Initially perceived as a swift display of Russian power, the Ukrainian crisis has evolved into a prolonged and bloody conflict. As the situation continues to unfold, it has become increasingly evident that the nuances of the war extend far beyond initial assessments. The idea that Ukraine would capitulate through a coordinated attack has been proven to be overly simplistic, with wave after wave of Russian offensives faltering at its gates.
However, while Ukraine’s trajectory of military success can be traced to significant financial support from the Pentagon and NATO, what remains arguably more perplexing is Russia’s deepening political turmoil. For the past two decades, the halls of the Kremlin have known only one name; Putin. Following the collapse of the USSR, the man moved to display complete control over Russia and managed to establish a reputation of Machiavellian invincibility. 
Surviving the tenure of five American Presidents and ensuring that Russia maintained its reputation and commanded respect on the international stage, Putin was likely aware of the vast economic ramifications and cost that the war would entail even before Russia launched its offensive in February of last year. However, while the Russian economy might hold out yet, the same cannot be said for Vladimir Putin.
The recent coup attempt by the Wagner group reveals the Russian President’s weaknesses and the potential for his opponents to exploit them. The coup attempt is a significant event that shows how profound the current crisis is. But it also has deeper implications for the future of Russian politics. It challenges the long-standing notion of Putin’s absolute control and exposes the underlying power struggles and the emergence of independent forces within the country. The coup attempt also has important geopolitical effects, as it impacts not only the domestic sphere but also regional and international politics. It is integral for anyone to understand that this was not a conventional political challenge that can be ignored and slid under the rug, rather, it is reminiscent of the country’s past political troubles.
Traversing through the complex landscape of global politics has always been an arduous task. In navigating this labyrinth, Putin’s presence provided a sense of consistency in Russian foreign policy. Under his rule, the world understood where nations stood in relation to the Russian bloc. In his absence, however, numerous questions arise, creating a vacuum of uncertainty. Who will step forward to lead the new Russia? How will the nation respond to the evolving geopolitical landscape? The once-predictable Russia finds itself at a crossroads, shrouded in ambiguity.
The absence of Putin from the global stage signifies more than just a transition in leadership; it necessitates a fundamental redefinition of Russia’s position and the very essence of the “Russian bloc.” As China reshapes the dynamics of global politics, the obscurity surrounding Russia’s trajectory presents potentially catastrophic implications for the international order. The potential fragmentation and disarray pose significant threats to regional and global stability, as established alliances and agreements may come under scrutiny. The international community must prepare for a recalibration of power dynamics in this uncertain era.
In the midst of shifting global dynamics, the decline of old alliances and the formation of new ones signal a world order in rapid transformation. Within this context, Russia stands out as a crucial piece, reflecting both the uncertainties and potential risks that lie ahead. A Russia without Putin at its helm is a Russia capable of unforeseen actions.
In a country like Pakistan, where we have plenty of our own grievances to focus on, it can be challenging to devote attention to external developments, leading us to question why we should even care. 
However, it is crucial to recognize that everything ultimately ties back to politics, and as we navigate these uncertain times, caution and prudence become paramount for those in our position. After all, if our Finance Minister is to be believed, it was simply a matter of ‘geopolitics’ that we found great difficulty in securing an IMF deal despite meeting all prerequisite criteria. This game of politics will not see us neutral, and when we do find ourselves in a position where we have to commit, we should make sure that at least we are well informed.