Why Putin Loses In His Own Game
He’s digging his own hole
Introduction
After Putin took power in 2000, Russia’s foreign politics was a headache for the world, especially for its smaller neighbors. Russia holds the largest natural resources which are necessary for both the neighbors and the world. Only, for this reason, Putin continues to play his Tsarist games. First, we need to understand that his foreign political views are built on long Russia’s history.
Russia’s History
Russia’s founding place was terrible. The old Russia was in plains surrounded by plains. No mountains or seas protected Russia from invaders. Rivers couldn’t help much, as it’s easy to cross them if necessary. And there weren’t enough rivers either way. Having no natural borders which could defend Russia from invaders meant they could be easily conquered. And Russia was conquered. The Mongolian empire which expanded from Korea to Poland enforced its rule on the Russian people. After a while, the Russian people had enough. The economy boomed in what is today’s Moscow, and now they knew how to use European guns with gunpowder. After being humiliated for years, the Russian people fought back and won.
Being humiliated once, Russia said, “Never again.” At first, they thought the Ural Mountains would be enough. They were long and uncrossable and seemed to be a good border. But they weren’t long enough. The Ural Mountains have a “gap” that Mongols used to get to conquer Russia in the first place. So, Ivan The Terrible commanded them to expand further, they expanded so much they reached the Pacific ocean. Ivan’s army met little resistance. The Tsarist Imperialism offered to be controlled by the tsar or to be killed by him.
How Putin Plays
Putin considers himself to be a tsar. He even has a tsarist emblem on his palace. What was once offered to nations in Siberia, right now is demanded from Ukraine. Negotiations between NATO and Russia began, but it’s ridiculous how contradictory Putin’s views are. At the same time, Russia claims that NATO is the aggressor, and Russia is merely defending its borders. Firstly, NATO is expanding because there’s a reason for it. Countries that would like to join NATO because they feel pressured to do so. Knowing Russia’s interventionist/expansionist geopolitics smaller countries would feel safer within NATO. Secondly, Russia demanded the U.S. and other NATO members obey Russia.
If Russia is portrayed by Putin as a victim, it’s ridiculous what Putin wants from the west. According to Putin, for peace to remain — former Soviet Union members wouldn’t be allowed to join NATO. This would impossible for NATO, as NATO follows an open-door policy. And it would require a complete restructuring of the whole NATO. Other demands prohibit the U.S. from having military bases outside its national territories. But it does permit Russia to deploy its own military forces outside Russia’s borders. It’s contradictory and Putin knows NATO wouldn’t accept his proposals. Therefore, Russia will act, and if asked why, Russia will respond as NATO failed to remain peaceful.
If we had to compare NATO and Putin’s forces, there’s no doubt NATO is by far stronger. In case of conflict, Russia’s economy would plummet as massive sanctions would be put on Russia. But if Putin won’t attack Ukraine, he will make a fool out of himself as all of his threats will mean nothing. As Putin is tormented by his inferiority complex, he can sacrifice both economy and people’s lives to receive the validation he desperately needs.
How should NATO respond?
For too many years NATO did everything to maintain peace. While it’s honorable for NATO to try “keeping up with insane demands of Putin”, it’s time to remind him which alliance is stronger. NATO should not fear expanding further if necessary and be able to defend itself from foreign invaders.
It’s often the case that Russia is the one who’s demanding. The more the west kept up with Putin’s demands, the more Russia demanded. So far we know this strategy hasn’t worked and NATO should be the one demanding. If Russia can ask to demilitarize NATO members for made-up reasons we can demand the demilitarization of the Kaliningrad and Russo-Ukrainian border.
It’s obvious Putin won’t comply but offers to maintain peace from the West would be offered. Of course, Russia’s propaganda will make the situation a lot different than reality is, but NATO should consider asking for more. It’s time for Putin to taste his own medicine.
