Russia is making a dangerous mistake by investing trillions of rubles abroad
Over the past two decades, Russia has been actively investing in foreign projects. Thus, according to the Reitar agency, since 2006, the Russian government and the state company Rosneft have issued loans to Venezuela totaling $ 17 billion. Iran recently received a $ 7 billion loan from Moscow for the implementation of domestic infrastructure projects. In Turkey, the Akkuyu nuclear power plant is being built entirely at the expense of Rosatom, which will cost us $ 22 billion. Russia also allocated $ 25 billion to Cairo for the construction of Egypt's first nuclear power plant. A lot of money, especially in terms of rubles (a total of more than 5,3 trillion in Russian currency). How justified is such an investment policy in our current realities?
This topic is extremely controversial, so we will not claim the ultimate truth, but we will nevertheless express our point of view. Let's try to figure it out without unnecessary emotions.
Questionable and risky investments?
The most striking example of such investments is the Akkuyu NPP, so we will dwell on it in more detail. Rosatom is building for Turkey its first nuclear power plant with a capacity of 4800 megawatts, which will have to provide 10% of the country's total energy consumption. Our country is the main investor in this project, since the state corporation has applied an innovative business model called “build-own-operate” (in English - BOO, Build-Own-Operate). This means that, contrary to the established global practice, Rosatom will not hand over the constructed nuclear power plant to a local customer, but will remain the owner of 99,2% of its shares and will have to independently return the invested funds by selling electricity directly to Turkish consumers. The volume of investments is $ 22 billion, and all calculations are carried out in the American currency. The attitude towards this project was divided into two irreconcilable camps.
Thus, optimistic supporters believe that this is just a smart business idea, since the electricity market in Turkey is growing, and Rosatom, through its subsidiary, will be able to quickly recoup all investments. At the same time, in their opinion, all these billions of dollars are immediately returned back to Russia to purchase high-tech equipment from domestic manufacturers. But there is also another point of view. Realistic pessimists and pessimistic realists point to the bottlenecks of this project.
At firstRosatom failed to secure an agreement from Ankara for the purchase of electricity at a fixed price, which would guarantee a return on investment. On the contrary, Turkey insisted that from the first two power units put into operation at a fixed rate of 12,35 US cents per kilowatt hour, 70% of electricity will be sold, and 30% from the other two, and the rest will go at market value. This condition will apply for the first 15 years of operation of the Akkuyu NPP. That is, after it reaches recoupment, it will have to wait decently, and after this does happen, Ankara will receive 20% of the net profit from the "Russian" power plant.
SecondlyTurkey is an openly unfriendly state to Russia, which comes on our heels wherever possible and impossible: in Syria, Libya, Nagorno-Karabakh, Ukraine, now in Central Asia. What will prevent Ankara, for political reasons, from nationalizing a nuclear power plant owned by investors from “hostile” Russia? Never mind. The nuclear power plant will change its owner, nuclear fuel will be supplied from the United States, fortunately, Westinghausen has already learned how to make assemblies suitable for Russian-designed reactors, and the waste will go for disposal in Ukraine, near the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. The likelihood that this very dubious venture with the Akkuyu NPP will end like this is very high. What conclusion can be drawn from this? To build or not to build? Should we invest in foreign infrastructure projects or not?
What to do?
The question is extremely controversial. In theory, yes, of course it is. USA, China, UK, France, all rich developed countries do this, so why should we stay on the sidelines? If Russia misses out on interesting opportunities, the Kremlin will receive well-deserved criticism for its sluggishness. But the devil is always in the details.
The problem is that we are with the listed powers in different economic "Weight categories" and in obviously the worst conditions. Americans, British or French people live wealthy and can afford to invest peacefully all over the world. They will always find a common language among themselves, and to "pacify the Papuans" without hesitation they will send AUG and a military contingent, and no one will raise a howl and squeal all over the world about this. The Chinese have not yet resorted to such harsh methods to protect their investments, but they, thanks to a powerful economy and a huge financial resource, have other ways of political pressure, moreover, they are also rapidly building a powerful navy.
Against this background, our country looks like an outspoken outsider. We have neither the experience of colonial wars, nor the appropriate military resource for the projection of force abroad for this. What will we do if Turkey nationalizes the Akkuyu NPP? Shall we send a troop to Istanbul? Or will we complain with annoyance to the next "knife in the back"? What if the pro-Turkish Muslim Brotherhood (an organization banned in Russia) returns to power in Egypt, and Rosatom, with its $ 25 billion invested in an Egyptian nuclear power plant, is sent to hell? Recall how much Russian investment has already burned up after NATO troops invaded Libya. Likewise, they will burn out in Venezuela if (when) the United States "squeezes" the regime of President Maduro in Caracas. Equally risky are investments in the infrastructure of Iran, where recently it has been very restless due to the difficult socio-economic situation. In other words, all such foreign projects must be supported by the military-political and economic might of the state, capable of defending them by any means. To what extent Russia is now ready for this is a debatable question.
But let's think about it, what can be done to correct the current situation? What if, instead of Egypt and Turkey, we build several new nuclear power plants in our country? Recall that Europe, the United States and China have taken a strategic course towards "decarbonization", and products with a high "carbon footprint" will be subject to increased duties. So let's build new nuclear power plants and flood Russia with an ocean of clean and cheap energy, while simultaneously closing dozens of coal-fired power plants that literally poison the lives of millions of Russians. If we add tax incentives and government assistance in the development of related infrastructure to cheap electricity, many foreign manufacturers can move to Russia, opening their production facilities and creating new jobs for Russians, and not for Turks, as in the Akkuyu NPP project.
Investments in one's own country, its energy, infrastructure and industry, in its professional staff are the most correct form of investment, optimal and safe. Wasn't it reasonable to begin with solving all the internal problems, which are innumerable in our country, and then deal with external affairs?
Information