On December 25, 2024, Azerbaijan Airlines Flight J2-8243, an Embraer 190 passenger jet, crashed near Aktau, Kazakhstan, killing 38 of the 67 individuals on board. The crash has drawn significant geopolitical attention due to allegations of Russian involvement. Early indications and investigations suggest that the plane may have been struck by a Russian air defense missile during its approach to Grozny, Chechnya. The incident has strained relations between Azerbaijan, Russia, and Kazakhstan while raising broader concerns about aviation safety in conflict zones.

Flight Details: The plane departed from Baku, Azerbaijan, and was en route to Grozny, Russia.

Crash Site: Approximately three kilometers from Aktau Airport, Kazakhstan.

Fatalities and Survivors: 38 fatalities, including both pilots, and 29 survivors, with some in critical condition.

Aircraft Details: Embraer 190, registered as 4K-AZ65, manufactured in 2013.

Fog and Flight Diversion: The flight encountered heavy fog over Grozny, causing a diversion.

GPS Jamming: Strong GPS interference was reported, likely caused by Russian electronic warfare systems.

Explosion Reports: Survivors and crew reported hearing multiple explosions over Grozny.

Emergency Landing Attempt: The aircraft attempted to land at Aktau but crashed after losing control.

Shrapnel Damage: Preliminary investigations revealed perforations on the fuselage consistent with an air defense missile strike.

Electronic Jamming: GPS interference disrupted navigation and communication systems.

Control Failures: Hydraulic and steering systems were critically damaged.

Drone Activity: Ukrainian drones reportedly targeted Russian regions, triggering air defense responses.

Russian Air Defense: The missile strike is suspected to have originated from a Russian Pantsir-S system.

Closed Airspace Protocol: Russia’s failure to close Grozny’s airspace amid drone attacks has been criticized.

Azerbaijan: President Ilham Aliyev demanded accountability while avoiding direct accusations against Russia.

Russia: President Vladimir Putin issued condolences but refrained from admitting responsibility.

United States: Early indications from U.S. intelligence suggest Russian involvement.

Ukraine: Officials emphasized the need for international scrutiny of Russian air defense systems.

Kazakhstan: Authorities pledged full cooperation in the investigation.

Azerbaijan-Russia: The incident has strained relations, with Azerbaijan seeking an apology and compensation.

Kazakhstan-Russia: Kazakhstan faces pressure to maintain neutrality amid conflicting geopolitical interests.

Safety in Conflict Zones: The crash highlights risks to civilian aviation near active conflict zones.

International Oversight: Calls for independent investigations and stricter airspace protocols have intensified.

South Caucasus Dynamics: The crash underscores Azerbaijan’s growing assertiveness and Russia’s declining influence in the region.

NATO and EU: Western entities may leverage the incident to critique Russian military practices.

The Azerbaijan Airlines crash is a tragic reminder of the dangers posed by the intersection of civil aviation and military operations. While investigations continue, the geopolitical ramifications are already evident. Ensuring accountability, improving aviation safety, and addressing regional tensions will be critical to preventing similar incidents in the future.

This report provides a comprehensive geopolitical analysis of the Azerbaijan Airlines Flight J2-8243 crash near Aktau, Kazakhstan, on December 25, 2024. It examines the technical, geopolitical, and aviation safety factors surrounding the incident, including allegations of Russian air defense involvement, its impact on regional relations, and broader implications for aviation security in conflict zones. The report consolidates findings from multiple sources and highlights the critical interplay between civil aviation and military operations in volatile regions.

Geopolitical Analysis of the Azerbaijan Airlines Plane Crash in Kazakhstan

The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) is the world’s largest consortium of investigative journalists, recognized for its role in exposing corruption, organized crime, and financial misconduct globally. Since its establishment in 2006, OCCRP has partnered with prestigious media outlets like The Guardian, Le Monde, and The New York Times, contributing to landmark investigations such as the Panama Papers, Cyprus Confidential, and the Russian Asset Tracker. Despite its achievements, the organization operates under a cloud of controversy due to its structural reliance on U.S. government funding.

OCCRP’s co-founder and publisher, Drew Sullivan, plays a pivotal role in the organization. A veteran journalist, Sullivan has built OCCRP into the world’s largest investigative journalism consortium, renowned for cross-border collaboration and impactful reporting. However, his tenure has not been without controversy. Under Sullivan’s leadership, OCCRP’s heavy reliance on U.S. funding has raised ethical concerns, with critics arguing that this dependence undermines the organization’s independence and credibility. While Sullivan staunchly defends OCCRP’s editorial autonomy, revelations about the influence of external funding on its operations have sparked debates about transparency and accountability within the organization.



Mediapart’s Investigation: A Spotlight on Transparency and Independence



Mediapart, in collaboration with German broadcaster NDR and other international outlets, conducted a detailed investigation into OCCRP’s funding and its connections to the U.S. government. The findings reveal troubling aspects of OCCRP’s operations that raise questions about its transparency and independence.




o	The U.S. government provides approximately half of OCCRP’s budget through entities like the Agency for International Development (USAID) and the State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL).
o	Some grants specifically target investigations into U.S. adversaries, such as Russia and Venezuela, while prohibiting investigations into U.S. interests.


o	U.S. funding agreements grant veto power over the appointment of OCCRP’s key personnel, including senior editorial roles, raising concerns about external influence on its leadership.


o	OCCRP has been accused of failing to disclose the extent of its ties to the U.S. government, even to its partner media organizations, undermining trust in its independence.



OCCRP’s Connection to the U.S. Government



OCCRP was initially funded through covert support from the INL, with financial oversight transferred to USAID to mask the origins of the funding. This close relationship has positioned OCCRP as an instrument aligned with U.S. foreign policy objectives. While OCCRP defends its editorial independence, the investigation highlights instances where U.S. influence shapes the organization’s operations, both directly and indirectly.



Grants aimed at investigations into adversaries like Russia and Venezuela align with U.S. geopolitical priorities.

The Global Anti-Corruption Consortium (GACC), a partnership between OCCRP and Transparency International, has been used to encourage judicial actions and sanctions against corruption in countries of interest to the U.S.




Russia: Investigating Corruption and Assets


OCCRP has been at the forefront of uncovering Russian corruption. For instance, its Russian Asset Tracker created the largest non-governmental database of oligarchs’ assets. This aligns with U.S. sanctions policies, as Washington seeks to expose and penalize Russian elites linked to the Kremlin.


Grants earmarked for Venezuela have funded investigations into corruption under Nicolás Maduro’s regime. OCCRP’s findings have bolstered U.S. efforts to isolate Venezuela diplomatically and economically.

Through projects like Cyprus Confidential, OCCRP has uncovered schemes involving Russian oligarchs and financial institutions. These investigations often lead to tangible consequences, such as judicial inquiries supported by U.S. agencies like the FBI.




