Coin Press - Russia: Is Putin's time nearly up?

NYSE - LSE

RBGPF	1.47%	68	$
CMSC	0.09%	22.42	$
BTI	-0.63%	41.11	$
SCS	3.18%	11.32	$
GSK	-2.27%	37.88	$
RIO	0.27%	60.245	$
BCC	0.75%	98.83	$
NGG	0.26%	65.78	$
CMSD	0.13%	22.84	$
AZN	-1.24%	72.6	$
VOD	-1.08%	9.27	$
RYCEF	3.48%	10.05	$
JRI	0.38%	12.99	$
BP	0.09%	33.82	$
BCE	-0.77%	22.785	$
RELX	0.53%	50.677	$

Russia: Is Putin's time nearly up?

The reign of Russian dictator and war criminal Vladimir Putin (72) has spanned more than two decades, characterized by tight control over domestic politics, a formidable security apparatus, and accusations of organized corruption within ruling circles. As 2025 approaches, questions arise about the longevity of this power structure: could Putin and what some call his “criminal power apparatus” be at risk of losing power?

The Current Political Landscape - Constitutional Amendments:
In 2020, Russia’s constitution was amended, allowing Putin to seek additional terms. Critics argue that this move secured his grip on power and could enable him to remain in office until 2036. However, these legal changes have not entirely quelled public discontent, particularly among younger Russians eager for political and economic reforms.

Tightening Repression
Over the past few years, opposition figures and independent journalists have faced increasing pressure—from arrests to legal restrictions on free speech. Detractors say this crackdown reflects concern within the Kremlin about a growing undercurrent of dissatisfaction, including fears of large-scale protests.

Economic Strains
Western sanctions, imposed in response to Russia’s foreign policy choices and alleged human rights abuses, continue to bite. A struggling economy may weaken the social contract between the ruling elite and the broader population, especially as living standards fail to improve.

Possible Pathways to a Loss of Power - Popular Protest and Grassroots Movements:
Dissatisfaction with corruption, economic stagnation, and political repression could spark large-scale demonstrations. If protest movements gain momentum—similar to events in other post-Soviet states—the Kremlin may struggle to maintain total control.

Elite Fragmentation
Putin’s inner circle comprises powerful oligarchs, security officials, and political loyalists. Internal power struggles, sparked by competing economic interests or frustration with ongoing sanctions, could undermine the president’s position. In a worst-case scenario for the Kremlin, factions within the elite might unite behind an alternative leader, potentially orchestrating a smooth transition or even a coup.

Geopolitical Fallout
Russia’s international standing has diminished in some circles due to conflicts like the war in Ukraine. Should military or diplomatic ventures fail, or sanctions intensify, public opinion could turn sharply against the current regime, eroding the facade of strength Putin has built.

Obstacles to Regime Change - Consolidated Power Structures:
Putin’s administration has effectively centralized power, with loyalists overseeing defense, security, and major financial institutions. This entrenched network makes any direct challenge difficult, as potential opponents often lack the institutional leverage to mount a serious campaign for change.

State-Run Media
Russian state media wields considerable influence, shaping public perception by promoting official narratives and downplaying dissent. A significant share of the population remains loyal, or at least resigned, to the status quo—partly due to selective media coverage.

Security Apparatus
Instruments like the Federal Security Service (FSB) and the National Guard have shown readiness to suppress protests and harass opposition leaders. Their loyalty to the Kremlin remains a key pillar preventing large-scale destabilization.

Scenarios for 2025 and Beyond - Gradual Transition:
Putin, possibly eyeing his legacy, might orchestrate a carefully managed succession. A handpicked successor could maintain most of the existing power structures, mitigating radical upheaval. This scenario protects the interests of the political elite while granting nominal reforms to placate an increasingly restless public.

Sudden Upheaval
A culmination of economic woes, elite rivalries, and public unrest could trigger a rapid collapse of the regime. Though still less likely given Russia’s robust security institutions, the potential for sudden change cannot be discounted.

Maintaining the Status Quo
Despite the speculation, Putin’s leadership might endure if economic conditions stabilize or if repression remains effective. Continued centralization of power and control over media channels could solidify the Kremlin’s dominance well past 2025.

Conclusion
While the idea of Vladimir Putin and his so-called “criminal power apparatus” losing control in 2025 makes for a compelling debate, multiple factors will influence the outcome—ranging from grassroots discontent to elite power struggles and geopolitical pressures. Despite growing dissatisfaction and economic challenges, the Kremlin still commands significant tools of control. Whether these tools will suffice in the face of mounting pressures remains one of the most important questions for Russia’s future.

As 2025 nears, Russia’s political trajectory stands at a crossroads. The prospect of major change is neither guaranteed nor impossible. Ultimately, the stability of Putin’s reign will depend on how effectively he navigates the economic, social, and international pressures that continue to shape Russia’s destiny.

Low demand: electric vehicles clog Belgian port

EU calls for tougher measures for a ‘tobacco-free generation’

Featured

Stargate project, Trump and the AI war...

