Unraveling Regional Dynamics in Syria and Ukraine
How Israeli strikes, Ukrainian negotiations, and U.S. strategy form a deliberate continuum
(High-level military delegations from Ukraine, Syria, and Israel met in Turkey during IDEF2025 in Istanbul. Notably, Ukraine supports both Israel against Gaza and the new Syrian regime)
Israeli forces have carried out air strikes across Syrian territory in recent days, including direct hits inside Damascus. Targets included areas claimed to harbour militant groups and specific zones with Druze populations. The Israeli military described the operations as protective in nature, citing threats to the Druze community. No evidence was provided to show the Druze were under immediate attack. Al-Jolani, the leader of the current administration in Damascus, has previously cooperated with Israeli and Turkish interests. His public positioning has been notably conciliatory toward both governments. Despite this, Israeli forces attacked positions under his nominal control.
Al-Jolani claims authority over what remains of the Syrian state, although the reality is that Syria has collapsed as a unified sovereign structure. Government ministries and institutional bodies exist and persist in all but name only. The central bank, the finance ministry, and the education department operate with no real capacity. Administrative frameworks from the Assad era continue to exist on paper, but they no longer exert control or direct national policy. Al-Jolani relies on a militia force to maintain presence in the capital. This militia is not a trained military organisation and cannot operate as a cohesive army. Its loyalty is uncertain, and its strategic coordination appears disjointed and inconsistent.
( Israeli strike on Syrian Ministry of Defence, Damascus, July 2025)
The Syrian conflict has entered a prolonged phase of foreign-managed fragmentation. Turkish forces influence northern Syria through proxies and direct deployments. Israeli air power asserts dominance in the south of Syria. The first thing Israel did when Syria fell was to destroy Syria’s air defences. The Druze community in southern Syria has been cited by Israeli officials as the reason for recent military actions. The strikes have occurred near areas where the Syrian Arab Army entered following internal unrest. Armed confrontations between local Druze factions and state forces began after disputes over governance and security. The presence of the Syrian military in Sweida was a response to armed resistance, not an offensive campaign against civilians. Israeli forces have used this context to justify air strikes on Syrian positions. These strikes are coordinated and repeat across the same regions. The pattern reflects a steady establishment of a zone under Israeli control. This is being shaped without diplomatic process or internationally recognised agreement. Israel is shaping a permanent sphere of influence without formal recognition of territorial changes. Turkish cooperation has enabled this process to continue without public confrontation.
Erdogan presents a public image of defiance toward Israel, but operational realities contradict this narrative. Israeli aircraft reportedly conducted strikes on Iran from Azerbaijani territory, requiring transit over Turkish-controlled airspace. No known or reported obstruction was issued by Turkish forces. This suggests prior agreement or active coordination. Erdogan’s dual approach remains consistent, the guy is a proper snake. Public rhetoric supports anti-Israeli positions, while policy decisions accommodate Israeli objectives. The same pattern applies in Syria, where Turkish support for Al-Jolani has not translated into resistance against Israeli expansion. Erdogan appears satisfied with informal divisions that preserve Turkish leverage in the north.
( The occupation of Syria prior to Assad’s removal)
Al-Jolani’s position in Damascus is politically fragile. Criticism has grown among internal factions accusing him of conceding too much to Israel. The recent strikes may serve a secondary purpose of portraying Al-Jolani as a target rather than a collaborator. This could ease pressure from rival groups and prolong his administrative role. The perception of Israeli hostility can be used to refute claims of alliance. Whether this perception is manufactured or incidental, it serves the interests of both Erdogan and Israeli leadership. Neither government benefits from instability in Damascus if the alternative is loss of influence.
Beyond Syria, details emerged about Ukraine’s ongoing war and military posture, including a leaked draft of Ukraine’s peace memorandum showing a clause rejecting any external limits on troop deployment or foreign military presence. This issue forms the core of Russia’s longstanding position. Russian officials have repeatedly stated that any settlement must include the full demilitarisation of Ukraine. Moscow has consistently warned that no agreement is possible if Ukraine retains unrestricted military capabilities or hosts foreign forces on its territory. The presence of NATO personnel, even under a peacekeeping label, has been defined by Russia as a direct threat to its national security. The leaked clause contradicts these terms entirely and signals no shift in Ukraine’s position. Its removal from the final version handed to Russia does not confirm a change in substance. Russia will view any foreign military structure inside Ukraine, regardless of legal framing, as a violation of its core security red lines.
