Syria is teetering toward collapse. There’s only one way to save it
The newly established Damascus authorities have the potential to lead their nation towards peace or deepen its current state of chaos. Read Full Article at RT.com
TroibNews 
The new authorities in Damascus face a pivotal choice: they can either guide Syria toward a path of peace or drive it further into chaos.
Over two weeks have passed since Bashar Assad left Syria, yet the circumstances surrounding his exit remain unclear. The global community is captivated by lingering questions about the motivations behind his departure, who might benefit from the situation, and what lies ahead for the nation.
A statement released by the office of Assad, who was ousted amid an offensive from opposition forces, claimed he stayed in Damascus until the early hours of December 8, leaving for Latakia later that evening. He clarified that his exit was not anticipated and did not take place during the final hours of conflict. After rebel forces entered Damascus, Assad stated he moved to Latakia to oversee military operations, but upon arriving at the Khmeimim airbase, it became apparent that Syrian forces had completely retreated. The statement noted that when it became impossible for him to leave the base, Moscow requested his evacuation to Russia, which occurred on the night of December 8.
In the statement, Assad insisted that he never contemplated resignation or asylum, nor did he receive any offers to do so. Nonetheless, he recognized that staying in power after the government was overtaken by “terrorists” had become impractical. Expressing his enduring connection to Syria and its citizens, Assad voiced hope for the country to one day reclaim its freedom and independence.
On December 8, the TASS news agency confirmed that Assad and his family were in Moscow, citing a Kremlin source who stated he was granted asylum on “humanitarian grounds.” Assad is reportedly with his wife, Asma, and their three children: Hafez, Karim, and Zein. While Russian presidential spokesperson Dmitry Peskov refrained from commenting on Assad's whereabouts, he noted that such a decision could not have occurred without the Russian president's involvement. The Syrian Embassy in Moscow further confirmed Assad's presence in the city, and Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov remarked that Assad was evacuated to Russia using the safest means possible and is now under protection.
The unclear nature of Assad’s exit and its implications for Syria’s future have sparked global intrigue. As Syria confronts the repercussions of his departure, observers wonder if this will signal the dawn of a new era of peace or a deeper plunge into instability.
As for the Kremlin's stance, since September 30, 2015, Russia has been militarily assisting Syria at Assad's official request, deploying its air force and some ground troops to combat terrorist factions. The primary goal of Moscow has been to restore order and stability in Syria, ultimately facilitating the country’s return to normalcy. Russian intervention has proven crucial in the Syrian conflict, highlighting the Kremlin's commitment to support military efforts alongside initiating political processes aimed at resolving the crisis.
Russia has played an essential role in the Syrian peace process in Astana, offering resources to facilitate intra-Syrian negotiations. Moscow has also worked to enhance Syria's ties with Arab nations, aiding in its reintegration into the Arab League. Russian diplomacy aimed at fostering dialogue between Damascus and Ankara has faced obstacles due to Assad's rigidity and reluctance to compromise.
From Moscow’s viewpoint, stabilizing Syria is strategically significant. The country is regarded as a pillar for enhancing Russia’s influence in the Middle East, enabling the establishment of military bases in Tartus and Latakia. These bases symbolize not only Russia’s military footprint but also its determination to maintain a vital role in the region.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov addressed the essence of Russia’s position on May 4, 2016, stating: “Assad is not our ally, by the way. We support him in the fight against terrorism and in preserving the Syrian state, but he is not an ally in the same sense that Türkiye is for the United States.” Clarifying Russia’s priorities, Lavrov noted that the focus was on preserving Syria’s state institutions rather than backing Assad as an individual. This perspective was further echoed in a diplomatic statement from March 27, 2016, warning that Assad's departure could trigger a governance collapse similar to Libya’s.
As of late 2024, a significant development occurred when Assad announced his intention to resign as part of a negotiated agreement involving various stakeholders. On December 8, 2024, Russia’s Foreign Ministry stated that while Moscow did not take part in the negotiations, it encouraged all factions to seek a peaceful resolution and support an inclusive political framework in line with UN Security Council Resolution 2254.