Despite operating in regions impacted by alleged U.S. corporate misconduct, such as corruption linked to Bechtel, OCCRP has avoided covering such stories due to funding restrictions. The Bechtel case serves as a glaring example of the ethical complexities tied to OCCRP’s funding structure, highlighting its avoidance of investigations into prominent U.S. corporations with substantial global influence. Bechtel, a major American engineering and construction firm, has been implicated in multiple scandals involving corruption, bribery, and mismanagement. These include allegations of overcharging and delays during the Iraq reconstruction efforts, mishandling nuclear energy projects, and its role in the infamous Cochabamba Water War in Bolivia, where skyrocketing water prices after privatization led to widespread protests and violent repression. Despite the significance of such cases, OCCRP has consistently avoided scrutinizing Bechtel, a decision that underscores the influence of U.S. government funding conditions, which reportedly restrict investigations into U.S. interests. This omission not only raises questions about the organization’s independence but also fuels perceptions of double standards, as OCCRP heavily focuses on exposing corruption in non-Western countries while sidestepping similar misconduct tied to U.S.-aligned entities. The absence of accountability for corporations like Bechtel, deeply intertwined with U.S. political and economic systems, undermines OCCRP’s credibility and highlights the broader risks of relying on state-linked funding for investigative journalism.



Implications for Investigative Journalism



The Mediapart investigation brings to light several ethical and operational challenges for OCCRP and investigative journalism at large:


o	Heavy reliance on state funding creates vulnerabilities, compromising the perception of independence and risking accusations of bias.


o	Without full disclosure of funding sources and their conditions, even the most impactful journalism can face questions of credibility.


o	The alignment of investigative efforts with geopolitical goals risks turning journalism into a tool of statecraft, rather than a check on power.





Mediapart’s investigation into OCCRP highlights the tension between the ideals of investigative journalism—independence, transparency, and accountability—and the realities of funding such operations. While OCCRP’s achievements are laudable, its deep ties to U.S. government funding raise serious questions about the impartiality of its reporting.


For investigative journalism to maintain its role as a watchdog, organizations like OCCRP must address these concerns by ensuring greater transparency and reducing reliance on state funding. As the media landscape becomes increasingly polarized, protecting the credibility and independence of journalism is more critical than ever.




This article delves into the intricate relationship between the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and the U.S. government, as revealed by a Mediapart investigation. It highlights the ethical challenges posed by OCCRP’s heavy reliance on U.S. funding, including restrictions on investigating U.S. interests and the influence of external pressures on its operations. The piece also explores the leadership of Drew Sullivan, OCCRP’s co-founder, and examines high-profile cases like Bechtel, showcasing the broader implications for investigative journalism’s independence and credibility.

Unmasking OCCRP: Investigative Giant or U.S. Government Tool?

François Bayrou’s appointment as France’s Prime Minister marks the latest chapter in a period of unprecedented political turbulence. Tasked with stabilizing a fragmented National Assembly, addressing urgent crises like the aftermath of Cyclone Chido in Mayotte, and navigating a deeply divided political landscape, Bayrou faces formidable challenges. As he works to form a government and articulate his vision, his leadership style and ability to foster consensus will be tested in ways that could define both his tenure and France’s political future.

A Controversial Start Amid the Mayotte Crisis


François Bayrou’s ascension to the role of Prime Minister comes at a moment of heightened political turbulence in France. Just days into his tenure, Bayrou has found himself navigating a fraught landscape marked by criticism, high expectations, and a need for swift action on multiple fronts. His decision to travel to his hometown of Pau during the humanitarian crisis in Mayotte, caused by Cyclone Chido, has dominated the early days of his administration. Critics across the political spectrum have accused him of neglecting his responsibilities as Prime Minister at a time of national need. Bayrou defended his actions, maintaining that he remained fully engaged remotely and promised to visit Mayotte once his government is finalized. However, the incident has provided fodder for opposition figures eager to cast doubt on his leadership.

Forming a Government in a Divided Political Landscape


Bayrou’s immediate challenge lies in forming a government capable of addressing France’s pressing issues, including the aftermath of the Mayotte crisis and the broader economic uncertainties gripping the nation. Over the past week, he has worked closely with President Emmanuel Macron to finalize the composition of his cabinet, which he hopes to present before Christmas. His vision for the government reflects his centrist ethos: a streamlined team of around 25 ministers drawn from across the political spectrum. By incorporating figures from the left, center, and right, he aims to foster a coalition capable of navigating France’s fragmented political landscape.

Central to Bayrou’s agenda is resolving the looming budgetary crisis. The fallout from the censure of Michel Barnier’s government has left Parliament scrambling to approve a temporary “special law” to ensure the state’s functionality into early 2025. While this measure has secured unanimous support, it is only a stopgap solution. Bayrou’s government must draft and pass a comprehensive 2025 budget, a task that will test his ability to build consensus in a deeply divided National Assembly. His pledge to avoid using Article 49.3—the constitutional mechanism for forcing through contentious legislation—adds an additional layer of complexity to his efforts.

Criticism and Perceptions of Bayrou’s Leadership Style

Bayrou’s first appearance in the National Assembly drew mixed reviews. Critics, including members of the New Popular Front (NFP), described his speech as meandering and overly defensive, with some drawing unfavorable comparisons to U.S. President Joe Biden. In response, Bayrou emphasized his methodical style, promising to address every concern and foster collaboration across party lines. This approach, he argues, is essential for stabilizing the current political climate. However, his detractors have questioned whether this style is sufficient to address France’s urgent challenges.

Macron’s Weakened Authority and Bayrou’s Position

The broader political context complicates Bayrou’s task. President Macron’s authority has been significantly weakened by recent political missteps, including the dissolution of the Assembly and the rapid turnover of four prime ministers in a single year. Opposition leaders like Marine Le Pen and Jean-Luc Mélenchon have seized on Macron’s perceived fragility, with Le Pen declaring his presidency “over or almost over.” This sentiment has fueled speculation about an early presidential election, with both Le Pen and Mélenchon positioning themselves as alternatives to a floundering administration. Within this climate, Bayrou’s appointment is seen by some as a reflection of Macron’s diminished control over the political process.

Charting a Policy Agenda for 2025 and Beyond

Bayrou’s general policy statement, scheduled for January 14, is expected to provide clarity on his government’s priorities. Key issues on the horizon include immigration reform, pension adjustments, and the introduction of proportional representation in legislative elections. While these proposals have the potential to garner broad support, they also risk alienating factions within the coalition he hopes to build. Bayrou’s ability to craft policies that resonate across the political spectrum will be a critical measure of his effectiveness.

Bayrou’s commitment to remaining mayor of Pau alongside his role as Prime Minister has sparked debate about the accumulation of political mandates. He argues that this dual role allows him to bridge the divide between local and national governance, but critics within Macron’s Renaissance party have questioned whether this arrangement distracts from his responsibilities in Matignon. The controversy underscores the broader challenge Bayrou faces in building public trust and demonstrating his ability to lead effectively.

