Al-Sharaa’s remarks signals new prospects for engagement with Moscow – Analyst
QAMISHLI, Syria (North Press) – Russian political analyst Dmitry Bridzhe told North Press on Sunday that the recent speech by Syrian Transitional President Ahmad al-Sharaa signals a new opening for dialogue with Russia.
Bridzhe said al-Sharaa appeared “more mature in his remarks about the understandings reached with the Russians before the fall of the al-Assad regime.”
He explained that agreements made with Moscow at the time, including Russia’s withdrawal from the battle of Homs, showed that Russia’s priority was not Bashar al-Assad personally, but its own strategic interests in Syria.
He added that Russian coordination with certain factions began during that stage, though not directly with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS).
In a televised interview with Syria’s Al-Ikhbariyah channel on Sep. 12, al-Sharaa revealed that before the collapse of the former regime, negotiations were held with Russia. He said, “When we reached Hama during the liberation battle, negotiations were held with Russia, and under an agreement, they withdrew from the battle of Homs and stepped back entirely from the military scene.”
He noted that both sides made commitments under the deal, and so far, each has upheld them.
According to Bridzhe, Russia has long been preparing to redirect the trajectory of the Syrian conflict. He said President Vladimir Putin repeatedly emphasized that Moscow’s intervention was not aimed at securing a military victory, but at creating conditions for a political process and inclusive dialogue among Syria’s political, ethnic, and religious groups.
“Putin affirmed in his speeches and in communications with the new Syrian leadership,” Bridzhe noted, “that sustainable normalization can only be achieved through genuine reforms and by granting Syrians the right to decide their own future.”
Bridzhe added that former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad “ruled with a failed mentality, unable to lead a transitional phase or build a functioning state.”
He further argued that the Astana and Sochi conferences produced no tangible outcomes. The so-called de-escalation zones, he said, “never evolved into political reforms, but merely served as tools to manage the conflict and freeze battlefronts.”