Russia’s 2015 military intervention in Syria was a bold display of its ambitions as a global power, aimed at preserving Bashar al-Assad’s regime and expanding its influence in the Middle East. However, recent rebel gains and Assad’s unexpected removal now threaten to isolate Russia’s Khmeimim airbase and Tartus naval facility, undermining both the practical and symbolic pillars of Moscow’s global power projection.
Assad’s fall represents a significant setback for Russia, which is already entangled in the conflict in Ukraine. The consequences are likely to ripple across Moscow’s foreign policy, forcing the Kremlin to confront difficult and undesirable choices.
Russia’s presence in Syria is a cornerstone of its broader strategy for projecting power. The Mediterranean bases enable Moscow to sustain military operations in the Levant, North Africa, and beyond, countering U.S. influence in the region. With the strategic city of Homs now in rebel hands, supply routes to Khmeimim and Tartus have been severed, leaving Russia reliant on vulnerable air and sea routes. This will weaken its operational readiness and diminish its ability to influence developments in neighboring regions, including Africa.
Khmeimim also functions as a logistical hub for Russian private military contractors (PMCs) like the Wagner Group, active in countries such as Libya, Mali, and the Central African Republic. These PMCs play a critical role in advancing Moscow’s interests in Africa, providing security services and securing economic gains. If Khmeimim remains isolated, sustaining these operations will become increasingly costly and inefficient, further limiting Russia’s ability to pursue its geopolitical goals on the continent.
The isolation of Khmeimim and Tartus would significantly hinder Russia’s ability to sustain military operations in Syria and beyond, limiting its capacity for airstrikes, reconnaissance, and rapid-response missions. Private military contractors (PMCs), which rely on stable logistical support, would face severe disruptions, emboldening opposition forces and exposing the fragility of Russia’s partnerships in Africa. These challenges would ripple through Moscow’s strategic calculations, weakening its influence and undermining its economic ambitions.
The symbolic consequences of a rebel victory could be even more damaging. Russia has framed its intervention in Syria as proof of its reliability as an ally and its commitment to defending the sovereignty of client states. A loss in Syria would shatter this narrative, exposing the limits of Russian power and credibility. Regional actors such as Iran, Turkey, and Gulf states would adjust their perceptions of Moscow’s influence, while African partners might pivot toward more dependable alternatives, such as China or Western powers.
Domestically, the fallout from a diminished role in Syria would be profound. President Vladimir Putin has promoted the Syrian intervention as a cornerstone of Russia’s resurgence on the global stage and a symbol of its strategic competence. While critics have long questioned the costs of such foreign ventures, the collapse of Assad’s regime could amplify these doubts more sharply than the protracted conflict in Ukraine. It would highlight Russia’s inability to protect allied regimes, undermining the carefully cultivated image of strength projected through state-controlled media and creating potential political vulnerabilities.
Additionally, Syria has been a testing ground for Russian weapons systems, and reduced presence in the region would erode their appeal to international buyers, further diminishing Moscow’s geopolitical influence and revenue from arms exports.
The global implications of Assad’s fall would be equally significant. For the United States and its allies, it would validate strategies aimed at curbing Russian influence and encourage further countermeasures. NATO could exploit Moscow’s difficulties to emphasize the limits of its global reach, while China might accelerate its efforts to dominate regions like Central Asia and Africa, marginalizing Russia in traditional spheres of competition.
Russia now faces a critical decision: escalate its military involvement to safeguard its strategic interests, including the naval base in Tartus and the airbase in Khmeimim, or accept a reduced role in the region. Escalation would aim to secure these assets and reassert Moscow’s influence but carries the risk of direct conflict with other regional powers and would further strain resources already stretched by engagements in Ukraine and Africa. On the other hand, retrenchment would deal a severe blow to Russia’s credibility as a dependable ally, signaling to partners in Africa, the Middle East, and beyond that Moscow may not be able to defend its allies in moments of crisis. This loss of trust would erode Russia’s broader global strategy and embolden further challenges to its influence on the world stage.
There are already signs of retreat, with reports of Russian warships departing from Tartus, raising doubts about Moscow’s commitment to its Syrian bases. As Russia navigates this crisis, it must grapple with the limits of its resources and the fragility of its great power ambitions. True global power demands not only military strength but also strategic resilience. The outcome of the Syrian conflict will have profound implications for Russia’s position in the shifting international order, and for Moscow, the stakes could hardly be higher.
