The Media Line: Russia or the US? Syria Tries To Keep Both Powers in Play 

Russia or the US? Syria Tries To Keep Both Powers in Play 

As Russian ships resupply Moscow’s remaining military presence and American companies arrive seeking investment opportunities, Damascus is trying to build ties with Washington without abandoning Moscow 

By Rizik Alabi / The Media Line 

[DAMASCUS] In the same week that Russian ships returned to Syria’s coast to resupply facilities still used by Moscow, representatives of around 50 American companies were sitting down with Syrian officials in Damascus to discuss investment, energy, telecommunications, and financial services. 

At first glance, the two scenes appear to represent competing directions in post-Bashar Assad Syria: Russia trying to preserve what remains of its military presence, while the United States moves in through investment, economic engagement, and Syria’s reintegration into Western markets and institutions. 

But interviews conducted by The Media Line suggest a more complicated picture. Damascus does not appear intent on replacing Moscow with Washington overnight. Instead, it is trying to redefine its relationship with Russia on more limited terms while simultaneously building a broader relationship with the United States. 

On September 7, a convoy of four Russian vessels arrived at the port of Tartus to resupply Russian facilities on the Syrian coast, the first such operation since Damascus and Moscow reached a new understanding in August over the future of Russia’s presence in Syria. Satellite imagery and accounts from the ground confirmed the ships’ presence, although neither Damascus nor Moscow officially disclosed the contents of the shipment. 

The operation followed roughly 18 months of negotiations that ended with a memorandum of understanding redefining the status of Russian facilities in Tartus and Hmeimim. Under the arrangement, the Syrian state assumes control of civilian facilities, including civilian operations at Hmeimim airport and the commercial berth at Tartus port, while military facilities are transformed into joint training and capacity-building centers, with a continued Russian presence under the new arrangements. 

For Professor Mahmoud Hamo al-Hamza, a Syrian mathematician, historian of science, and expert on Russian political affairs, the developments do not represent a return to the alliance that bound Moscow and Damascus during Assad’s rule. 

“Today, it is certainly no longer a strategic relationship, but it has indeed become more pragmatic,” al-Hamza told The Media Line. “Both sides realized that it is necessary to preserve the relationship within certain limits, but on new foundations that guarantee the sovereignty of each state, especially Syria, and that the relationship should be one of equals and based on mutual interests.” 

Under Assad, Russian-Syrian relations extended across arms sales, military training, energy, trade, education, and politics. Following Russia’s military intervention in Syria in 2015, Hmeimim and Tartus became central pillars of Moscow’s military presence in the Eastern Mediterranean. 

Today, al-Hamza says many aspects of that relationship are “almost frozen,” and that Moscow and Damascus are trying to construct a new model that no longer gives Russia the freedom of movement it once enjoyed. 

He says limited areas of military cooperation may remain, including training, arms imports, and security cooperation, but argues that the essential difference is that, if they continue, such activities will take place under independent Syrian decision-making. 

“Russia is a major state, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and possesses enormous military power,” al-Hamza said. “Russia is an important country that cannot simply be ignored, but Syria is not required to maintain the kind of excellent relations with Moscow that existed before. There can be commercial, military, or training interests, but all of it must be based on an independent Syrian decision.” 

At the same time, Syrian-American relations are expanding in a very different direction. 

This week, the first US Chamber of Commerce mission to Syria arrived in Damascus, bringing representatives from 50 companies and more than 80 participants from different sectors. The delegation held a series of meetings with government officials and business leaders to discuss investment, trade, and potential partnerships. 

US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Jacob McGee said during the meetings that Washington is encouraging American companies to invest in Syria. He said firms including Chevron, HKN, Visa, and Mastercard had begun taking steps to enter the Syrian market or had signed agreements with Syrian entities. 

The business mission comes as Washington dismantles many of the restrictions that once stood between Syria and the international economy. The United States ended its comprehensive sanctions program on Syria in 2025 while maintaining targeted sanctions on specific individuals and entities. On Aug. 24, Washington removed Syria from its list of state sponsors of terrorism, eliminating another major obstacle to investment. 

The growing relationship raises a fundamental question: Can Syria open up to the United States on this scale while maintaining some form of military cooperation with Russia? 

