The ever-green rumor that Russia might be distancing itself from the Syrian regime headed by President Bashar-al-Assad appears with tiresome regularity. But when Turkish President Recep Erdogan wades into the subject, it assumes habitation and a name.

Erdogan said Monday he could lately sense a change in the Russian stance. To quote him,

• “I saw him [Putin] more positive during the face-to-face meeting we held in Baku (on June 13) and in a telephone conversation later (on July 31)”. He does not have that initial stance; he is no more at the ‘we-are-behind-al-Assad-all-the-way’ point. Actually, I believe that he may give up on al-Assad; he is going in a much more positive direction.”

Erdogan’s credentials to look into Putin’s eyes and figure out what goes on in his mind are rather impressive. The two statesmen have a warm relationship; they keep regular contact; and they seem to admire each other – Erdogan for Putin’s “toughness”, and the Russian leader for the Turkish Islamist-president’s  “anti-western” grandstanding.

There is reason to believe this was no chance remark by Erdogan. For one thing, he spoke on the same day a strange trilateral meeting took place in Doha at the level of foreign ministers between the United States, Russia and Saudi Arabia. There has been extraordinary media secrecy about what transpired at the Doha meeting, which apparently focused on Syria.

The very fact that such a high-level trilateral took place at all over Syria would be of regional importance. The Russian-Saudi ties have been steadily warming up and Syria figured in the discussions between the visiting Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Putin at St. Petersburg in mid-June. Meanwhile, Saudi-US relations are no longer what they used to be.

Thus, Syria does not have to be an apple of discord between Moscow and Riyadh anymore. A resolution of the Syrian conflict suits both, since the fight against the Islamic State should be the priority. Of course, both Moscow and Riyadh will need to climb down from the high horse if there is to be a political solution to the Syrian crisis. But then, both must be in a chastened mood, given the stalemate in the Syrian situation where there are no winners.

As for the US, it too is in dilemma insofar as while it is adamant that al-Assad should give up power, it also wants some clarity beforehand as to the successor regime. Moscow and Riyadh can help choreograph the successor regime.

However, above all, what lends enchantment to the view is that the renewed push for reaching a political solution to the Syrian crisis may be taking place against the backdrop of a rapprochement – partial, at least – between Russia and the US.

The basis of this rapprochement is that President Obama’s policy priority happens to be the Middle East – not Eurasia – where he needs to work with Russia. Plainly put, he is obliged to be accommodating to Russia’s interests in the Ukraine crisis.

This has not been a particularly difficult thing to do. The point is, an unspoken consensus prevails today between the major European capitals, Washington and Moscow that a “freezing” of the Ukraine conflict along the existing fault lines is probably the best outcome possible for the present.

Of course, Moscow never really wanted the Donbass region to secede from Ukraine and prefers to have the set-ups that emerged in Donetsk and Luhansk legalized or legitimized as an integral part of the country (with special rights and prerogatives provided, of course) so that Moscow’s influence on these regions can be useful to leverage Ukraine’s policies.

What is apparent today is that the US’ rhetoric on Ukraine has not only tapered off lately, but in a curious U-turn, Washington seems to be quietly nudging Kiev to accept the legitimacy of the pro-Russia local authorities in Donetsk and Luhansk. Interestingly, this follows several meetings between top Russian and American diplomats in the recent months and phone conversations between Obama and President Vladimir Putin.

“Tradeoff” is an ugly word in the diplomatic jargon, but what seems to be shaping up is something close to that — while Washington accommodates Russia’s vital interests in Ukraine, it hopes to extract Russia’s cooperation on Syria. (The European Union also needs Russia’s cooperation to sort out the mess in Libya.)

But then, while Putin is in total command in Moscow, the same cannot be said for Obama. A whole lot of people in the Washington Beltway are not going to like his inclination to co-opt Russia as a partner to help solve the US’ foreign policy headaches. An article in the Atlantic magazine gives a fair idea of the storm of protest brewing in the US that Obama is “selling” Ukraine to Russia.

Obama is unlikely to pay much attention to these critics. His cerebral mind tells him that Ukraine does not affect the US’ core interests and can always be revisited in future. On the contrary, the fight against the IS cannot wait and the IS threatens the security of the western world.

To be sure, rhetoric and grandstanding apart, Putin has always remained keen on engaging with the US. Obama has openly expressed appreciation for the helping hand Putin gave in negotiating the Iran nuclear deal. And Moscow is constantly on the lookout for global issues where there is opportunity to work with the US.

Meanwhile, Russia is also keenly adjusting its Middle East policies in line with the power dynamic in the region that becomes inevitable in the downstream of the Iran nuclear deal. The improvement of relations with Saudi Arabia or Qatar (which once roughed up the Russian ambassador in a nasty incident at Doha airport) is an urgent priority for Moscow even as Iran’s integration with the West commences.

No doubt, a settlement over Syria will help Moscow advance the adjustments in its regional policies with the GCC countries and Saudi Arabia in particular. The bottom line is that “post-Soviet” Russia is not in the business of fighting proxy wars. As far as possible, Moscow ensures that its foreign-policy enterprises are self-financing and cost-effective. The Assad regime may be becoming a drain on Russian resources, while it may never again exercise control over the country as a whole. Erdogan’s assessment may be prescient.