Russia would rather abandon SWIFT itself than be blocked

8

The global financial system is based on two main elements - the US dollar and the system for transmitting information and making payments SWIFT. From time to time, threats from Russia's enemies about disconnecting the country from the payment system are heard, and in vain - it itself will soon be replaced by digital currencies of central banks. Thus, without waiting for the blocking, the Russian Federation will inevitably refuse it itself.


According to Deputy Chairman of the Central Bank of Russia Alexei Zabotkin, in the near future it is unlikely that sanctions pressure from the West will soften, so the national currency will be used more widely in bilateral settlements. Digital currencies will also gain more importance, which, as Olga Skorobogatova, First Deputy Chairman of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, said, will help oust SWIFT.

Many countries are now working on digital currencies, and in about 5-7 years their activities in this direction will bring practical results, after which it will be possible to resolve issues of direct integration.

In this case, SWIFT may not be needed, because it is different, already technological Interactions

- noted Skorobogatova during the webinar, stressing that SWIFT can become only one of the platforms for digital currencies, if the system regulators make such a decision.

Since 2014, Russia has started talking about the transition to policy de-dollarization, and the domestic central bank reduced the share of the American currency in its international reserves from 60 to 20 percent. According to ING analysts, the volume of transactions in dollars for the sale of Russian raw materials also decreased from the pre-sanction level of 80 percent to almost 49 percent at the moment.
We are
Russia's actions made the sanctions by SWIFT meaningless
Foreign banks want to oblige to switch to the Russian analogue of SWIFT
Reporterin Yandex News
Read Reporterin Google News
Ad
We are open to cooperation with authors in the news and analytical departments. A prerequisite is the ability to quickly analyze the text and check the facts, to write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. We offer flexible working hours and regular payments. Please send your responses with examples of work to [email protected]
8 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 25 December 2020 11: 09
    -4
    For 6 years they have been frightening and scaring, but everything is zilch
  2. Monster_Fat Offline Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat (What's the difference) 25 December 2020 11: 22
    +1
    In this case, SWIFT may not be needed, because these are other, already technological interactions

    Kindergarten-level revelation. And it's a no-brainer that if you sell for crypto using blockchain technology, then SWIFT will not be needed ... only now, my aunt did not clarify one important feature of the blockchain - in this case ... banks will not be needed either. The crypto will wander from the buyer's wallet directly to the seller's wallet. But this is only if it is "real crypto" .. If it is a "digital currency" which is called "crypto", and the Central Bank will act as its emitter, then every transaction, even from their wallet, a physicist will really require its verification with a code The Central Bank, that is, it will be monitored by the Central Bank, killing in the bud the entire main principle of "cryptocurrency" - its anonymity and non-control of any state. That is, in the case of the "digital currency" owned by the Central Bank, verification from this Central Bank will still be needed, it turns out that, leaving SWIFT, we come to another verification system, the owner of which will be the Central Bank, the emitter of this "digital" ... There is one more thing " BUT ", about which all officials drown for" digital currency "are silent, as a lifesaver, a method to get rid of SWIFT and the" dictatorship "of the dollar, namely, the" digital currency "must be verified by ALL countries, that is, all countries will agree to conduct for her trade and will agree to install programs for the circulation of wallets for this "currency". And I wonder which countries will agree to this? And what "digital currency" will be chosen for this? Something tells me that it will not be a "digital ruble", which no one abroad needs, from the word "in general". yes
    1. Pandiurin Offline Pandiurin
      Pandiurin (Pandiurin) 26 December 2020 13: 13
      +4
      You have found the disadvantage that the alternative to Swift promoted by the Central Bank of Russia will be controlled by the Central Bank (ruble transfers). So this is an advantage, why should the Central Bank promote an anonymous currency where it will not be an issuer. In our country, the monetary unit is the ruble. And before that, payments even between Russian banks were made through Swift, as it turned out the Swift system is subject to political risks. Nobody set the task of giving up the ruble, the issuer of which is the Central Bank and in no other way can and should not be.
      These are just payments between banks, not through Swift and that's it. The payment system is independent, each Central Bank controls its national currency, which is the issuer.
      1. Monster_Fat Offline Monster_Fat
        Monster_Fat (What's the difference) 26 December 2020 15: 17
        0
        So it goes in the interview about INTERNATIONAL PAYMENTS. Namely, in the foreign market, the ruble, even paper, even virtual, even digital, NO ONE NEEDS. Inside the country, you can enter at least a digital bolivar, at least a devil with horns for payment, but in the external market all these tugriks will not be needed by anyone. There (on the foreign market) there will be only that currency for payment that will be accepted by all market players.
  3. Petr Vladimirovich Offline Petr Vladimirovich
    Petr Vladimirovich (Peter) 26 December 2020 17: 23
    0
    When he worked in the MW in the 80s, there was no Swift. Most of the payments were made by the so-called "telegraph", both for imports and for exports.
  4. Monster_Fat Offline Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat (What's the difference) 26 December 2020 19: 16
    0
    I am simply amazed by the innocence and ignorance of Russians. They are hanged noodles, they say, we will introduce a digital ruble to get away from the dollar and protect our market from sanctions. Hamsters hawala this nonsense and are. Even their brains cannot be turned on in order to understand the simple truth: the notorious digital ruble is introduced not to protect their financial market from any external influence, because the ruble turnover in the external market is negligible and absolutely nobody needs it, except for stock speculators, the digital ruble are introduced with only one purpose - to PUT THE INTERNAL CURRENT OF PAYMENT FUNDS UNDER CONTROL, that is, in simple terms, to monitor the pockets of citizens, how much they received and spent money, and automatically withdraw the surplus, block and reset simple and electronic wallets of their citizens for political and for other reasons. What kind of SWIFT is there, it has nothing to do with it (there is a Mir card, or a Chinese SIPS, if they were so afraid of disconnecting from SWIFT for internal circulation, that is, they would be afraid of blocking transactions on Visa and Mustarkard). No, the digital ruble is purely for internal control of citizens' finances within the Digital Gulag, which will soon become a reality.
  5. lahudra Offline lahudra
    lahudra (Nikolay Kondrashkin) 26 December 2020 22: 15
    -2
    Employees of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs have already abandoned the swift, a million dollars in a vodka box was handed home to their homeland, but they also made a mistake, the money was gone.
    1. persimmon ufimtsev Offline persimmon ufimtsev
      persimmon ufimtsev (khurmat ufimtsev) 27 December 2020 15: 48
      0
      These are dollars from Iran and seems to be disconnected from the swift.
  6. The comment was deleted.