Assad’s resignation and the establishment of a new government marked a crucial juncture in Syrian history. Members of the newly formed leadership conveyed their intent to strengthen ties with Russia based on mutual interests. Anas al-Abdah, from the National Coalition of Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, expressed optimism that collaboration with Moscow would facilitate the reconstruction of Syria’s economy, education, and healthcare sectors.
President Vladimir Putin articulated Russia’s perspective on December 19, underscoring its primary objective in Syria: preventing the emergence of a terrorist stronghold in the Arab Republic. He reaffirmed that Russia's military presence, initiated in 2015, was aimed at fighting terrorism. Despite narratives suggesting a failure for Russia, he maintained that the mission stabilized the region and hindered the proliferation of terrorism both in the Middle East and beyond.
Putin noted that many groups that had previously fought against Syrian government forces have undergone significant transformations. He pointed out that several European nations and the US have begun looking to normalize relations with these groups, indicating shifts in their ideology and structure.
Putin further emphasized that Russia's bases in Syria would continue to operate, contributing to humanitarian aid delivery to Syrian citizens. However, the future of these military bases will depend on the political dynamics in the country, especially the new Syrian leadership’s stance on Russia's presence.
He also detailed the evacuation of Russian troops from remote deployment locations following the regime's collapse. Reports indicated that Russian officials contacted their Turkish counterparts to ensure safe passage for troops through areas under Turkish control. Putin explained that this was part of a broader strategy to ensure the security of Russian personnel.
Discussions also included the fall of Aleppo, where armed opposition forces reportedly captured the city without resistance, leading to swift Syrian militant advances toward Damascus. During this time, Russian support focused on evacuating around 4,000 fighters from pro-Iranian groups to Tehran, with Putin emphasizing that Russia did not deploy ground troops, leaving operations to Syrian forces and their pro-Iranian allies.
Should Russia maintain its military presence in Syria, it might find itself in a strategically advantageous position. The interest from Syria's new leadership underscores Moscow's ongoing role not only in addressing the Syrian conflict but also in shaping political dynamics in the Middle East.
Looking ahead, after Assad’s resignation, the leader of the coalition that toppled him, Abu Mohammed al-Julani of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), declared his ambitions to unify the nation. Yet questions remain regarding his ability to realize such an ambitious agenda.
UN special envoy for Syria, Geir Pedersen, has called for cooperation among Syrian factions, noting a hint of optimism in their recent statements while acknowledging the considerable obstacles to establishing “law and order.” The rapidly evolving situation in Syria makes future predictions exceedingly challenging.
A crucial question is whether HTS can foster broader unity with other opposition factions. Deep ideological rifts between this radical group and other opposition movements remain barriers to consolidation.
Recently, the Syrian armed opposition appointed Mohammed al-Bashir to form a new transitional government. However, this decision has already ignited disputes within the opposition, with several factions claiming the move lacked their input. Such unilateral decisions risk exacerbating divisions and undermining delicate political transition prospects.
Despite HTS's recent overtures for collaboration, its radical Islamist ideology presents significant hurdles in partnering with more moderate factions like the Free Syrian Army and Western-backed political structures. While a common enemy in Assad once united opposition forces, the struggle for power and resource distribution following Damascus's fall has intensified internal conflicts.
For instance, the Moscow Platform of the Syrian opposition emphasized that monopolizing decisions and sidelining legal frameworks, including UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and Syria's current constitution, could undermine the revolution's objectives, arguing that the Syrian people do not wish to transition from one dictatorship to another.
HTS continues to assert its leadership claim within the opposition and is unlikely to share power with competing factions. Al-Julani is expected to suppress challenges to his authority, potentially leading to further strife within the opposition.
Adding to this complexity are regional and ethnic dynamics. In southern Syria, tribal armed groups have a history of rejecting Assad's authority and may similarly resist a new government in Damascus. In the east, sporadic activity from remnants of the Islamic State still poses a threat, with the US conducting regular military operations against them.
In the northeast, Kurdish forces backed by the US control significant territories. Clashes with Turkish-supported Syrian factions have reignited in recent days, pointing to ongoing tensions in the region.