A Critical Test of Leadership and Stability

As Bayrou works to form his government and articulate his vision for France, he faces a delicate balancing act. His success will depend on his ability to address immediate crises like the Mayotte recovery and the budget while restoring confidence in the government’s stability and effectiveness. For a leader who has built his career on compromise and bridge-building, the coming weeks will be a critical test of his political acumen and resilience. Whether Bayrou can rise to the occasion remains to be seen, but the stakes for his administration—and for France—could not be higher.

This article explores the early days of François Bayrou as France's new Prime Minister, highlighting the political challenges he faces, including forming a government, addressing a humanitarian crisis in Mayotte, and navigating criticism from opposition parties. Bayrou’s leadership style, his approach to coalition-building, and his efforts to balance competing priorities are examined as he prepares to deliver his policy vision and tackle France's pressing issues.

François Bayrou Grapples with Leadership and Political Challenges


Georgia is embroiled in a significant political crisis marked by widespread protests, allegations of democratic backsliding, and deepening polarization between the government and opposition. The situation intensified following the December 14, 2024, presidential election, where Mikheil Kavelashvili, a former footballer and member of the ruling Georgian Dream party, was elected as president through an electoral college system. This process, the first of its kind in Georgia's history, replaced direct presidential elections as a result of constitutional amendments passed in 2018.

The opposition, led by outgoing President Salome Zourabichvili and pro-European political forces, has refused to recognize the election's legitimacy, citing alleged fraud and government manipulation in both the presidential election and the October 26 parliamentary elections. Protests have been ongoing for weeks, with demonstrators criticizing the Georgian Dream party’s governance, its alignment with Moscow, and its decision to delay EU accession talks until 2028. Police crackdowns on protests have resulted in over 400 arrests, fueling further unrest.

President Zourabichvili has declared her intention to remain in office until new parliamentary elections are held, describing the current legislature as illegitimate. Meanwhile, the ruling party continues to assert its control, with its leaders defending the legitimacy of the elections and dismissing opposition demands as destabilizing.


The crisis is rooted in several interconnected factors. Firstly, the transition to a parliamentary system under constitutional amendments has concentrated power within the ruling Georgian Dream party. The indirect election of the president by a 300-member electoral college, dominated by Georgian Dream, has been widely criticized as undemocratic. This shift reduced direct public participation and fueled suspicions of manipulation, especially given the party's track record of consolidating control over key institutions.

Secondly, the October 26 parliamentary elections, which secured Georgian Dream a majority with 53.93% of the vote, have been marred by accusations of fraud, including vote-buying and irregularities. Opposition parties and international observers have described the elections as lacking transparency.

Additionally, Georgian Dream’s policies, including postponing EU accession talks and adopting laws that mirror Kremlin-style restrictions on media and civil society, have alienated large sections of the population. These policies reflect a broader alignment with Moscow, driven by the party's founder, Bidzina Ivanishvili, a billionaire with strong ties to Russia.

The combination of democratic erosion, perceived pro-Russian policies, and public dissatisfaction with delayed EU integration has created fertile ground for the current unrest.


The international community has reacted strongly to the developments in Georgia. Western governments and organizations have expressed deep concern over the country’s democratic regression. The European Union, which granted Georgia candidate status for EU accession in 2023, has paused the process and cut financial support following the passage of restrictive “foreign agent” laws. French President Emmanuel Macron addressed the Georgian public directly, reaffirming support for their European aspirations and condemning the government’s authoritarian drift. Macron’s decision to speak with Ivanishvili rather than Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze underscored the West’s skepticism about the legitimacy of the current government.

The United States has imposed visa sanctions on 20 Georgian officials accused of undermining democracy. The UK has suspended all support programs for the Georgian government, including defense cooperation, citing "shocking scenes of violence" against protesters. Estonia has sanctioned 14 officials, including the prime minister, in response to the violent crackdown on protests.

These international measures reflect a growing consensus that Georgia’s ruling party is deviating from democratic principles and aligning itself with Moscow, despite public support for EU integration.


The political crisis in Georgia is unlikely to abate in the short term. The ruling Georgian Dream party has shown no willingness to heed opposition demands or hold new elections, instead doubling down on its control through institutional mechanisms. The indirect presidential election, while procedurally valid, further entrenches the party’s dominance and deepens public distrust.

The opposition, led by Zourabichvili, remains fragmented and lacks the organizational strength to mount a cohesive challenge. While protests have been sustained and widespread, their impact has been limited by heavy-handed government responses, including police crackdowns and new legal restrictions on demonstrations. The opposition’s rejection of both the presidential and parliamentary elections ensures continued political deadlock, with Zourabichvili’s defiance symbolizing a broader resistance to Georgian Dream’s governance.

International pressure, while significant, may have limited short-term effects. Sanctions and the suspension of financial support are symbolic but do not address the structural issues within Georgia’s political system. The government’s alignment with Moscow could deepen if Western measures are perceived as punitive rather than constructive. However, sustained international support for Georgian civil society and democratic forces could help counterbalance the government’s authoritarian drift.

Looking ahead, Georgia faces two potential scenarios. In the first, the government maintains its current course, using institutional control and international disengagement to cement its power while navigating closer ties with Russia. This would likely lead to prolonged unrest, international isolation, and diminished prospects for EU integration.

In the second, sustained public pressure, combined with strategic international engagement, forces the government to make concessions, such as holding new elections or introducing reforms to restore democratic norms. This outcome, while more favorable for Georgia’s democratic future, would require a significant shift in the ruling party’s approach and stronger coordination among opposition forces.

The crisis underscores the fragility of Georgia’s democratic institutions and the challenges of balancing domestic governance with competing geopolitical pressures. The country’s future hinges on its ability to reconcile these tensions and align its political trajectory with the aspirations of its people. For now, however, Georgia remains at a crossroads, with its democratic and European ambitions hanging in the balance.

This report examines Georgia's escalating political crisis following the controversial election of Mikheil Kavelashvili as president through an indirect electoral college system dominated by the ruling Georgian Dream party. It explores the root causes, including allegations of electoral fraud, democratic backsliding, and the postponement of EU accession talks, which have fueled nationwide protests. The report highlights strong international condemnation, including sanctions and diplomatic pressure from Western allies, and analyzes the potential outcomes, ranging from continued authoritarian consolidation to possible concessions under sustained public and international pressure. Georgia's future remains uncertain, with its democratic and European aspirations at stake.

Political Crisis in Georgia - Current Developments, Causes, Reactions, & Outlook

Iran’s asymmetric warfare strategy has been a cornerstone of its defense and foreign policy since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Born out of necessity, shaped by ideological imperatives, and honed through decades of regional conflicts, this strategy has allowed Tehran to punch above its weight in the volatile Middle East. However, recent developments reveal significant cracks in its implementation and efficacy, raising questions about its future viability.

