Russian President Vladimir Putin and Syrian leader Ahmed al-Sharaa held a telephone conversation to discuss bilateral relations and the status of two Russian military installations on Syrian territory, according to state media outlets in both countries. The call focused on the Khmeimim air base and the Tartous naval facility, which Russia has operated for years as anchor points of its military footprint in the Mediterranean and the wider Middle East.
The two leaders addressed the terms under which Russia may continue to use the bases, as well as broader political and economic cooperation. Details of any agreement reached during the call were not disclosed in initial readouts, and both sides indicated that discussions would continue.
What Happened
According to Syrian state media, the conversation was conducted by telephone. The readout from Damascus framed the discussion as covering the future of the Russian military presence alongside questions of political and economic ties. The Kremlin confirmed that the call took place and described it as a continuation of dialogue between Moscow and Syria’s new authorities.
Khmeimim and Tartous are the two principal installations Russia has maintained in Syria since its military intervention in 2015. Khmeimim, located in Latakia governorate along Syria’s Mediterranean coast, has served as the main hub for Russian air operations in the country. Tartous, further south along the coast, hosts a naval logistics facility that has provided Russia with a rare Mediterranean port access point outside the Black Sea. Both installations were used extensively to support the government of former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad during the civil war.
Assad was ousted in late 2024 after a rapid offensive by opposition forces led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the group formerly affiliated with al-Qaeda that had rebranded itself in the preceding years. al-Sharaa, who led that offensive, subsequently emerged as the head of Syria’s transitional authorities. The fall of Assad raised immediate questions about the future of the Russian bases, which had been negotiated with and guaranteed under the ousted government.
Since taking power, Syria’s new leadership has signaled a willingness to revisit the terms of foreign military presence on Syrian soil. Russia, for its part, has sought to preserve access to installations it considers strategically vital. The Putin–al-Sharaa call represents one of the highest-level contacts between the two sides since the transition, and the first reported discussion focused specifically on the question of the bases.
Why It Matters
The fate of Khmeimim and Tartous sits at the intersection of several major geopolitical currents. For Russia, the installations represent the most significant military foothold it has established in the Middle East in decades. Tartous in particular offers logistical access to the Mediterranean that cannot easily be replicated elsewhere, making the base a priority for Moscow as it adjusts to a more constrained international posture following the war in Ukraine.
For Syria’s transitional authorities, the bases are a symbol of the foreign entrenchment that characterized the Assad era. Any continuation of a Russian military presence raises questions about sovereignty, the terms under which foreign forces operate on Syrian territory, and the broader balance of influence among outside powers now competing for access and leverage in Damascus. Turkey, the United States, Iran, and Gulf states have all maintained or expanded their engagement with Syria’s new leadership since the transition, and the outcome of negotiations with Moscow will shape how those relationships develop.
The question also carries weight for the wider region. Russia’s ability to project power from Syrian soil has implications for the Eastern Mediterranean, where NATO members including Greece and Cyprus have monitored Russian naval activity closely. Any change in the terms of the Russian presence will be read as a signal of Moscow’s residual influence in the region, and of the new Syrian government’s willingness to negotiate with former patrons of the Assad regime.
Background and Context
Russia’s military involvement in Syria dates to September 2015, when Putin ordered airstrikes in support of Assad’s government as it appeared to be on the verge of collapse. The intervention, which included the deployment of ground forces, air defense systems, and private military contractors, proved decisive in stabilizing the Assad government and eventually enabling it to recover significant territory. Khmeimim and Tartous were expanded and formalized as Russian installations during this period, with long-term lease arrangements negotiated with the Syrian government.
The 2015 intervention was framed by Moscow as a counterterrorism operation, but Western governments and regional actors argued that Russia’s primary objective was to preserve a client state and secure a permanent foothold in the region. The bases gave Russia the ability to conduct operations across the Middle East, to project naval power into the Mediterranean, and to sustain a diplomatic and intelligence presence in a country allied with Iran.
The rapid collapse of the Assad government in late 2024 caught many observers by surprise. Opposition forces, led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, swept through government-held territory in a matter of days, culminating in the entry into Damascus and the flight of Assad from the country. The speed of the offensive left the status of foreign military installations uncertain, and Russia moved quickly to engage with the new authorities in an effort to secure its position.