About the Creator
Keep reading
More stories from writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Minister Rules Out National Security Status for New Fisheries Ships
In a recent statement, the government has ruled out granting national security status to newly commissioned fisheries vessels, a move that has sparked debate among policymakers, industry experts, and maritime stakeholders. While the fleet expansion is seen as a crucial step for safeguarding marine resources and boosting economic activity, the decision not to classify these ships under national security protocols raises questions about oversight, strategic priorities, and resource allocation. Expanding the Fisheries Fleet Over the past few years, the government has invested heavily in modernizing the country’s fisheries fleet. The new ships are equipped with advanced technology for monitoring fish stocks, enforcing sustainable fishing practices, and combating illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing. According to officials, these vessels represent a significant leap forward in protecting marine ecosystems and supporting coastal communities whose livelihoods depend on fishing. Despite the technological advancements, the minister clarified that these ships would not receive the same designation or protection as naval or coast guard vessels. “While these fisheries ships play a critical role in supporting the economy and monitoring our waters, they are not intended for national defense or military operations,” the minister stated. “They remain civilian assets focused on resource management and environmental stewardship.” Implications for Security and Oversight The decision has prompted discussions among experts about whether fisheries ships might still face security threats from piracy, territorial disputes, or organized criminal activity. Unlike naval ships, which operate under strict national security protocols and can respond to threats with military authority, fisheries vessels are primarily civilian in nature and have limited enforcement capabilities. Maritime security analyst Dr. Samantha Rowe notes, “Fisheries vessels are increasingly operating in areas where geopolitical tensions are rising, particularly in contested waters. While it may not be necessary to classify them as national security assets, there should be clear protocols and support mechanisms to ensure crew safety and vessel protection.” The lack of national security status also affects funding and coordination with defense forces. Civilian fisheries ships may not have access to certain intelligence, protective measures, or rapid response support that are standard for military vessels. This has led some stakeholders to advocate for enhanced cooperation between fisheries authorities and naval forces, without formally designating the ships as part of the national security apparatus. Economic and Environmental Considerations While security concerns are a key point of discussion, the primary purpose of the new fleet is economic and environmental. Fisheries play a vital role in food security, export earnings, and local employment, particularly in coastal regions. By investing in modern vessels equipped with satellite tracking, automated monitoring systems, and sustainable fishing technologies, the government aims to maximize resource efficiency and minimize environmental impact. Dr. Ramesh Patel, a marine ecologist, highlights the ecological importance of the fleet: “Illegal fishing and overexploitation of fish stocks are significant threats to marine biodiversity. These new ships are essential for data collection, enforcement of quotas, and ensuring that future generations have access to healthy oceans.” The minister emphasized that the decision not to assign national security status does not diminish the importance of the fleet. “Our priority is sustainable fisheries management and economic support for the fishing communities,” the minister explained. “National security designation is not a prerequisite for achieving these goals.” Strategic Balance By keeping the vessels under civilian status, the government maintains a balance between oversight, operational flexibility, and cost efficiency. National security classification would have required higher expenditure, stricter operational controls, and potential limitations on how the ships could be used in daily fisheries operations. Civilian status allows for more adaptable deployment while maintaining accountability through maritime regulations and fisheries authorities. Additionally, the decision reflects a broader trend in separating defense and civilian maritime functions. While some countries have merged fisheries and naval operations, others maintain clear distinctions to prevent mission overlap, reduce bureaucratic complexity, and allocate resources more efficiently. Public Response and Industry Reaction The fishing industry has generally welcomed the expansion of the fleet, noting that the vessels enhance productivity and compliance with international fishing standards. However, some groups have expressed concerns about potential threats from foreign actors, particularly in waters that are subject to regional disputes or increased smuggling activity. Stakeholders are calling for clear operational guidelines, emergency response plans, and cooperative arrangements with naval forces to ensure that the new fleet can operate safely without compromising its civilian mandate. Conclusion The government’s decision to rule out national security status for new fisheries ships underscores the civilian and economic focus of the fleet. While the ships are equipped with cutting-edge technology to monitor and protect marine resources, they remain separate from defense operations. As fisheries continue to play a critical role in the economy, food security, and environmental sustainability, the challenge lies in ensuring that the vessels operate safely in increasingly complex maritime environments. Collaboration, proper oversight, and strategic planning will be key to maximizing the fleet’s impact without overextending its civilian mandate.
