Amid accelerating developments in Syrian–Israeli relations and growing security fragility in southern Syria, recent months have seen joint Russian–American efforts to stabilise the situation and prevent escalation towards a broader confrontation. These efforts have taken the form of undeclared security understandings that Moscow has sought to promote through its role as a political and security mediator, in parallel with quiet coordination with Washington. The initiatives emerged following a series of intensive regional and international contacts and meetings that addressed ideas related to border control, the activation of monitoring mechanisms, and the reorganisation of security roles in the south, against the backdrop of continued Israeli strikes and an increasingly complex regional landscape.
In contrast, Damascus has reiterated its commitment to sovereignty and its rejection of any track that exceeds the security framework or could be interpreted as paving the way for a peace agreement. This position reflects a shift in conflict management – from open-ended escalation to calibrated containment approaches – through which Russia seeks to entrench itself as a field guarantor, while the United States retains its role as a principal sponsor of any potential understandings. Southern Syria thus remains a testing ground for highly sensitive security and international balances.
Moscow – A Security Mediator Without Peace
Dr Mustafa Khaled Al-Mohammad, a political adviser close to the Kremlin, told +963 that when the Syrian file reached Moscow, a set of conditions was imposed, foremost among them Russia’s role in calming tensions between Israel and Damascus, particularly in southern Syria.
He explained that this de-escalation was initially expected to take place through the deployment of Russian patrols. However, Moscow adopted a different approach – opting for a covert and temporary calm until a security agreement could be prepared. Once such an agreement is finalised and signed, Russian patrols would then enter southern Syria as separation or monitoring forces. In his view, no institution can guarantee the prevention or limitation of Israeli incursions into Syrian territory without the presence of Russian military forces deployed in the south.
Al-Mohammad noted that Moscow has increasingly assumed the role of mediator between Damascus and Israel, particularly after the failure of Omani and Jordanian mediation efforts. He added that during meetings held in Azerbaijan, including discussions involving the Ministry of Defence and the presidential palace, Damascus concluded that it needed to change intermediaries and move towards international mediators with sufficient global standing to command Israeli attention.
According to Al-Mohammad, the options were limited to two – either the United States or Russia – with Moscow ultimately emerging as the more suitable intermediary between Damascus and Tel Aviv.
He further argued that Russia’s role in southern Syria is coordinated with the United States, stressing that what Damascus is undertaking in this context is direct coordination between Washington and Moscow. As such, no single axis is being favoured at the expense of another.
Al-Mohammad maintained that while the United States cannot impose direct arrangements on Israel, Moscow, by contrast, is able to enforce several understandings. He attributed this to Russia’s influence within Israeli society, noting that a significant number of Israeli citizens are of Russian origin and hold Russian citizenship, and that President Vladimir Putin enjoys considerable moral authority among large segments of the Jewish community. In his assessment, this leverage enables Moscow to exert pressure on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
He emphasised that Russia does not intervene in the substance of the agreement itself but rather limits its role to narrowing gaps between the two sides. Israel, he added, wants a positive outcome in the form of a security agreement, but not a peace agreement. Moscow, in his view, is firmly opposed to any peace deal, while Israel seeks to develop one in the future – a divergence that lies at the heart of the disagreement.
Read also: Russia and Israel Test the Balance in Southern Syria
Russia as Border Guarantor and Field Balancer
Hussam Najjar, a journalist and political analyst based in Poland, told +963 that discussions about the Golan Heights and Israeli-occupied or infiltrated areas often lead to an overgeneralisation of the term “the south”, as though the entire region were under occupation – a characterisation he described as inaccurate and strategically misleading.
Najjar explained that Russia positioned itself as a guarantor of the border with Israel, and that the Syrian government saw this offer as a political opportunity and a card it could deploy, when necessary, particularly in dealings with the United States and Israel.
He pointed out that Russia conducts aerial patrols along the disengagement line in the Golan Heights, including helicopter flights near the border, monitoring Israeli and Syrian movements without crossing the demarcation line. These activities, he stressed, are carried out with American approval, reflecting Washington’s desire to avoid fundamental disputes with Israel.
In addition, Najjar said Russia works – by mutual understanding – to coordinate security communications between the two sides, describing its role as central in this regard. He argued that Russia’s objectives are not limited to southern Syria alone but are linked to the protection of its broader strategic interests, such as the Hmeimim airbase and the port of Tartus.
Najjar noted that Damascus is keen to preserve the “thread of continuity” with Moscow, while simultaneously attempting to curb Israeli incursions. In his assessment, the Syrian leadership believes that concessions of some forms are unavoidable, whether geographically or politically, and with one party or another.
He also suggested that the United States will remain the principal sponsor of any Syrian–Israeli security agreement and will not leave this role solely to Russia. He recalled that during the period of the former Assad regime and the presence of Iranian forces in Syria, Russia provided coordinates enabling strikes against Iranian positions inside Syrian territory.
Israel, Najjar added, values this Russian cooperation and accepts Moscow as the current security intermediary and a field-balancing actor. At the same time, Israel demands clear guarantees from the Syrian state, a space in which the role of Thomas Barrack, he argued, has become more prominent than that of Russia, which is seeking to expand its role in Syria as a stabilising force during the current phase and views this role as an important bargaining chip in its dealings with Damascus.
