In the evolving landscape of Syrian geopolitics, recent US military actions have reshaped alliances and power dynamics. The United States conducted extensive airstrikes targeting over 70 Islamic State positions in central Syria. These operations, involving advanced aircraft like F-15s, A-10s, and F-16s, along with precision munitions, were a direct response to a deadly ambush on December 13 that claimed the lives of two American soldiers and one civilian interpreter. While aimed at weakening terrorist groups, these strikes carry broader implications, particularly for Russia’s longstanding interests in the region.
The Context of US Strikes and Syria’s Shifting Alliances
The strikes mark a significant escalation in US involvement in Syria, coming just over a year after the ousting of former President Bashar al-Assad in late 2024. The new interim leadership under President Ahmad al-Sharaa has fostered closer ties with the US, emphasizing joint efforts against terrorism. US officials have publicly endorsed this cooperation, noting that the Syrian government fully supports the strikes and is actively participating in counter-terrorism operations alongside American forces. This partnership includes hundreds of US troops stationed in eastern Syria as part of an anti-Islamic State coalition.
For Russia, which invested heavily in propping up the Assad regime through military intervention since 2015, this shift represents a direct challenge. Moscow’s involvement helped Assad regain control over much of the country, securing strategic assets like naval and air bases. However, with Assad’s removal by rebel forces, including groups previously opposed by Russia, the Kremlin’s influence has waned. The US strikes not only demonstrate American military prowess but also solidify the new regime’s legitimacy on the international stage, sidelining Russia in the process.
Ways US Strikes in Syria Are Undermining Russian Interests
The US military operations in Syria inflict multifaceted damage on Russia’s position, from strategic setbacks to economic losses. Here’s a breakdown of the key impacts:
- Erosion of Military Influence and Bases: Russia maintains critical facilities in Syria, such as the Tartus naval base and Khmeimim airbase, which serve as footholds in the Mediterranean. The US strikes, conducted in central regions, highlight an expanding American presence that could encroach on areas once dominated by Russian forces. By bolstering the new Syrian government’s control over terrorist-held territories, these actions reduce the need for Russian military support, potentially leading to negotiations over base leases or even evictions. Reports indicate that the new regime has already begun curtailing interactions with Moscow, including canceling management contracts earlier in 2025, further isolating Russian assets.
- Geopolitical Marginalization in the Middle East: Russia’s intervention in Syria was a cornerstone of its broader Middle East strategy, projecting power and countering Western influence. The US strikes, backed by vows of “very serious retaliation” against threats to American interests, assert US dominance and encourage other regional players—like Turkey, Israel, and Gulf states—to align more closely with Washington. This diminishes Russia’s role as a key mediator, as seen in its reduced participation in Syrian reconstruction and peace talks. One year after Assad’s fall, Moscow is struggling to maintain its once-exclusive influence, forced to compete in a multipolar environment where US-Syrian cooperation takes center stage.
- Economic Repercussions and Lost Contracts: Under Assad, Russia secured lucrative deals in energy, infrastructure, and phosphates. The US strikes indirectly hurt these by stabilizing areas under the new regime’s control, paving the way for Western investments that could replace Russian ones. For instance, enhanced US-Syrian ties may lead to sanctions relief or aid packages that exclude Moscow, exacerbating Russia’s economic strain amid its ongoing commitments elsewhere. Analysts note that Russia’s resources are already stretched thin, making it harder to sustain Syrian engagements without yielding concessions.
- Diplomatic Isolation and Narrative Control: The strikes reinforce a narrative of US leadership in combating terrorism, contrasting with Russia’s past alliances with Assad, whom many viewed as a barrier to stability. This shift portrays Russia as out of step with the new Syrian reality, complicating its efforts to rebuild ties. Public statements from US leaders emphasizing vengeance and defense further highlight Russia’s diminished leverage, as international focus turns to the US-backed regime.
In essence, these US strikes in Syria hurt Russia by accelerating the decline of its strategic, economic, and diplomatic footprint, transforming a former ally into a US partner.
Are Russian Interests Still Working Against the Regime in Syria?
The question of whether Russian interests continue to operate against the current Syrian regime requires examining Moscow’s post-Assad strategy. Initially, Russia’s support for Assad positioned it in opposition to the rebel groups that now form the backbone of the new government, led by figures from organizations like Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). However, evidence suggests a pragmatic pivot rather than outright antagonism.
One year after Assad’s removal, Russia has engaged in diplomatic outreach, including high-level meetings in October 2025 to recalibrate relations. Moscow has accepted a “fragmented presence,” focusing on protecting core assets like its bases while avoiding direct confrontation. This approach stems from realism: with military resources tied up in other conflicts, Russia cannot afford to actively undermine the regime without risking escalation.
That said, lingering tensions exist. The new Syrian authorities have pushed back against Russian influence, such as by limiting joint ventures and seeking diversified partnerships. Some observers argue that residual Russian interests—through proxies or intelligence—may subtly work against regime consolidation to preserve leverage. For example, Russia’s historical ties to Assad loyalists or minority groups could fuel low-level dissent. Yet, overt actions against the regime appear minimal, as Moscow prioritizes mutual interests like counter-terrorism and economic recovery.
While Russian interests are not aggressively working against the regime, they are adapting to a reduced role. Pragmatism prevails, with Russia seeking to “turn a new leaf” through dialogue rather than sabotage. However, underlying mistrust could resurface if US influence grows unchecked.
US-Russia Dynamics in Syria
As US strikes in Syria continue— with officials hinting at more to come—these actions underscore a broader contest for influence in the post-Assad era. For Russia, the hurt is palpable, but not irreversible; Moscow’s ability to navigate this dilemma will depend on balancing concessions with strategic recalibration. Meanwhile, the strengthening US-Syrian alliance could foster regional stability, though it risks heightening tensions with Russia on the global stage.
