The War in Ukraine and Its Impact on Syria

Russia – from pro-regime stabiliser to spoiler?

The war against Ukraine directly impacts the capacities available to Russia for its involvement in Syria. In addition, a shift in priorities in Russian foreign policy can already be observed. To what extent this will affect Russia’s specific interests in the Syrian conflict will depend on the duration and trajectory of the conflict in and beyond Ukraine.

Foreign policy priorities: Overall, the order of Moscow’s foreign policy priorities re­mains unchanged. Creating a zone of influ­ence in the post-Soviet space and reshaping the European security order in Russia’s favour have been the primary goals for decades. Yet, because the war against Ukraine and confrontation with the West bring about risks to regime stability in Russia itself, achieving success has become a matter of existential importance for the Kremlin. As a consequence, Ukraine has overtaken subordinate fields of Russian for­eign policy, including the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region in general and Syria in particular. At the same time, the Kremlin cannot afford to see its Syria policy fail. The military operation in Syria has become too much of a symbol for Russia’s ambition to return to being a great power. Russia therefore now faces the challenge of securing its position in Syria and the MENA region with reduced capabilities.

Capacities: Russia has a strategic interest in maintaining its air and naval bases in Syria. They underpin Russia’s military pres­ence in the eastern Mediterranean, which becomes even more important in the face of increasing confrontation with the US and NATO. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine doesn’t risk significantly undermining its official military posture in Syria in the short-term as this presence primarily revolves around aerospace defence forces and military police rather than substantial ground forces, which only number around 4,000 according to the Military Balance 2022 report pub­lished by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS).

However, the war in Ukraine may have a greater impact on Russia’s deployment of irregular armed forces. In order to fill gaps in the Ukrainian theatre, Russia might find it useful to send private military companies and “volunteers” from Syria to Ukraine, which might undermine the striking power of the Syrian armed forces. Furthermore, Turkey’s closure of the shipping route through the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles to military vessels from/to Russia’s Black Sea ports is likely to cause problems and in­crease costs for Moscow. Specifically, sup­plies and reinforcements for Russian troops in Syria will largely need to be flown in.

In the medium-term, the sanctions-induced deterioration of Russia’s economic capacities will also have an impact on its Syria policy. Russia’s ability to engage in Syria’s reconstruction and to influence its economic development is likely to sig­nifi­cantly diminish.

Shifting interests in Syria: Preoccupied with the war in Ukraine, Russia has a strong in­ter­est in maintaining the current arrangements in Syria. At least in the short-term, Moscow is likely to avoid steps that could trigger significant armed confrontations in Syria as this risks stretching Russian forces thin. Yet, against the backdrop of Russian-Western confrontation, there are still in­centives for Moscow to exploit its spoiler potential with regard to Syria, for example with respect to humanitarian access or mili­tary deconflicting. At the same time, Russia is unlikely to intensify its multilateral diplo­matic efforts with regard to Syria. Rather, it will continue to seek to strengthen Presi­dent Bashar al-Assad’s position by encouraging regional actors to press ahead with normalising relations with the Syrian regime.

The US – deepening humanitarian concerns and a wary eye to ISIS

US interests and capacities in Syria will remain largely unchanged by the war in Ukraine over the short to medium-term, but its priorities – particularly regarding humanitarian concerns – could shift de­pending on the trajectory of the Ukrainian conflict. Should the conflict in Ukraine become protracted, or worse, expand beyond Ukraine’s borders, heightened mili­tary tensions between the US and Russia in Syria cannot be ruled out.

US interests and capacities in Syria: US inter­ests in Syria will not substantially change as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The United States will continue to focus on en­sur­ing the enduring defeat of ISIS, main­tain­ing current ceasefires in both the north­east and Idlib province, preserving – if not expanding – humanitarian access, de­mand­ing accountability for the Assad regime’s human rights abuses and war crimes, pur­suing a political resolution to the conflict via UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2254 (December 2015), and hedging against Iranian influence inside Syria.

