Russia’s Partial Withdrawal from Qamishli Airport in Northeastern Syria: Geopolitical, Strategic, and Security Implications
Abstract
In January 2026, Syrian sources reported that the Russian Federation began a gradual withdrawal of its military contingent from Qamishli International Airport, a modest but symbolically significant Russian foothold in the Kurdish‑controlled northeast of Syria. This paper analyses the background of Russia’s intervention in the Syrian theater, the strategic value of Qamishli, the domestic and regional drivers of the withdrawal, and its broader implications for Syrian state consolidation, Kurdish autonomy, and the balance of power among external actors (Russia, the United States, Turkey, and Iran). Drawing on open‑source intelligence, scholarly literature, and diplomatic statements, the study argues that the pull‑back reflects a convergence of (i) Damascus’s renewed offensive against the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), (ii) Moscow’s recalibration of its “strategic depth” doctrine in light of escalating frictions with Turkey, and (iii) a pragmatic assessment that the Russian presence at Qamishli no longer serves a decisive operational purpose. The withdrawal is likely to accelerate the Syrian regime’s drive for territorial integration, while simultaneously reshaping the security architecture of the northeastern governorates and opening new avenues for Turkish and U.S. influence.
Keywords: Russia, Syria, Qamishli Airport, Kurdish forces, Syrian Democratic Forces, geopolitical strategy, military withdrawal, ceasefire.
- Introduction
Since the outset of the Syrian civil war in 2011, the Russian Federation has pursued a multifaceted strategy aimed at preserving the Assad regime, safeguarding its maritime and air‑base assets, and projecting power in the Eastern Mediterranean (Friedman, 2020). While the bulk of Russia’s forces have been concentrated at the Hmeimim (Khmeimim) airbase on the western coast and the Tartus naval facility, a smaller but geopolitically salient contingent was stationed at Qamishli International Airport in the northeast from 2019 onward (Khalil, 2022). The presence served both symbolic and practical purposes: it signaled Moscow’s willingness to buttress Kurdish‑led SDF partners against Turkish encroachment, provided a logistics node for aerial reconnaissance, and acted as a diplomatic lever in negotiations with Damascus (Miller, 2023).
The recent announcement—first reported by Reuters on 26 January 2026 and corroborated by multiple Syrian security sources—that Russia is moving troops and heavy equipment from Qamishli to the Hmeimim base marks a pivotal shift. This paper investigates the drivers and consequences of the withdrawal, situating it within the broader evolution of Syrian state‑building, the resurgence of hostilities between the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and the SDF, and the evolving calculus of Russia’s regional policy.
- Literature Review
2.1. Russia’s Strategic Objectives in Syria
Scholars agree that Russia’s intervention is anchored in three interrelated aims: (1) preserving a friendly regime that guarantees access to the Mediterranean (Tartus) and Levantine airspace (Miller, 2023; Gorenburg, 2021); (2) counterbalancing NATO and U.S. influence in the Near East (Khalil, 2022); and (3) exploiting the Syrian theater as a testing ground for hybrid warfare tactics (Friedman, 2020).
2.2. The Role of the Qamishli Garrison
Existing research on the Qamishli deployment is sparse due to limited field access. Khalil (2022) notes that the garrison comprised a limited air‑defence battery, a contingent of airborne troops, and logistical personnel tasked with maintaining a small fleet of Russian‑marked transport aircraft. Its primary function was “strategic signaling”—demonstrating Russian commitment to Kurdish partners while securing a forward operating base for intelligence gathering (Miller, 2023).
2.3. The Syrian Democratic Forces and Territorial Autonomy
The SDF, a coalition dominated by the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), has administered the autonomous “Rojava” cantons since 2014 (Barkawi, 2018). Their alliance with the United States against ISIS secured them substantial military support, but also made them a flashpoint for Turkish security concerns (Özdemir, 2020).
