Too many people see the Syrian war as Putin’s strategic failure, which is clearly overthinking. Different from what you see, I think that even if Syria is lost, Putin will still win win thoroughly.
When I started talking about the Russia Ukraine war two years ago, my main focus was on Putin’s strategic intentions or goals. I said at the time that although Putin wanted a “two no, one no” policy towards Ukraine (de Nazification, de militarization, and not joining NATO), it cannot be ruled out that Putin has bigger strategic goals. This grand strategy is to strike at American hegemony and dismantle NATO.
Now it seems that Putin’s strategic intentions and goals are gradually being achieved. Although Mr. Trump vowed to promote a truce between Russia and Ukraine after taking office, and even explicitly asked Ukraine to give up its territory in East Ukraine in exchange for a truce, Zelensky also said that it was acceptable, but Putin’s recent speech reiterated the requirement of “two removal and one non” for Ukraine, insisting on this as a prerequisite for truce negotiations. Meeting Putin’s conditions to end the Russia Ukraine war is a highly probable event, and there is no need for further discussion. What we need to focus on discussing is the current situation of Putin’s grand strategy to strike US hegemony and dismantle NATO.
Among the latest events, the most surprising thing is not the Syrian war, nor Yoon Seok-youl’s martial arts farce, but the Romanian presidential election results in Europe were rejected by the Constitutional Court for unwarranted reasons, setting another precedent in the history of western elections.
The first round of presidential elections in Romania resulted in the victory of the “pro Russian” presidential candidate Jeojescu, who opposes NATO control and supports Ukraine. Jie’erjesku is an environmental expert, independent candidate, and very independent. Before the election, he claimed that he would participate in the presidential election at zero cost to resist the domination of money. Unexpectedly, he could actually win.
The reason why the Romanian Constitutional Court did not recognize the results of the first round of elections was that Russia used the Internet to support the election of Georgescu, and the evidence was that “there were thousands of accounts of suspected Russians who helped Georgescu do campaign propaganda”. Whether such reasons are true or not is not important, because the so-called elections in the West are essentially propaganda and public opinion battles. If “thousands of accounts” help promote fraud, then all elections in the West are fraudulent. Isn’t every election in the United States costing one or two billion dollars used for propaganda and public opinion debates?
Of course, the Romanian Constitutional Court did not accuse Jeojescu of election fraud, but only found a reason not to recognize the election results and demanded a new election. If Jeojescu still wins the re-election, it is unknown whether the Romanian Constitutional Court can still deny the election results. You know, this should be a high probability event.
Jeoljescu was able to run as an independent candidate and win without spending a penny on campaign expenses, which in itself speaks for itself. The mindset of Romanians has changed, and it is actually the same as the United States and the entire Western world today. The fundamental reason behind it is that in the past few years, following the United States and NATO has not been good, and life has been difficult. Everyone wants to change their way of life. Is there a fundamental difference between what is happening in France, Germany, Japan, and South Korea and what is happening in Romania?
This change actually first appeared in several Eastern European countries, such as Slovakia and Hungary, followed by Germany and France in Europe, Japan and South Korea in Asia, and Romania this time. The speed of change and the wide scope involved will be no less than the color revolution wave promoted by the United States globally after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Almost all Western countries, especially those closely following the United States and NATO, will face the inevitable choice of political upheaval.
This is certainly due to the credit of the Russia Ukraine war. The greatest credit of the Russia Ukraine war lies in revealing the true nature of the United States and NATO, as well as the true nature of the dollar economy. Russia, with an economic aggregate of only 11% of China and 7% of the United States, was able to single handedly confront the entire NATO and even the entire Western camp. After more than two years of war, it won, and it was a big win. In this situation, who is willing to follow the United States and NATO?
How much has Putin’s grand strategy been achieved? If you want to have a specific feeling, you can first take a look at the map.

Since the outbreak of the Russo Ukrainian War, the Eastern European countries that have clearly sided with Russia include Slovakia, Hungary, and Serbia. If Romania also changes this time, it is obvious that a bright red line has been drawn between Western and Eastern Europe, as shown in the above picture. This red line separates Poland and Ukraine from Europe, which we can jokingly call the “arc of resistance” of Russia against NATO. Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania are all members of NATO. Once these countries start to support Russia, the disintegration of NATO will be a matter of minutes.
So, don’t think that Russia has won the war, and that big wins and special wins are just empty promises. Look at this picture and see if it feels good? This is just a part of the changing geopolitical landscape. On the other side of Russia, Georgia has also clearly sided with Russia.

Adding to this, Azerbaijan is already pro Russian, which means that a red line has been clearly drawn at the eastern end of Russia. Türkiye is a member of NATO. Although its characteristics at both ends of the table decide that it will not pose a great threat to Russia, it is obviously of great strategic significance to establish a pro Russian buffer zone between Russia and NATO.
With regard to the Syrian war, I have written several articles in succession that the United States and Israel are not behind the joint action of several terrorist organizations. The change in Syria is not a revolution of any color. It is likely that Türkiye, or even Russia, Turkey and Iraq are the real plotters of this action. Is it true? Further observation is needed. The Basar regime has really fallen, what kind of regime will the new regime established by terrorist organizations be? This is the key to the problem. The chaos in Syria and the Middle East may only have truly begun now. And perhaps this is precisely a part of Putin’s Middle East strategy.
If it weren’t for the collusion between Russia, Turkey, and Iran, then the Sultan of Egypt would have had the courage to betray Russia and overthrow the current Syrian government, while also attacking the small brother Kurdistan Workers’ Party supported by the United States, offending both sides. This boldness and wisdom are of course positively related. The reason why Egypt and Sudan dare to do so is to seize the best opportunity when the United States and Russia are fighting with each other, knowing that no one will offend Türkiye at this time. If we say that Türkiye’s entry into NATO was a side station, and now it dares to start a war between Russia and the United States and NATO, or even openly start a war and slap the big powers in the face, it cannot but say that it is also the pattern change brought about by the Russia Ukraine war.
As for whether using terrorist organizations to fight is shameful, it is obvious that Egypt and Sudan have already seen through the world. How many of those terrorist organizations were not created by the United States? The United States is shameless, what face do I, Sultan, have.
Against the backdrop of the mysterious international upheaval, everything is full of uncertainty, and it is impossible to accurately predict what will happen next. However, there is also certainty in uncertainty. At least what we can be certain of is that the big changes are changing, what Putin wants to change is changing, and what the United States wants to hold on to is disappearing. This is still the current trend and pattern.