US tools to pursue these priorities will not be impacted by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The US will maintain its small footprint in the country (some 900 troops according to the 2022 IISS Military Balance) for the fore­seeable future. Funding for stabilisation activities in northeast Syria will continue – if not increase – contingent upon the US budget. Sanctions – par­ticularly the so-called Caesar Sanctions – will remain a key tool in the US’s toolbox, and now coupled with extensive sanctions on Russia, their effect could be amplified, especially regard­ing normalisation and reconstruction in Syria. Efforts to mitigate the unintended effects of sanctions will be addressed through the issuance of General Licenses.

Heightened humanitarian concerns: Humanitarian concerns could become more acute in the wake of the war in Ukraine. While US humanitarian assistance to Syria should remain stable, international funding short­falls could become an issue depending on the scale of response to the Ukraine crisis. Renewal of UNSCR 2585 (July 2021), which provides for international aid to areas in Syria outside of regime control via the Bab al-Hawa border crossing – a key US prior­ity in Syria –, could be in jeopardy depend­ing on Russia’s stance toward the resolu­tion. The US will prioritise renewing the resolution, set to expire in July 2022, while making contingency plans if it is vetoed.

Wary eye to potential resurgence of ISIS: The US will watch closely for any resurgence of ISIS in regime-held Syria – which could then reverberate into northeast Syria. Should Russian counter-ISIS capabilities deteriorate due to Moscow’s pivot to Ukraine, ISIS’s pres­ence could strengthen in the Badia, Syria’s central desert region, possibly enhancing its ability to launch attacks on detention centres and displacement camps in Kurdish-held northeast Syria. Significant ISIS re­group­ing in Syria could prompt a rethinking of the US’s counter-ISIS strategy and posture. The US will also seek to preserve its capa­bility to strike Al Qaeda and other extremist ele­ments in northwest Syria, a situation that could become more complicated if air deconfliction channels with Russia falter.

Turkey: walking a tightrope under economic and political pressure

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine will not alter Turkey’s main goals in Syria. The Turkish military presence and its administrative and infrastructural involvement in northern Syria serve three main purposes: 1) the pre­vention of Kurdish autonomy under the leadership of the Democratic Union Party (PYD) and the People’s Protection Units (YPG), 2) the prevention of a new influx of refugees into Turkey, and related to this, 3) the repatriation of Syrian refugees cur­rently living in Turkey. These goals are largely shared by the mainstream opposition parties as well, meaning that in the case of a change in government after the parliamentary and presidential elec­tions scheduled for June 2023, some changes in methods rather than objectives may be ob­served. This is particularly true with respect to prioritising diplomacy over military means, and a preference among some for re-establishing direct contact with Assad.

In the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Ankara has so far hedged its bets and protected its economic and security interests. Turkey’s leadership is carefully trying not to antagonise Russia, while con­tinuing to offer military support to Ukraine. Pressure on Turkey to align its position with the US and the EU with respect to sanctions and closing its airspace to Russian planes is likely to increase if the war becomes pro­tracted, thus increasing the likelihood of a confrontation between Turkey and Russia and jeopardising the March 2020 ceasefire agreements in the north of Syria. The fragile situation in Idlib that directly endangers the lives of Turkish troops on the ground (some 3,000 plus a gendarmerie unit, accord­ing to the 2022 IISS Military Balance) would be a particular challenge in this context. Ankara’s immediate priority is to avoid a breakdown of the ceasefire arrangements; in this vein, it would particularly like to avoid a regime offensive in Idlib, as this would entail another wave of migration to Turkey.

Turkey is also susceptible to the economic effects of the war in Ukraine. Russia is one of Turkey’s largest trading partners for im­ports and one of its main gas suppliers. Tur­key also expects a decline in tourism rev­enues and supply shortages in grain imports from Russia and Ukraine. Even before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Turkey’s deep­ening economic crisis made it more diffi­cult to justify the economic costs of its Syria policy. What’s more, the humanitarian con­sequences of the war in Ukraine will add to Turkey’s economic burden in northwest Syria. The continuation of cross-border aid is therefore a pressing priority for Turkey, now more than ever.