Furthermore, opposition organizations formed outside Syria during the years of conflict could significantly influence the political transition, though their return and engagement remain uncertain. This intricate matrix of interests and contradictions complicates Syria’s prospects for the future.
If the new authorities can navigate internal divisions and establish consensus, it may signal the beginning of transformative changes for the country. Achieving political stability could pave the way for improved relations with the West and key global players such as Russia and China, potentially leading to the gradual lifting of international sanctions. This would allow Syria to attract much-needed financial resources for rebuilding its infrastructure, economy, and social systems.
Strengthening Syria’s integration into regional political processes could also enhance ties with Arab countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE, which have the financial resources and expertise needed to invest in challenging environments. Long-term investments in areas such as energy, agriculture, and infrastructure could be crucial for economic growth, fostering regional security, and supporting the return of refugees.
Equally vital is cultivating relationships with diverse ethno-religious groups within the country, such as the Druze, whose backing is key to maintaining stability in the south. The traditionally neutral Druze hold considerable sway in Syria's political landscape and could play an important role in negotiations with Israel. Establishing even minimal dialogue with Israel could de-escalate tensions and promote regional stability, as Israel may be interested in lessening threats from radical groups in Syria.
However, failure to achieve unity and consensus could plunge Syria into a darker scenario. Continued internal strife could lead to a resurgence of civil war, further eroding state institutions and social order and risking the country's fragmentation. In the south, tribal and Druze groups may seek greater autonomy, while eastern regions could evolve into independent territories dominated by Islamic State remnants and US-aligned Kurdish forces. In the north, Türkiye and its allied factions might maintain their influence.
A fragmented Syria would severely hinder reconstruction efforts, exacerbate humanitarian crises, and collapse the economy, crippling future international aid and investment opportunities. Additionally, destabilization could prompt Israel to intensify its military presence in the Golan Heights, fueled by concerns over threats from radical factions, escalating regional tensions.
Ultimately, achieving political unity and fostering dialogue within Syria and with external actors such as the Druze and Israel is critical for the country’s future. Only by securing internal consensus and balanced foreign relations can Syria capitalize on this unique opportunity to rebuild and reintegrate into the global community, avoiding a descent into a deeper crisis with dire consequences for its population and the surrounding region.
Ramin Sohrabi contributed to this report for TROIB News
Over two weeks have passed since Bashar Assad left Syria, yet the circumstances surrounding his exit remain unclear. The global community is captivated by lingering questions about the motivations behind his departure, who might benefit from the situation, and what lies ahead for the nation.
A statement released by the office of Assad, who was ousted amid an offensive from opposition forces, claimed he stayed in Damascus until the early hours of December 8, leaving for Latakia later that evening. He clarified that his exit was not anticipated and did not take place during the final hours of conflict. After rebel forces entered Damascus, Assad stated he moved to Latakia to oversee military operations, but upon arriving at the Khmeimim airbase, it became apparent that Syrian forces had completely retreated. The statement noted that when it became impossible for him to leave the base, Moscow requested his evacuation to Russia, which occurred on the night of December 8.
In the statement, Assad insisted that he never contemplated resignation or asylum, nor did he receive any offers to do so. Nonetheless, he recognized that staying in power after the government was overtaken by “terrorists” had become impractical. Expressing his enduring connection to Syria and its citizens, Assad voiced hope for the country to one day reclaim its freedom and independence.
On December 8, the TASS news agency confirmed that Assad and his family were in Moscow, citing a Kremlin source who stated he was granted asylum on “humanitarian grounds.” Assad is reportedly with his wife, Asma, and their three children: Hafez, Karim, and Zein. While Russian presidential spokesperson Dmitry Peskov refrained from commenting on Assad's whereabouts, he noted that such a decision could not have occurred without the Russian president's involvement. The Syrian Embassy in Moscow further confirmed Assad's presence in the city, and Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov remarked that Assad was evacuated to Russia using the safest means possible and is now under protection.
The unclear nature of Assad’s exit and its implications for Syria’s future have sparked global intrigue. As Syria confronts the repercussions of his departure, observers wonder if this will signal the dawn of a new era of peace or a deeper plunge into instability.
