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
||
Diplomacy Watch: A peace summit without Russia
Diplomacy Watch: Ukraine risks losing the war — and the peace

Diplomacy Watch: How close were Russia and Ukraine to a deal in 2022?

QiOSK

The RAND corporation’s Samuel Charap and Johns Hopkins University professor Sergey Radchenko published a detailed timeline and analysis of the talks between Russian and Ukrainian negotiators just after the Russian invasion in February 2022 that could have brought the war to an end just weeks after it had begun.

Much of the piece confirms or elucidates parts of the narrative that had previously been reported. In the spring of 2022, the two sides appeared relatively close to a deal, one that, according to the authors, would “have ended the war and provided Ukraine with multilateral security guarantees, paving the way to its permanent neutrality and, down the road, its membership in the EU.”

keep readingShow less
Blinken ignores State recommendation to sanction Israeli units: Report
L-R: U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shake hands after their meeting at the Prime Minister's Office in Jerusalem, on Monday, January 30, 2023. DEBBIE HILL/Pool via REUTERS

Blinken ignores State recommendation to sanction Israeli units: Report

QiOSK

State Department leadership is ignoring a recommendation from an internal panel to stop giving weapons to several Israeli military and police units due to credible allegations of serious human rights abuses, according to a major new report from ProPublica.

The alleged violations, which occurred before the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks, include extrajudicial killings, sexual assault of a detainee, and leaving an elderly Palestinian man to die after handcuffing and gagging him. Secretary of State Antony Blinken received the recommendation in December but has yet to take action to prevent the units involved from receiving American weapons.

keep readingShow less
Europe's hopelessly murky, mixed messaging on restraint

Ursula von der Leyen (CDU, l), President of the European Commission, stands at the lectern in the European Parliament building. Josep Borrell, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, sits in the background. The EU Parliament is debating the attack on Israel and preparations for the EU summit at the end of October. REUTERS

Europe's hopelessly murky, mixed messaging on restraint

Europe

The EU has condemned Iran’s April 14 drone and missile attack against Israel conducted in response to Israel’s lethal bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Syria on April 1. However, while the condemnation is unanimous, EU officials and individual member states have different positions on the issue.

Those differences broadly reflect the pre-existing divisions on the Middle East since the war in Gaza started last October. Even though the EU is united in its calls for restraint and de-escalation, these divisions are limiting the diplomatic role Europe could play in actually bringing those objectives closer to reality.

keep readingShow less

Israel-Gaza Crisis

Latest