Iran – filling the void

Iran, Russia’s closest partner in supporting the Assad regime, has already started to adapt its Syria policy to the changing con­ditions resultant of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It seems that Tehran views Mos­cow’s focus on Ukraine as an opportunity to increase its influence in Syria in both quantitative and qualitative terms. Since the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, there has been a growing trend among Iranian and Iran-backed forces to expand their activities in northeast Syria (Iranian troops now number around 1,500 according to the 2022 IISS Military Balance). In this vein, they have increased their pres­ence in al-Hasakah. In the past, Russia’s dominant role in the area had limited the scope of Iran’s activities. Expanding infiltra­tion into al-Hasakah, close to the areas con­trolled by the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), brings Iran one step closer to its long-standing goal of putting pressure on Washington to withdraw from Syria. At the same time, some reports suggest that Iran has equipped its proxy forces in vari­ous parts of Syria with quality weapons, including anti-armour machine guns. The official reason given for this armament is the need to be able to fight against renewed ISIS activities. Like in al-Hasakah, however, Iran’s decision to reactivate its allied and proxy forces in vast areas of the Homs and Deir ez-Zor provinces indicates a desire to expand its geographical reach and – prob­ably – to replace Russia in as many regions in Syria as possible. In this vein, in early April, Iranian forces, along with the Leba­nese Hezbollah and the pro-Iranian Fourth Division of the Syrian Army, reinforced their presence in the Mahin military ware­house in eastern Homs following the with­drawal of Russian and Russia-backed forces.

These dynamics on the ground are accompanied by Iran’s renewed political and diplomatic activity in Syria. On Feb­ruary 27, Assad’s Special Security Adviser Ali Mamlouk visited Tehran to meet with senior Iranian officials. One month later, on March 23, Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian visited Syria. In addition to reassuring Assad about Iran’s continued support, the diplomatic visits also sought to help Iran expand its eco­nomic role in the country. In recent years, Tehran has increasingly come to see Mos­cow as a rival in the Syrian economy. It might be hoping that Russia’s economic challenges due to the Western sanctions on the one hand and the prospect of lifting the sanctions against Iran with a successful restoration of the 2015 nuclear deal, on the other, could give Tehran more room for manoeuvre in Syria’s post-war economy.

Potential effects of Russian redeployments or spoiler action

With regards to Russia’s posture and ap­proach in Syria, three trajectories seem plausible: First, Moscow might be forced to reduce its military presence and decrease its attention and resources spent in Syria. In that context, Russia might no longer block the expansion of Iranian influence over Syria’s military-security infrastructure and post-war economic activities as long as Moscow’s strategic interests in maintaining dominance over the Mediterranean ports of Latakia and Tartus are duly observed. Tehran’s ultimate desire to expel the US from Syria might also become more accept­able to Moscow. Such a development could therefore tilt the power balance in Syria in Iran’s favour.

Second, if Russia is forced to move air assets from Syria to Ukraine, this could have a negative effect on Russian (and the Syrian regime’s) efforts to contain ISIS in the Badia, as well as other regime-held areas. To date, air assets, especially attack helicopters, have been employed to prevent ISIS resurgence in these areas. However, there are rising concerns that an ISIS come­back in regime-held areas could be a real threat in the time to come. The problem could be compounded if Syrian soldiers and pro-regime militias are deployed to Ukraine in considerable numbers, as this would under­mine the striking power of Syria’s armed forces. According to Ukrainian mili­tary intelligence, over 40,000 Syrian fighters had registered for deployment in Ukraine by mid-March 2022, including soldiers from the Syrian Armed Forces. Up to the end of March, according to press reports, only several hundred fighters from Syria arrived in Russia for training. None have yet been deployed to Ukraine.