Since the transition, Damascus has navigated a complex set of relationships with former adversaries and partners of the Assad era. The transitional government has sought international recognition, economic assistance, and the lifting of sanctions, while managing competing demands from Turkey, which played a significant role in the fall of Assad, from the United States, which maintains a separate military presence in northeastern Syria, and from Gulf states that have invested in the country’s reconstruction. Russia’s place in this landscape is complicated by its role as a former guarantor of the Assad government and by the ongoing war in Ukraine, which has constrained Moscow’s resources and diplomatic bandwidth.
The question of the Russian bases has been one of the most visible points of negotiation. Syrian officials have publicly stated that any foreign military presence must be governed by agreements that respect Syrian sovereignty, without specifying the terms being discussed. Russian officials have emphasized the importance of the installations to bilateral ties, framing the bases as a foundation for continued cooperation rather than a legacy of the Assad period.
Analysis: The Putin–al-Sharaa call is significant less for what it produced than for the fact that it occurred at all. A direct conversation between the Russian president and the leader of the Syrian transitional authorities suggests that both sides see a workable basis for continued engagement, even as the political landscape in Damascus has changed fundamentally. For Russia, the call represents an effort to lock in access to strategic infrastructure at a time when its broader Middle East position has narrowed. For Syria’s new leadership, engaging directly with Moscow signals a pragmatic approach to the range of foreign actors with interests in the country.
The absence of disclosed terms from the readouts on both sides is consistent with negotiations that are still in progress. Both governments have reasons to manage expectations: Moscow does not want to appear to be making concessions on installations it considers vital, and Damascus does not want to be seen as bargaining away sovereignty to a former patron of the ousted regime. A formal deal, if one is reached, is likely to involve compromises on duration, scope, and the legal framework governing any continued Russian presence.
The broader implications extend beyond the bilateral relationship. A settlement that preserves a measured Russian presence would suggest that the new Syrian government is prepared to accommodate a degree of foreign military activity in exchange for political and economic benefits. A breakdown in talks, by contrast, would force Moscow to choose between accepting a reduced footprint and risking a confrontation with authorities that have already demonstrated their willingness to upend the previous order. Either outcome will be studied closely by other foreign powers with interests in Syria’s future, and by analysts tracking the durability of Russia’s reach in the Mediterranean.
What to Watch Next
The immediate question is whether the telephone conversation will be followed by a face-to-face meeting or by the announcement of a formal agreement on the bases. The Kremlin and Syrian authorities have indicated that talks will continue, but have not set out a timeline.
Several specific points are likely to shape the negotiations. The duration of any renewed arrangement is a key variable, as is the legal status of Russian personnel and the scope of activities permitted from the installations. The question of whether Russia will be allowed to use the bases for operations beyond Syria, as it has in the past, is likely to be a particular point of contention.
The position of other regional and international actors will also be relevant. Turkey, which maintains a significant military presence in northern Syria and played a role in the events leading to Assad’s fall, has not publicly commented on the Russian bases but has an interest in the balance of foreign military activity in the country. The United States, which operates from bases in northeastern Syria as part of the campaign against the Islamic State, is likely to monitor the negotiations closely, as is Israel, which has conducted strikes against Iranian-linked targets in Syria and has a direct interest in the military capabilities of foreign forces based in the country.
Finally, the pace of Syria’s broader political transition will shape the context in which any deal is concluded. The transitional authorities have outlined a timeline for a new constitution and elections, and the degree to which the new government is seen as representative and stable will affect both the legitimacy and the durability of any agreement it reaches with Moscow.
Conclusion
The Putin–al-Sharaa call marks a notable step in the post-Assad reordering of Syria’s foreign relationships. With details of any deal yet to emerge, the conversation signals that both Moscow and Damascus see value in continuing a dialogue that addresses the strategically significant Russian military presence alongside broader questions of political and economic cooperation. The outcome of those negotiations will carry implications for Syria’s sovereignty, for Russia’s position in the Mediterranean, and for the wider balance of foreign influence in a country whose political transition is still in progress.
Sources
– Al Jazeera News: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/8/26/putin-and-al-sharaa-discuss-russia-syria-relations-deal-on-military-bases
Corrections
If you believe this article contains an error, contact Herald Express with the source URL and supporting evidence.
Story synopsis gathered from: Al Jazeera News — source
