With only two episodes left to go in The Americans, episode 6.8 this week mapped out a profound change in Elizabeth. Till now, in this season and earlier, Elizabeth has been nothing but coldly homicidal regarding anyone identified as an enemy by the Centre and ordered by them to be eliminated. Likewise, any innocent person who jeopardized her continuing work for the Centre. But, after a game-changing conversation to start the episode, in which Philip finally tells Elizabeth what he's been tasked by the Soviet government—in contrast to the Centre—to do, Elizabeth finally begins coming into her own, as, well, a human being.
First, she allows Jackson to walk away after he tells that he knows she's been using him for some unsavory purpose. In every episode up to this one, Elizabeth never would have let him get out of the car. And next, she disobeys an order to kill Nesterenko, because she's seen for herself that he's not an enemy of the state.
She's still loyal to The Soviet Union, but that means loyalty to the Communist Party and Gorbachev, not loyalty to the Centre. This puts Elizabeth and Claudia on a collision course, and it's not clear what Claudia will do. But Elizabeth—and Philip—ironically have worse things to worry about. Stan is all but convinced that they are the couple who killed so many of the FBI's assets over the years.
A big question mark still hangs over Renee. The one thing that can stop Stan—easily kill him, if need be—is Renee. Tonight we see her noticing that Stan is looking across the street at the Jennings home. When she asks him what he's looking at, he lies to her and says the moon. She's got to know he's lying. If she's a Russian agent, what will she do about this?
So far, we've seen no evidence that she is indeed working for the Centre. But scenes like this, and Stan lying about the moon, should oblige us to think more about Renee. I wouldn't be at all surprised if part of the stunning ending in two weeks is she kills Stan before he can bring Philip and Elizabeth down.
On the other hand ... well, I'll be back here next week with my next-to-last review of this extraordinary series.
About the Creator
Paul Levinson
Novels The Silk Code, The Plot To Save Socrates, It's Real Life: An Alternate History of The Beatles; LPs Twice Upon A Rhyme & Welcome Up; nonfiction The Soft Edge & Digital McLuhan, translated into 15 languages. Prof, Fordham Univ.
Keep reading
More stories from Paul Levinson and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Review of 'Babylon Berlin'
I can't think of a better time -- or maybe worse time -- to watch a 16-episode German series (streaming on Netflix) about the police in the Weimar Republic in 1929, just a few years before the Nazis won a plurality in the Reichstag, Hitler became Chancellor, and by 1934 had seized power, ended democracy, and declared himself Führer. Weimar police detectives are comprised of people who would give their all to save democracy and people bent on destroying it. Police on the street often react with deadly force to protests, unable to distinguish peaceful demonstrators from those with darker motives. Politicians are much the same. The parallels to our age of Trump, who has systematically attacked the press and other bulwarks of democracy, are obvious and chilling -- more than chilling, given that we know how this battle turned out in Germany, and the impact of that result on the rest of the world.
