off with Trump

Military Industrial Complex

Upon its creation as part of the Department of the Air Force in 2019, the U.S. Space Force, whose mission was previously described on its website as being “focused solely on pursuing superiority in the space domain,” was often a subject of ridicule.

Mocked on Saturday Night Live, the Space Force’s logo has been called an “obvious Star Trek knockoff.” In 2021, Politico reporter Bryan Bender described the Space Force as “still mired in explaining to the public what it does.” The Force even inspired a short-lived satire series on Netflix.

keep readingShow less
Interpreting the 20-year military pact between Russia & Iran
Top photo credit: Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian attend a ceremony to sign an agreement of comprehensive strategic partnership between the two countries, at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia January 17, 2025. Sputnik/Vyacheslav Prokofyev/Pool via REUTERS

Interpreting the 20-year military pact between Russia & Iran

Middle East

On January 17, Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Iranian counterpart Masoud Pezeshkian signed an historic 20-year strategic agreement that a Reuters report later said “is likely to worry the West.”

In it, the two countries agreed to boost cooperation in security services, military drills, port visits and joint officer training. They pledged not to allow their territory to be used in any military action against the other, or help anyone to attack the other, and would cooperate to counter outside military threats.

keep readingShow less

Trump transition

Latest

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.