“It Is Like A Western Movie: A Showdown Is In The Making” – Has Your Eagle Already Eaten All The Olives Leaving Only The Arrows?
Source: RT News
Russia welcomes foreign banks to join its money transfer alternative to SWIFT
October 9, 2018
Russian ruble pictured in front of the Kremlin in Moscow © Sputnik / Iliya Pitalev
Foreign banks will soon be able to become part of Russia’s money transfer network which serves as an alternative to the traditional SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) system.
“Non-residents will start connecting to us this year. People are already turning to us,” said First Deputy Governor of the Central Bank of Russia Olga Skorobogatova. Earlier, the official said that by using the alternative payment system foreign firms would be able to do business with sanctioned Russian companies.
As of September, 416 Russian companies have joined the System for Transfer of Financial Messages (SPFS), including the Russian Federal Treasury and large state corporations including Gazprom Neft, Rosneft, and others, the Central Bank said.
The potential exclusion of Russia from SWIFT worried the country’s banks in 2014, when the EU and the US introduced the first round of international sanctions against Moscow over alleged involvement in the Ukraine crisis and the reunification with Crimea. SWIFT has said it remains neutral in the political conflict.
There have been reports that despite such claims, the US has enough power to block transactions through SWIFT. In 2012, Danish newspaper Berlingske wrote that US authorities managed to seize money being transferred from a Danish businessman to a German bank for a batch of US-sanctioned Cuban cigars. The transaction was made in US dollars, which allowed Washington to block it.
SWIFT is a financial network that provides high-value cross-border transfers for members across the world. It is based in Belgium, but its board includes executives from US banks with US federal law allowing the administration to act against banks and regulators across the globe. It supports most interbank messages, connecting over 11,000 financial institutions in more than 200 countries and territories. The European Union is also working on an alternative to SWIFT. The project, promoted by Germany, will help Brussels to bypass US sanctions against Iran.
Source: The Saker
Russia Without SWIFT
by Kakaouskia for the Saker blog • January 4, 2018
Greetings to the Saker community and readers.
For some time now, US and its vassal states and Russia are engaged in an economic war. The first salvo was when VISA and MasterCard – which are US based banking institutions – were forced to stop accepting transactions performed by cardholders of certain Russian banks. The latest indication, as Saker has mentioned in the near past is that the US government is thinking to block Russian access to the SWIFT system.
What is SWIFT
SWIFT is basically a cooperative message exchange system. It is targeted at banks, investment companies, money brokers, basically anyone which needs to transfer money from A to B. To use it you apply for membership; once accepted you get your SWIFT code plus some shares of the SWIFT cooperative, pay a one-off signup fee and from then on you pay per message (aka transaction) or per file sent, other processing / services fees plus an annual support fee. The value of fees and other charges depends on the membership level. Profits are distributed in a similar way. SWIFT also provides reports and other analytic features to help members generate more business.
The reason behind SWIFT’s success is the fact that it provides a standardized, secure and reliable way of moving money around. Regulatory compliance is expensive as it requires constant, dedicated, high quality manpower to monitor, develop, implement, test and deploy changes to IT systems and networks as well as business processes. Thus, banks and other financial institutions prefer to have someone else take care of all such requirements.
Impact of kicking Russia out of SWIFT
The immediate effect will be the inability to exchange SWIFT messages between Russian members of the SWIFT system and the rest. Note that SWIFT itself does not facilitate the actual money transfer; all it does is exchanging money orders – the fund transfer must take place using mechanisms and under the agreements that the two exchanging institutions already have in place. As such, while it will become more risky and difficult to transfer money – not to mention more expensive – money transfers cannot be completely stopped. Such difficulties will drive Russian investors to seek other more investor-friendly destinations for their money; this will probably hit the EU quite hard as it is a favourable place for Russian investment. Consider this scenario: you have 1 million which you like to invest. You go to your bank, tell them you like to transfer said million to country X and the teller comes back and says “we can do that, however it is deemed high-risk and as such please sign a waver that if something happens to your million, bank bears zero responsibility”. Of course you can insist to proceed with the transfer, however a safe bet is that the majority of people will chose a less risky destination.
