Risking the king by sacrificing pawns in Syria. Putin master of the game on the chessboard?

In the ever-changing landscape of global politics and military strategy, Vladimir Putin once again seems to have manoeuvred the chessboard to his benefit, particularly in the complex theatre of Syria.

What follows is my English translation of an article by Andji Amor, originally in French, first published Mondialisation.ca on Thursday 9th January 2025 and then translated into Italian by Gianfranco Bosco and published on ComeDonChisciotte.org on Tuesday 14th January 2025. (Bold emphasis mine, Italics original).

Only a few days ago, the West was celebrating what appeared to be a decisive victory in the region, believing that Russia had lost its strategic foothold in the Middle East.

Just as for many years the Western propaganda machine subservient to the US, especially the military-industrial complex that pulls its strings, has been pushing public opinion to believe that Russia is a “weak” nation, neglecting its nuclear arsenal, in economic decline and with a strong strategic and military incompetence, at the same time, the same military-industrial complex “disarms” Europe, militarily, economically, ideologically and even politically.

However, as the proverbial fog of war begins to clear, Syria's history reveals a very different narrative.

A turning point may have been reached.

The situation is as dramatic as it is complex and involves not only Russia and the Western powers, but also Israel, Iran and Turkey, each playing their part in a major geopolitical drama.

With the SCO (NATO's counterpart¹: Shanghai Cooperation Organisation created in 1996), ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Bangkok Declaration of August 1967, established in December 2016), CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organisation of October 2002) in the background, the situation on Syrian territory is revealing.

The jihadist militants (Obama's Operation Tymber Sycamore launched in 2011), who have become “rebels” for the West - Moderate Terrorists (sic) - often at the forefront of regional conflicts, seem to avoid direct confrontation with Russian forces.

Instead, they move to the side as columns of Russian military vehicles pass by, a curious development noted with some regret by Western military analysts. (…)

Some pro-Turkish factions have even refrained from attacking Russian troops, unblocking the roads to allow their movement.

This unusual behaviour suggests a behind-the-scenes agreement between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Further evidence of this potential agreement comes from Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov, who confirmed ongoing negotiations with the Syrian government regarding the future of Russian military bases in Tartus and Hmeimim.

The current new Syrian leadership appears to allow Russia's continued military presence, a sentiment shared by sources in Damascus who believe these bases will remain operational.

This developing scenario suggests Moscow's strategic power, despite Turkey's alleged insinuations that Assad's overthrow would have Moscow's tacit approval.

Such claims by Recep Tayyip Erdogan, however, seem dubious when compared to Russia's historical experiences with Turkey, a nation considered an unreliable ally with a highly unstable domestic and foreign policy that is easily influenced by the United States.

We all know that Erdogan makes many statements and does little.

He remains an American pawn, kept in power thanks to them, but Erdogan is also nostalgic for the Ottoman Empire and probably a true opportunist who carefully avoids putting all his eggs in one basket: he even asked - rejected - to join the SCO. Turkey has just obtained to be among the “dialogue partners” since June 2012.

The stakes are high, with large quantities of Soviet and Russian weapons in Syria that the West may be eager to redirect to the Ukrainian armed forces; assuming it is already doing so.

Anticipating such moves, Russia took preventive measures.

After a lengthy conversation between Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Air Force launched a campaign to destroy Syrian weapons stockpiles, apparently facilitated by Russian intelligence on the location of these stockpiles.

In just 48 hours, more than 200 airstrikes were carried out, significantly reducing the arsenal that could have been diverted to Ukraine or the West.

Since the fall of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, we have witnessed at the same time a visible collapse of the Ukrainian army and an acceleration of Russian pressure in Ukraine... and this raises the question that this is no coincidence.

These actions have not escaped Washington's notice.

The US administration under outgoing President Joe Biden hoped to transfer Syrian military resources to support Ukraine.

The Israeli intervention was therefore seen by some in the US as a betrayal, an unexpected turn of events that seemed to strategically defeat Putin.

However, Israel has defended its actions, citing national security concerns and the risk of its weapons falling into the hands of terrorist groups.

In addition, Israel launched a ground operation in Syria, capturing significant territory, which only inflamed regional tensions.

In this regard, President Vladimir Putin recently stated “…that the big winners are Israel and Turkey”, but also stated “…that it is out of the question to allow anyone to seize Syria's territories” (…)

Meanwhile, the militant group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) has promised to reconquer not only Syrian lands but also Jerusalem, potentially escalating the conflict.

Turkey also clearly shows its ambitions.

President Erdogan has expressed his desire to reverse the effects of World War I by annexing major Syrian cities to Turkey.