Origins and Design of Iran’s Asymmetric Warfare Strategy

The roots of Iran’s asymmetric approach lie in the 1979 revolution and the subsequent Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988). Faced with a technologically superior Iraqi military and a lack of international allies, Iran realized the limitations of conventional warfare. The costly war underscored the need for a strategy that leveraged Iran’s ideological zeal, geographical depth, and human resources while avoiding direct confrontations with technologically advanced adversaries like the United States and Israel.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) was instrumental in conceptualizing and executing this strategy. The IRGC’s Quds Force, under leaders like Qassem Soleimani, developed a network of proxies and allied groups across the region. These include Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen, and Shia militias in Iraq and Syria. These groups operate as extensions of Iranian influence, enabling Tehran to project power, create strategic depth, and deter adversaries without risking direct military engagement.

1. Proxy Warfare: Mobilizing and supporting non-state actors to fight on Iran’s behalf.
2. Ballistic Missiles and Drones: Developing long-range precision capabilities to deter adversaries.
3. Hybrid Tactics: Utilizing cyberattacks, propaganda, and covert operations to destabilize rivals.
4. Plausible Deniability: Allowing Iran to avoid direct culpability for actions carried out by its proxies.

Iran’s asymmetric warfare strategy aimed to achieve several objectives:

1. Deterrence: By maintaining a credible threat through proxies and missile capabilities, Iran sought to deter direct attacks on its territory.
2. Regional Influence: Tehran aimed to position itself as a regional hegemon by exporting its revolutionary ideology and creating a "Shia Crescent" stretching from Iran to Lebanon.
3. Undermining Rivals: The strategy sought to weaken adversaries, particularly Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United States, by engaging them in prolonged, low-cost conflicts.
4. Survival of the Regime: Ensuring the survival of the Islamic Republic by preempting external threats and fostering ideological solidarity among its allies.

Over the decades, Iran’s asymmetric approach has yielded notable successes:

Hezbollah’s Ascendancy: Iran’s support transformed Hezbollah into a formidable military and political force in Lebanon, capable of deterring Israeli aggression.
2. Regional Entrenchment: Tehran established footholds in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, exploiting power vacuums and building alliances with local actors.
3. Cost-Effective Power Projection: By outsourcing its battles to proxies, Iran avoided the economic and human costs of direct warfare.
4. Strategic Deterrence: Iran’s ballistic missile and drone programs have enhanced its ability to strike adversaries, complicating their strategic calculations.

Despite these achievements, Iran’s asymmetric warfare strategy faces growing challenges. The past few years have been particularly difficult for Tehran and its network of proxies:

1. Leadership Decapitation: The assassination of Qassem Soleimani in 2020 deprived Iran of a key architect of its proxy network. Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah, Hamas’s Yahya Sinwar, and other leaders have been targeted or weakened by Israeli and U.S. operations.
2. Proxy Weakening: Hezbollah’s capabilities have been severely degraded by Israeli airstrikes, while Hamas and PIJ have suffered significant losses in Gaza. The Houthis in Yemen have also faced military setbacks, and Shia militias in Iraq and Syria have struggled to maintain cohesion under growing pressure.
3. Dissolution of Assad’s Regime: The collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria poses a critical threat to Iran’s strategic depth, as Syria served as a key logistical corridor for supplying Hezbollah and other proxies.
4. Economic Strains: U.S. sanctions and Iran’s domestic economic woes have constrained its ability to fund and supply its proxies.
5. Technological Disadvantage: Israel’s advancements in missile defense and cyber capabilities have limited the effectiveness of Iranian drones and rockets.
6. Erosion of Legitimacy: Many of Iran’s proxies face declining popular support due to their roles in perpetuating violence and serving Tehran’s interests over local needs.

The Houthis in Yemen, officially known as Ansar Allah, represent a critical element of Iran’s asymmetric strategy. Initially a local insurgency, the Houthis have evolved into a formidable force thanks to Iranian support, including weaponry, training, and strategic guidance. The group’s ability to launch drone and missile strikes against Saudi Arabia and, more recently, Israel underscores their growing sophistication.

However, the Houthis face challenges as well. Their actions have drawn international condemnation, and their alignment with Iran has fueled accusations of serving Tehran’s agenda at the expense of Yemen’s sovereignty. The ongoing Saudi-Iran rapprochement could also alter the dynamics of Iranian-Houthi relations, forcing Tehran to recalibrate its support.

Today, Iran’s asymmetric warfare strategy is under significant strain. Its proxies remain active but weakened, while its deterrent capabilities have been tested by increasing retaliatory strikes from Israel and the United States. Tehran’s reliance on outdated tactics and overstretched resources has exposed vulnerabilities in its approach.

Moreover, the normalization of ties between Israel and Arab states through the Abraham Accords represents a strategic setback for Iran. The growing alignment between Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Israel undermines Tehran’s efforts to isolate Israel and dominate the region.

Iran faces several challenges in sustaining its asymmetric strategy:

1. Resource Constraints: Economic sanctions and domestic unrest have limited Tehran’s ability to support its proxies and invest in military advancements.
2. Proxy Dependence: Over-reliance on proxies has created vulnerabilities, as these groups increasingly pursue their own agendas or face internal dissent.
3. Regional Countermeasures: Arab states and Israel are increasingly coordinating efforts to counter Iran’s influence, with U.S. support.
4. International Isolation: Tehran’s alignment with Russia and China has come at the cost of greater isolation from the West and the broader international community.

Iran’s asymmetric warfare strategy has demonstrated remarkable resilience and adaptability over four decades, enabling Tehran to expand its influence despite significant constraints. However, its over-reliance on proxies, coupled with economic and geopolitical pressures, has made the strategy increasingly unsustainable.

While Iran has achieved deterrence and regional influence, it has also entrenched itself in protracted conflicts that drain resources and alienate local populations. Its proxies’ recent losses underscore the limitations of relying on non-state actors to achieve strategic goals.

Looking ahead, Tehran faces difficult choices. It must adapt its strategy to address the growing vulnerabilities of its proxies, invest in more sustainable forms of power projection, and navigate a shifting regional landscape where its adversaries are increasingly unified. Failure to evolve could result in further erosion of its influence and effectiveness.

Ultimately, Iran’s asymmetric warfare strategy remains a double-edged sword—a source of strength but also a potential liability in a region where the balance of power is constantly in flux.

This analytical piece examines Iran's asymmetric warfare strategy, a pivotal component of its regional and global ambitions. Tracing its origins to the aftermath of the 1979 revolution and the Iran-Iraq War, the article explores how Tehran crafted this approach to offset its conventional military weaknesses. It delves into the design, goals, and successes of this strategy, including the use of proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis, as well as its reliance on hybrid tactics such as missile development and cyber operations. The article critically assesses the recent challenges faced by Iran, including the weakening of its proxies, economic constraints, and shifting regional dynamics, offering insights into the future viability of its strategy in a rapidly evolving geopolitical landscape.