As for the Kremlin's stance, since September 30, 2015, Russia has been militarily assisting Syria at Assad's official request, deploying its air force and some ground troops to combat terrorist factions. The primary goal of Moscow has been to restore order and stability in Syria, ultimately facilitating the country’s return to normalcy. Russian intervention has proven crucial in the Syrian conflict, highlighting the Kremlin's commitment to support military efforts alongside initiating political processes aimed at resolving the crisis.
Russia has played an essential role in the Syrian peace process in Astana, offering resources to facilitate intra-Syrian negotiations. Moscow has also worked to enhance Syria's ties with Arab nations, aiding in its reintegration into the Arab League. Russian diplomacy aimed at fostering dialogue between Damascus and Ankara has faced obstacles due to Assad's rigidity and reluctance to compromise.
From Moscow’s viewpoint, stabilizing Syria is strategically significant. The country is regarded as a pillar for enhancing Russia’s influence in the Middle East, enabling the establishment of military bases in Tartus and Latakia. These bases symbolize not only Russia’s military footprint but also its determination to maintain a vital role in the region.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov addressed the essence of Russia’s position on May 4, 2016, stating: “Assad is not our ally, by the way. We support him in the fight against terrorism and in preserving the Syrian state, but he is not an ally in the same sense that Türkiye is for the United States.” Clarifying Russia’s priorities, Lavrov noted that the focus was on preserving Syria’s state institutions rather than backing Assad as an individual. This perspective was further echoed in a diplomatic statement from March 27, 2016, warning that Assad's departure could trigger a governance collapse similar to Libya’s.
As of late 2024, a significant development occurred when Assad announced his intention to resign as part of a negotiated agreement involving various stakeholders. On December 8, 2024, Russia’s Foreign Ministry stated that while Moscow did not take part in the negotiations, it encouraged all factions to seek a peaceful resolution and support an inclusive political framework in line with UN Security Council Resolution 2254.
Assad’s resignation and the establishment of a new government marked a crucial juncture in Syrian history. Members of the newly formed leadership conveyed their intent to strengthen ties with Russia based on mutual interests. Anas al-Abdah, from the National Coalition of Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, expressed optimism that collaboration with Moscow would facilitate the reconstruction of Syria’s economy, education, and healthcare sectors.
President Vladimir Putin articulated Russia’s perspective on December 19, underscoring its primary objective in Syria: preventing the emergence of a terrorist stronghold in the Arab Republic. He reaffirmed that Russia's military presence, initiated in 2015, was aimed at fighting terrorism. Despite narratives suggesting a failure for Russia, he maintained that the mission stabilized the region and hindered the proliferation of terrorism both in the Middle East and beyond.
Putin noted that many groups that had previously fought against Syrian government forces have undergone significant transformations. He pointed out that several European nations and the US have begun looking to normalize relations with these groups, indicating shifts in their ideology and structure.
Putin further emphasized that Russia's bases in Syria would continue to operate, contributing to humanitarian aid delivery to Syrian citizens. However, the future of these military bases will depend on the political dynamics in the country, especially the new Syrian leadership’s stance on Russia's presence.
He also detailed the evacuation of Russian troops from remote deployment locations following the regime's collapse. Reports indicated that Russian officials contacted their Turkish counterparts to ensure safe passage for troops through areas under Turkish control. Putin explained that this was part of a broader strategy to ensure the security of Russian personnel.
Discussions also included the fall of Aleppo, where armed opposition forces reportedly captured the city without resistance, leading to swift Syrian militant advances toward Damascus. During this time, Russian support focused on evacuating around 4,000 fighters from pro-Iranian groups to Tehran, with Putin emphasizing that Russia did not deploy ground troops, leaving operations to Syrian forces and their pro-Iranian allies.
Should Russia maintain its military presence in Syria, it might find itself in a strategically advantageous position. The interest from Syria's new leadership underscores Moscow's ongoing role not only in addressing the Syrian conflict but also in shaping political dynamics in the Middle East.
Looking ahead, after Assad’s resignation, the leader of the coalition that toppled him, Abu Mohammed al-Julani of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), declared his ambitions to unify the nation. Yet questions remain regarding his ability to realize such an ambitious agenda.
