October was a victorious month for authoritarianism. On October 6th, 2019, Donald Trump ordered a full withdrawal of U.S troops from Northern Syria. Shortly after, Turkey launched an invasion killing hundreds of Syrian Democratic Forces fighters (SDF) causing thousands of civilians to flee the region. The SDF, mostly comprised of Kurdish YPG fighters whom Turkey considers terrorists, has in the past been largely protected from Turkish intervention by support from the United States. Now, as many analysts feared, the withdrawal and invasion has  sent the SDF into the arms of their once-enemy; the embattled Bashar al-Assad government. In the face of annihilation by the Turkish military, the SDF quickly announced permission for Syrian government troops to enter provinces under their control to reinforce the Turkish border.

Despite the Trump administration’s attempts at saving face domestically and abroad with a shaky five-day ceasefire, the damage has begun. These events provided the Assad government and its Russian supporters with a long-sought opportunity to send troops into the autonomous Northern regions, thus unifying much of the country under the regime’s control. Though Assad may appear to be the biggest beneficiary, the implications are much broader, as has been the case for much of this terrible conflict.

Vladimir Putin has been Assad’s most vocal advocate, with Russia’s forces turning the tide in favor of the despotic regime. His motivations are two-fold; retain Syria as a key ally in the Middle East with an access point for the Mediterranean and tarnish the image of the United States. Trump’s surprising troop withdrawal and SDF’s decision has helped Putin achieve both. On the domestic front, this renews the vigor of a Putin regime that has recently faced criticism in Russia, where continuous economic woes have led many Russians to reconsider the value of an ongoing proxy war in Ukraine.  Such a victory in Syria boosts Moscow’s position by proving that ongoing resistance to the United States eventually pays off. Conversely, from the point of view of the Ukrainian government, watching the U.S withdrawal in Syria at a time when the Trump administration has cut military funding to Ukraine makes the prospect of continued U.S support grow dimmer by the day. 

These successes have garnered a certain implicit message around the world that the Syrian government is essential for the protection of Kurdish citizens.  The government’s heavy reliance on Russian support allows Russia to appear as the stabilizing force in Syria as well as the new protector of the downtrodden Kurds. Turkey, a member of NATO, is the invader, thus fulfilling Putin’s narrative of the organization as an overtly aggressive military institution. More damning, the impression left on many allies is that they cannot count on United States support and protection. Russia, on the other hand, has been handed a huge reputation boost as the new power broker of the Middle East. Indeed, it was not Assad that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogen met with to discuss a follow-up ceasefire, but Putin. It is mostly Russian military police carrying out the obligations of this ceasefire, which involves resettling Kurdish refugees away from the “safe zone” near the Turkish border.

Never one to be outdone, Trump seems to have softened his hardline approach to the Syrian withdrawal, sending troops into the oil fields of Eastern Syria to “prevent their capture by ISIS”, in a move decried by Russia as “banditry”. For a president who famously said on more than one occasion that the United States should “seize” Syria’s oil (which would be a war crime), stationing U.S troops in foreign oil fields does not leave a positive international impression. It comes across at best as indecisive, and at worst, a ploy to pillage a foreign country’s resources. Aside from the Russian and the Syrian government, this troop withdrawal has sent an encouraging message to other authoritarian regimes across the globe.

China’s role in Syria has been surprisingly muted, given the growing challenge that a surging China has presented to the United States. While not voicing support for Assad directly, the Chinese government has stood with Moscow against U.S intervention to topple the Syrian government.  Their argument has been asserted continuously in regions such as the South and East China Seas, North Korea, and Venezuela: the United States has no place imposing it’s liberal democratic world order on any sovereign nation. The U.S pullout validates their argument, and China, as a rising economic powerhouse, can now provide an alternative to the American world order by sheltering authoritarian regimes the way it has for Syria. There are signs that China will use this opportunity to become more involved in Syria, sensing an opportunity to expand its economic and political influence through the Belt and Road Initiative. The same logic can be applied in many cases across the globe.

How must American allies in Venezuela and the Korean Peninsula be feeling watching the United States abandon the Kurds? South Korea and Japan have heard Trump criticize the military assistance given to them. The president has meanwhile maintained a positive dialogue with Kim Jong-Un, despite the North Korean dictator’s repeated tests of nuclear weapons and missiles. NATO and the European Union, both timeless pillars of U.S foreign policy, have faced similar criticisms. The U.S aligned Afghan government seems to have been given a back seat in negotiations with the Taliban while the ISIS ideology continues to fester in Syria and abroad. One of the few to maintain continued support are the followers of Juan Guaido against the leftist dictatorship of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. At this point, the international arena  has seen the United States abandoning its allies after fulfilling its personal objectives and seeing no reason for further involvement. Any sensible state organization wishing to pursue democratic reform in the future would now have to question how many of their actions can they base on the questionable commitment of the United States.

For proponents of authoritarianism, this message is equally momentous. Terrorist organizations like ISIS, al-Qaeda, and the Taliban can now be assured in their attrition tactics, knowing that if they “lay low” and continue the fight long enough, the U.S will give up. Similarly, authoritarian regime organizers  know that if they have powerful allies in China and Russia, they will survive. There has been a great deal of criticism on the questionable decisions of the Trump Administration; but the withdrawal of U.S troops from Syria, and the subsequent abandonment of the Kurds against the Turkish military, has completely undermined U.S foreign policy across the globe. At a time when U.S. adversaries like China and Russia have sought to expand their influence at the expense of America, this could not have happened at a worse time. History will be a harsh critic when it comes time to judge President Trump on his actions in October of 2019.