By Paul Levinson8 years ago in The Swamp
Mastercard, Visa and Revolut Lose UK Case Over Proposed Cross-Border Card Fees Cap
In a significant ruling that could reshape the financial services landscape, Mastercard, Visa, and Revolut have lost a legal challenge against the United Kingdom’s proposed cap on cross-border card fees. The decision comes after the UK competition and markets authorities argued that the fees charged for international card transactions were excessive and unfair to consumers, prompting legal action by the card networks and digital banking platforms. The case has attracted attention from consumers, financial institutions, and industry analysts alike, raising questions about card fees, consumer protection, and the balance of power between regulators and multinational payment networks. The Proposed Cap The UK government had proposed a limit on cross-border card fees to ensure that consumers are not overcharged when making international transactions. Currently, these fees can range from 1% to 3% per transaction, depending on the card issuer, type of card, and merchant agreements. Regulators argued that these charges were not always justified by the actual cost of processing payments, resulting in higher costs for individuals and small businesses. By capping fees, the UK aims to increase transparency and reduce unnecessary expenses for consumers using cards abroad or making cross-border online purchases. Why Mastercard, Visa, and Revolut Opposed the Cap The card networks and Revolut challenged the cap, claiming that such regulation interferes with free market operations and could limit their ability to invest in security, infrastructure, and innovation. Mastercard and Visa emphasized that cross-border transaction fees help cover fraud prevention, currency conversion, and network maintenance. Revolut, a leading digital bank, argued that restrictions could affect their pricing models, ultimately impacting users who rely on multi-currency accounts and international transfers. From the perspective of these companies, the proposed cap threatened both revenue streams and the flexibility to offer a wide range of financial products to consumers. The Court Ruling The UK court rejected the challenge, siding with regulators. The judgment noted that while companies like Mastercard, Visa, and Revolut operate globally, they must comply with national consumer protection laws, especially when their services affect millions of UK consumers. The ruling highlights a broader principle: multinational payment networks cannot operate without oversight when their business practices create financial burdens on ordinary users. The decision sets a precedent for stricter regulatory scrutiny on cross-border transaction fees in the UK, and potentially across Europe. Implications for Consumers For consumers, the ruling is largely positive. Cross-border card transactions—often used for online shopping, travel, and international payments—could become more affordable and predictable. Reduced fees mean that travelers and online shoppers will no longer face disproportionately high charges for routine purchases. Small businesses that rely on international sales could also benefit from lower costs when accepting card payments from overseas customers. This development may encourage wider adoption of international e-commerce and digital banking services, while enhancing consumer trust in financial transactions. Industry Reactions The ruling has elicited mixed reactions. Consumer advocacy groups celebrated the decision as a win for fairness and transparency. “This is a step toward protecting everyday users from hidden costs,” said Sarah Jenkins, a spokesperson for the UK Consumer Association. Meanwhile, industry experts expressed concern that the cap could affect profit margins, investment in payment infrastructure, and service innovation. Payment networks rely on transaction fees to fund technology that ensures security, prevents fraud, and maintains global connectivity. Lower fees could force companies to adjust their pricing strategies or reduce investment in certain features. The Global Context The UK is not alone in scrutinizing card fees. Across the European Union, regulators have implemented caps on interchange fees for domestic and cross-border transactions. Australia and Canada have also explored similar limits to promote transparency and protect consumers. The UK ruling reinforces a global trend: regulators are increasingly willing to challenge major financial institutions over pricing practices that disadvantage consumers. Companies operating internationally must balance profitability with compliance, particularly in regions with strong consumer protection frameworks. Future of Cross-Border Transactions The decision may accelerate the adoption of alternative payment methods, such as real-time bank transfers, digital wallets, and cryptocurrency solutions, which often provide lower fees for international transactions. For Mastercard, Visa, and Revolut, the challenge will be to adapt business models without compromising service quality. Some analysts predict that companies may respond by bundling services, offering subscription-based accounts, or negotiating lower interchange fees with merchants to offset regulatory restrictions. Broader Implications for Financial Regulation Beyond card fees, the ruling signals a broader shift in financial regulation, where consumer protection and fair pricing are prioritized over network dominance. It illustrates that even the largest multinational payment providers are accountable to local laws, especially in markets with strong regulatory frameworks. For fintech startups and digital banks, this decision provides clarity: companies must anticipate and comply with local regulations, even when operating globally. The ruling could inspire additional regulatory initiatives aimed at enhancing transparency, fairness, and competition in the payments industry. Conclusion The UK court’s rejection of Mastercard, Visa, and Revolut’s challenge marks a significant victory for consumer rights. By enforcing a cap on cross-border card fees, the UK is taking a clear stance that financial fairness and transparency matter, even in a rapidly evolving global payments landscape. For consumers, the ruling promises lower costs and more predictable transactions. For the industry, it is a reminder that innovation and profitability must coexist with regulatory compliance. As multinational financial services continue to expand, similar regulatory scrutiny may emerge in other markets, signaling a new era where consumer protection shapes the future of global payments.
By Aarif Lashariabout 19 hours ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.