Third, while Moscow has aimed at preserving the status quo in Syria for the time being, against the backdrop of a perceived threat to the security of its own regime, the Kremlin might radically shift its approach in Syria and exploit its spoiler potential. This could happen with the aim of coercing NATO members, including Turkey, into offer­ing concessions with regard to Ukraine or perhaps just to deflect attention away from Ukraine. In concrete terms, this sce­nario might play out by Russia complicat­ing or denying US-led counter terrorism operations in areas under its control, in engaging in risky encounters with US air­craft over Syria or in taking aggressive action against Western warships in the eastern Mediterranean.

Moscow might also veto the renewal of UNSCR 2585, which allows for cross-border humanitarian aid deliveries to rebel-held areas. A veto could induce a severe humani­tarian crisis in northwest Syria and trigger another wave of forced migration to Turkey (and Europe) and thus compound the im­pact of the Ukrainian refugee crisis. Russia could thus make Turkey and Europe direct­ly feel the impact of both conflicts on a much larger scale than that witnessed in its ear­lier attempts at instrumentalising refugees to pressure Europeans.

Potential effects of an emboldened Iran

Iran’s seizure of the opportunity to expand its influence in eastern Syria has brought its forces closer to the positions of the US and its allies than ever before. Over the past months, Iran has been trying to make life difficult for Washington in eastern Syria by in­filtrating Arab tribes of Deir ez-Zor and incit­ing them against the US-backed Kurd­ish forces. Also, American positions have been repeatedly targeted by attacks believed to have been carried out by forces backed by Iran. In this sense, the risk of conflict be­tween Iran and the US in Syria has already increased. If the Vienna talks to revive the Iran nuclear deal succeed, Tehran may, at least temporarily, wind down its anti-US ac­tiv­ities in Syria and elsewhere in the region. That said, Iranian leaders generally believe that in the current circumstance, they are closer than ever to their strategic goal of “ex­pelling the United States from Syria and Iraq.”

Iran might also take advantage of the erosion of Russia’s capacity and expand its presence in southern Syria, near the Israeli border. Indeed, the increase in Iranian activ­ities in Syria over the past months has already raised concerns in Israel. So far, and first and foremost because it depends on military deconflicting with Russia in Syria, Israel has taken a cautious stance on Rus­sia’s invasion of Ukraine. Moscow has also declared that military communication chan­nels with the Israelis regarding Syria will remain open, and Israel has continued to attack targets linked to Iran and its allies in Syria. Yet, a protracted war in Ukraine or an escalation beyond Ukraine will make Israel’s balancing act towards Russia ever more difficult. In any case, the risk of mili­tary escalation between Iran and Israel in Syria is set to increase as Iran expands its presence, transfers weapons to its allies and infiltrates Syria’s military and security infra­structure. If the Iranian nuclear talks fail, heightened tensions – possibly even a regional war – over Iran’s nuclear program cannot be discounted.

Potential effects of a changed calculus in Ankara

Ankara perceives a protracted war in Ukraine and, as a result, a heightened stand-off be­tween Russia and the US in Syria as poten­tially playing out to its own advantage for two main reasons. First, the weakening of Russia’s military posture in Syria could lead to the opening of new diplomatic oppor­tunities. Turkey’s closure of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles Straits to all warships – in accordance with the 1936 Montreux Con­vention – might negatively influence the Rus­sian presence in Syria should the war be­come prolonged. Second, any understand­­ing between Russia and the US on the future of Syria becomes more un­likely as tensions increase around Ukraine. This allays Turkish fears about a recognition of Kurdish rights or Kurdish autonomy in Syria.

