James Denselow

The news that Russian General Aleksandr Dvornikov was being placed in command of Russia’s “special operation” in Ukraine would have sent a chill through many Syrians. It was Dvornikov who led the 2015 effort to reinforce Damascus and thus turn a tide that until then seemed unstoppable. Russian airpower blasted away the then balance of power and allowed a revitalised Assad to win back Aleppo and other strategic parts of the country.

Yet whilst eyes focus on Ukraine, Syria remains geopolitically fragmented and war-torn with millions still eking a living outside the country or dependent on humanitarian aid. The 11th anniversary of the conflict passed in March with barely a murmur. As acts of savagery emerge on the outskirts of Kiev, Syrians who’ve endured similar trials and tribulations must wonder if their arc of justice will come sooner, later or never at all because of events in the east of Europe.

Nowhere across the globe is immune from the reverberations of the Ukraine crisis, but some will feel it more than others. Some countries will be hit by the spike in food or fuel prices, others with see their defence supply chains and tradition power politics put into flux by Western-led attempts to build the harshest sanctions ever placed on a country.

Syria is a combination of all of these. Barely weeks into events it emerged that Russia had drawn up a list of 40,000 Syrians to deploy in Ukraine to aid its invasion of the country according to a UK-based activist group, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) Syrian fighters experience of the brutal nature of urban warfare could make them an asset in cities in Ukraine that have stalled the Russian advance, goes the logic. Another logic says that with Russia having experienced, in their own words, “significant losses” they need all the help they can get.

Yet it is one thing to leverage the experience of Russian generals and Syrian fighters to try and gain advantage in Ukraine, it is another thing not to expect that to alter the balance of forces in Syria itself. Israel struck military positions inside Syria this week for reportedly the eighth time this year, but in a rare tactic did so in broad daylight. Meanwhile in the east on the banks of the Euphrates indirect fire led to light injuries to US troops in the areas and a subsequent airstrike against Iranian backed militias on the other side of the river.

It's hard to read too much into incidents that are not exceptional within the ebb and flow of Syria’s current violence, but fault lines can stay relatively dormant for years or they can product devastating earthquakes. The fact that Russia and the US, countries trying to re-establish the rules of this new Cold War, are both present in the country with proxies and armed allies makes for an obvious dangerous stew. However, Russia’s aims in Syria have always been focused on buttressing Damascus, whilst the US has until now been focused on anti-ISIS operations. Could that change?

Such is the debt that Assad owes to Putin that there can be little realistic chance of the Syrian leader refusing requests for support from Moscow, whether in the diplomatic arena or through the transfer of fighters. There does remains the question though as to whether Russia’s focus on Ukraine and Syria’s deployment of reinforcements will offer the opportunity for anti-Assad forces, perhaps revitalised by outside resource to change dynamics on the ground.

Turkey is a major player inside the country and the region but is trying to offer good offices to the Ukraine crisis and is unlikely to change tact significantly. Israel may feel less restricted in attacking targets in Syria with Russia less invested in the day to day there. However, in essence the critical question is whether the US feels it can and should squeeze Russia in Syria? More arms and training to the SDF in the northeast could see them make a push south for lines across the Euphrates or conduct ‘hit and run’ attacks to force a response from Damascus.

In the northwest of the country armed actors may seize what they see as an opportunity regardless of any change in US policy. Shelling near Idlib and Russian airstrikes has been reported in the last few days and should be considered a useful barometer as to how much Ukraine has changed the situation in Syria and whether anti-Damascus actors in the country consider it the opportune time to make a tactical or strategic gambit.

BU: James Denselow

The Syrian opposition coalition's conflicts for power Putin assures Russia's military operation would achieve its 'noble' aims

Upon arriving to participate in the summit of the European Political Community, which includes around forty heads of state in Budapest, he said, "I look forward to sitting with the elected U.S. president and seeing how we will collectively ensure we meet challenges, including the threats from Russia and North Korea." He also noted that the strengthening of ties between Russia and North Korea poses a threat to the United States as well, according to reports from Agence France-Presse.

Before Trump's victory, Rutte expressed confidence that a united Washington would remain part of the defensive alliance, even if Trump became the 47th president of the United States. In an interview with German public broadcaster ZDF last Monday night, he stated that both Republicans and Democrats understand that NATO serves not only the security of Europe but also that of America. He added that both candidates are aware that the security of the United States is closely tied to NATO.

On Wednesday, NATO congratulated Trump on his victory but did not address the Ukrainian issue.

It is noteworthy that the relationship between the elected U.S. president and the defense alliance was not the best during his first term in the White House. Trump criticized NATO member states multiple times and even hinted at withdrawing from the alliance unless they increased their financial contributions.

Additionally, the issue of the Russian-Ukrainian war is one of the matters that complicate relations between the two sides, especially since Trump has repeatedly stated that he can end this ongoing conflict, which began in 2022, quickly. He implied that he had a peace plan between Kyiv and Moscow, while his vice president, JD Vance, revealed aspects of that plan, which stipulated Ukraine's commitment not to join NATO, thereby sending reassuring signals to the Russians.

Furthermore, many NATO member states in Europe fear that Trump might halt military aid to Ukraine after he previously criticized the U.S. for pouring funds into supporting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.