In light of profound changes in the global arena and the erosion of the Western-led international order, Israel’s position necessitates the formulation of new strategies—ones that address not only concrete security challenges but also broader questions of political strategy that leverage identity and narrative in dealings with extraordinary powers. The relationship between Israel and Russia, which has seen ups and downs over recent decades, now stands before a renewed strategic test. In view of Russia’s deepening involvement in Syria, its ties with Iran, its growing estrangement from the West, and the emerging multipolar system, it is imperative to reassess Israel’s strategic outlook towards Moscow with a long-term, structured perspective.
In contrast to reactive approaches focused on managing isolated crises, I propose a comprehensive approach aimed at shaping Israeli foreign policy towards Russia based on five core principles: an assertive but non-provocative posture, calculated neutrality, narrative management, the utilization of informal channels, and the leveraging of soft assets. The latter principle is not based on soft power in its classical sense, but rather on the careful and narrative-driven use of assets such as shared collective memory (e.g., the Holocaust and the victory over Nazi Germany), cultural ties, and civil technology, as tools to enhance Israel’s visibility and symbolic influence among relevant audiences in Russia.
The central research question underlying this paper is: How can Israel formulate a strategy towards Russia that preserves its freedom of action in the Syrian arena while preventing deterioration in its relations with the West?
Through an analysis of Israel’s recent patterns of conduct towards Russia and by proposing an alternative strategic model, I will argue that a multilayered approach combining identity, narrative, and strategic flexibility is the most effective way for Israel to secure significant strategic advantages in managing the evolving dynamic on the Jerusalem–Moscow axis. The approach proposed here transcends the classical security paradigm. It presents an innovative foreign policy model centered on narrative management and the strategic deployment of soft assets to foster relationships with great powers in a multipolar arena.
Not by Realism Alone
Foreign relations are shaped not only by power balances and material interests but also by the construction of identities, spheres of meaning, and historical narratives. To understand the range of considerations that can guide Israel in shaping its strategy towards Russia, it is essential to first examine some of the main theories that define foreign policy, its influencing factors, and the conceptual tools for understanding it.
Let us first understand Israel-Russia relations through the lens of narratives and identity. Analyses of foreign relations often begin with the realist perspective, particularly neo-realism, which views states as rational actors seeking to maintain their power and ensure their survival in an anarchic international system. From this perspective, the relationship between Israel and Russia is examined through power balances, security interests, and relations with other players, foremost among them the United States. Realism aptly explains Israel’s need to maintain aerial freedom of action in Syria and its caution in avoiding direct friction with Moscow. However, while useful for understanding security rationale, this approach is insufficient for a full explanation of modern foreign relations dynamics. It overlooks the cultural, historical, and symbolic dimensions that shape state behavior.
Here, constructivism comes into play, offering an alternative lens: instead of seeing states solely as rational entities, it portrays them as actors operating through identity, collective memory, historical narratives, and social norms. According to this view, foreign policy is not only a function of interests but also of meaning—how a state perceives itself and “the other.” Russia, for example, sees itself as a global power deserving of recognition and respect, positioning itself as an identity-based alternative to the liberal West; this perception is fueled by military history, a sense of moral mission as a counterweight to the West in a unipolar world, and a narrative of rectifying post-Soviet humiliations. Conversely, Israel grapples with a complex strategic identity: on the one hand, it is perceived as part of the West, while on the other, it seeks to preserve independence in a hostile regional arena, relying on an ethos of being a small, innovative, and persecuted state. Constructivism enables analysis of how these perceptions clash or correspond—and how they influence political behavior patterns, partner selection, and crisis management. In this sense, it forms a critical theoretical foundation for the narrative-driven, multilayered foreign policy model proposed in this paper.
Between Official Diplomacy and Shadow Diplomacy
Research on national narratives highlights how states construct, shape, and disseminate a collective story about themselves, their history, and their place in the world. These narratives serve as tools for public diplomacy, domestic mobilization, and sometimes as justification for political or military action. In the context of Israel and Russia, intersecting narratives can be identified—the memory of the Soviet Union as a liberator of Jews from Nazism and the massive wave of immigration in the 1990s that greatly contributed to the state, contrasted with the Russian narrative that sometimes perceives Israel as a pro-Western and occasionally alienated actor. Understanding and navigating these narratives enables Israel to formulate a considered foreign policy—one that is not merely reactive but proactive.
It is essential to highlight several key concepts that are relevant to shaping foreign policy. First, Strategic Identity refers to the way a state perceives its role in the international system and its relations with other actors. Israel has a complex identity: on the one hand, it is identified with the West, but on the other, it strives to maintain maneuvering independence, especially in a sensitive area like the Middle East.
