Geopolitics is an interesting concept because it involves politics, economy and geography. According to Merriam-Webster, geopolitics is a study of the influence of such factors as geography, economics, and demography on politics and, especially, the foreign policy of a state.
The world is witnessing a rapid change in the geopolitical situation of West Asia. But how can someone say that there is a change in the geopolitics of West Asia? The recent developments in Lebanon and Syria point out that there is a change in the country’s politics, which has led to a change in the geographical positioning.
Hezbollah, a Shiite terror outfit, in Lebanon has lost its political and influential might due to constant Israeli attacks. The Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a terror outfit, has demolished the Assad regime, and the political situation is not clear how it will look like – after the HTS take over.
Israel has changed its geographical positioning by capturing Syrian land (Golan Heights) and making a new buffer zone between their borders. This has led to the recalibration of foreign policy of states in the regions. The Western countries led by the US are considering removing a ban from the UN-listed terrorist organization HTS, which once was the branch of Al-Qaeda. The Russians are in contact with the new leadership in Syria. Hence, the changing political and geographical scenario in the region is influencing the demography and the foreign policy alignment in West Asia, and that’s why the West Asian geopolitics is seeing a tectonic shift.
A major reporting and opinion literature has been published on the role of the West, the US and Israel in the swift and rapid takeover of Syria. However, little is known about Russia’s geopolitical moves. In a surprise maneuver, the Russians have said that “they are in contact with ‘New Rulers’ of Syria.”
The Spokesman for Russian President, Dmitry Peskov, said, “Of course, we are monitoring most closely what is happening in Syria. You know that we, of course, maintain contact with those who are currently controlling the situation in Syria. This is necessary because our bases and diplomatic missions are located there, and, of course, the issue related to ensuring the security of these facilities is extremely important and of primary significance. We will continue to watch closely and proceed from the realities that are taking shape on the ground. The strikes and actions in the Golan Heights area, in the buffer zone area, are unlikely to help stabilize the situation in an already destabilized Syria.”
Russia slammed the Israel Defence Forces’ actions to occupy Golan Heights. However, they did not reveal specific details about whom Russia is in contact with within Syria. The statement reveals a lot about this sudden move.
Syria is one of the most crucial regions for Russians, and they have military presence there. Russia operates two military bases in Syria — a naval base in Tartus on the Mediterranean, which the Soviets established, and an air base at Khmeimim, which was built in 2015. The bases in Syria are Russia’s only military outposts outside the former Soviet Union and have been important for the Kremlin’s activities in Africa and West Asia. It is being speculated that the Russian bases may be destroyed, which may have geopolitical implications for Russians.
However, the recent move to have contact with the leadership of the new terror regime, HTS highlights a different story. The HTS will also need allies in the region in order to survive as a legitimate force, and Russia has shown willingness in the above-mentioned statements. Russia looks soft on HTS, not only to save their own establishment but also to counter the West, especially the US and Israel, in order to curb their influence in Syria.
Israel has destroyed the Syrian military and Naval establishment in the last two to three days. IDF has taken over Golan Heights on the order of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, citing security and survival. This IDF advancement (a staunch US ally in West Asia) feels it is a direct threat to Russian resources in Syria, and Russia is playing its cards to contain it.
The Israeli advancement and the fear of legitimacy may force HTS to have a good relationship with the Kremlin. Russia has seen having a pragmatic and realistic approach to its foreign policy manoeuvre. Putin knows he has to counter Ukraine in Europe and Israel in Syria in order to safeguard its national interest, and he is doing exactly the same by not only putting the Ukraine war as the primary objective but also focusing on the Syria situation.
In an interesting observation, Russia appears to be cultivating a more cooperative relationship with Islam, forming alliances with Islamic terror groups – Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Islamist factions in Syria. This shift reflects a strategic calculation, as Russia increasingly views Islam and Muslim populations as a crucial geopolitical counterbalance to Western influence in the East.
Consequently, Russia’s interest in supporting militant Islamic factions aligns with its broader efforts to counter Western advances. Russia will not be the first country to support militant Islamic factions; the US has been doing it since the inception of the Taliban. The Taliban was armed by the US in the 1980s to drive the Soviets back from Afghanistan.
After years of expending significant resources in conflicts with Muslim groups, Russia’s recent policy changes suggest a recognition of Islam as a strategic asset in its global competition with the West. Within this context, Russia’s support for the survival of the Assad regime in Syria was not merely a reaction to unfolding events but a deliberate strategic decision in line with its broader geopolitical objectives. The possible contact with the HTS also reflects the same strategy of joining hands with Islamic terror groups to safeguard its geopolitical interest by countering Western influence. The upcoming months and years may demonstrate its failure or success as a factor in Russia’s foreign policy.
