(MOSCOW) – Russia’s ability and willingness to protect its allies is increasingly being questioned, as analysts and journalists point to repeated cases where Moscow has failed to stand by friendly regimes when they face pressure or collapse. This assessment was discussed in detail by Ukrainian television host Nataliia Lutsenko and Irish journalist and documentary filmmaker Caolan Robertson during a recent public conversation on Russia’s shrinking influence abroad.
Robertson argued that the Kremlin’s influence is often built on short term arrangements rather than genuine public support, making it fragile when political conditions change. He recalled his experience in Syria following the collapse of the Assad regime, where public attitudes towards Russia shifted rapidly. According to him, celebrations filled the streets as the old system fell, and Russian presence in key areas disappeared almost overnight.
He described how places once dominated by Russian officials, business figures and media were quickly replaced by international journalists and visitors from Europe and the United States. Hotels that had catered mainly to Russians became centres for global media activity. This, he said, demonstrated how quickly Russian influence can vanish once a regime loses control.
Robertson said these events exposed the limited value of promises made by the Russian dictator Vladimir Putin to other authoritarian leaders. Commitments on weapons, protection and political backing, he argued, collapsed as soon as circumstances changed. As a result, future leaders who rely on Moscow may question whether such assurances have any real worth.
He also challenged earlier Russian claims that countries cannot survive without Kremlin support. In Syria’s case, he noted that the state continued to function after the end of Russian influence. Sanctions were eased, public services resumed, and diplomatic talks with European leaders restarted. According to Robertson, this experience showed that countries can recover and even progress after dictatorship and after Moscow steps aside.
The discussion also addressed claims that developments in Venezuela could somehow strengthen Russia’s position or embolden it to act more aggressively elsewhere. Robertson dismissed such arguments as unrealistic, stating that Moscow does not need permission from any foreign leader to pursue its actions, and that its military ambitions in Ukraine have already been tested and resisted.
Attention then turned to occupied Ukrainian territories, particularly Mariupol, where Russian authorities have staged public events at the city’s drama theatre, the site of one of the deadliest attacks of the war in 2022. At least 600 civilians were killed when the building was bombed while sheltering families, including children.
Robertson described such events as attempts to erase or conceal war crimes rather than genuine reconstruction. He said the rebuilding of the theatre and the organisation of performances there were meant to distract from what happened, not to honour the victims. Similar patterns, he added, have been seen in other places entered by Russian forces, where evidence is removed and responsibility denied.
He stressed the importance of continued international attention to these crimes, warning that silence or forgetting would only encourage further abuses. According to Robertson, remembering what happened in Mariupol and other occupied areas is essential to accountability and justice.
The conversation concluded with reflections on collaboration under occupation, noting that history shows such behaviour often arises from fear or survival rather than genuine support. Even so, both speakers agreed that the broader picture points to a steady decline in Russia’s credibility as an ally and a growing recognition that Kremlin backing offers limited security.