What’s more, for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Western leaders’ renewed attention to Turkey is being seen as evidence of the country’s increased stra­tegic significance. Turkey’s geographical position, its relevance with regard to the implementation of the Montreux Convention, its NATO membership and, last but not least, its close relations with Ukraine and Russia have all seemed to help it over­come frictions with its Western allies. For Ankara, the war in Ukraine therefore plays into its efforts to mend ties with the US and Europe. Indeed, it has facilitated secu­rity dialogue between Turkey and the US. While this is very unlikely to lead to con­vergence with regard to the YPG/PYD issue, it could lead to increased cooperation with respect to the humanitarian situation in northern Syria and joint efforts to maintain cross-border humanitarian aid.

At the same time, Turkey’s pro-govern­ment media has reported that Ankara sees the Russian invasion of Ukraine as an opportunity to mend ties with Damascus. According to these reports, Turkey’s three demands on Syria (i.e. maintaining a uni­tary system in Syria, maintaining Syria’s territorial integ­rity and guaranteeing the safety of Syrian returnees) were communicated to Assad during his mid-March 2022 visit to the United Arab Emirates (UAE). If true, this suggests that the diplomatic out­reach of Arab countries to Assad and Syria’s poten­tial return to the Arab League might push Ankara to normalise relations with Assad in a way that saves Erdoğan face as he desper­ately searches for a way to repair Turkey’s economic woes. That would dove­tail with Turkey’s efforts to mend ties with others in the region, including Egypt, the UAE, and, most recently, Israel and Armenia.

It would also mean that Ankara would join in regional normalisation and alliance building including, among other things, engagement in the rapprochement between Arab states and the Assad regime, between Arab states and Israel, and among the Arab Gulf monarchies. These efforts have been driven by perceptions that the US is unreli­able and pivoting away from the region; and they are aimed at containing Iran, undergirded by a consensus on authoritarian con­solidation and primarily pushed forward by the UAE.

European policy priorities

Europeans are not in a position to shape the larger geopolitical dynamics in Syria. Yet, having shown their ability to act decisively and in unison with regards to Ukraine, they should not neglect other violent conflicts in their direct neighbourhood, but rather overcome their fatigue when it comes to Syria and attend to four policy priorities in particular:

Insulate the war in Ukraine: Europeans should attempt to insulate the war in Ukraine from Syria (and other conflicts in the MENA region) rather than thinking about transforming Syria into a battlefield for payback against Russia, as some pundits advocate. The latter course of action would only reignite violence and bloodshed, have destabilising effects for the whole region, and further diminish prospects for a more inclusive, participatory, and liberal demo­cratic order in Syria. Europeans should there­­fore maintain existing lines of cooperation with Mos­cow, for example in the Internatio­nal Syria Support Group (ISSG) in Geneva, as opposed to shutting them down. They should clearly refrain from encouraging rebel offensives or attacks against Russian bases.

Maintain humanitarian access: Europeans should double down on efforts to renew the Security Council resolution that allows for humanitarian access to rebel-held north­west Syria via the Bab al-Hawa crossing. In doing so, they should cooperate closely with Turkey and the US to pressure Russia to keep that channel open. Without feeding self-fulfilling prophecies, they should at the same time continue to engage in concrete contingency planning.

Contain ISIS: Through the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS as well as through concrete en­gagement on the ground, EU member states and the UK should increase their efforts to prevent a resurgence of ISIS. This should include diminishing the future ISIS threat and alleviating the burden placed on the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES) through repatriation of European nationals currently in AANES detention centres. These efforts should also encompass the expansion of education and awareness raising activities in internal dis­placement camps and detention centres as well as the improvement of living conditions.

Contribute to regional conflict mitigation: The EU and its member states and partners, such as the UK, Switzerland, and Norway, should contribute to the long-term objec­tive of an inclusive regional security archi­tecture. In this vein, they should work to mitigate local and regional conflict by sup­porting track-II encounters and/or by liai­sing between conflicting parties including Iran and Saudi Arabia, Israel and Iran, dif­ferent Syrian Kurdish organisations (i.e. the SDF vs. Kurdish National Council), and AANES and Turkey.