SWIFT also stands to lose. Communication is a two-way street which means messages go from and to Russia. If one assumes 10,000,000 daily Russia-related messages per day between SWIFT members, at the rate of €0,01 per message that is €36,500,000 per year in transaction fees alone. There is a good chance that a number of Russian institutions will either be removed or otherwise decide on their own that there is no more meaning in being a SWIFT member therefore there will be a loss of other fees, not to mention the cost of all the legal battles to sort out the contractual agreements.
Please go to The Saker to read the entire article.
India Dumps US Treasuries To Support Rupee/Russia Welcomes Banks To Avoid SWIFT
It is not by coincidence or protocol that John Bolton and Jon Huntsman were brought to this ceremony to honor Russian dead resulting from WWII. Another profitable “cold war” arms race in the making as Trump ditches the INF treaty. Nothing like a little sideshow to place the idea of a possible war into the minds of people with a little walk up to a wreath at the WWII memorial in Moscow.
John Bolton and US ambassador Huntsman visit WWII memorial in Moscow
This is an excellent essay on Bolton in Moscow:
BREAKING! Putin Teases Bolton: Has Your Eagle Already Eaten All The Olives Leaving Only The Arrows?
It Is Like A Western Movie: A Showdown Is In The Making
October 22, 2018 • by Paul Craig Roberts
It has taken the US military/security complex 31 years to get rid of President Reagan’s last nuclear disarmament achievement—the INF Treaty that President Reagan and Soviet President Gorbachev achieved in 1987.
The Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was ratified by the US Senate on May 27, 1988 and became effective a few days later on June 1. Behind the scenes, I had some role in this, and as I remember what the treaty achieved was to make Europe safe from nuclear attack by Soviet short and intermediate range missiles, and to make the Soviet Union safe from US attack from short and intermediate range US nuclear missiles in Europe. By restricting nuclear weapons to ICBMs, which allowed some warning time, thus guaranteeing retaliation and non-use of nucular weapons, the INF Treaty was regarded as reducing the risk of an American first-strike on Russia and a Russian first-strike on Europe, strikes that could be delivered by low-flying cruise missiles with next to zero warning time.
When President Reagan appointed me to a secret Presidential committee with subpoena power over the CIA, he told the members of the secret committee that his aim was to bring the Cold War to an end, with the result that, in his words, “those God-awful nuclear weapons would be dismantled.” President Reagan, unlike the crazed neoconservatives, who he fired and prosecuted, saw no point in nuclear war that would destroy all life on earth. The INF Treaty was the beginning, in Reagan’s mind, of the elimination of nuclear weapons from military arsenals. The INF Treaty was chosen as the first start because it did not substantially threaten the budget of the US military/security complex, and actually increased the security of the Soviet military. In other words, it was something that Reagan and Gorbachev could get past their own military establishments. Reagan hoped that as trust built, more nuclear disarmament would proceed.
Now that President Reagan’s remaining achievement has been destroyed, what are the consequences of the Trump administration’s concession to the profits of the US military/security complex?
There are many, none good.
The massive US military/security complex profits will increase as more increasingly scarce American resources flow into the production of intermediate range missiles in order to counter “the Russian threat.” The Republicans will want to pay for this by cutting Social Security and Medicare. I am unsure that the Democrats would be any different.
The Zionist neoconservatives now have their hope rekindled of re-establishing American and Israeli hegemony with an undetected first strike nuclear cruise missile attack on Russia.
More pressure will be on Putin’s government from Alexei Kudrin, the Jewish Lobby, and the billionaire oligarchs put in place by Washington and Israel during the Yeltsin years when Russia was degraded to an American vassal state. These Russian traitors are so powerful that Putin has to tolerate them. With neoconized Washington doing everything it can possibly do to damage the Russian economy and to draw Russian resources off from economic and infrastructure needs to military spending, Kudrin and the Western-supported elements of the Russian media will, with their demands to accommodate Washington, encourage Washington to put yet more pressure on Russia with the intention of forcing Russia into a vassal status with the Germans, British, French, and the rest of Europe, along with Canada, Australia, and Japan.
Please go to Paul Craig Roberts to read the entire article by Paul Craig Roberts and to support his work.