They have created their own domestic equivalent of SWIFT (called SPFS) which went live in 2017 and which is connected to a handful of foreign banks including a few in Germany and in Switzerland. Whilst it is not as great, SPFS works. China has created their own SWIFT equeivalent (CIPS), and it is likely that Russia will cut over to CIPS soon and start funneling USD and EUR into China either to convert the foreign currency reserves into the Chinese yuan or simply use the Chinese financial system as a bypass / proxy.
Some years back the Putin goverenment had also forced Visa and Mastercard to make the Russian branch of their networks fully self-reliant and operational even if the financial link to the global payment networks is severed. Which means that domestically issued Visa and Mastercard cards will continue to operate domestically. They also have their own payment network operated by the major commercial bank albeit the uptake is not as great compared to Visa and MC.
Yes, there will be inflation and a financial chaos but they are prepared and are dug in deep. There will be a mayhem but it might also end up being short lived or have a fairly limited impact – we don't know yet.
> I think the world should push for this.
It is irresponsible to make such statements. Global peace has not looked so fragile and so close to turning into an irreparable mess. West is not playing its card right at the moment by continuously imposing more and more sanctions, by moving NATO troops into bordering countries and not even attempting to offer/signal its willingness to start any negotiation talks. West has fallen into the exact trap Putin had set up for it to justify the current situation and stir up cheap domestic populism and support his «see, they have ganged up on us like we have been telling you all along» rhetoric. Putin's long game is unclear but if he is resolute on the doomsday scenario or if he starts feeling cornered with no escape hatch anywhere near him, what would happen next would happen for all of us, and it would be terrible.
West can't continue to impose sanctions endlessly whilst also continuing to villify and demonise an agonising bear without attempting any currently viable alternatives. People from all sides, with no exceptions, have to start making every single attempt to get everyone to sit down around the table and talk. All parties need to start talking to each other to resolve their differences and compromise. Only talking can avert a much bigger disaster.
West has tried dialogue so many times, postponing sanctions to the point of absurdity. And what did it get us? Putin invading Ukraine.
Putin relied on the risk-averse West, pretending to want a dialogue and withdrawing forces, while he sent even more to the Ukraine's borders.
No, there is war in Ukraine not because West didn't want a dialogue, but because West wanted a dialogue too much.
A dialogue with a bully in power, is however, often pointless.
If you could point to concrete instances of such talks, that would be great.
For example Macron's, Biden's or Scholz's talks to Putin prior to the invasion (and also after).
> Examples of such a dialogue would include NATO and Putin officials discussing new NATO memberships, future roadmaps to the regional stability and/or compromises.
You realise that Russian Federation is not a member of NATO and therefore has no say in any NATO memberships? The guarantees Putin was demanding were never at the table. NATO knew that, Putin knew that, everyone who knows how NATO works knew that. Apparently only you did not get the memo.
> You realise that Russian Federation is not a member of NATO and therefore has no say in any NATO memberships?
So why did the US have to have a say when Cuba allowed the Soviets to suddenly stick their missiles on the Cuban territory? Was the US demand somehow more special from Russian demands?
For the historical record, the USSR asked for the NATO membership in 1948, indicated its interest again to join in 1989 and the last time we heard about Russia and NATO discussing such a potential possibility as late as 2009. West rejected all such ideas and since then there have been no executive level talks discussing further options, to the best of my knowledge. Once the Russia membership in NATO was ruled out as an option, the rhetoric of non-expansion has kicked in.
Regional peace in Europe has been a complex, an intertwined and a nuanced subject that has historically involved every single party in the direct and indirect proximity of the potential area of conflict and even included royal intermarriages across the continent in mediaeval times to foster alliances – if I have to go that far.
> Apparently only you did not get the memo.
Personal attacks such as this one, aggressive rhetoric and the rattling of the genticles is what has got Europe into the mess we are facing today in the first place. People unwilling to listen to each other, every party being assertive only about their own rightness and not arriving at something workable is the root cause of it.
> The first chapter -- political and economic issues -- requires candidates to have stable democratic systems, pursue the peaceful settlement of territorial and ethnic disputes, have good relations with their neighbors, show commitment to the rule of law and human rights, establish democratic and civilian control of their armed forces, and have a market economy.
Does this sound like a set of requirements Russia/Putin is willing to meet? If countries want to join the democratic defense alliance, and they aren't democracies... So what? NATO isn't an alliance of violent dictators. It was USA's insight after WW2 that alliances needed to be held together by more than territorial interest - they need to be held together by values.