• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Karen Leigh",
    "Petr Topychkanov"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center",
    "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center",
  "programAffiliation": "russia",
  "programs": [
    "Russia and Eurasia"
  ],
  "projects": [
    "Eurasia in Transition"
  ],
  "regions": [
    "Levant",
    "Middle East",
    "Syria"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

How Would Russia React to a Strike on Syria?

Investigation of chemical weapons use is in the interest of both the United States and Russia. Russia will continue to support Assad only if there is no evidence that he used chemical weapons.

Link Copied
By Karen Leigh and Petr Topychkanov
Published on Aug 26, 2013
Program mobile hero image

Program

Russia and Eurasia

The Russia and Eurasia Program continues Carnegie’s long tradition of independent research on major political, societal, and security trends in and U.S. policy toward a region that has been upended by Russia’s war against Ukraine.  Leaders regularly turn to our work for clear-eyed, relevant analyses on the region to inform their policy decisions.

Learn More
Project hero Image

Project

Eurasia in Transition

Learn More

Source: Syria Deeply

In a weekend call between Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Lavrov reportedly warned that a U.S. strike on Syria would have “extremely dangerous consequences.”

Russia, a firm ally of President Bashar al-Assad, has vehemently opposed Western intervention against the Syrian regime. That position has put a diplomatic wedge between the Russia and the U.S., one that could widen as the West considers air strikes against Assad in retaliation for an apparent chemical weapons attack outside of Damascus.

Washington and its allies blame Assad for the incident, vowing to take action in response. Assad’s regime has denied responsibility, accusing rebels of using the deadly chemicals as a tactic to provoke foreign intervention. Russia officials have stood by that narrative, pinning the chemical attack on rebels and saying a Western military strike would be a “tragic mistake.”

To better understand Russia’s position we spoke to Petr Topychkanov, an analyst with the Carnegie Moscow Center. He weighs in on how the Kremlin might react to a U.S. strike on its Syrian allies.

Syria Deeply: What would be the most likely Russian response to a Western-led air strike on Syria?

Petr Topychkanov: First of all, Russia doesn’t seem to be ready to play an active military role in Syria, because it would mean direct confrontation with the U.S. Russia doesn’t have such intentions or capabilities. So Russian reaction to a U.S. strike would depend on the legal and organizational framework of this strike. For example, Russia could agree with the participation of the U.S. in military operations under auspices of the U.N. Security Council [UNSC]. It’s more probable if the UNSC will obtain solid evidence about the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime.

But if there is not such evidence and the U.S. decides to act without any approval from the UNSC, of course Russia would strongly criticize military action from the U.S. and its allies, and would militarily support Syria. Russia would continue to supply arms and military equipment to the Assad regime, and Russia would develop close relations with the regime in Iran to help that regime to support and provide military help to Assad.

Russia will continue to support Assad only if there is no evidence that he used chemical weapons. It would be impossible to help Assad if he did. So this is the key issue. ... 

 Full text of Q&A was published in Syria Deeply

About the Authors

Karen Leigh

Petr Topychkanov

Former Fellow, Nonproliferation Program, Moscow Center

Topychkanov was a fellow in the Carnegie Moscow Center’s Nonproliferation Program.

Authors

Karen Leigh
Petr Topychkanov
Former Fellow, Nonproliferation Program, Moscow Center
Petr Topychkanov
SecurityForeign PolicyLevantMiddle EastSyria

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Article
    Afro-Iraqis, Climate Change, and Environmental Injustice in Basra

    Afro-Iraqis experience political, economic, and social marginalization and discrimination, which exposes the poorest members of the community to the harsh realities of the region’s climate disaster.

      Zeinab Shuker

  • Army personnel stand guard after a pro-monarchy protest turns violent in Kathmandu, Nepal, on March 28, 2025.
    Article
    The Shadow of the Military in Modern South Asia

    Military rule is now a defining political factor in South Asia. Here’s how analysts can understand and account for it.

      Paul Staniland

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Will Hungary’s New Leader Really Change EU Policy on Russia and Ukraine?

    Orbán created an image for himself as virtually the only opponent of aid to Ukraine in the entire EU. But in reality, he was simply willing to use his veto to absorb all the backlash, allowing other opponents to remain in the shadows.

      Maksim Samorukov

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Realism and the Lebanon-Israel Talks

    Beirut’s desire to break free from Iranian hegemony may push it into a situation where it has to accept Israel’s hegemony.  

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    How to Join the EU in Three Easy Steps

    Montenegro and Albania are frontrunners for EU enlargement in the Western Balkans, but they can’t just sit back and wait. To meet their 2030 accession ambitions, they must make a strong positive case.

      Dimitar Bechev, Iliriana Gjoni

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600Fax: 202 483 1840
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.