UN special envoy for Syria, Geir Pedersen, has called for cooperation among Syrian factions, noting a hint of optimism in their recent statements while acknowledging the considerable obstacles to establishing “law and order.” The rapidly evolving situation in Syria makes future predictions exceedingly challenging.
A crucial question is whether HTS can foster broader unity with other opposition factions. Deep ideological rifts between this radical group and other opposition movements remain barriers to consolidation.
Recently, the Syrian armed opposition appointed Mohammed al-Bashir to form a new transitional government. However, this decision has already ignited disputes within the opposition, with several factions claiming the move lacked their input. Such unilateral decisions risk exacerbating divisions and undermining delicate political transition prospects.
Despite HTS's recent overtures for collaboration, its radical Islamist ideology presents significant hurdles in partnering with more moderate factions like the Free Syrian Army and Western-backed political structures. While a common enemy in Assad once united opposition forces, the struggle for power and resource distribution following Damascus's fall has intensified internal conflicts.
For instance, the Moscow Platform of the Syrian opposition emphasized that monopolizing decisions and sidelining legal frameworks, including UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and Syria's current constitution, could undermine the revolution's objectives, arguing that the Syrian people do not wish to transition from one dictatorship to another.
HTS continues to assert its leadership claim within the opposition and is unlikely to share power with competing factions. Al-Julani is expected to suppress challenges to his authority, potentially leading to further strife within the opposition.
Adding to this complexity are regional and ethnic dynamics. In southern Syria, tribal armed groups have a history of rejecting Assad's authority and may similarly resist a new government in Damascus. In the east, sporadic activity from remnants of the Islamic State still poses a threat, with the US conducting regular military operations against them.
In the northeast, Kurdish forces backed by the US control significant territories. Clashes with Turkish-supported Syrian factions have reignited in recent days, pointing to ongoing tensions in the region.
Furthermore, opposition organizations formed outside Syria during the years of conflict could significantly influence the political transition, though their return and engagement remain uncertain. This intricate matrix of interests and contradictions complicates Syria’s prospects for the future.
If the new authorities can navigate internal divisions and establish consensus, it may signal the beginning of transformative changes for the country. Achieving political stability could pave the way for improved relations with the West and key global players such as Russia and China, potentially leading to the gradual lifting of international sanctions. This would allow Syria to attract much-needed financial resources for rebuilding its infrastructure, economy, and social systems.
Strengthening Syria’s integration into regional political processes could also enhance ties with Arab countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE, which have the financial resources and expertise needed to invest in challenging environments. Long-term investments in areas such as energy, agriculture, and infrastructure could be crucial for economic growth, fostering regional security, and supporting the return of refugees.
Equally vital is cultivating relationships with diverse ethno-religious groups within the country, such as the Druze, whose backing is key to maintaining stability in the south. The traditionally neutral Druze hold considerable sway in Syria's political landscape and could play an important role in negotiations with Israel. Establishing even minimal dialogue with Israel could de-escalate tensions and promote regional stability, as Israel may be interested in lessening threats from radical groups in Syria.
However, failure to achieve unity and consensus could plunge Syria into a darker scenario. Continued internal strife could lead to a resurgence of civil war, further eroding state institutions and social order and risking the country's fragmentation. In the south, tribal and Druze groups may seek greater autonomy, while eastern regions could evolve into independent territories dominated by Islamic State remnants and US-aligned Kurdish forces. In the north, Türkiye and its allied factions might maintain their influence.
A fragmented Syria would severely hinder reconstruction efforts, exacerbate humanitarian crises, and collapse the economy, crippling future international aid and investment opportunities. Additionally, destabilization could prompt Israel to intensify its military presence in the Golan Heights, fueled by concerns over threats from radical factions, escalating regional tensions.
Ultimately, achieving political unity and fostering dialogue within Syria and with external actors such as the Druze and Israel is critical for the country’s future. Only by securing internal consensus and balanced foreign relations can Syria capitalize on this unique opportunity to rebuild and reintegrate into the global community, avoiding a descent into a deeper crisis with dire consequences for its population and the surrounding region.
Ramin Sohrabi contributed to this report for TROIB News
