What Syria says about Russia as a great power

The collapse of the Assad government in Syria has been astonishing to witness. What seemed like a fairly stable regime just two weeks ago is now gone. This is what a military collapse looks like. That is worth keeping in mind next time some journalists say things like, "The Ukrainian lines in eastern Ukraine are collapsing." It's a catchy phrase, but it actually has a specific meaning, which is what the Assad forces just experienced in Syria.

There are many different things to say about it from various perspectives, but many of them have already been covered elsewhere. So, what I thought I would do in this piece is examine what the collapse in Syria says about Russia as a great power.

Great power competition

Russia clearly has ambitions of being a great power with a significant level of global reach. In fact, this was one of the primary motivations for starting the war in Ukraine: Russia wanted to cement its position on the world stage as a great power that could compete directly against the power of the Western countries and the United States specifically.

The same motivation was present when Russia intervened in Syria in 2015. Russia wanted to establish a strong foothold in the Middle East by helping Assad, who at the time was on the verge of losing power in the ongoing civil war. At the same time, it was important that the United States was also engaged in Syria, supporting forces that opposed the Assad regime. The civil war in Syria was also a proxy war between the United States and Russia, and the Russians won.

It was a significant psychological victory. It meant a lot to Russian self-esteem because it demonstrated that they were once again a great power with global reach, capable of dictating the agenda in world politics.

The apparent success in Syria also shaped their perception before the invasion of Ukraine and the idea that it could be resolved as a "special military operation". The victory in Syria was indeed achieved with a very light footprint of military force, the Russians skillfully pressed the right buttons and achieved results that outweighed the relatively light commitment.

Now, nine years later, all of that has been rolled back, and Russia no longer looks like the victor. To make things worse, what once looked like a proxy war with the Americans in Syria now appears to involve other players, such as Turkey, who have enabled the new offensive by rebel forces. It is quite a humiliation, and it is bound to have at least some impact on the Russian self-image as a great power.

Great powers need allies

But it will also have specific and tangible consequences for Russia's ability to project power abroad. The naval base in Tartus and the air base in Khmeimim were vital instruments in Russia's projection of power in the Middle East, North Africa, and the entire Mediterranean region.

If you want to be a great power with global reach, you need strategic allies. In the age of steam-powered ships, you needed coaling stations around the world to operate a navy. It's essentially the same logic today. You need logistical bases in different areas to have the ability to project power.

In that sense, having allies is one of the features that define a great power, just as, from the Russian perspective, having a sphere of influence in neighboring states is considered important. Now that Russia is losing Syria, which is undoubtedly its most important ally in the Middle East, it is dismantling one of the features that make Russia a great power in the first place.

It's hard to see how Russia can easily replace the bases they are likely to lose in Syria. (We can't say for sure that they will be unable to negotiate some basing agreements with the new Syrian government, but it looks unlikely.) They have established some air fields in Libya, and they will probably try to expand this to be a real replacement for the Khmeimim air base. They are also in talks with Libya and Sudan about building naval bases that could potentially replace what they had in Tartus. However, Russia's inability to support the Assad regime has made them a significantly less attractive partner for leaders in other countries. Why would they trust Russia when it abandoned its ally in Syria?

Great power multi-tasking

A great power must have the ability to handle multiple crises at a time. There will always be several things happening at any given moment, and you must have the necessary resources and diplomatic bandwidth to cope with the challenges.

What happened in Syria clearly shows that Russia does not have the resources to deal with multiple crises simultaneously. This is a direct result of the war in Ukraine. Russia is expending so many resources in Ukraine that it simply cannot allow itself to be engaged in other places at the same time. That is obviously ironic because Russia started the war in Ukraine to demonstrate that it is a great power, but as a result, it has lost the ability to act as a great power on the world stage. Syria is one case, but there are others. Armenia just left the CSTO, for example, which is also a sign that Russia is losing influence.

Putin's legitimacy as a leader

It will take a long time to rebuild Russia's credibility as a great power following the collapse in Syria. This is especially true because the war in Ukraine is still ongoing, and it is dragging Russia down. In the short term, the fall of the Assad government is not going to have direct consequences for Putin. However, it is something that can lead to questions about whether Putin’s policies are really contributing to restoring Russia’s great power status.

There are many contributing factors in Putin's perceived legitimacy as a leader in Russia, but two of the most important ones are that he would restore respect for Russia as a great power and that he would save the economy and bring stability. Those were his most important promises to the Russian people when he gained power 25 years ago. The loss of Syria raises significant questions about the first part of the equation, and the economic prognosis for 2025 is extremely bleak. So, while the collapse in Syria is not an immediate threat to Putin's regime, it is still gnawing at the legitimacy of his leadership.