In a dramatic return to the global political stage, former President Donald J. Trump, as the current 47th President of the United States of America, has unveiled his latest initiative, the so-called ‘Stargate Project,’ in a bid to cement the United States’ dominance in artificial intelligence and outpace China’s meteoric rise in the field. The newly announced programme, cloaked in patriotic rhetoric and ambitious targets, is already stirring intense debate over the future of technological competition between the world’s two largest economies.According to preliminary statements from Trump’s team, the Stargate Project will consolidate the efforts of leading American tech conglomerates, defence contractors, and research universities under a centralised framework. The former president, who has long championed American exceptionalism, claims this approach will provide the United States with a decisive advantage, enabling rapid breakthroughs in cutting-edge AI applications ranging from military strategy to commercial innovation.“America must remain the global leader in technology—no ifs, no buts,” Trump declared at a recent press conference. “China has been trying to surpass us in AI, but with this new project, we will make sure the future remains ours.”Details regarding funding and governance remain scarce, but early indications suggest the initiative will rely heavily on public-private partnerships, tax incentives for research and development, and collaboration with high-profile venture capital firms. Skeptics, however, warn that the endeavour could fan the flames of an increasingly militarised AI race, raising ethical concerns about surveillance, automation of warfare, and data privacy. Critics also question whether the initiative can deliver on its lofty promises, especially in the face of existing economic and geopolitical pressures.Yet for its supporters, the Stargate Project serves as a rallying cry for renewed American leadership and an antidote to worries over China’s technological ascendancy. Proponents argue that accelerating AI research is paramount if the United States wishes to preserve not just military supremacy, but also the economic and cultural influence that has typified its global role for decades.Whether this bold project will succeed—or if it will devolve into a symbolic gesture—remains to be seen. What is certain, however, is that the Stargate Project has already reignited debate about how best to safeguard America’s strategic future and maintain the balance of power in the fast-evolving arena of artificial intelligence.

Truth: The end of the ‘Roman Empire’

The fall of the Roman Empire in the fifth century AD has long captivated historians and the public alike. For centuries, scholars have debated the precise causes of the Empire’s decline, offering myriad explanations—ranging from political corruption and economic instability to moral degeneration and barbarian invasions. Yet despite the passage of time and the wealth of research available, there remains no single, universally accepted answer to the question: why did the Roman Empire truly collapse?A central factor often cited is political fragmentation. As the Empire grew too vast to govern effectively from one centre, Emperor Diocletian introduced the Tetrarchy—a system dividing the realm into eastern and western halves. While initially intended to provide administrative efficiency, this division ultimately paved the way for competing centres of power and weakened the unity that had long defined Roman rule. Frequent changes of leadership and civil wars further sapped the state’s coherence, undermining confidence in the imperial regime.Economics played an equally crucial role. Burdened by expensive military campaigns to protect ever-extending frontiers, the Empire resorted to debasing its currency, provoking rampant inflation and eroding public trust. The resulting fiscal strains fuelled social unrest, as high taxes weighed heavily upon small farmers and urban dwellers alike. Coupled with declining trade routes and resource depletion, these pressures contributed to a persistent sense of crisis.Compounding these challenges was the growing threat from beyond Rome’s borders. Germanic tribes such as the Visigoths, Vandals, and Ostrogoths gradually eroded the Western Empire’s defensive capabilities. While earlier Roman armies proved formidable, internal discord had dulled their edge, allowing external forces to breach once-impenetrable frontiers.Modern historians emphasise that the Empire did not fall solely because of barbarian invasions, moral decay, or fiscal collapse; instead, its downfall was the outcome of a confluence of factors, each interacting with the other. The story of Rome’s fall thus serves as a stark reminder that even the mightiest of civilisations can succumb to the inexorable weight of political, economic, and social upheaval.

China Targets Dollar at US Critical Moment

China has intensified its financial offensive against the United States, deploying significant measures to undermine the dominance of the US dollar at a time when America faces mounting economic and geopolitical challenges. Reports indicate that the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) has directed major state-owned banks to prepare for large-scale interventions in offshore markets, selling dollars to bolster the yuan. This move, seen as a direct challenge to the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency, coincides with heightened US vulnerabilities, including domestic political instability and a ballooning national debt nearing $35 trillion.The strategy builds on years of Chinese efforts to internationalise the yuan and reduce reliance on the dollar. Since 2022, China has accelerated dollar sell-offs, with Reuters noting similar directives from the PBOC in October of that year amid a weakening yuan. More recently, Beijing has leveraged its position as a key holder of US Treasury securities—still over $800 billion despite gradual reductions—to exert pressure. Analysts suggest that China aims to exploit the US’s current economic fragility, exacerbated by inflation and supply chain disruptions, to advance its long-term goal of reshaping global financial power.Russia’s alignment with China has further amplified this campaign, with both nations increasing trade in non-dollar currencies. In 2023, yuan transactions surpassed dollar-based exchanges in Sino-Russian trade, a trend that has only deepened. Meanwhile, whispers of more aggressive tactics persist, including unverified claims of plans to confiscate US assets within China, encompassing government, corporate, and individual investments. While such measures remain speculative, they reflect the growing audacity of Beijing’s financial warfare.The timing is critical. The US faces a contentious election cycle and a Federal Reserve grappling with interest rate dilemmas, leaving the dollar exposed. China’s actions also resonate within the BRICS bloc (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), which has openly discussed de-dollarisation, with proposals for a unified currency gaining traction at recent summits. If successful, this could erode the dollar’s global hegemony, a cornerstone of American economic influence since the Bretton Woods agreement of 1944.Yet, China’s gambit carries risks. Flooding markets with dollars could destabilise its own economy, heavily reliant on export surpluses tied to dollar-based trade. Moreover, the US retains significant retaliatory tools, including sanctions and control over the SWIFT financial system. For now, Beijing’s “big guns” signal intent more than immediate triumph, but the message is clear: China sees this as America’s moment of weakness—and its opportunity to strike.