Weekly Briefing: Violence in Syria, Trump’s 50-day Russia Ultimatum

Deadlines, vacuums, and shadows of power

Welcome.

Two developments caught my attention this week: sectarian violence in Syria’s Druze heartland, accompanied by Israeli strikes on Damascus and the southwest region, in particular the city of Suwayda. And second, Trump’s ultimatum to Russia to arrive at a ceasefire within 50 days, or face secondary sanctions.

Syria is still escaping the post-Assad power vacuum

This week, thousands of Sunni militants joined long armed convoys heading toward the Druze stronghold of Suwayda in the southwest of the country, threatening to kill members of the Druze minority and causing confusion on the ground. The Syrian government, led by Ahmed al-Sharaa — believing they had a green light from the US and Israel — moved government troops closer to the southern region and Suwayda to intervene. This triggered a security threat for Israel, which carried out its own attacks on Damascus and Syrian government forces.

The renewed violence has raised dual suspicions: either the international community was too slow to bolster support for Syria’s new government and bring different groups under one banner, or it was too fast in proclaiming support for this new HTS-aligned government without first assessing its ability to rule effectively.

Either way, this violence against the Druze minority shows that local militias and sub-state groups still feel empowered by the current security environment and the lack of proper governance in post-Assad Syria. The power vacuum is still here, and the question is who will fill it.

So far, it’s been a hodgepodge effort: the Israelis, who’ve been very active inside Syria in recent days, have targeted groups fighting the Druze. And the new Syrian government has attempted a late intervention. The result: some early but so far unsuccessful ceasefire arrangements.

What does this mean geopolitically? And what happens next?

There’s good news mixed in — and it can help answer both questions.

The good news is that, for the first time in a long while, Israel and Syria may share a common goal: a stop to the sectarian violence and a stable border region between the two countries.

If Israel and Syria’s new government can communicate more openly and effectively, there is diplomatic space (under Washington’s watch) to use this situation as a testing ground for Syrian-Israeli coordination to ensure peace in southern Syria. It’s firmly in the interests of Syria’s new leadership, not only to rein in tribal groups, but to elevate cooperation (militarily or diplomatically) with Israel to pursue shared objectives. Israel, for its part, needs some form of state-to-state cooperation to emerge.

From a neoclassical realist perspective, domestic constraints on Syria’s leadership stem from fragmented authority and group rivalries. Israel faces its own internal pressures: the war in Gaza, public demands to bring hostages home, and fears of Hezbollah or Iranian escalation. Perceptions of insecurity — often more powerful than the facts on the ground — deepen the security dilemma. But paradoxically, those very constraints may open the door to pragmatic cooperation if both sides recognise the cost of disorder.

Trump’s new ultimatum shows he’s still invested in Ukraine — but it's a risky bet

What began with a bold claim to end the war in 24 hours has now become a rolling deadline. The latest version: a 50-day window for Russia to reach a ceasefire, or face secondary sanctions.

This comes not long after Trump opened a new advanced weapons pipeline to Kyiv through NATO partners. It’s a sign that Ukraine remains a priority, though it’s now competing with crises in the Middle East and Asia. Every time a new security flashpoint emerges, particularly in the Middle East, Putin likely welcomes the strategic distraction. Washington’s bandwidth is finite, and priorities shift fast.

But there’s good reason to be cautious about the 50-day deadline.

Trump’s ultimatum reflects political theatre more than strategic calculation. Coercive diplomacy rarely ends wars, especially when the balance of power is contested and when both sides are dug in. Imposing secondary sanctions on Russia’s trading partners, including China and India, could backfire, fracturing coalitions and weakening America’s position in the Indo-Pacific.

From a neoclassical realist standpoint, the success of such ultimatums depends not just on material capabilities but on state leaders’ perceptions and domestic incentives. For Putin, any concession risks political backlash and long-term strategic loss. For Trump, the domestic payoff of appearing tough may outweigh the diplomatic risk, at least in the short term.

But pressure without pathways rarely yields peace.

The only credible way to end the war, short of full escalation, is a mix of clear deadlines backed by overwhelming international pressure, much stronger military and economic costs on Russia, and a serious diplomatic push that engages neutral states with leverage.

Whether Trump has the statecraft or coalition-building capacity to pull that off is another question. For now, his 50-day clock is ticking, but without real coordination and diplomatic depth, it’s unlikely to strike peace before it runs out.

Thanks for reading along this week - I'll be back next week with more.

If you're not a paying subscriber, consider upgrading. I write up mid-week briefings and further deep dives that may be of interest.

See you next time.