Iran’s Asymmetric Warfare Strategy: Evolution, Achievements, and Challenges

The fall of Bashar al-Assad on December 8, 2024, marked the end of over five decades of Assad family rule in Syria, a period defined by authoritarianism, repression, and conflict. Triggered by a lightning offensive by Islamist-led rebels, this event reshapes Syria's political and social landscape, creating challenges and opportunities for the war-torn nation and its regional and international stakeholders.

The Assad regime collapsed in a swift 12-day offensive led by the Islamist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and allied factions. Key events include:

Flight to Moscow: Bashar al-Assad, accompanied by family members, fled Damascus under cover of night to seek asylum in Russia.


Abandoned Leadership: Assad left power in the hands of Prime Minister Mohammed al-Jalali, a figure with limited authority, to manage a precarious transition.


Symbolic Collapse: Rebel forces captured the capital with minimal resistance, and images of citizens trampling statues of Hafez al-Assad symbolized the regime’s end.


Years of corruption and sanctions left the economy in ruins.
Soldiers were poorly paid and unmotivated, offering little resistance.
Syria’s once-formidable security apparatus disintegrated under the combined pressures of civil unrest and economic collapse.


Longtime allies, Russia and Iran, prioritized other conflicts and distanced themselves from Assad.
A lack of regional and international support further weakened the regime.


Tensions within the Assad family and ruling elite eroded internal cohesion.
Bashar’s refusal to delegate or negotiate alienated potential allies and exacerbated his isolation.


Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) now leads a coalition of factions that control Damascus and other key cities.


HTS leader Mohammed al-Joulani has called for calm and promised not to target minorities or foreign nationals, though skepticism remains.


Russia: Facilitated Assad’s asylum but faces questions about its military presence in Syria.


United States and Europe: Express concerns over security risks, including the resurgence of ISIS and the role of Islamist factions.


Regional Actors: Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and others are wary of a power vacuum and seek to avoid chaos akin to post-Saddam Iraq.


Fears of sectarian revenge loom, particularly for Alawite and Christian communities.
The Syrian populace, fatigued by years of war, hopes for stability but faces uncertainty under HTS rule.


Political Transition: A power vacuum raises questions about governance, with concerns about HTS's ability to lead inclusively.


Humanitarian Crisis: Rebuilding the country and addressing the needs of millions of refugees and displaced people are urgent priorities.


Security Concerns: The fall of Assad destabilizes the region, with fears of ISIS resurgence and extremist violence.


Power Dynamics: Iran and Russia face setbacks, while Turkey and Gulf nations may seek greater influence.


Counterterrorism: Western nations are focused on preventing the export of extremist violence.


Reconstruction: International actors must navigate the complexities of aiding Syria without empowering extremist factions.


Short-Term Stability: The rebels' focus on avoiding sectarian violence and maintaining order in Damascus is critical.


Long-Term Governance: Establishing a legitimate, inclusive political framework is essential for lasting peace.


International Role: Regional and global powers must collaborate to support Syria’s recovery and prevent further fragmentation.


Bashar al-Assad's fall marks a historic turning point for Syria, closing a chapter of dictatorship while opening the door to profound uncertainty. The challenges ahead are immense, requiring careful management of political, sectarian, and humanitarian issues. For Syria and its people, the hope of a peaceful and inclusive future now rests on navigating these complexities with the support of the global community.

 This article explores the dramatic fall of Bashar al-Assad's regime, detailing the final days of his dictatorship and the factors leading to his ousting after more than five decades of Assad family rule. It examines the swift rebel offensive that dismantled the regime, Assad's escape to Moscow, and the challenges facing post-Assad Syria, including sectarian tensions, political uncertainty, and the risk of regional instability. The piece also highlights international reactions and the potential consequences for Syria's future governance and reconstruction.

The Fall of Bashar al-Assad and Its Implications

1. Ground Reality: What’s Unfolding in Syria?


Syria’s fragile status quo has been upended by a powerful resurgence of violence, threatening President Bashar al-Assad’s control. Starting on November 27, 2024, the opposition, led by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), launched a surprise offensive, quickly overtaking key regions such as Aleppo, Hama, and parts of Homs. The conflict has escalated to the outskirts of Damascus, creating a dire situation for the regime.

Rapid Rebel Advances: Opposition forces have gained significant ground across the country, including in northern regions like Aleppo and Homs, as well as southern provinces such as Daraa, Suwayda, and Quneitra.


Regime Retreats: Syrian government forces have been forced to withdraw from multiple areas, consolidating defenses closer to the capital, Damascus.


Civilian Displacement: Tens of thousands of people have been displaced amid intensified clashes, with minorities fearing the potential for extremist rule under HTS or repression by Turkish-backed factions such as the Syrian National Army (SNA).


This sudden escalation has exposed the regime’s vulnerabilities and reignited Syria’s long-standing crisis.

2. How is Assad Responding to the Crisis?


Despite growing challenges, President Bashar al-Assad has attempted to project an image of stability. He remains in Damascus, dismissing rumors of his departure while emphasizing his role in upholding the nation’s governance. However, his responses highlight a reactive and embattled regime:

Military Strategy: The Syrian government has focused on defensive measures, redeploying forces to protect Damascus and conducting airstrikes on opposition supply lines in Homs and Hama. Yet these efforts have proven insufficient to halt the opposition’s momentum.


Reliance on Allies: Assad has leaned heavily on Iran and Russia for support. While both have expressed solidarity, their actual commitments have been constrained by other regional and global priorities.


Narrative Management: The regime continues to frame the uprising as a foreign-sponsored conspiracy, blaming Israel and Western powers for supporting extremist groups like HTS.
Assad’s limited options and overreliance on external allies underscore the regime’s precarious position.

3. Geopolitical Players: The Views of Russia, Iran, and Turkey


The regional powers involved in the Astana Format—Russia, Iran, and Turkey—have significant influence over Syria’s future, though their goals diverge:

Russia views Syria as strategically vital, maintaining its naval base in Tartus and asserting influence in the Mediterranean.
However, its resources are stretched thin due to the ongoing war in Ukraine, limiting its ability to intervene decisively.
Russian officials, including Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, have emphasized the need for political negotiations rather than escalating military operations.


Iran remains a steadfast supporter of Assad, viewing Syria as central to its resistance axis against Israel and the US.
Iranian officials, including Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, have reaffirmed their commitment to assisting Syria militarily and diplomatically. However, Iran is cautious about overextending itself given its involvement in Lebanon, Gaza, and Iraq.
Tehran has called for political dialogue between the Syrian government and opposition factions but continues to focus on counterterrorism operations.


Turkey has long supported Syrian opposition groups, including the SNA, and has actively facilitated their recent advances in northern Syria.
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has expressed support for the opposition’s progress, framing it as a step toward restoring peace and stability in Syria. Turkey also seeks to establish a buffer zone to protect its borders and counter the PKK/YPG presence.


Ankara has positioned itself as a key actor in determining Syria’s future, leveraging its military and diplomatic influence.
While these powers converge on the need for dialogue, their competing interests complicate unified action.

