From Peacebuilding to Conflict Management? Illiberal Powers engagement in the Astana Process in Syria

The unexpected ousting of the Assad regime in December 2024 by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and other opposition groups terminated the volatile status quo in place in Syria since 2020. Syria’s sudden implosion illustrated the failure of international mediation efforts to end Syria’s 13-year civil war. Since the onset of the war, there has been a multitude of mediation initiatives, the two most significant being the process led by the United Nations (UN) in Geneva and the Astana mediation platform convened by Russia, Iran and Turkey. Drawing on the framework of authoritarian conflict management, this paper examines the legacy of the Astana process for peacebuilding in Syria. It begins by analysing the transactional politics that have shaped the involvement of external actors in the Astana framework, contrasting their mediation strategies with liberal peacebuilding models, as exemplified by the United Nations–led (and largely sidelined) Geneva process. The paper then explores the tensions that arise when external state interests are prioritised alongside, or over, domestic stability imperatives, highlighting the structural constraints these dynamics impose on sustainable peacebuilding. Finally, it reflects on the type of peace that authoritarian conflict management processes are likely to produce, questioning their long-term implications for inclusive and durable political order. From a theoretical perspective, the article reflects on how established peacebuilding frameworks are contested and re-interpreted by rising powers asking questions about the future of the peacebuilding model.