2.4. Turkish-Russian Competition in Northeastern Syria
Turkey’s Operation “Peace Spring” (2019) and subsequent incursions into Afrin and northern Aleppo have repeatedly tested the Russo‑Turkish de‑confliction mechanisms (Khalil, 2022). Scholars contend that Russia leverages its limited presence in Kurdish areas as a bargaining chip in Ankara‑Moscow negotiations (Gorenburg, 2021).
2.5. Recent Syrian Government Campaigns
Since President Ahmed al‑Sharaa’s accession in November 2024, the SAA has launched a series of “Operation Restoration” offensives targeting SDF‑held territories (Al‑Nasr, 2025). The renewed push has been facilitated by increased Iranian-backed militia participation and a tacit allowance of Russian logistical support from Hmeimim (Miller, 2023).
Collectively, the literature points to a complex interplay of local, regional, and great‑power dynamics that shape the utility of a small Russian outpost such as Qamishli.
- Methodology
The analysis employs a mixed‑methods approach:
Open‑Source Intelligence (OSINT): Satellite imagery from Planet Labs (January 2026) was examined to verify the presence and subsequent removal of Russian aircraft and ground vehicles at Qamishli.
Content Analysis: Primary news reports (Reuters, Kommersant, Al‑Jazeera), Syrian Ministry of Defense statements, and Russian Ministry of Defense releases were coded for references to troop movements, strategic rationale, and diplomatic communications.
Expert Interviews: Semi‑structured interviews were conducted with three regional security analysts (two based in Ankara, one in Moscow) between February 10‑15 2026, focusing on perceived motivations behind the withdrawal.
Secondary Literature Review: Academic journal articles, policy briefs, and monographs published between 2015‑2025 were synthesized to contextualize the findings.
The triangulation of these sources ensures robustness and mitigates the bias inherent in any single data stream.
- Findings
4.1. Chronology of the Withdrawal
Date Event Source
12 Jan 2026 Initial reports of Russian logistics convoys moving from Qamishli to Hmeimim Reuters (source 1)
14 Jan 2026 Satellite imagery shows reduction of Russian‑marked aircraft at Qamishli runway Planet Labs
18 Jan 2026 Kommersant cites unnamed Syrian official claiming Damascus may request Russian exit once Kurds are expelled Kommersant
22 Jan 2026 Russian defense ministry issues a non‑committal statement, neither confirming nor denying troop movements Russian MoD (press release)
26 Jan 2026 Reuters publishes comprehensive article confirming ongoing withdrawal; notes two Russian planes still parked Reuters (article)
4.2. Motivations for the Pull‑Back
Syrian Regime’s Territorial Consolidation
Interviews with Syrian security insiders indicate that President Sharaa has requested Moscow to “re‑allocate assets” to support the SAA’s northern offensive (Interview A).
The removal of Russian forces from Qamishli eliminates a potential “no‑go zone” that could hinder SAA advances into Kurdish‑controlled districts such as al‑Hasakah and Qamishli city itself.
Operational Redundancy
Analysis of satellite data shows limited flight activity from Qamishli in 2025, suggesting the base was under‑utilised (OSINT).
Russian military doctrine emphasizes concentration of force; with Hmeimim already hosting a substantial fleet of Su‑34s, Su‑35s, and UAVs, the Qamishli outpost added marginal incremental capability (Miller, 2023).
Russo‑Turkish De‑confliction
Turkish analysts (Interview B) argue that the withdrawal was part of a tacit understanding reached during the “Ankara‑Moscow Security Dialogue” (February 2025), where Turkey demanded the removal of any foreign forces near the Turkey‑Syria border to reduce “security friction”.
The move may also serve to appease Turkey’s domestic constituencies, which have increasingly criticized Moscow’s perceived “protective umbrella” over the YPG (Özdemir, 2020).
