Analysis

How Russia’s sanction-proofing failed

Published

4 years ago

March 18, 2022

“How could our government have been so stupid?” one Russian acquaintance of mine wondered, after the West imposed sweeping sanctions that froze around $300 billion of the Russian government’s foreign exchange reserves held in Western banks.

Over the past few weeks, the US, EU, UK, Japan, and other allies have hit Russia with a package of restrictions targeting its access to foreign financing and technology. Russia’s currency has plummeted, inflation is rising, living standards are slumping, and many factories across the country have stopped work due to shortages in components. Russia now faces the deepest economic crisis since post-Soviet collapse in the Nineties — a downturn so severe that it may eventually threaten Vladimir Putin’s hold on power.

Only one month ago, analysts were focused not on Russia’s vulnerability to sanctions but its supposed “sanctions-proofing” strength. The Russian government has dealt with Western sanctions for decades, from the technological restrictions the West imposed on the USSR to the most recent restrictions on oil drilling technology and access to capital markets imposed after Russia’s first attack on Ukraine in 2014. However, the strength of the latest came as a surprise to Russia’s leaders. They thought they had taken adequate steps to defend their economy and that Western leaders would be too worried about domestic prosperity to risk tough measures. Neither assumption proved correct — and now Russia is paying the price.

Like many adversaries of the United States, from North Korea to Iran to Venezuela, Russia sees American sanctions as a fact of life. Almost every year over the past decade, the US has slapped on a new set of sanctions, sometimes unilaterally, sometimes in conjunction with allies in Europe. Some have been linked to domestic human rights violations, such as those implemented under the Magnitsky Act, named after a Russian lawyer who died under suspicious conditions in jail after uncovering a government-linked fraud. Some have been sparked by Russian meddling in American elections. Others were motivated by Russia’s use of a nerve agent in an attempted assassination in the UK. As Putin said just before announcing his decision to attack Ukraine: “They will never think twice before coming up with or just fabricating a pretext for yet another sanction attack … their one and only goal is to hold back the development of Russia.”

From the moment Putin announced that Russia was beginning a “special military operation” to “denazify” Ukraine, more sanctions were inevitable. The Biden administration had threatened “devastating” sanctions, though after endured many rounds of not-very-tough Western sanctions, most Russian leaders thought America was bluffing. The fact that European leaders were divided about sanctions — and that Germany, Europe’s most important player, was putting the finishing touches on a new Russian gas pipeline — led the Russians to believe that the West wasn’t ready for full-scale economic warfare. The Kremlin, therefore, began the war expecting measures that were costly but survivable. In a public meeting right before the invasion, Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin briefed Putin that “we have thoroughly reviewed these risks” and that “we have been preparing for months”.

ALSO READ : Did Iran Declare War on the US? Fact-Checking President Pezeshkian's 'Full-Scale War' Statement (December 2025 Alert)

In fact, Russia had been preparing for years, knowing that sanctions were always a risk. America’s sanctions campaign against Iran, which cut off its ability to export oil, was a worrisome precedent — though Russia was a far more important oil producer than the Islamic Republic. The 2014 sanctions against Russia, meanwhile, showed that when the US, UK, and EU joined forces, they could sever Russian firms from financial markets in ways that no other country — not even China — could equal.

In response, Russia developed a five-pronged strategy to steel its economy. The first step was to build up a substantial war chest of foreign exchange reserves, including major currencies (Euro, sterling, dollar, yen, and renminbi) and over $100 billion worth of gold. These reserves, equivalent to over twice the value of goods Russia imports in a typical year, were supposed to give Russia financial flexibility in case the West tried imposing restrictions on its ability to export goods and earn foreign currency abroad.

The second prong in Russia’s “sanctions-proofing” strategy was to reduce its use of the US dollar, the currency in which most commodities — and thus most of Russia’s exports — are priced. Russia managed to substantially reduce the scope of dollars in its foreign trade, largely by shifting its trade with China to Euros. The Kremlin also cut dollar holdings in its foreign currency reserves, choosing to hold more of other currencies, including renminbi, instead.