4. What Lies Ahead for Syria? Possible Scenarios


If Homs falls, Damascus could become directly vulnerable, forcing Assad into concessions or possibly leading to his regime’s collapse. This scenario could embolden regional and international actors to reconsider their stance on Syria.

The fractured nature of the opposition—divided among HTS, SNA, and Kurdish factions—may hinder its ability to deliver a decisive blow, resulting in a protracted conflict and worsening humanitarian conditions.

Efforts under the Astana Format, involving Turkey, Russia, and Iran, could pave the way for negotiations. However, mistrust between factions and the regime may slow progress.


The involvement of neighboring countries like Turkey and Israel could intensify, with these actors prioritizing their strategic interests in northern and southern Syria, potentially escalating the conflict’s regional dimensions.


The resurgence of violence in Syria marks a critical turning point for the Assad regime. Rebel advances have revealed the regime’s waning control, while international powers struggle to mediate effectively amidst competing agendas. Although calls for political dialogue under the Astana Format offer a glimmer of hope, the path forward is fraught with challenges.

Whether Assad survives this latest crisis or succumbs to mounting pressure remains uncertain, but one thing is clear: Syria is at a crossroads, and the decisions made in the coming weeks will shape the nation’s future for years to come.

This article explores the resurgence of conflict in Syria, highlighting the rapid territorial gains by opposition forces and the vulnerabilities of Bashar al-Assad’s regime. It delves into Assad’s defensive strategies, the roles of key regional players like Russia, Iran, and Turkey, and the humanitarian impact of the renewed violence. The piece examines potential scenarios for Syria’s future, including regime collapse, prolonged conflict, or regional mediation, while questioning the stability of Assad’s hold on power.

The Collapse of Assad’s Hold? Syria at a Critical Juncture Amid Renewed Conflict

Lack of open access to contracts as well as, transparency within Chinese companies’ investments and joint projects is creating distrust towards Chinese as well as resentment towards the Kyrgyz government among users of Kyrgyz segment of social media.


The recent introduction of a visa-free regime for Chinese nationals by the Kyrgyz government risks catalyzing anti-Chinese protests within the country.
Lack of a public awareness platform and non-involvement of local civil society in discussions on Chinese investment initiatives can cause distrust against Chinese companies working in Kyrgyzstan.


China maintained its position as Kyrgyzstan's leading trading partner during the first quarter of 2024, according to data from the National Statistical Committee. The statistics reveal a significant 68.2% increase in Kyrgyzstan's imports from China during this period. As of early 2024, 613 enterprises with Chinese investment were registered in Kyrgyzstan, out of a total of 3,992 businesses ever registered in the country. Among these, 162 are joint ventures, while 451 are wholly owned by foreign investors. Additionally, it was reported that 30 construction companies operating in Kyrgyzstan currently have Chinese capital involvement. On October 17, Chairman of the Cabinet of Ministers—Head of the Presidential Administration of Kyrgyzstan Akylbek Zhaparov and then-Ambassador of the People's Republic of China to Kyrgyzstan Du Dewen opened a capsule-laying ceremony on the building of ‘Manas’ trade logistical town near the capital city of Bishkek. According to Akylbek Japarov, there will be 30,000 retail outlets in this trade-logistical town, which will be located on 700 hectares of land, and a total of 4.2 billion dollars will be spent on its construction. The expenditure for the first stage is 700 million dollars. In other words, this logistics center can be compared with a large seaport.

However, this opening event outraged many social media users in Kyrgyzstan, including some Kyrgyz journalists and social media activists. A founder of the Temirov Live youtube channel, and an exiled investigative journalist, shared on his Facebook page the map, where possibly this trade-logistical center will be built : One of the primary concerns of many social media users regarding this joint Chinese-Kyrgyz project is that the plot of land released for ‘Manas’ trade-logistical town is arable and now to be used for the building of trade logistical town’s facilities. Furthermore, the primary concern of active Kyrgyz Facebook users is lack of public access to the full content of actual contracts signed between the Kyrgyz government and Chinese companies, which is causing a distrustful climate among the Kyrgyz people by creating various suspicions and allegations against projects with Chinese backed capital. So far criticism over Chinese-Kyrgyz joint projects is taking place on the virtual world of the Internet space and mainly, Facebook and Instagram platforms. Some social media activists have already labeled this logistical town project as a ‘Chinatown’ of Kyrgyzstan, which indicates overall growing Chinese influence in the country. Overall Kyrgyz people are concerned about growing Chinese influence since it leads to over dependency on Chinese investments. Moreover, using the name of ‘Manas’ for the logistic town (a famous Kyrgyz epos and a folk hero who fought against Chinese kingdoms in ancient times) has been irritating many Kyrgyz Facebook users; thus, they criticized Chinese investors as well as Kyrgyz authorities involved in this project for their cultural insensitiveness. Thus, there are voices of urging to change the name of it. However, according to the Economist.kg website , previously, this project had title called "Eurasian Trade and Logistics Complex," but under the updated agreement, its name had changed to "Trade and Logistics Town of Manas.". Additionally, there is a lack of detailed information about Mr. Kairat Kerimbekov, a director of Kyrgyz-Chinese Investment Holding LLC, on the Internet. However, later Mr. K. Kerimbekov appeared on radio program and mentioned that only 30 % of an entire land was arable. In any case, for Kyrgyzstan, 90% territory of which consists of mountains, an arable land is vital for its agriculture and food security. In relation with this, it should be noted there were conflicts between Kyrgyz people and Chinese companies. Kyrgyz authorities and their Chinese counterparts must not forget that on the past, January to February of 2020, there were already a series of massive rallies of locals in the At-Bashy district of remote Naryn, region against land release as well as, the construction of a similar project, the Chinese logistical center, which culminated in the cancellation of it.


Another major Chinese investment project with a lack of transparency is related to a waste management factory to be built nearby Bishkek. On March 29, 2024, a capsule-laying ceremony took place in Bishkek for a waste-to-energy plant expected to be operational by late 2025. The $95 million investment for the project is being funded by the Chinese company JunXin. Details about the project, revealed through framework agreements found on the Chinese stock exchange platform cninfo.com.cn, show agreements signed between JunXin, Bishkek’s mayor’s office, and the Kyrgyz Cabinet of Ministers. However, these agreements include information that local officials did not disclose publicly. The project has faced an information blackout, with experts unwilling to comment due to pressures on independent research in Kyrgyzstan. Mediazona. Central Asia summarized key points from the agreements for transparency, presenting both a simplified summary and the original text for readers.