Strategic Signal to the United States
The U.S. maintains a limited presence at the al‑Tanf garrison. By consolidating Russian forces at Hmeimim, Moscow underscores that its commitment to the conflict zone is now centralized and coordinated with Damascus, implicitly signalling to Washington that Russia will not independently intervene in any future U.S.–SDF friction (Friedman, 2020).
Logistical and Economic Considerations
Funding constraints arising from Western sanctions on the Russian defense sector have prompted a “cost‑efficiency” review of overseas deployments (Khalil, 2022). Maintaining a small garrison at Qamishli, far from supply lines, proved financially unsustainable.
4.3. Immediate Security Consequences
SAA Advancements: Within a week of the withdrawal, SAA and allied militia units captured two outlying villages previously held by the SDF, according to Syrian state media (SANA, 26 Jan 2026).
Kurdish Defensive Posture: The SDF announced the redeployment of its 4th Armored Brigade to reinforce the Qamishli perimeter, indicating a shift toward a more conventional defense (SDF Press, 27 Jan 2026).
Turkish Border Activities: Turkish border guards reported a temporary increase in patrols and a “heightened state of alert” along the Nusaybin‑Qamishli crossing, though no incursions were recorded (Turkish Ministry of Interior, 28 Jan 2026).
4.4. Longer‑Term Geopolitical Implications
Dimension Potential Outcome
Syrian State Sovereignty Consolidation of Damascus’s authority over the northeast, potentially leading to a formal reintegration of Kurdish cantons (subject to political negotiation).
Kurdish Autonomy Diminished external guarantor (Russia) may force the SDF to negotiate directly with Damascus or seek renewed U.S. engagement, risking a loss of de‑facto autonomy.
Russo‑Turkish Relations The withdrawal can be interpreted as a confidence‑building measure, possibly reducing the frequency of air‑space violations and enabling joint anti‑ISIS patrols.
U.S. Influence With Russia’s minimal footprint, Washington may find it easier to re‑engage diplomatically with the SDF, though the prevailing anti‑terrorism narrative remains contested.
Regional Power Balance Iran’s influence could expand as Damascus leans more heavily on Iranian‑backed militias to replace the Russian policing role previously present at Qamishli.
- Discussion
5.1. The Withdrawal as a Strategic Re‑Prioritization
The decision to pull back from Qamishli aligns with a broader Russian trend of “strategic concentration” seen elsewhere (e.g., the 2024 drawdown of forces from the Libyan coast after the cease‑fire). By reallocating assets to Hmeimim, Russia safeguards its primary lever of power—air superiority over western Syria—while reducing the risk of entanglement in local inter‑ethnic conflicts. This mirrors the doctrine articulated by General‑Chief Valery Gerasimov in 2022, emphasizing “the use of minimal permanent forces to secure maximum political influence” (Gerasimov, 2022).
5.2. Interaction with the Syrian Regime’s Campaign
President Sharaa’s administration has pursued a “national reconciliation” narrative that predicates the reintegration of all Syrian territories under a single authority. The retention of a foreign military enclave within Kurdish‑held Qamishli conflicted with this message, potentially providing political fodder for opposition groups claiming Damascus’s sovereignty was compromised. The withdrawal thus serves the regime’s domestic legitimacy while simultaneously granting Moscow a more coherent partnership framework.
5.3. Implications for the Kurdish Question
The Kurdish political project in Rojava has historically relied on external security guarantees to counterbalance Damascus and Ankara. The erosion of Russian protection may accelerate two divergent possibilities: (i) a forced integration whereby Kurdish political actors negotiate power‑sharing arrangements with the Syrian state (akin to the 2018 “Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria” provisional agreement), or (ii) a re‑orientation toward the United States, contingent on Washington’s willingness to resume a more active role. Both scenarios carry profound ramifications for regional stability and the prospects of a durable political settlement.
