The second consequential strategic decision taken by President Putin was the military intercession in the Syrian civil war. The Kremlin did not want to see the replay of the drama the Western leaders played in Iraq and Libya These two countries today paint a pathetic picture of lawlessness, chaos and bloodshed and reflect the wanton military interventions in the smaller developing countries by the Western states. Had they withstood the pressure of heir Gulf allies for direct intervention in Iraq, Libya and Syria, the militant groups of the ferocious character of Jabhat Al-Fateh-Al Sham and Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) would not have emerged on the scene The ISIS displayed its outreach to Europe carrying out militant attacks in France, Belgium and Turkey. President Putin leveraged this interlude to move his security apparatus to intervene in Syria to rescue the embattled Bashar-al-Asad regime. The Russian intervention was received as a fait accompli by the USA and the EU countries. The Russian fighter aircrafts strafed the ISIS and the opposition forces which have been infiltrated by Al-Qaeda militants. The Russian intervention not only foiled the designs of the Gulf States to punish Bashar-al-Asad, it brought into play the larger specter of the Iranian dominance of the region. The intervention bedeviled bilateral relations between Russia and Turkey when the latter shot down a Russian fighter jet on her borders. The deteriorating relationship between Turkey and Russia had all the potential to expand the civil war. However, the political and security conditions after the July coup obtaining in Turkey compelled President Erdogan to mend relations with Russia. The new relationship has rather paved the way for coordinated strategic moves in Syria by Russia and Turkey. Earlier, Russia and the USA concluded an agreement to find a negotiated settlement of the Syrian problem facilitating the process of talks between the Syrian regime and the opposition groups with President Bashar-al-Asad leading the country in the transitional period. They also decided to carry out coordinated air attacks on the ISIS. The Gulf allies of the USA were not happy with the emerging consensus for a negotiated settlement of the Syrian problem and their bête noire, Bashar-al-Asad, heading the transitional regime. They found themselves helpless in the presence of Russia in Syria. The Kremlin is also accused of taking undue advantage of the present dwindling credentials of the European Union as a viable organization. The Russian leadership is reported to have strengthened their relations with the Euroskeptical and far right parties of Europe. The Obama administration had even launched investigations into the charges that Russia advanced substantial funds to the National Front of Marie Le Pen in France and the fringe political parties in some other European countries to undermine the EU. The parties which reportedly benefitted from the Russian largesse include Greece’s Golden Dawn and Hungary’s Jobbik. What he desires is the relevance of Russia in the European continent at any cost and on his terms. The European Union is threatened more by these Euroskeptical parties and nationalist politicians than an outside power. They have a good following now. Russia has also failed to put in place a democratic dispensation with strong political, economic and legal institutions which could ensure at least a minimum level of transparency in decision making Lilia Shevtsova describes the Russian move in Europe as ‘with Europe, within Europe and against Europe’. The American Intelligence agencies had come up with disturbing reports that the Russian hackers at the behest of President Vladimir Putin had largely influenced the outcome of the American elections in favour of President Donald Trump. This was announced by President Barak Obama, himself. He expelled 35 Russian diplomats from the USA. President Putin responded to this in a befitting manner. With these strategic gambles, President Putin has revived the specter of Cold war era conflict between the Russian Federation and the Western world. The USA and EU leaders knew that Russia, when out of its political and economic difficulties would never play the second fiddle in the regions of the former Soviet influence. The main question is how long Russia can tread on this war path. It has the military strength in terms of numerical size, conventional weapons and nuclear arsenal that include tactical weapons. But it is, as in the past, long way behind the USA and the NATO in technology and financial resources. Russia has a long way to go to overcome these inherent weaknesses. Even today, Russia depends on the sale of her hydrocarbons to Europe and the Western investment and technology. The Russians know that their military and economic resources would be limited in the event of confrontation with the West. They also feel the bite of the economic sanctions and understand the depth of the hurt the new economic sanctions would inflict on them if they failed to implement the Minsk-II agreement on Crimea. Russia has also failed to put in place a democratic dispensation with strong political, economic and legal institutions which could ensure at least a minimum level of transparency in decision making. The country is being run on the whimsical decisions of President Putin and his nomenclatural coterie in the Kremlin. Alena Ledeneva, a political analyst and a writer, has identified this decision-making process by a riddle-like term – Sistema – which she elaborates as a practice that follows the official rules and formal procedures but also relies heavily on unwritten codes and practical norms. Elaborating further, she says “Sistema enjoys unlimited access to all natural resources – public or private – with a kind of permanent state of emergency in the state. Probably, after gaining the lost power and prestige of his country, President Putin as the leader of a powerful country would come to realize his responsibility to play the role of a world class statesman contributing to peace and international security in this unsafe world. If the past history is any guide, states and rulers are never satiated even if they achieve the zenith of power, as the German leader Bismarck had rightly put it. Vladimir Putin cannot be an exception to this. Concluded The writer was a member of the Foreign Service of Pakistan and he has authored two books