Why Did Russia Fall into the “Allied Trust” Dilemma?

In the midst of the current academic discourse on the multipolarity that the world is overseeing, Russia seems unwilling to take a greater role on the international level due to its positions.

In the midst of the current academic discourse on the multipolarity that the world is overseeing, Russia seems unwilling to take a greater role on the international level due to its positions, which are beginning to be understood as a repetition of the previous Sino-Soviet split. This time, however, it is threatened by the Middle Eastern-Russian split, which causes many developing countries and peoples to lose confidence in Russia as a reliable long-term ally.

 Historical Context: The Sino-Soviet Split

Previously, the Sino-Soviet split was due to ideological differences over Marxism-Leninism on one hand and geopolitical priorities on the other, which made Mao see Khrushchev, who adopted orthodox Marxism, as abandoning the principles of communism and revolution. The Soviet-American rapprochement at that time, along with the principle of peaceful coexistence, forced Russia to take positions hostile to China geopolitically, such as siding with India in the Sino-Indian War. The timing of these events made Russia appear as a traitor to the principles of the communist revolution, turning it from a leader into an enemy of allied countries. This shift caused China, as well as many African countries and non-aligned nations, to lose confidence in Russia as an ally. In my opinion, that was the starting point for the decline of the Soviet Union and its subsequent fall.

 The Cold War Dynamics

Over time, the ideological conflict between countries with a correct understanding of the applications of Marxism-Leninism turned the Cold War into a three-polar world. For the Third World, the dispute was about who would lead the communist revolution against imperialism. However, the ideological differences were effectively marketed by Maoism as a betrayal of the principles of the revolution, and this nearly led to a nuclear war when China announced its success in Project 596 in 1964 after the Soviet Union had previously refused to complete the program with China. At that time, according to secret drivers, the Soviet Union intended to confront China’s nuclear capabilities, and Russia was planning to launch a preemptive nuclear strike on the nuclear programs in several Chinese cities. In response, China mobilized its forces along the border for fear of a nuclear war with the Soviet Union, following media reports in Western countries about Russia’s intentions.

Had the Soviet Union not been informed of the US Army’s intention to launch an attack on 130 nuclear sites inside the Soviet Union, it would have begun waging its war on China. This could have led to a wide conflict that Russia would later regret. It is clear from this that Russia can usually be manipulated by intelligence, and its decisions towards its allies can easily change if its interests shift.

A Shift in Ideological Stance

While China has since shifted from ideological idealism to pragmatism, it now appears to be smarter and more rational in its pragmatism than Russia. China has chosen the principle of peaceful coexistence, and while it is not directly involved in the current conflicts in the Middle East, its diplomatic position remains strong and unchanged. This approach is certainly better than getting involved and then retreating according to its interests, which is the trap that Russia often falls into. Russia was not forced to intervene in Syria, but its recent exit and abandonment of Syria—while allowing Israel to launch strikes that destroyed the Syrian army—has put it in a very precarious position. Arab streets are now chanting that Russia sold Syria for an undeclared deal regarding its war in Ukraine, leading some to describe it as treason. This is, in any case, a humiliating position for Russia that causes it to lose the confidence of many developing countries as a permanent and reliable ally.

Current Challenges and Perceptions

After the Russian military retreat in Syria, President Putin appeared last December to announce that “Russia has not been defeated in Syria and that it has achieved the goals that prompted the Russian military intervention there in 2015, especially with regard to fighting terrorism and preventing Syria from turning into one of the terrorist hotbeds like Afghanistan.” The truth is that these are no more than statements to preserve some dignity, as the one who is now taking over Syria was clearly classified as a terrorist figure. The management of the country by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham does not bode well, especially considering the significant Israeli gains that have been achieved in recent days.

 Why Doesn’t Russia Have Great Opportunities with the New Administration?

Russia does not have many temptations to offer the new administration in Syria, especially after the conflicts that have occurred between them over the past months, including the Russian air force’s bombing of their areas of control. Although some analysts expect that Russia has a chance to get closer to that administration by recognizing them and removing Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham from the terrorist lists through its authority in the Security Council, Western countries have preceded Russia by sending delegations and engaging with them to discuss and recommend their removal from the terrorist lists. This hasty position from Western countries can be interpreted as a desire to reduce the chances of Russian-Syrian rapprochement by being the first to recognize them, thereby denying Russia the opportunity to play the role of supporter.

 The Shrinking Russian Role

The settlement of the conflict in Syria and the political transition were part of Russia’s leverage in previous periods, especially after its support for several tracks away from the Security Council, such as the Astana track, in order to present itself as a major player in Syria while maintaining its interests. However, now, with the change in the situation—especially after the withdrawal of most forces from Syria to focus on the Ukrainian arena, and after leaving the Russian bases empty—Russia’s role will shrink. Consequently, Russia will lose its interests in pressuring the West through the Syria card and its geopolitical goal of maintaining military bases in the Mediterranean via the Tartus base, which were crucial for Russian operations in the region.

These are not the only losses; they are just the direct losses. The most significant loss lies in its diminished military and political credibility among developing countries as a strong ally that can be relied upon in the face of American hegemony. Therefore, the coming months may prove that Russia’s loss in Syria was a severe intelligence setback for it. If Trump does not succeed in ending the Ukrainian war, especially after the advance of Ukrainian forces in Kursk, Russia will face even greater future pressure that could damage its reputation among developing countries.

This situation serves as a lesson to large conflicting countries: if you are unable to manage a conflict until the end, your intervention may cause greater losses in both the short and long term. This is not the first time that Russia has withdrawn after the collapse of its interests or lost a foothold in battle. Such withdrawals make Russia an undesirable ally for most developing countries, indicating that Russia’s position in a multipolar world and its fortunes are declining significantly.

Ahmed Saber Abbas
Ahmed Saber Abbas
International Relations Master's holder from Peking University, International Relations Specialist and academic at Must university, CEO of Evergreen consulting group, and an Egyptian researcher and politician.