News on Kyrgyzstan’s introduction of a visa-free regime for members of group tours from China for 21 days also caused surprises and hot discussions among ordinary Kyrgyz Facebook users. Actually news about the free visa became publicly known on October 28 , during the meeting of Deputy Chairman of the Cabinet of Ministers Edil Baisalov with Chairperson of the All-China Women’s Federation Shen Yueyue at the 11th China-Central Asia Cooperation Forum. According to previous regulations, Chinese citizens can travel to Kyrgyzstan without a visa for up to 7 days, provided they hold valid visas for the US, UK (including Northern Ireland), and a long-term Schengen visa. It is not big news that China has become a major exporter of tourists in recent years. A neighboring Kazakhstan, which had also introduced a visa-free regime with China in 2022. But in Kazakhstani case, it was a mutually a beneficial bilateral interstate agreement, which meant China had also introduced a visa-free regime for 30 days to Kazakh nationals. In Kyrgyzstani case, there was not even widely public discussion of this government’s initiative on a visa-free regime to Chinese citizens. Moreover, this agreement is not mutually agreed upon; Kyrgyz citizens still need to apply for a visa to enter China. In spite of the fact that Kyrgyzstan shares immediate border with PRC, Chinese authorities did not include it on their recent extension of visa-free regime for 30 countries which came into force from November 30 There is also national security concerns, according to political expert Chynara Esengul, the (Kyrgyz) government should also take into account public opinion when making such decisions since there are also those who fear that after arriving on a visa-free basis, some Chinese citizens might remain Kyrgyzstan for uncertain period of time. Thus, a free visa regime may cause Chinese people to remain in Kyrgyzstan for a longer term, even not return to China after the visa term expires (21 days). Bilateral relations between China and Kyrgyzstan must be equally and reciprocated, otherwise it would not contribute into trust-building between people of both countries.


Given the numerous joint projects planned between China and Kyrgyzstan, establishing unified public platforms for discussing foreign investment projects and contracts is essential. Although there is a unified portal for public discussion of draft regulatory legal acts of the Kyrgyz Republic , it still lacks detailed information especially on Chinese-Kyrgyz joint projects and only has limited information on some international projects. Beijing and Bishkek must create an open access Internet platform in Chinese and Kyrgyz languages, where one can access to reliable data and updated information on on-going joint projects in Kyrgyzstan. It is in the long term interest of both, Chinese and Kyrgyz authorities to have a such data platform, which could contribute into transparency of projects in order to gain trust of locals and prevent any allegations as well as, anti-Chinese sentiments within Kyrgyz society in future. Tactical moves such as setting joint projects or appointing locals as middle level managers within Chinese investment projects in Kyrgyzstan will not guarantee that anti-Chinese protest would not happen in future. Only strategic measures and transparency of joint project and taking into account people’s concerns might work for the interests of both Kyrgyz as well as, Chinese parties.


Erkinbek Kamalov, a Senior Researcher of Research Center for Security and Geopolitical Studies (RCSGS.org) and U.S.-Central Asia Research Network (U.S.-CARNet) Scholar based in Kyrgyzstan


The article highlights growing public distrust and anti-Chinese sentiments in Kyrgyzstan due to a lack of transparency in joint projects with China, including the construction of the 'Manas' trade-logistical town and a waste-to-energy plant. Concerns over limited public access to contract details, cultural insensitivity, and the use of arable land for projects exacerbate tensions.  The introduction of a visa-free regime for Chinese citizens further fuels skepticism, as it lacks reciprocity and public consultation. Despite China's status as Kyrgyzstan's top trading partner, these developments emphasize the need for greater transparency and local involvement to address public concerns and foster trust in bilateral relations.

"Transparency and Visa Policies May Spur Anti-Chinese Sentiments in Kyrgyzstan"

The latest surge of violence in Syria has dramatically shifted the balance of power in the country’s long-running civil war. The offensive led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), along with allied rebel groups, has upended the relative calm that had prevailed since 2020. With rebels capturing significant areas in Aleppo and Idlib provinces, the conflict has entered a new and dangerous phase, drawing strong reactions from key players like Turkey, Russia, and Iran.



A Renewed Offensive: The Rebels’ Bold Move



On November 27, 2024, HTS and its allies launched a sudden and widespread offensive, taking control of important territories such as Khan Sheikhoun and Maarrat al-Numan in Idlib. They also seized significant areas in Aleppo, including parts of the city itself and its airport. This marked one of the largest offensives in years, with rebels advancing southward toward the city of Hama, capturing dozens of villages along the way.


The Syrian army, caught off guard, initially lost ground but has since launched a strong counteroffensive with Russian air support. Key areas like Qalaat al-Madiq and Ma’ardas in Hama have been recaptured, and Syrian forces are regrouping to push back against further advances. Despite these efforts, the rebel offensive has shaken the Assad regime and created fresh uncertainty about Syria’s future.




Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) is a dominant Islamist militant group in Syria, originating as Jabhat al-Nusra, the al-Qaeda affiliate in the country. Founded in 2011, it initially followed a strict jihadist ideology but rebranded in 2016, breaking formal ties with al-Qaeda to appear more localized and legitimate. In 2017, it merged with other factions to form HTS, which now controls Idlib province, the last major rebel stronghold in Syria.

HTS acts as the de facto governing authority in Idlib, combining military control with an administrative apparatus. Despite efforts to distance itself from global jihadist movements, it remains accused of suppressing dissent and committing human rights abuses. Militarily, HTS is one of the most organized and effective rebel groups, capable of launching significant offensives, such as the recent assault on Aleppo and Idlib provinces.

HTS's relationship with Turkey is complex. While Turkey officially designates HTS as a terrorist organization, it maintains indirect links due to shared interests in countering Assad’s forces and securing Idlib as a buffer zone. HTS has reportedly benefited from Turkish border crossings for reinforcements and supplies, though Ankara denies direct support. This delicate dynamic reflects Turkey’s balancing act between managing regional security and avoiding deeper entanglements in Syria’s conflict.



Turkey’s Role: A Complex Balancing Act



Turkey has long been involved in Syria’s conflict, supporting opposition groups and maintaining troops in the north to counter Kurdish forces. However, Ankara finds itself in a delicate position:

Support for Rebels: Turkey has historically backed some of the groups now involved in the offensive, but its influence over them is uncertain. Reports suggest that Turkey may have allowed weapons and reinforcements to pass through its territory, though it denies direct involvement.

Concerns Over Refugees: The fighting threatens to displace even more people into Turkey, which already hosts millions of Syrian refugees. Turkey is trying to prevent a new humanitarian crisis on its border.

Pressuring Assad: Turkey’s strained relations with the Assad regime add another layer of complexity. By not intervening against the offensive, Ankara could be signaling its frustration with stalled normalization talks with Damascus and with Russia’s handling of previous agreements.




Russia remains one of Assad’s most important allies and has reacted strongly to the rebel gains:

Military Intervention: Russian airstrikes have been a key factor in the Syrian army’s counteroffensive, targeting rebel positions and supply lines. Moscow claims to have killed hundreds of militants, and its involvement has been critical in slowing the rebel advance.

Protecting Investments: Russia has spent years building Assad’s control over much of Syria, and the current offensive threatens those gains. Moscow is determined to ensure that the territorial stability it helped create is not undone.

