Shirtfront (Australian Rules) noun, "A fierce tackle, usually delivered by the shoulder to the chest of an opponent," verb, "The act of delivering such a tackle."

- Oxford Australian Dictionary

While the practice may be dying in the Australian football setting, the term has catapulted into relevance in the international political realm in recent weeks.

On Monday, Oct. 13, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott used the term to describe how he would greet Russian President Vladimir Putin at the upcoming G20 Summit in Brisbane. The animosity stems directly from the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 by pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine, a civilian flight carrying 38 Australian citizens, in July. 

Abbott was quoted as saying, “I’m going to shirt-front Mr. Putin,” and he continued, “I am going to be saying to Mr. Putin: Australians were murdered. They were murdered by Russian-backed rebels using Russian-supplied equipment. We are very unhappy about this.”

The comments provoked responses in Russia from both government and media - with Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev calling on Abbot to tone down the rhetoric, and Russian media pointing to Putin’s black belt in judo as ample protection against Abbott’s proposed shirt-front.

Clearly, more appropriate words could have been chosen, but the statement proves a positive trend: the world is no longer afraid to stand up to Russia.

For the 15 years Putin has been in power, Russia has often been accused - substantially so - of heinous actions both within and outside the country, with little to no response from the international community.

In the early years of the Putin administration, 1999-2001, Russia was accused of human rights violations within the region of Chechnya, where separatists were fighting Russian armed forces. Amnesty International documented extrajudicial killings and indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas; and upwards of 200,000 Chechens were displaced. 

Also well documented are Russia’s suppression of dissent - especially with regard to the band Pussy Riot - and their poor treatment of the LGBT community, as well as children with disabilities. 

Moreover, violations of sovereignty and attacks on the nations of Estonia in 2007, Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 proved that Russia is a danger to its now sovereign neighbors. On that subject, it is important to note that President Putin himself called the breaking up of the Soviet Union a “major geopolitical disaster of the century.”

The trend of Russia encroaching on the territory of its neighbors or the basic rights of its citizens is not new - but the idea of punishing them for their actions is. Because of their standing in the international realm and European reliance on oil imports from Russia, the international community has found punishing Russia for their obvious transgressions difficult. It would seem, however, that Russia's encroachment into the Ukraine was the last straw, as sanctions have been placed on Russian economic interests by both the United States and Europe.

According to an article in Dow Jones Business News, these sanctions are having a real impact on the country’s economy. Combined with a fall in the price of oil - Russia’s largest export product - and Russia's reactive ban on Western food imports, they have contributed to drastic inflation, with consumer price inflation rising to 8.3 percent.

Inflation has also likely lead Russia's Central Bank to increase interest rates for the third time this year - at a time when the sanctions have made it difficult for Russian companies to seek loans from anywhere else.

The growth of Russia’s economy also stagnated in September, according to the Dow Jones Business News Report. Russia’s Economic Minister Alexei Ulyukaev noted that GDP growth over the first nine months of 2014 remained at 0.7 percent, the same rate as was reported for the first eight months. If that trend holds, Russia’s economy is on track to finish with its weakest performance since the 2009 recession. 

According to the report, “The [Russian] government's forecast calls for growth of 0.5% this year, down from 1.3% in 2013, but many economists expect the 2014 result to be weaker.”

In essence, the extent of the damage to Russia’s economy is still up in the air - we will have to wait to see the yearly numbers - but damage is clearly being done. The World Bank decreased the economic growth forecasts of the country for 2015 and 2016 to 0.3 percent and 0.4 percent - down from 1.5 percent and 2.2 percent, respectively, and well short of government estimates.

Additionally, the ruble, Russia’s currency, fell to record lows against both the dollar and the euro in September.

(Alex Kanegawa, Neon Tommy)

The economic outlook ties back to Abbott’s comment in one important way: they both show that Russia is clearly weakened in the aftermath of sanctions, sanctions which are long overdue in light of the country's bullying, often heinous actions over the past 15 years.

In the 21st century, it is no longer acceptable to pose a direct threat to the safety and security of your own citizens, let alone your sovereign neighbors. The Putin regime in Russia has proven time and time again that they have no qualms regarding violations of sovereignty or of human rights, and it’s about time they were made an example of.

It is the firm opinion of this columnist that the continual discourse - even in the form of sports references - and subsequent action against the dangerous regime in Russia are not only called for, but necessary.

With direct warfare against Russia so evidently not an option - the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction is still alive and well - the disdain of the international community, as represented by the bold statement of Tony Abbott, and its continued action to make an example of Russia through shunning it from the global economy, should prove highly effective against the Putin regime. The very masculine, strong-headed nature that Putin so often likes to showcase will be either his country’s or his regime’s downfall, if the international community remains firm and together in their actions against him.

Because of his ex-KGB training, Putin is too pragmatic and understands the implications of war with the West all too well to attempt to use force as a mechanism to remedy the situation. As this columnist sees it, Putin now has two options: either placate the West and firmly agree to no longer encroach into the sovereign territory of surrounding nations, or continue his childlike refusal to admit culpability and run his country into the ground economically.

In the end, either Putin takes the first option and shows just how subservient he is to Western will, thus losing his facade of manliness, or his country economically withers as a result of him taking the second course of action. All that the West needs to do now is maintain its resolve.

It may appear heavy-handed to accuse Putin of childish behavior in the wake of the shirt-front comment directed against him, which was undoubtedly childish in its own right. This is a fair criticism, but sometimes the best way to stand up to a bully is to attack his ego. Comments like Abbot's may cause Putin to retreat back into a shell in order to maintain his appearance of manliness. While it is perhaps not advisable to threaten to tackle an international leader, the fact that it happened shows that Putin may have to work harder to keep up his manly facade. 

Russia needs to be severely weakened so that it learns a lesson about how to behave in the post-Cold War international system, and it is a positive sign that politicians in Australia feel secure in threatening a shirt-front on its leader.

"Global Turning Points" is a new NT column on the critical international issues you might have overlooked. Check back Thursdays or read more here.

Reach Columnist Steve Helmeci here.