Syria's opposition flag in Moscow: Did Russia just give up on Assad?

In a striking and symbolic move, a group of men raised the Syrian pre-Baath regime flag at the Syrian embassy in Moscow on Monday morning, a day after a dramatic turn of events led to the collapse of the decades-old Bashar al Assad regime in Damascus.

The pre-Baath era green, white, and black tricolour flag with three red stars is widely used by Syrian opposition groups. “Today the embassy opened and is working normally under a new flag,” an embassy representative told the state-run TASS news agency.

While the same flag was also raised at several other Syrian missions, including its consulate in Istanbul and embassies in Belgrade and Tunisia, it came as a surprise in Moscow, as Russia was a key ally of Syria’s ousted president.

The raising of the flag at the Syrian embassy in Moscow, coinciding with Kremlin sources confirming that Assad and his family have been granted asylum in the Russian capital—mere hours after his flight from the country as Syrian opposition forces seized control of Damascus on Sunday—raises significant questions about the evolving dynamics in Syria, Russia's role in the Middle East, and the potential repercussions for the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Previous instances of sudden regime change—such as the Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan—show that foreign missions do not immediately change allegiance after a regime shift without the tacit approval of the host country. Could this event signal that Russia has given up hope of reinstating Assad and is preparing to engage with a new regime in Damascus?

“Whether this was done with Russian approval is speculative at this stage, but it’s clear that Russia is nervously considering its next steps,” Chatham House Associate Fellow and Russia expert Samantha de Bendern tells TRT World in a phone call from London.

“There are many possible reasons for this, and it could well have been an initiative from the embassy itself. While one might assume that it was likely done with Russia's tacit consent, it's still too early to draw firm conclusions.”

De Bendern, however, feels that it's hard to imagine Russia completely abandoning its ally Assad. “While they may be seeking a new arrangement, it's far from certain whether they'll succeed, especially as the brutal realities of Assad's regime have become increasingly difficult to ignore,” she adds.

‘A big deal for Russia’

With Syria’s future uncertain and the Assad regime in disarray, what does this mean for Russia’s influence in the region and beyond?

According to de Bendern, the developments signal a major blow to Russia’s political and military standing in Syria and the broader Middle East. “This is actually a very big deal,” she states, highlighting the strategic importance of Russia’s military bases in Syria—particularly the naval base in Tartus and the air base in Hmeimim.

“If I were in the Kremlin, I would be deeply concerned about the prospect of losing my military bases in Syria. Given the strategic importance of these bases, it's reasonable to assume that Russia would be exploring options to secure some kind of agreement with the new regime,” de Bendern notes.

“If the Russians are pulling out from their bases in Syria, as reports indicate, this could destabilise their position not only in the Middle East but also in Africa.”

The implications extend beyond Syria. “Tartus is the only proper port the Russians have in the Mediterranean, and they’ve used it as a critical hub for their operations in Africa, especially through the Wagner Group and now Africa Corps,” de Bendern said. “If they lose their presence in Syria, they lose this strategic advantage and their ability to project power across the Middle East and Africa.”

How will Trump, Iran and Ukraine react?

The weakening of Russia’s position in Syria also threatens to alter the region's power balance. Russia, once seen as a key ally of Assad’s regime, is now facing a serious setback, and de Bendern believes this could have a ripple effect on Russian-Iranian relations. “Russia has supported Hezbollah and Hamas in the past, but with the collapse of Assad’s regime, Russia is seen as weak, which could diminish Iran’s faith in Russia as a reliable partner.”

In addition, the developments in Syria come at a time when US President-elect Donald Trump’s return to power in January could also have far-reaching consequences. De Bendern points out that Trump’s stance on Syria and the Middle East is still unclear, but the growing perception of Russia’s weakness could influence his approach.

“This shows [Russian President Vladimir] Putin as being weaker than expected, and it will be interesting to see how Trump will navigate this when he assumes office. Will he completely drop the YPG/PKK-led SDF in Syria? And what will this mean for the balance of power in the region?” she leaves the question open.

For Russia, the decision to either find a way to keep its bases or negotiate with the new regime in Syria will be crucial. “The temptation to strike a deal with the new Syrian regime is strong,” de Bendern remarks, “but Russia must balance this with its long-standing relationship with Iran and manage its image in the region.”

The evolving situation in Syria presents a complex challenge for the Kremlin. The loss of influence in Syria could have cascading effects not only in the Middle East and Africa but also in the broader geopolitical landscape. With Trump poised to return to the White House, Russia’s actions in Syria will undoubtedly influence the trajectory of the Russia-Ukraine war and the future of global alliances.

In the face of these developments, Russia’s response will be watched closely as it seeks to recalibrate its foreign policy in an increasingly complex and unpredictable world.