Broader Challenges: Russia’s attention is divided due to its ongoing conflict in Ukraine, which limits its ability to fully commit resources to Syria. Nevertheless, it views the rebel offensive as a direct challenge to its credibility and role in the region.



Iran’s Perspective: A Fight for the Resistance



Iran, another of Assad’s key allies, sees the conflict as part of a broader regional struggle:

Backing Assad: Iran has reaffirmed its full support for the Syrian government and military. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi visited Damascus to emphasize Tehran’s commitment to helping Syria repel the offensive.

Framing the Conflict: Iran views HTS and its allies as tools of U.S. and Israeli interests. It has linked the timing of the offensive to Israel’s recent ceasefire with Hezbollah in Lebanon, arguing that it is part of a plan to weaken the Axis of Resistance by cutting supply routes through Syria.

Unity Among Muslim Countries: Iranian leaders have called for greater solidarity among Muslim nations to counter foreign interference in Syria and resist efforts to destabilize the region.




As with every major escalation in Syria’s civil war, civilians are paying the highest price. The United Nations has reported that more than 14,000 people have been displaced in just a few days, with many facing harsh winter conditions. Idlib, already overcrowded with displaced families, is struggling to cope with the influx of new arrivals. Hospitals and aid organizations are overwhelmed, and the humanitarian crisis is expected to worsen if the fighting continues.




The renewed violence highlights the fragile and often contradictory roles of regional and international actors in Syria:

Turkey’s Calculations: Ankara’s actions suggest it is using the conflict to strengthen its position in northern Syria and gain leverage in talks with Russia and Assad.

Russia’s Challenges: Moscow’s commitment to Assad remains strong, but the offensive underscores the limits of its ability to manage Syria’s conflict while dealing with other global challenges.

Iran’s Strategy: Tehran’s response reflects its broader goal of countering U.S. and Israeli influence in the region while ensuring that Syria remains a key part of the Axis of Resistance.



The recent fighting in Syria marks one of the most significant escalations in years, reshaping the dynamics of the conflict and drawing fresh attention to the roles of Turkey, Russia, and Iran. Each actor has its own interests and goals, adding layers of complexity to an already volatile situation.

While the Syrian government, with support from its allies, has managed to regain some ground, the rebel offensive demonstrates the enduring instability in the country. Without a coordinated effort to address the root causes of the conflict, the cycle of violence is likely to continue, with devastating consequences for the Syrian people and the region as a whole.


This article explores the resurgence of violence in Syria's civil war, with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) leading a major offensive in Aleppo and Idlib provinces. It examines the strategic gains of the rebels, the Syrian army's counteroffensive with Russian and Iranian support, and the geopolitical implications involving Turkey, Russia, and Iran. The article highlights the humanitarian toll and the complex interplay of regional and international actors shaping Syria's conflict, emphasizing the fragile stability and uncertainty of the country's future.

The Renewed Battle for Syria: Regional Perspectives on the Aleppo Offensive

On October 15, 2024, 100 years and one day after the formation of the Kara-Kyrgyz Autonomous Region, I was able to attend a very interesting event - an open lesson by the Minister of Digital Development KutnaevaNuria Asylbekovna for students, I would say from my experience, of one of the best educational institutions in Central Asia, the OSCE Academy. The open lecture was planned a month in advance and was held for undergraduate students in economics. The first thing that caught my eye was that despite her enormous workload that day, Nuria Kutnaeva did not cancel the previously planned lecture, but found time (sacrificing her own lunch) and held it, showing the students - the future leaders of the countries of the region, that there are no more or less important things or people for her, and that our ministers know how to keep their promises, despite their tight schedule (which she could not have foreseen a month before the event).

The lesson she conducted was very interesting and important for future economists, since digitalization and the increased use of artificial intelligence, whether in manufacturing sectors, in the service sector or in public administration and business management, are at the forefront of economic development today.

In particular, as part of her open lecture, the minister spoke about the activities of the Ministry of Digital Development, about the progress in digitalization within the country, in general, about the impact of digitalization on the social and economic reality in Kyrgyzstan and increasing the efficiency of the state. Nuria Kutnaeva also spoke about the latest innovations in this sector, including the recently introduced opportunity to register residence permit online, which, by the way, was designated as one of the goals in 2023 and the expected soon first in the CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) and one of the first in the world digital codes. The Minister clearly showed how much easier the document flow in Kyrgyzstan is becoming and how much red tape and queues have been reduced due to digitalization, as well as how much the workload of PSC (Population Service Centers) employees has decreased. ( Thus, instead of 18,000 requests for certificates per month to PSCs in September 2023, in September 2024 there were only 2,000 requests for certificates per month. This was achieved due to the possibility of exchanging data between government agencies via the SMEV(inter-departmental electronic interaction system) " Tunduk ", as well as due to the capabilities of the Tunduk mobile application.)

At the same time, the work continues, and now there is an increasing emphasis on the involvement of artificial intelligence (AI) to improve the efficiency of government agencies. In particular, within the framework of the Population Service Centers, AI will soon be widely analyzing the causes of queues if they arise and offering solutions based on the information received.

Answering students' questions, the Minister also pointed out the difficulties in the digitalization process. It turned out that, for example, at the moment there are no obstacles from government agencies at all levels to the digitalization process. Now the main thing is to change the procedures at the legislative level - to remove all the rules that require certificates from citizens. In general, digitalization processes are gaining momentum, making life easier for ordinary citizens, increasing the efficiency of government agencies and reducing costs for document flow, paper and reducing time costs for both businesses and the state and individual citizens. If we talk about more accurate data on the development of the interdepartmental electronic interaction system (SMEV) " Tunduk " and the results of digitalization of public services in brief , the following achievements can be noted:

3+ billion data exchanges — over 3,006,846,764 exchanges between government agencies and private organizations! Faster, more convenient, no paperwork.

1343 services and 311 participants are connected to " Tunduk ".

In 2024, 11 million online services were provided through the Tunduk portal and application, and there were already 1.7 million users.

It is safe to say that Digital documents are currently always at hand. In particular, in the Tunduk application , 9 digital documents are available, including a passport, driver's license and birth certificate.

In 2024, the following were added to this list:

🔸 Certificate of registration of individual entrepreneur

Moreover, electronic documents from “ Tunduk ” have the same force as paper ones and are suitable for use in government agencies and private companies.

Also in 2024, 18 new services appeared on Tunduk . Among them:

Certificate of absence/presence of property tax arrears

The article reflects on a lecture by Nuria Kutnaeva, the Minister of Digital Development of Kyrgyzstan, on the nation's digitalization efforts. Held at the OSCE Academy on October 15, 2024, the lecture emphasized digital transformation's role in enhancing government efficiency and citizen services in Kyrgyzstan. Kutnaeva shared updates on various digitalization initiatives, including online residence registration, significant reductions in paperwork, and queue management improvements via artificial intelligence (AI). For instance, the SMEV "Tunduk" system has facilitated over 3 billion data exchanges between government agencies, connecting over 1,300 services and 1.7 million users.

Commentary