Written by Matt Wickham and Volodymyr Solovian
For many decades Syria has served as Russia’s geopolitical foothold in the Middle East region. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, known for his inhumane killing of civilians—including the use of chemical weapons—has long allowed a significant Russian presence in the country. In exchange for Moscow’s military backing and guarantees of Assad’s continued rule, the Syrian dictator has provided Russia with several critical strategic and military advantages. These include granting access to Tartus, Russia’s only warm-water naval base in the Mediterranean, and the Latakia airbase, both are crucial for sustaining Moscow’s regional influence.
Since 2015, this presence has enabled Russia to indiscriminately bomb civilian-populated areas as part of its broader strategy to crush resistance and maintain control. Assad’s reliance on Moscow has also allowed the Kremlin to deploy Wagner mercenaries to bolster Assad’s regime while advancing Russia’s ambitions in the Middle East. This presence has also served Moscow’s interests in testing and showcasing advanced weaponry, solidifying arms sales, and gaining leverage in global negotiations, particularly with the U.S. and Europe. Furthermore, Russia has exploited its United Nations Security Council veto power to prop up Assad’s regime. Yet the Kremlin has consistently framed itself as a defender of sovereign regimes against Western-backed uprisings.
Although active hostilities in Syria subsided after early 2020, the war remains frozen. The full-scale invasion of Ukraine significantly reduced Russia’s military presence. In the spring of 2022, as its blitzkrieg collapsed, Moscow was forced to “pull out” its most combat-ready units from Syria, including the Wagner PMC. The remaining Russian contingent in Syria has become a “boarding house” for generals who demonstrated incompetence during the war with Ukraine.
Clearly, the Kremlin relied on the status quo, which has persisted in recent years thanks to agreements in the form of the Astana Three – the “triumvirate” of Russia, Iran, and Turkey. However, the unexpected offensive by rebel forces on November 27 caught the Kremlin off guard.
Initially, Russian pro-government Telegram channels downplayed or denied the extent of government losses in Aleppo province. But when all observers realised that Assad’s forces had lost the country’s second largest city, Russian propaganda abruptly changed its rhetoric.
The primary motivation was a desire for the “extreme”. The Syrian army was the first to be blocked from Russian pro-government Telegram channels. For example, Russians began to use derogatory nicknames for their true allies, referring to Syrians as “sadiks” (a word borrowed from Arabic that means “friend,” but used as ethnophobia in Russian slang, i.e., to increase the effect of humiliating Assad’s army).
On the fourth day of active hostilities, government forces were able to slow down rebels near the strategically important city of Hama, prompting Russians to moderate their criticism of the Syrian Arab Armed Forces. Instead, Kremlin ideologues chose to create an image of a “multifaceted” enemy that Russia faces in Syria. As a result, according to the Russian interpretation, NATO, Ukraine, Israel, Turkey, and even the allied Iran were all involved in the escalation. Obviously, the chosen strategy for covering the new stage of the Syrian war entails strengthening Russia’s image as a fortress surrounded by enemies among the Russian people.
Key Propaganda Narratives
1. NATO’s Alleged Gas Pipeline Goals
Explained: Pro-Kremlin channels have claimed that NATO is behind the uprising in Syria, supposedly aiming to restore a gas pipeline passing through the country. They frame this pipeline as a “vital lifeline” for Europe’s energy needs, arguing that without it—and with reduced Russian gas supplies—Europe will “collapse.”
Verified: Pro-Kremlin correspondent Sergei Sreda, amplified by Soloviev Live’s narrative is a classic Kremlin propaganda tactic aimed at domestic audiences. It reinforces the narrative that without Russia, the world would collapse—a sentiment often echoed by officials like Dmitry Medvedev. When the West reduced its reliance on Russian fossil fuels, Medvedev predicted Europe would “freeze this winter.” Three years on, energy independence has grown, and Europe has yet to “freeze.”
Such propaganda thrives on fear-mongering, diverting attention from Russia’s own struggles. By targeting NATO as a eternal antagonist, the Kremlin manipulates public perception, framing NATO’s motives as economic while ignoring the true complexities of the Syrian conflict and NATO’s actual priorities, such as countering Russian expansionism and maintaining regional stability.
2. Blaming Ukraine and Israel for the Attack
Explained: Pro-Kremlin Telegram channels claim that Ukraine directly supports terrorists in Syria, alleging that Ukrainian commanders advise rebel leaders in Western Aleppo. They also implicate Israel’s Mossad as a key player.
Verified: The claim that “The offensive in Western Aleppo was directly planned and supervised by Ukrainian commanders advising HTS terrorist leader Al-Jolani in the Operations Room” is a classic Kremlin tactic linking Ukraine to “terrorism.” This narrative serves two purposes:
- Reinforcing the ongoing portrayal of Kyiv as a “regime,” framing Ukraine as a terrorist entity that must be destroyed.
- Manipulating the concept of terrorism to label any opposition to Russia’s imperial ambitions as terroristic.
Similarly, implicating Mossad advances a conspiracy theory that Israel actively undermines Russian-backed forces in Syria. While Israel has shown interest in the conflict, particularly regarding Hezbollah’s shifting focus toward Syria, reports suggest its primary concern lies in maintaining regional stability and curbing threats from pro-Iranian forces. The narrative conveniently frames Russian failures as the result of elite adversaries like Mossad rather than its own shortcomings.
3. Iran’s Failure, Not Russia’s Responsibility
Explained: Pro-Kremlin channels argue that Russia should not be held accountable for the failure of Syrian forces in Aleppo, emphasizing Iran’s dominant influence in the region. Phrases like “Aleppo has always been an Iranian city” and “We were present there, but we did not control the processes” shift blame to Tehran for Syria’s military collapse. The Z channels are enraged, stating they “invested so much effort, resources, and lives to achieve a tangible result,” only for the effort to be squandered in hours.
Additionally, from pro-kremlin channels, indignation has been directed at Russian Z channels criticizing the military leadership for the failure, dismissing them as “mere internet analysts” who fail to grasp the complexities of the operations. The justification offered is that Aleppo is foreign land, not Russia’s responsibility: “Are we really duty-bound to defend it to the last drop of blood, just because we maintain a massive contingent there?”
Verified: This narrative downplays Russia’s direct military involvement, instead portraying Iran as the primary actor and Russia as unwilling to show “too much” resistance, due to the territory not being theirs and thus, Syria falling. The goal of such a narrative is to deflect attention from Russia’s overstretched resources and growing inability to sustain its global ambitions. By shifting responsibility to Iran, the Kremlin seeks to preserve its image as a global power and a reliable ally, despite its evident struggles in Ukraine.
