The article evaluates Russian policy in Syria as a case of Moscow’s strategic design. The actions of Moscow, repeatedly announcing its victory and withdrawal of troops, sometimes look not quite logical, if not take into account circumstances outside Syrian circle. Vladimir Putin’s new presidential term started in 2012 with a program of Eurasian integration. The development of EurAsEC had an ambitious goal of promotion the Eurasian Union as an alter-ego of the European Union. The main instrument and resource of the project was considered to be oil and gas complex, which included (a) Western (Ukrainian and Belarusian) component; (b) the Northern stream, supplementing it; (b) design of South Stream and (d) eastern part – Power of Siberia. However, the concept and technology of project’s implementation failed to work in due course. The planned political aspect of the EAEU was blocked, control over UkrGTS became improbable, and the South Stream project abandoned. Resolution of at least part of the problems seemed to be the project of Turkish Stream, but it demanded a point of influence on Ankara. A controlled area on Syrian territory close to Turkish border could serve this aim. Success of intervention in Syria was also important to Moscow for restoration of prestige, smoothing of tensions and as the manifesto for next cadence. The script, however, suffered fiasco. Ankara reacted sharply to the forceful actions at its borders. The Turkish Stream planning had truncated, and the alternative non-Russian “Gas Silk Road” – TANAP began to function. Moscow had to conclude negotiations on the Caspian Sea, forcing the decision of military-strategic tasks, but agreeing with the principle of “notification” about the laying of pipelines. The volume of military-technical, logistical, transport problems connected with the Syrian campaign was underestimated as well. Russia could not effectively exploit the potential of links with the Kurds who had moved to the patronage of the United States. The military alliance with Iran with the increasing isolation of the latter is becoming a strategic trap, and the fixation of consensus on the zones of domination is fraught with political and financial burdens. Russia's interests in the Afro-Asiatic zone meanwhile move to the African continent. All this means corrosion of Russian strategic perspective and burden of problem diversity in both foreign and domestic policy.