By Fiaz Ahmed Brohia day ago in The Swamp
White House Weighs Executive Action to Cap Credit Card Rates
The White House is reportedly considering executive action to impose a cap on credit card interest rates, a move that could significantly impact millions of Americans grappling with rising debt. With household credit card balances climbing and interest rates at multi-decade highs, the potential policy has sparked debate among economists, consumer advocates, and the financial industry. The decision, if implemented, would be one of the most direct interventions by the federal government into consumer credit markets in decades. Rising Credit Card Debt in America Credit card debt has surged in the United States, fueled by post-pandemic spending, inflation, and rising interest rates. According to recent reports, U.S. consumers carry over $1 trillion in outstanding credit card balances, with average interest rates hovering around 20% or higher. For many households, high-interest debt has become a cycle that is increasingly difficult to escape. The White House’s contemplation of a federal cap on these rates reflects growing concern about consumer financial stress. Advocates argue that without intervention, millions of Americans may face long-term financial instability, risking defaults and broader economic consequences. What the Executive Action Might Entail While details are still emerging, an executive action could allow the federal government to directly limit the interest rates charged on credit cards without requiring new legislation from Congress. Historically, credit card interest rates have been regulated at the state level, with federal law largely leaving them to market forces. Potential provisions of such an executive action could include: Maximum APR (Annual Percentage Rate) Limits: A fixed ceiling on the interest rate credit card companies can charge. Protection for Vulnerable Consumers: Specific safeguards for households carrying high balances or at risk of default. Transparency Requirements: Ensuring credit card terms and fees are clearly disclosed to consumers. The action may be temporary or structured to last until Congress enacts more permanent legislation addressing consumer credit. Supporters’ Perspective Consumer advocacy groups and some Democratic lawmakers have welcomed the idea of a rate cap. They argue that excessive interest rates exacerbate inequality and disproportionately affect lower- and middle-income households. “Credit cards should not be traps that keep hardworking Americans in debt,” says Angela Martinez, director of a consumer rights nonprofit. “A rate cap can provide immediate relief, giving families breathing room to pay down balances and regain financial stability.” Supporters also contend that such an intervention could prevent predatory practices by certain lenders and protect the broader economy from potential debt crises caused by widespread defaults. Critics’ Concerns Financial institutions and some economists warn that capping rates could have unintended consequences. Banks may respond by: Reducing Credit Access: Higher-risk consumers might find it harder to obtain credit if lenders can’t price risk appropriately. Increasing Fees: Banks could compensate for lost interest income through higher fees or other charges. Impacting Lending Behavior: Credit card issuers may tighten credit limits, change terms, or reduce incentives like rewards programs. Economist Kevin Anderson notes, “While a rate cap helps existing cardholders, it could reduce access to credit for consumers who need it most. The challenge is finding a balance between affordability and maintaining a healthy credit market.” Historical Context Interest rate caps are not a new concept in the United States. During the 1980s and 1990s, several states imposed limits on credit card interest rates, but federal law eventually allowed national banks to preempt state caps, creating today’s largely market-driven system. Previous efforts at limiting rates at the federal level have been controversial, with debates centered on consumer protection versus market efficiency. The current economic environment—high inflation and rising consumer debt—has reignited discussions about the need for intervention. Potential Economic Impact Implementing a federal rate cap could have wide-ranging effects: Immediate Consumer Relief: For households carrying high-interest debt, even a small reduction in rates could free up monthly cash flow for other expenses or debt repayment. Market Adjustments: Banks may revise lending practices, potentially affecting the broader credit market and interest rates on other loan products. Behavioral Changes: Consumers may adjust borrowing habits, potentially reducing reliance on credit cards and seeking alternative financing. Financial analysts caution that the effectiveness of such a policy depends on the specific structure of the cap and accompanying measures to ensure continued access to credit. Political Implications The move to cap credit card rates reflects a broader political focus on economic fairness and consumer protection. For the administration, it signals a commitment to addressing everyday financial challenges faced by Americans, particularly in the context of rising inflation and living costs. However, any executive action is likely to face legal challenges from financial institutions and industry groups arguing that such a cap exceeds presidential authority or conflicts with federal banking laws. The outcome could shape debates on executive power and the limits of regulatory intervention in financial markets. What Consumers Should Know For consumers, the news of a potential rate cap offers hope but also underscores the importance of personal financial management. Experts advise: Pay Down High-Interest Debt: Reducing balances remains the most effective way to limit interest costs. Shop for Lower-Rate Cards: Comparing credit card offers can help minimize interest payments. Budget Carefully: Managing monthly expenses and avoiding new high-interest debt remains critical, regardless of policy changes. Even with a federal cap, personal financial decisions will continue to determine long-term stability. Conclusion The White House’s consideration of an executive action to cap credit card interest rates highlights the ongoing struggle between consumer protection and market dynamics. For millions of Americans carrying high-interest debt, the proposal could offer much-needed relief. At the same time, the move introduces uncertainty for banks, lenders, and the broader credit market. Legal, economic, and political factors will all play a role in shaping the final outcome. Ultimately, whether the policy is enacted or challenged, the discussion underscores a central issue: ensuring that credit is both accessible and affordable for all Americans. As the administration weighs its options, households, financial institutions, and lawmakers will watch closely, knowing that the decisions made today could have lasting effects on consumer finances for years to come.
By Muhammad Hassan4 days ago in The Swamp
How, Too
Many people wonder how, too. You are not alone, and I am an expert. I will teach you how, too! First, you need to remit a small application fee and fill out an application describing the nature of your financial situation and how often payments will be made, as this will have great bearing on how well I teach you how, too.
By Harper Lewis4 days ago in Fiction
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.