During a meeting with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Erdogan reportedly issued a stern warning that Turkish forces would engage (attack) Israeli aircraft if they attempted to support US-allied Kurdish groups in Syria.

But as said before, we all know that Erdogan does a lot of talking and little or no action.

These developments underline an unstable situation in which former allies are on the verge of becoming adversaries, each seeking control of Syria's resource-rich territories.

In the midst of this chaos, in my view, Putin is implementing a calculated strategy, akin to a chess move², with a sacrifice of attraction.

While the attention of his geopolitical adversaries is fragmented by their squabbles over Syrian lands, Russia's broader objectives remain intact, particularly with regard to Ukraine.

While these international actors are mired in their disputes, the situation in Ukraine continues to deteriorate, evidenced by its collapsing military structure.

There is even speculation that once current operations are completed, Russia will resettle Bashar al-Assad in Syria, a theory reinforced by the evacuation of Assad with all of Syria's assets, documents and wealth to Moscow and the dramatic rescue of Syrian General Suhail al-Hassan by Russian special forces.

This complex web of alliances and conflicts suggests that Syria's history is far from over.

As the international scene continues to evolve, one might wonder what will be the next move in this geopolitical “Great Game”.

Current events promise to shape the future not only of Syria, but of the world order itself.

As the geopolitical chessboard continues to shift under the weight of these ongoing events, the complex dance between diplomacy and military power in Syria has captured the world's attention.

The interplay between Russia, Turkey, Israel and the United States forms a narrative full of intrigue and strategy, with each nation pursuing its own agenda while keeping an eye on the others.

Vladimir Putin, with his reputation for strategic and political astuteness, seems to be orchestrating a complex move that has surprised many.

Everyone thought Russia was in trouble in Syria, but this one reveals its cards and the game is far from over.

The situation is a harbinger of unexpected alliances and betrayals.

The strategic cooperation between Russia and Israel is particularly noteworthy, as it highlights Putin's ability to exploit relations to achieve broader goals.

The destruction of arms depots in Syria, facilitated by Israeli air strikes, underlines a common interest in preventing military resources from being used against Russian interests or falling into the hands of hostile entities.

This cooperation demonstrates diplomatic negotiations that transcend traditional alliances, illustrating how political realities can foster unexpected partnerships by highlighting the progressive loss of Western (US/EU) influence in the Middle East, regardless of Western propagandist media.

We also observe that Turkey's ambitions in Syria are becoming increasingly transparent.

President Erdogan's desire to redraw the borders established after World War I reveals a historical resentment that continues to influence contemporary politics.

His bold statements about annexing Syrian cities into Turkey reflect a broader strategic vision that seeks to expand Turkey's influence in the region.

This ambition places Turkey in opposition to Israel and the United States.

The United States, for its part, finds itself navigating a delicate and unstable balance.

The Biden administration's hopes of transferring Syrian military resources to support Ukraine were thwarted, at least in part, by Israel's decisive actions.

This development highlights the complex and often conflicting interests that shape US foreign policy in the Middle East.

The challenge for Washington is to reconcile its support for allies such as Israel and Turkey with its strategic objectives, a task made even more difficult by the fluid nature of alliances in the region and secret deals conducted behind the backs of the West.

While these nations manoeuvre to position themselves, the Syrian people unfortunately remain caught in the crossfire, their homeland having become a battleground for outside powers, as was and is the case with Lebanon, Libya, Ukraine, Palestine and others.

The humanitarian dimension of the conflict is a stark reminder of the toll that war takes on ordinary citizens, whose lives are disrupted by the ambitions of those seeking geopolitical control of entire regions.

The international community is watching very carefully, aware that the outcome of this geopolitical struggle will have far-reaching implications, not only for Syria, but for the balance of power in the Middle East and elsewhere.

---

In related news, the new Syrian government led by the so-called “moderate rebels” has decided to terminate a long-standing contract with Stroytransgaz, a Russian company managing the Tartus seaport, Syria's second-largest after Latakia and home to Russia's only naval base in the East Med, as reported by Al Mayadeen. Although the Russians have not been asked (yet) to move out from their military base in Tartus, this is not a good sign and it could be the first step towards it!

---

1. Actually, a few weeks ago, Nurlan Yermekbayev, Secretary General of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), stated that “comparing NATO and SCO is incorrect due to their significant differences in goals and objectives”, as reported by Al Mayadeen. [Ismaele]

2. Gambit: “In the game of chess, a gambit is the voluntary sacrifice of a pawn or, more rarely, a quality in the opening phase with the aim of gaining a non-material strategic advantage: attack, gaining space, opening lines, dislocation of the opponent's pawn structure, saving time, etc.”. [Original footnote]