Political analyst Mohammad Alaa Ghanem believes Washington is, for now, approaching this equation with a high degree of pragmatism. 

Ghanem told The Media Line that the continued presence of a “limited Russian military footprint” in Syria does not appear, by itself, to be an obstacle to improving Syrian-American relations. 

He said Washington is more focused on “the nature, scale, and function of that Russian presence,” and on whether it gives Moscow broad influence over Syrian decision-making or allows Syrian territory to be used in support of wider Russian military objectives in the region. 

According to Ghanem, US priorities are centered on security and stability, preventing the return of extremist groups, and opening the door to investment and Syria’s economic reintegration. 

“Washington does not necessarily need to demand that Damascus cut ties with Russia,” he said. “Rather, it is seeking to reduce Syria’s dependence on it.” 

Instead of asking whether Russia will remain in Syria or leave entirely, competition may increasingly revolve around the extent of Damascus’ dependence on Moscow and whether the United States and its partners can provide viable economic and commercial alternatives. 

In August, Reuters reported that Damascus had expressed willingness during talks with Washington to sharply reduce imports of Russian oil. Sources said the United States had not made that step a formal condition for removing Syria from the state sponsors of terrorism list, but had encouraged Damascus to reduce its dependence on Moscow. At the time, Syria was importing around 60,000 barrels per day of Russian oil. 

Ghanem says American and Western investment could give Damascus alternatives in energy, trade, finance, and reconstruction, gradually reducing Moscow’s ability to maintain its status as an indispensable partner. 

The need for alternatives is not only geopolitical. 

Syria witnessed widespread protests this month after fuel prices were raised, including road blockades, burning tires, and disruption of some tanker convoys. The Energy Ministry said the increases were linked to higher import costs and Syria’s heavy dependence on external supplies, as well as pressure on Russian deliveries and the closure of the Baniyas refinery for maintenance. 

The government responded Thursday by announcing lower diesel prices for heating, agriculture, and industry, partially reversing the increases that helped trigger the protests. 

Opening markets, attracting investment, and securing new energy sources are therefore domestic economic priorities as well as elements of Syria’s changing foreign relations. 

Al-Hamza says Russia is uncomfortable with the speed at which relations between Damascus and Washington are developing, but he believes Moscow’s ability to influence Syrian choices is far weaker than it was during the Assad era. 

“Russia is not comfortable with the American presence, the broad American role, and the good relations between the United States and the new Syria. There is no doubt about that,” he said. 

Still, he added, Moscow is trying to preserve its channels with Damascus after losing much of the influence it once enjoyed. 

Al-Hamza sees no benefit for Syria in replacing dependence on Russia with similar dependence on another power. He said the policy emerging in Damascus is based on “maintaining balanced relations with all countries of the world” and avoiding joining one alliance against another. 

At the same time, he considers Syria’s current relationship with Washington far broader than its newly redefined relationship with Moscow, which is still in the early stages of being rebuilt. 

Ghanem agrees that Damascus can, for now, maintain relations with both sides, but he believes the hardest test has yet to come. 

The more Syrian-American cooperation expands into security, intelligence, energy, and finance, and the more military cooperation with Moscow deepens in parallel, the greater the likelihood that areas of direct conflict between American and Russian interests will emerge. 

Ghanem said maintaining the balance “will become more difficult as cooperation with both sides deepens in sensitive military, intelligence, and economic files.” 

For that reason, he argues that the competition for influence in Syria will not necessarily revolve around expelling Russia entirely or replacing it with the United States. The issue, he said, will be “how much influence Moscow is able to retain, and how successful Washington is in building long-term political and economic influence inside the new Syria.” 

This week offered an unusually clear illustration of that competition. 

Russia is still able to send ships to Tartus and resupply its remaining presence, while dozens of American companies are arriving in Damascus in search of investment opportunities. Moscow retains military relationships built over decades; Washington is increasingly entering through markets, finance, and trade. 

Damascus is trying to make use of both without returning to full dependence on either. 

Whether it can maintain that balance when Russian and American interests collide will be a much harder test. 

 

 

 

Brought to you by www.srnnews.com

Click here to read the full article