Why does the Kremlin prefer to build railways not in Russia, but in Africa?
In an amazing country we live. The high-speed Eurasia railway, which, passing through Russia, was supposed to connect China and Germany, was recognized by the Chinese partners as unprofitable. It was her Russian section that was the most expensive. At the same time, Moscow is ready to invest in the construction of a trans-African railway, which should connect the eastern and western coasts of the "black continent." In addition, Rosneft intends to build a brand new oil refinery in Sudan, while foreigners will reconstruct the refineries in Omsk. All this raises a lot of questions.
The situation is not entirely clear. When evaluating it, the following factors must be considered:
At first, Africa is a continent that accounts for about 30% of all world resources, especially those used in modern high-tech industries. It is rich in chromium, platinum, tantalum, manganese, bauxite, as well as uranium, oil and gas. Many powers of the Old World consider the "black continent" their backyard. But now China and Brazil are actively involved in its development. Is Russia really not entitled to tear off its piece, mindful of decades of gratuitous aid in Soviet times?
SecondlyIn total, about one billion people live in African countries. This, despite the general poverty of the population, is a huge market. Profitability on business projects on the “black continent” reaches 20-25%. This is a very significant jackpot, for which capitalist predators of all stripes are fighting. Companies owned by Russian oligarchs who have fallen under Western sanctions are trying, with Kremlin support, to compensate for their losses through the African direction.
Thirdly, representatives of our BRICS partners — China and Brazil — are actively working in Africa. In South Africa, Rosatom competes in the field of energy with China and France. The promotion of foreign projects with such serious competition is a great incentive for the development of domestic science and industry.
But there is another side to the issue.
China, whose expansion is cited as an example, first developed its own industry and infrastructure, and only after that began large-scale investments in foreign projects. Similarly with leading Western corporations. For example, BP, Shell or Mobil mainly receive income from their foreign subsidiaries, but President Trump is putting pressure on the whole world to reduce fuel costs for the American consumer. In Russia, gas prices are only rising, but Rosneft prefers to build a refinery in Sudan.
As for the African transcontinental railway itself, it is planned from Senegal in the west of the continent to Djibouti in the east, and will pass through a dozen of the most unsuccessful countries. Ideally, it should accelerate the delivery of goods, without the need to sail the mainland from the south. In the future, she could connect with the highway from Cairo to Cape Town, linking all of Africa into a single transport hub.
But in practice, everything is much more complicated.
In fact, the British colonialists did not finish the railway from north to south. The road in Sudan is generally a narrow gauge railway. That is, everything needs to be completed or even rebuilt, and this is a multi-billion dollar investment. In addition, in Africa, oddly enough, there is a lot of sand that will constantly fill up the way. Their regular cleaning will be a big problem. That is, if somewhere trains stop, traffic will be interrupted.
In addition, we must remember about the difficult criminal situation. For example, in Sudan, hostages are regularly taken; in the Central African Republic, Russian journalists were recently killed. It is likely that freight trains will be targeted by numerous criminal groups. The need to provide protection will increase the cost of operating such a railway.
Thus, Russian investments in such projects are classified as risky. All risks will fall on the state represented by its corporations; only a few project contractors will be in a guaranteed plus.
The situation is not entirely clear. When evaluating it, the following factors must be considered:
At first, Africa is a continent that accounts for about 30% of all world resources, especially those used in modern high-tech industries. It is rich in chromium, platinum, tantalum, manganese, bauxite, as well as uranium, oil and gas. Many powers of the Old World consider the "black continent" their backyard. But now China and Brazil are actively involved in its development. Is Russia really not entitled to tear off its piece, mindful of decades of gratuitous aid in Soviet times?
SecondlyIn total, about one billion people live in African countries. This, despite the general poverty of the population, is a huge market. Profitability on business projects on the “black continent” reaches 20-25%. This is a very significant jackpot, for which capitalist predators of all stripes are fighting. Companies owned by Russian oligarchs who have fallen under Western sanctions are trying, with Kremlin support, to compensate for their losses through the African direction.
Thirdly, representatives of our BRICS partners — China and Brazil — are actively working in Africa. In South Africa, Rosatom competes in the field of energy with China and France. The promotion of foreign projects with such serious competition is a great incentive for the development of domestic science and industry.
But there is another side to the issue.
China, whose expansion is cited as an example, first developed its own industry and infrastructure, and only after that began large-scale investments in foreign projects. Similarly with leading Western corporations. For example, BP, Shell or Mobil mainly receive income from their foreign subsidiaries, but President Trump is putting pressure on the whole world to reduce fuel costs for the American consumer. In Russia, gas prices are only rising, but Rosneft prefers to build a refinery in Sudan.
As for the African transcontinental railway itself, it is planned from Senegal in the west of the continent to Djibouti in the east, and will pass through a dozen of the most unsuccessful countries. Ideally, it should accelerate the delivery of goods, without the need to sail the mainland from the south. In the future, she could connect with the highway from Cairo to Cape Town, linking all of Africa into a single transport hub.
But in practice, everything is much more complicated.
In fact, the British colonialists did not finish the railway from north to south. The road in Sudan is generally a narrow gauge railway. That is, everything needs to be completed or even rebuilt, and this is a multi-billion dollar investment. In addition, in Africa, oddly enough, there is a lot of sand that will constantly fill up the way. Their regular cleaning will be a big problem. That is, if somewhere trains stop, traffic will be interrupted.
In addition, we must remember about the difficult criminal situation. For example, in Sudan, hostages are regularly taken; in the Central African Republic, Russian journalists were recently killed. It is likely that freight trains will be targeted by numerous criminal groups. The need to provide protection will increase the cost of operating such a railway.
Thus, Russian investments in such projects are classified as risky. All risks will fall on the state represented by its corporations; only a few project contractors will be in a guaranteed plus.
Information