In just over a week after the offensive by the Syrian opposition began, Russian authorities shifted their rhetoric. Instead of referring to Bashar al-Assad’s opponents as “terrorists,” they started calling them “the opposition.” This change in rhetoric has been observed across nearly all major Russian state media.

For example, on December 2, the Kremlin-controlled RIA Novosti news agency put out a story with the headline, “Terrorists seize Aleppo with the support of the US and Ukraine, a source told.” However, after the fall of the Assad regime, the media outlet published the headline “The armed opposition says it took power in Syria.”

RT also released a piece after the fall of the Syrian regime titled, “A representative of the Syrian opposition speaks about the importance of good relations with Russia.” It cited an anonymous source who is presented as “a member of the Istanbul-based Syrian National Council, Anas al-Abda.” The source stated that Russia is “a very important player in the world” and that Syria seeks good relations with Russia based on “the mutual interests of both nations,” as summarized by RT.

Another narrative adopted by Russian state media criticizes the Syrian army for surrendering cities and not even attempting to fight, thereby betraying the significant support Russia provided over the previous decade.

On December 8, a correspondent for Russia’s largest state TV channel, Channel One, reported on air that despite their superior numbers, the Syrian army surrendered without resistance, saying, “what government forces had been fought back over years with the support of Russian troops was given up in just a week.”

“Russia supported Assad in 2015 during a critical period for the country, providing naval and air support – but not soldiers. Ground operations were conducted by government troops and pro-Iranian forces,” the Channel One correspondent said.

A similar perspective was reported by the super-loyalist newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda. It argued that the Syrian army failed because “felt secure under the protection of the Russian air force” and had put off reforms.

“The Assad government had eight years of peace thanks to the intervention of Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. These years should have been used to reform the state. But reform would have required ceding power, sidelining loyalists and rewarding those who are out of favor. Giving away something for nothing is seen as a weakness. Reform is not an Eastern tradition, and Assad chose not to pursue it. We see the result,” wrote Komsomolskaya Pravda.

Some Russian state media and authorities even portrayed Syria as a victory for Russian forces. Pro-Kremlin journalist Andrei Medvedev, on his Telegram channel, blamed the Syrian authorities for the situation and praised the Russian military.
“It’s important to understand and remember that regardless of current events, the military campaign in Syria will remain in Russian history as a symbol of the victory of Russian arms and the heroism of Russian soldiers and officers,” Medvedev wrote. He added that Russians “cannot be greater patriots of Syria than comrade Assad.”
The Russian International Affairs Council published an article titled “Russia Must Lead Changes in Syria,” in which Ahmed Dahshan, described as an Egyptian historian and international relations researcher, wrote “as of 2024, Russia has fully achieved its geopolitical objectives in Syria.”

“It is time for Syria to crystalize into a success story for Russia and to leverage Russia’s excellent relations with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and Jordan,” Dahshan argues.

He added that Russia’s presence in Syria is not a matter of debate “even in the US and the EU” and that “the process of change in Syria may mark the beginning of a gradual restoration of trust between Moscow and Washington under the Trump administration.”

Now, Russia is in talks with the new Syrian government regarding the future of its military bases. On December 12, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov told journalists that Moscow had “established contact” with the new Syrian government and said that Russian bases remain in place.

“The bases were there at the request of the Syrian authorities, with the goal of combating terrorists and ISIS,” the Russian news agency Interfax quoted Bogdanov as saying. “I assume everyone agrees that the fight against terrorism and the remnants of ISIS is not over.“

On December 16, Vladimir Putin’s press secretary, Dmitri Peskov, confirmed to journalists that talks about Russian military bases had begun, according to Interfax.

“Currently, there are no final decisions on this matter. We are maintaining contacts with representatives of the forces now controlling the situation in the country, and all of this will be determined through dialogue,” Peskov said.

Assad himself has received asylum in Moscow “for humanitarian reasons,” according to the state news outlet TASS, which cited an anonymous source. Several Russian politicians are discussing the possibility of granting Russian citizenship to Assad. On December 9, Duma Deputy Alexei Zhuravlev proposed that idea on his Telegram channel, arguing that Assad, “despite all the current negative attitudes toward him, has done quite a lot for Russia.”

Another Duma deputy, Dmitri Kuznetsov, a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, expressed an even more radical idea in an interview with the pro-Kremlin Gazeta.ru. He suggested sending Assad to help rebuild occupied Ukrainian territory in exchange for Russian citizenship.

“I believe that Bashar Assad, or rather his family, could take charge of one of the regions affected by the military actions in the Donbas and settle in one of the new residential buildings in Mariupol,” said Kuznetsov. “I support the idea of him serving the Russian people and later his contribution to rebuilding Donbas could be considered grounds for citizenship.”