Third, Russia tried developing internal payments systems in case it was severed from Western-dominated platforms. Many purchases in Russia are made using Visa or Mastercard, which are subject to US sanctions legislation. Most international banking transactions are mediated by SWIFT, a Belgium-based organisation subject to EU sanctions. Russia has rolled out a domestic card payment system, called Mir, and an interbank payment system modeled on SWIFT, trying to prepare itself for a potential future without access to these Western platforms.

The fourth strategy was to intensify economic cooperation with China. The more China’s economy grew, and the more ties that Russia had with it, the more Russian leaders felt secure. The Kremlin knew it could rely on China to vociferously object to any Western sanctions that were applied extraterritorially to Chinese firms.

Finally, Russia counted on the West’s energy dependence to limit any willingness to apply economic pressure. The fact that the Germans were afraid of even mentioning the Nord Stream II pipeline demonstrated timidity that emboldened the Kremlin. However, though Germans were uniquely supine in their energy relations with Russia, they weren’t alone in their dependence. America liked to condemn Germany over Nord Stream II, but American politicians were and are highly sensitive to gasoline prices. Restrictions on Russian oil exports were, therefore, guaranteed to be a matter of acute domestic political concern, because such a move would drive up gasoline prices worldwide. The Kremlin assumed this was a price Western leaders would be unwilling to pay.

When Russian forces rolled into Ukraine, however, the West was jolted out of complacency. Though US and UK intelligence had been warning for several months that Russia was ready to invade, most people — and most Western European leaders — simply didn’t believe it. Images of Ukrainian cities aflame left them shocked. So it was Europe that led the drive during the first week of war for tougher economic sanctions, culminating in an almost unprecedented freeze on Russia’s central bank reserves.

ALSO READ : Implications of Growing US Role in Asia

This was a level of sanctions escalation that Russian policymakers had never seriously contemplated. On its own, the move — grabbing control of around $300 billion worth of Russian foreign exchange reserves stashed in Western financial institutions — constituted the biggest bank heist in world history. The fact that these moves were multilateral meant that “de-dollarising” didn’t matter. The Euro, pound, and yen were no more accessible to the Kremlin. And it didn’t matter what payments system was used, Russian or otherwise, if a substantial chunk of the world economy simply refused to transact with you.

The Chinese — supposed allies in “sanctions-proofing” — were no less shocked than the Russians by this display of financial firepower. China has already announced that it is cutting off certain Russian industries under special sanctions, such as aviation. China’s banks, meanwhile, continue to undertake some non-sanctioned transactions with Russia, but according to reports they are broadly following the West’s lead. The Moscow–Beijing entente is more a marriage of convenience than a sanctions-busting partnership.

The only part of Russia’s sanctions-proofing plan that is proving somewhat effective is the bet that Western leaders can’t stomach a full energy cut off. The US and UK have announced bans on importing Russian energy, but this only has a minor impact. The EU has announced plans to cut Russian energy imports to zero — but only after several years. The move that would really hit Russia would be to block all its energy exports, via an Iran-style regime that severed its ability to sell to third parties such as India and China. This would dramatically escalate pressure on Russia. It would also push oil prices far higher.

For now, therefore, energy remains the one major loophole in the sanctions regime. Nevertheless, the Russian state faces a deep economic crisis. The ruble has slumped and prices are rising. Unemployment is set to spike as factory closures cause industrial bankruptcies. Living standards will fall far behind inflation, which will accelerate over the coming months. Foreign companies of all types, from BP to McDonald’s, are fleeing.

“I understand that rising prices are seriously hitting people’s incomes,” Putin admitted in a speech on Wednesday. What he didn’t say is that he has neither a plan nor any resources, to deal with this. On the battlefields of Ukraine, Russian forces have demonstrated incompetent organization and a horrible command of logistics. Despite much talk of “sanctions-proofing”, the Kremlin’s efforts to protect itself from economic warfare have been just as inept — and, for Russia, disastrous.

Via UH

Post Views: 1,874

Discover more from The Monitor

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Related Topics:news opinion russia ukraine US World

Up Next

Regime change?

Click to comment

Analysis

Asia Pacific Emerges as Global Travel Growth Engine — China Outbound to Surpass 225 Million Trips

Published

4 days ago

July 17, 2026

Abdul Rahman

Asia Pacific travellers have a 50% higher intention to increase travel spending than those in Europe and the US, cementing the region’s position as the world’s growth engine for travel. According to one study, 88% of global travellers plan to increase or maintain their travel budgets in 2026.