Soft Power, a term coined by Joseph Nye, refers to a state’s ability to influence others through cultural appeal, values, or moral legitimacy. Although Israel does not possess clear soft power towards Russia, it does have soft assets—such as technological innovation, Jewish-Russian heritage, and community ties—that can be gently leveraged for symbolic influence.
Another essential concept is narrative diplomacy—an approach that examines how states use language, symbols, and stories to shape their image and create a more favorable space for action in the international arena. This diplomacy is particularly relevant in a system where powers like Russia place great emphasis on historical consciousness, collective memory, and national prestige.
Beyond official diplomacy, states also operate in non-governmental influence arenas, which include academic institutions, think tanks, media, cultural figures, civil society activists, and communities. These channels—also known as Track II Diplomacy—enable intellectual flexibility, foster trust-building, and facilitate the creation of connections with influential groups outside traditional government mechanisms. Israel has many infrastructures for such dialogue, particularly through Russian-speaking communities, technological research institutions, and Russian-speaking artists and journalists. In Israel-Russia relations, these channels can serve as a soft narrative arm, not to achieve direct influence but to maintain Israel as a legitimate symbolic presence in the Russian public sphere. Scientific cooperation, media forums, and dialogues between cultural and academic figures serve as practical tools for creating a dynamic of stable discourse, even when the official arena is tense.
Mapping Positions: Deep Gaps Versus Areas of Overlap
The relationship between Israel and Russia is complex and multilayered, combining security, geopolitical, historical, and narrative dimensions. Understanding the positions of both sides, along with identifying areas of overlap and conflict, is a prerequisite for formulating a proactive and effective foreign policy.
Russia, particularly under Vladimir Putin’s leadership, seeks to re-establish itself as a global power and present an alternative to the liberal Western order. In the Middle East, it seeks to secure a geostrategic foothold, particularly through a sustained military presence in Syria. It aims to shape its image as a stabilizing force and a capable mediator, maintaining relations with rival actors, and leveraging historical narratives—such as the victory in World War II—as tools to justify its global legitimacy. Regarding Israel, Moscow’s approach is characterized by ambivalence—on the one hand, acknowledging Israel’s regional importance and engaging in specific cooperation, including assistance in freeing Israeli hostages with Russian citizenship from Gaza; on the other hand, fostering ties with Hamas leadership and openly or indirectly criticizing Israel’s policy on Ukraine and its relative alignment with Western positions.
For Israel, Russia is a key player in the Syrian arena. Its policy towards Russia is primarily shaped by security considerations—first and foremost, maintaining freedom of action in Syria—and by the need to balance commitments to Western alliances with practical regional considerations. Israel aims to navigate a delicate balance between loyalty to Western values and the pursuit of strategic interests in a complex geopolitical landscape.
Within this matrix of positions, there are areas of overlap between the two countries, both of which are interested in stabilizing the Syrian arena and preventing broader regional deterioration. Additionally, the two states are linked through the community of former Soviet immigrants in Israel, Jewish communities in Russia, and the symbolic connection to Jerusalem, a city of profound significance to the Russian-Christian narrative.
However, there are also deep gaps, particularly in the perceptual dimension. While Israel strives to maintain a Western and democratic image, Russia views the West as an ideological rival and, consequently, sometimes sees Israel as a Western outpost. This is compounded by the ongoing challenge of Russia’s relations with hostile actors toward Israel—primarily Iran and Hamas—which place Moscow between conflicting alliances.
In the Syrian arena, since 2015, there has been a close security coordination mechanism (“the deconfliction hotline”) between Jerusalem and Moscow, preventing direct military friction and allowing Israel to maintain its freedom of action. However, in the public sphere, Russia at times avoids supporting Israeli actions. The picture has become even more complicated with the growing Turkish influence in Syria, especially following Assad’s overthrow in December 2024. Turkish involvement, based on support for the opposition and efforts to shape a new regional order, creates competition for influence in the Syrian arena. In this context, strengthening ties with Russia is not only a means of securing freedom of action but also a central component in a containment strategy against further Turkish or Iranian penetration into the area.
On the Ukraine issue, Israel has opted for a calculated neutrality. It condemned the invasion in moderate language, provided humanitarian aid, but refrained from military steps or joining sanctions. This position has caused disappointment on both the Russian and Ukrainian sides. In the media sphere as well, Israel is almost absent from internal Russian discourse and does not engage in active branding in the Russian media landscape.
Compared to other countries, such as India, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, or Singapore, Israel lags significantly behind. These states have developed narrative strategies that enable them to maintain ties with opposing sides in the international system and position themselves as actors with independent perceptions and soft influence capabilities. Israel can and should learn from these models how to design a foreign policy based not only on reaction or constraint, but on active narrative presence and a deliberate identity choice.