Recent reports confirm preparations for foreign troop deployments into Ukraine under the label of a peacekeeping force. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer acknowledged that land forces are included in the proposed security framework. The plan mirrors earlier statements by U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who called for a Syria-style buffer zone to freeze the conflict. The stated goal remains the transfer of military responsibility to European and non-NATO partners, rather than reaching any settlement with Russia. Under this framework, the U.S. would focus resources elsewhere while Europe maintains the frozen frontline.
The U.S. strategy is based on division of labour among allies and sequencing of conflicts. By prolonging the war in Ukraine without escalation, Washington avoids overextension. This allows attention and assets to pivot toward Iran and China. The long-term objective is to entangle adversaries in multiple regional confrontations. Russia remains fixed in Ukraine, reducing its ability to support Iran or assist China in future disputes. This approach was outlined in detail by the Rand Corporation’s 2019 paper Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground, which proposed measures to overextend and destabilise Russia through protracted regional conflicts, including lethal aid to Ukraine and support for opposition groups in Syria. Additional alignment appears in documents from the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, the America First Policy Institute, and the Marathon Initiative. These groups proposed a strategy of sequencing confrontations by tying down Russia, pressuring Iran, and isolating China through military, economic, and proxy means. The recommendations were formulated before the 2024 election and have continued under the current administration without change in direction.
Statements from Ukrainian and Western officials describe new long-range missile programmes as domestically produced. However, production facilities in Ukraine cannot support such capacity within the described timelines. The missiles are almost certainly manufactured abroad and assembled or staged locally. This is intended to obscure direct Western responsibility for strikes inside Russian territory. Germany is funding and facilitating these transfers while publicly maintaining distance. The construction of a new missile capability inside Ukraine serves as a pretext for increasing military assistance while avoiding direct accountability.
Russian missile and drone strikes continue to target Ukrainian infrastructure and frontline positions. Reports confirm use of large-scale drone swarms, including Garan and FPV types, in quantities beyond Ukrainian interception capacity. Daily attacks are eroding Ukrainian air defences and supply chains. Western stockpiles of ammunition and high-grade systems are not being replenished at the required pace. Industrial capacity in Europe and the United States cannot match the intensity of Russian production. This gap has become more visible over the past year, with Western sources now acknowledging the scale of the imbalance.
Meanwhile, Australia has pledged to deliver more Abrams tanks to Ukraine. These will take months to arrive and will be deployed in limited numbers. Previous deliveries of Western tanks, including Leopard and Challenger models, have been largely neutralised by Russian anti-tank systems. No battlefield advantage has been established through these transfers. The pattern suggests symbolic support rather than effective reinforcement, they love optics and making appearances. Reminds me of that funny British comedy “ Keeping Up Appearances”. If you have never watched it, please do. The presence of Western armour has failed to reverse the territorial situation. The main effect is to extend the duration of Ukrainian resistance without altering the outcome.
The U.S. and its partners have shifted from seeking decisive victory to applying continued pressure through controlled escalation and geographic containment. The logic mirrors the Syria model, where buffer zones were established without resolution, and Ukraine is being prepared for the same long-term role. Foreign troops will hold fixed lines while diplomatic channels remain inactive, accompanied by peace proposals that serve tactical goals rather than genuine settlement. Moscow remains aware of this pattern and has not responded positively to offers seen as cover for strategic delay.
The policy of freezing conflicts has been deployed repeatedly since the early 2000s. Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine have all experienced forms of it. The long-term goal remains geopolitical dominance through regional instability. The Stability Doctrine is a key example of this and has been so effective at keeping Africans divided, whilst they are being recolonised. No single US administration holds exclusive responsibility for the strategy, and has been implemented in stages by successive U.S. presidents, including Trump and Obama. Each shift in leadership adjusts the method, whilst the trajectory remains the same. Ukraine is the current case on the chopping board, Iran and China are the next.
This strategy has caused repeated destruction of state structures without building replacements. So, it basically maintains U.S. influence but increases humanitarian and political costs in each affected region, best described as continuity without deviation. Syria remains divided, whilst Ukraine remains destabilised, and the pattern is being extended further east. There is no indication of a fundamental policy change as such, what is observable are updates to operational details.
The Israeli strikes in Syria, contradictions in Ukrainian negotiations, and broader U.S. strategic posture connect as parts of a single extended approach. This approach follows a managed, incremental, and intentionally destructive pattern. Every action fits within a carefully planned sequence. Each regional collapse serves as a stabilized outcome when it supports external control. These measures establish permanent adjustments to the political geography of the affected regions rather than temporary changes.
Athoured By:
If a few more people choose to become paid subscribers, Popular Information could expose more lies, root out more corruption, and call out more hypocrites. So, if you can afford it, please support this work.
One off support: buymeacoffee.com/ggtv