* * *
* * *
Since the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria, there has been a sharp decline in the public activity of the Russian ambassador to Iraq, Elbrus Kutrashev. An analysis of pro-Iranian Shia media in Iraq, which had previously actively promoted Russia, indicates disappointment with Russia, which may explain its decision to temporarily lie low.
The Shia television channel Al-Ahad, affiliated with the Asaib Ahl al-Haq group and its leader Qais al-Khazali, published a report on 8 January accusing Russia of “playing in favour of Israel” in Syria and “abandoning the Iranian strategy” regarding the fight against jihadists from HTS, who took control in Syria. This report refers to a conversation broadcast by the Iranian news agency Tabnak between Iranian commanders and General Staff officials, revealing that Assad’s army was corrupt and not only avoided combat but also, under pressure from Russia and others, sabotaged Iranian forces’ attempts to undertake military action in Syria.
The report cited by Al-Ahad also states that the Syrian army did not provide any weaponry to Iranian forces stationed in Aleppo, which led to the rapid capture of the city by HTS and the killing of the Iranian forces’ commander, General Kiomars Purhashemi.
The Al-Ahad report also indicates that Russia supported Israel’s actions following Iran’s strike on the country in April 2024. Citing Tabnak, Al-Ahad states that “Russia turned off Russian radars during Israel’s attack on Iranian commanders in Syria, which is clear evidence of Russia’s cooperation with Israel.” The report further quotes a commander of Iran’s Sepah, who claims that “Russia abandoned Iran’s land strategy aimed at defeating terrorist groups, promising to carry out airstrikes. However, it turned out that the airstrikes targeted residential homes and desert areas rather than the military targets of the Tahrir al-Sham organisation.”
Reports that Assad regime officials, acting on Russian orders, provided Israel with data on the deployment of Iranian forces in Syria to facilitate their bombing emerged as early as mid-December.
These reports were based on leaked documents detailing contacts between the Syrian Ministry of Defence and an Israeli intelligence officer overseeing the operation, known by the codename “Mousa.” This revelation was not particularly surprising, as it had long been known that Russia forbade Assad from activating Syria’s air defence systems during Israeli airstrikes on Iranian positions in Syria. The only real surprise was that, despite this, Iran supplied Russia with drones, which it later used in Ukraine, while media outlets like Al-Ahad continued to promote Kutrashev’s absurd narratives about Europe, the world wars, and the war in Ukraine.
The Al-Ahad report may signal the beginning of a shift in the narrative of pro-Iranian Shia media regarding the situation in Syria. Until now, they had promoted a conspiracy theory attributing Assad’s downfall to a coalition of Israel, jihadists, Turkey, and the West. To some extent, this narrative aligned with Russia’s efforts to frame Assad’s overthrow within the context of its so-called “lone struggle” against “Western aggression” on multiple fronts, including Ukraine and the Middle East. The recent report exposes the falsehood of this narrative. The open question remains what strategy Russia will now adopt to rebuild its influence among Iraqi Shia groups and whether, by playing on anti-Western sentiments, it will once again succeed in deceiving these circles.
* * *
Compiled by: Witold Repetowicz | shafafiyat.com
* * *
![In official discourse, Russia today presents itself as a natural partner of the Global South and as a defender of a multipolar world order in opposition to what it describes as Western dominance. This narrative resonates strongly in the Arab world, as it echoes a deep political memory that goes back to the Bandung Conference of 1955, when post-colonial states, including Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser, sought to chart an independent path beyond the rivalry of great powers. At that time, the goal was not alignment, but precisely the opposite. As analyses published by Explaining History note, Bandung leaders declared their rejection of “colonialism in all its forms”, whether Western or Soviet. The central idea was clear: true independence meant not becoming a tool in someone else’s conflict. Today, Russia invokes the same language, but operates according to a different logic. From Partnership to Exploitation Facts on the ground reveal a different picture. In Iraq, for example, security investigations uncovered recruitment networks targeting young people. As reported by The New Arab, they were lured by offers of work or study, which later “turned into military service contracts” after arrival in Russia. The issue was not only deception, but also the structure of the process itself, where individuals were pressured to sign documents in a language they did not understand. Other sources confirm that these were not isolated cases. The National reports that young people were recruited through “seemingly legal channels such as travel agencies or employment offices”, only to find themselves bound by contracts they could not escape. The same source adds that “around 3,000 Iraqis ended up in the Russian army”. What is happening here is not cooperation between states, but the exploitation of economic and informational asymmetries. Cuba and Africa: The Same Pattern, Different Tools In Cuba, the mechanism takes a different form but follows the same logic. According to an analysis by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation, recruits were offered salaries “of up to 2,000 USD per month, compared to an average Cuban income of around 17 USD”, along with promises of property and citizenship. In such conditions, the issue is less about free choice and more about economic pressure. In Africa, the picture is more fragmented, but the underlying logic remains similar. Al Jazeera reported, citing Ukrainian sources, that “more than 1,780 African nationals are currently fighting in the Russian army”, with recruitment spanning dozens of countries. The same sources indicate that many were drawn in through “black market labor […] without proper training”, often under the pretext of civilian employment. At the individual level, the situation becomes even clearer. A Reuters report states that some recruits were sent “directly to dig trenches and engage in frontline operations”, often without adequate preparation or logistical support. Not Only War, but Also Messaging This process is not limited to military use. The presence of foreign fighters is also instrumentalized in the information domain. According to The New Voice of Ukraine, citing Ukrainian intelligence, the aim is to build a narrative that “Russia is not an aggressor because it is also supported by the ‘civilized world’”. In other words, these individuals serve not only as soldiers, but also as elements of a broader propaganda strategy. What Happened to the Spirit of Bandung? This is where the central contradiction becomes visible. The idea behind Bandung was based on independence and the refusal to be drawn into great power conflicts. What we observe today, however, reflects a different dynamic. The Soviet Union once used the rhetoric of supporting liberation movements, while simultaneously expanding its sphere of influence. Contemporary Russia employs a similar pattern. Instead of overt ideological framing, it relies more on economic incentives, intermediary networks, and information influence. The outcome, however, remains comparable. Countries of the Global South are not treated as equal partners, but as environments from which resources can be extracted, including human resources. The Real Question The issue is not what is being said, but what is actually happening on the ground. If “cooperation” means that young people from Baghdad, Havana, or African cities are sent to fight in wars that are not theirs, then the question must be asked: is this support for independence, or a new form of dependency? The key analytical distinction lies between rhetoric and practice. Official language may speak of resisting imperialism, but operational reality may reproduce it in a different form. This is where the paradox becomes evident. Under the banner of opposing “Western imperialism”, mechanisms are being deployed that follow a similar logic, even if they are framed differently.](https://shaffafiya.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Human-resources.png)