Defending Security Interests – Without Confrontation
Given the complexity of the relationship between Israel and Russia, as well as the gaps between their respective strategic identities, a proactive yet cautious foreign policy is required, grounded in a multidimensional outlook. The proposed model is based on five complementary operational principles: non-provocative assertiveness, calculated neutrality, narrative management, the activation of informal channels, and the leveraging of soft assets. Its goal is to ensure Israel’s strategic freedom of action while shaping an independent image and maintaining its ties with the West.
First, adherence to the principle of “non-provocative assertiveness” will allow Israel to protect its security interests without provoking confrontations with the Russian side. Simultaneously, calculated neutrality enables Israel to engage with all parties in the global arena without being perceived as automatically aligned with any particular camp. Alongside this, promoting a clear Israeli narrative in the Russian arena is essential for shaping a positive and inclusive perception—one that portrays Israel as a Western yet also Middle Eastern state, sovereign but not imperialist. Informal channels, including media figures, academics, and Jewish-Russian communities, serve as a vital soft lever in strengthening ties during times of official diplomatic distance. The strategy proposes cultivating these channels and granting them a prominent place within Israel’s relationship framework with Moscow. Lastly, soft assets—such as technology, collective memory, and shared culture—can generate a soft yet effective Israeli presence, particularly among Russian-speaking audiences, even if Israel lacks traditional soft power.
Walking a Fine Line
The proposed strategy requires delicate management of tensions and sensitivities in both the international and domestic Israeli arenas. First, strengthening ties with Russia may trigger reservations among Western partners, especially in actions with high public visibility. A policy is needed that maintains the balance between managing ties with Moscow and preserving Western trust.
Second, this strategy is resource-intensive: activating cultural channels, producing content, cultivating knowledge institutions, and operating narrative diplomacy require dedicated funding, political patience, and inter-ministerial coordination—resources that are sometimes lacking in the Israeli system.
Third, there is perceptual complexity within the Israeli domestic arena. Public attitudes toward Russia are not uniform, reflecting historical, identity-based, and political baggage. Formulating a narrative policy toward Moscow may provoke public criticism or opposition from audiences who view Russia as a problematic partner. Nevertheless, international examples indicate that effective narrative diplomacy is possible even under complex conditions. Turkey, for example, successfully maneuvers between cooperation with Russia and maintaining close ties with NATO and the United States, utilizing identity and narrative tools such as television series and soft diplomacy. Israel can adopt a similar approach: cautious yet proactive, identity-driven but non-provocative.
To assess the effectiveness of the multilayered strategy, it is necessary to define indicators that enable the evaluation of its actual impact. On the narrative level, success would be reflected in a shift in how Israel is covered by Russian media, from a tense, security-focused image to a more balanced narrative that includes civil, cultural, and innovative partnerships. Simultaneously, there should be an increase in civil cooperation, such as student exchanges, joint academic projects, and technological and cultural collaborations.
Other indicators may include growth in the number of Russian audiences exposed to Russian-language Israeli content on digital platforms, increased Israeli presence at media and cultural events in Russia, and deeper participation of academic and research institutions in bilateral discourse.
In the security dimension, stability in the coordination mechanisms in Syria and a reduction in direct friction incidents between Israel and Russia in the northern arena would serve as clear signs that the strategy contributes to preserving Israel’s freedom of action. Combining these indicators—narrative, digital, civil, and security—will allow for the assessment of the strategy’s cumulative effect and necessary adjustments over time.
Israel as a Flexible and Strategic Player
In light of global changes, Russia’s ongoing involvement in Syria, and its deepening ties with actors hostile to Israel, a reassessment of Israel’s foreign policy toward Russia is required. This article proposes an alternative operational framework, based on a multilayered understanding of international relations and the use of narrative, cultural, and civil tools to achieve political objectives.
The proposed strategy goes beyond a narrow security approach and seeks to position Israel as an independent, flexible, and strategic actor in an arena of multiple power centers. It is based on five operational layers: the security layer focuses on preserving Israel’s freedom of action in the Syrian arena while maintaining strategic coordination with Russia; the political layer is based on calculated and active neutrality, allowing Israel to carefully maneuver between powers without losing political independence; the narrative layer aims to shape a clear Israeli identity and perception in the Russian arena through shared narratives and a proactive national story; the soft-cultural layer leverages non-military assets—such as innovation, collective memory, community ties, and cultural content—to increase Israel’s symbolic influence; and finally, the civil-epistemic layer operates through informal dialogue channels and shadow diplomacy, including researchers, journalists, cultural figures, and Russian-speaking communities.
In an era of a changing international system characterized by the weakening of the old order and the rise of multipolar forces, Israel cannot afford to leave its relationship with Russia to chance. This approach does not call for detachment from the West; on the contrary, it aims to strengthen Israel’s alliances while diversifying its strategic tools and adapting to a multipolar reality. Israel’s success depends not only on its military power but also on its ability to generate ideological, cultural, and perceptual presence that resonates within global centers of influence.
