Could Putin Have Saved Assad’s Regime Without the Ukraine Conflict?

 

Russia’s involvement in Syria could easily turn into a scenario reminiscent of Vietnam for the U.S.—a prolonged conflict with little to gain and much to lose.

Syria wasn’t a Russian military stronghold to begin with. Russia initially stationed about 500 personnel there, including soldiers, mercenaries, and advisors. Compare this to the 85,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam, who ultimately had to evacuate under dire circumstances. When the local population loses faith in their government and the supporting forces, victory becomes unattainable.

For Russia to maintain its grip in Syria, it would require a massive investment: billions of dollars, 100,000 troops, 100 aircraft, and hundreds of tanks and military equipment. This is precisely the kind of drain NATO hopes to inflict on Russia, as diverting resources to Syria would weaken its efforts in Ukraine and give Ukrainian forces more time to regroup and counterattack.

Additionally, Iran’s involvement would further complicate the situation, potentially benefiting Israel by drawing Iranian resources away. As history has shown, once Syrian soldiers start deserting en masse, the outcome is almost predetermined. Russia would face two unpalatable options:

1. Escalate the Conflict: Prop up Syria by committing troops, resources, and finances, risking thousands of Russian casualties and an enormous public backlash. Such a strategy might temporarily bolster Putin’s image but would come at a tremendous cost.

2. Allow Syria to Collapse: Let internal factions battle it out, potentially triggering a refugee crisis with millions fleeing to neighboring countries like Lebanon, further destabilizing the Middle East and creating headaches for the U.S. and Israel.

   
   

Given Russia’s financial limitations, a drawn-out conflict akin to the U.S. experiences in Vietnam and Afghanistan is not a feasible option. The U.S. could afford to lose $2 trillion in Afghanistan; Russia simply cannot afford such a financial drain. Ultimately, maintaining stability in Syria depends more on Assad’s ability to keep his people content. Putin can only do so much; if a nation’s leadership fails its own people, external intervention becomes futile.

Main Points:

1. Syria is not strategically vital for Russia, and escalation would drain its limited resources.
2. Diverting attention to Syria weakens Russia’s position in Ukraine, benefiting NATO and prolonging the Ukrainian conflict.
3. Supporting Syria risks significant casualties and financial losses for Russia, which it cannot afford.
4. Assad’s leadership and the loyalty of the Syrian people are key to the region’s stability; external forces cannot sustain a regime against its own citizens’ will.
5. History, from Vietnam to Afghanistan, has proven that propping up unstable regimes often leads to failure.

Russia’s involvement in Syria highlights the limitations of force-driven intervention. Without the support of the Syrian people and a stable government under Assad, any attempt by Russia to sustain its influence in Syria would be an uphill battle, both financially and militarily. The smarter move for Russia would be to avoid overcommitting and risking another Vietnam-like debacle. Stability in the Middle East can only come from within, not through external powers pouring resources into unwinnable conflicts.