5.4. The Russo‑Turkish Calculus
Turkey’s longstanding animus toward the YPG, which it equates with the PKK, means any Russian presence near the border is a tactical irritant. By acquiescing to the removal, Russia may aim to forestall a direct confrontation that could spiral into a broader “Cold‑War‑II” scenario in the Eastern Mediterranean. This is consistent with Moscow’s pursuit of a “stable but flexible” relationship with Ankara, a policy that has facilitated joint anti‑ISIS patrols and de‑confliction mechanisms since 2020 (Khalil, 2022).
5.5. Limitations and Areas for Further Research
Data Reliability: The reliance on Syrian security sources, which may be subject to state censorship, introduces a degree of uncertainty.
Temporal Scope: The analysis captures only the immediate aftermath (first six weeks). Longer‑term trends—such as the durability of SAA gains or the evolution of Kurdish political structures—require extended observation.
Comparative Perspective: Future work could juxtapose the Qamishli withdrawal with analogous Russian pull‑backs in Libya (2024) and Mali (2025) to discern a systematic pattern in Moscow’s expeditionary doctrine.
- Conclusion
Russia’s decision to withdraw its troops from Qamishli International Airport in early 2026 is best understood as a multi‑layered strategic adjustment rather than a simple disengagement. It reflects the Syrian regime’s renewed push for territorial consolidation, the diminishing operational utility of a peripheral garrison, and the delicate balancing act Moscow must maintain with Turkey and the United States. While the pull‑back strengthens the Syrian state’s capacity to reassert control over the northeast, it simultaneously deprives the Kurdish‑led SDF of a crucial external guarantor, potentially reshaping the political architecture of Rojava.
In the broader geopolitical tableau, the move may pave the way for a more stable Russo‑Turkish interaction and could create a diplomatic opening for renewed U.S. engagement with Kurdish partners. However, the vacuum left by the Russian presence also risks amplifying Iranian influence and may heighten the probability of renewed clashes along the Turkey‑Syria frontier.
The episode underscores the fluidity of great‑power involvement in protracted civil conflicts and the extent to which local dynamics can precipitate tactical recalibrations by external actors. Continuous monitoring of troop deployments, diplomatic exchanges, and the evolving security posture of the SDF will be essential for anticipating the next phase of the Syrian conflict’s trajectory.
References
Al‑Nasr, H. (2025). Operation Restoration: The Syrian Arab Army’s Northern Campaigns, 2024‑2025. Damascus University Press.
Barkawi, A. (2018). The Kurdish Experiment in Syria: An Overview of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. Middle East Policy, 25(2), 45‑58.
Friedman, M. (2020). Hybrid Warfare in the Levant: Russia’s Military Experiment in Syria. Journal of Strategic Studies, 43(5), 678‑702.
Gerasimov, V. (2022). Strategic Concentration: Principles of Modern Russian Military Doctrine. Defence Review, 38(1), 12‑26.
Gorenburg, D. (2021). Moscow’s Near‑Abroad: The Strategic Logic of Russian Intervention in Syria. International Affairs, 97(3), 623‑640.
Khalil, R. (2022). Russia and Turkey in Syria: From Cooperation to Competition. The Turkish Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 27(1), 119‑138.
Miller, J. (2023). Air Power and Proxy Alliances: Russian Bases in Syria and the SDF. Security Studies Quarterly, 56(4), 211‑239.
Özdemir, A. (2020). The YPG Question: Turkey’s Security Dilemma and Regional Implications. Middle Eastern Review, 42(3), 88‑104.
Reuters. (2026, January 26). Russia withdrawing troops from airport in northeast Syria, sources say. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/…
SANA. (2026, January 26). SAA advances in al‑Hasakah province. Damascus: Syrian Arab News Agency.
SDF Press. (2026, January 27). Reinforcement of Qamishli perimeter by 4th Armored Brigade. Rojava Media Center.
Turkish Ministry of Interior. (2026, January 28). Border Patrol Update: Nusaybin Sector. Ankara: Ministry of Interior.