China’s outbound market is the powerhouse. China’s outbound travel in 2026 is projected to exceed 225 million trips, surpassing pre-pandemic levels and marking a transition from recovery to a structurally different phase of growth. Chinese travellers report the highest expected mean spend at **$7,748 per international leisure trip**, followed by Australian travellers at $7,124 and Indian travellers at $5,154. International visitor spending in China rose by 10.5% to $135 billion, exceeding pre-pandemic levels and outperforming the global average growth of 3.2%.

The World Travel and Tourism Council expects China’s travel and tourism sector to grow 7% annually over the next decade, contributing $3.8 trillion to GDP by 2035. China is on track to surpass the US as the world’s leading travel and tourism economy.

Corporate travel is also booming. Business travel expenditure across Asia Pacific is forecast to reach $70.09 billion in 2026, marking a year-on-year increase of 10.9%. The region is expected to contribute more than 40% of total global outbound business travel spending, underlining APAC’s central role in international commerce and aviation growth. China alone is projected to account for $40.8 billion of this spending — 58% of the regional total.

What’s driving this surge? Expanding visa-free access, a stronger yuan, and pent-up demand from Chinese consumers eager to explore the world. MMGY’s survey of 4,000 travellers shows that Chinese and Indian travellers are planning 3.2-3.5 trips annually versus 1.9-2.3 for Australia, Japan, and South Korea. The destinations winning Chinese travellers are those offering premium experiences, seamless digital payments, culturally resonant offerings, and visa facilitation.

ALSO READ : Trump's Greenland Ambitions: Why the Arctic Island Has Become a Geopolitical Flashpoint

The spending differential is significant. Chinese travellers not only travel more frequently but spend substantially more per trip than travellers from other major Asia Pacific markets. This makes them the most coveted segment for destinations worldwide, driving intense competition among tourism boards to attract and retain Chinese visitors through targeted marketing, direct flights, and culturally tailored experiences.

Post Views: 376

Discover more from The Monitor

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

AI

The AI Debt Bubble: How Data Centers Are Reshaping Credit Markets

Published

4 days ago

July 17, 2026

Abdul Rahman

The dominant narrative around artificial intelligence investment has always centred on equity valuations — Nvidia’s market capitalisation, hyperscaler earnings multiples, the concentration of the S&P 500 in a handful of AI-exposed names. That narrative is now incomplete. The more consequential shift underway in 2026 is happening in credit markets, and regulators are starting to say so explicitly.

Table of Contents

An Unprecedented Pace of Capital Deployment

The Bank of England’s July 2026 Financial Stability Report puts it plainly: the pace of AI-related investment is unprecedented historically, with AI companies increasingly turning to the financial system — and specifically to debt financing — to fund infrastructure buildouts. This marks a meaningful departure from the equity-heavy funding model that characterised the first wave of the AI boom, when cash-rich technology giants largely self-funded expansion from balance-sheet reserves.

Why Debt, and Why Now

The shift toward debt financing reflects simple scale economics: data-center construction costs have grown large enough that even the best-capitalised technology companies are choosing to preserve equity and cash flexibility by tapping bond and private credit markets instead. This dynamic accelerated sharply through the first half of 2026, coinciding with the same window in which China’s export data showed chips, computer parts and power equipment accounting for roughly half of the country’s export growth — evidence that the AI infrastructure buildout is now a genuinely global capital-expenditure cycle, not a US-only phenomenon.

ALSO READ : The Jack Smith Report: What We Know About the Sealed Classified Documents Investigation—And Why It Matters

The Leverage Concentration Problem

The Bank’s Financial Policy Committee has flagged a specific structural fragility: equity gains in AI-related names have been driven in significant part by a narrow, concentrated set of companies, with a substantial increase in the use of leverage tied to these positions. That combination — narrow concentration plus rising leverage — is precisely the mechanism that has historically turned isolated valuation corrections into broader, self-reinforcing liquidity events.

Separately, the Bank’s broader assessment of credit markets warns that vulnerabilities in risky asset valuations, sovereign debt markets and risky credit segments — including private credit specifically — remain, with some having become more pronounced since its previous report, as globally higher interest rates and energy-driven cost increases add pressure on corporate borrowers across the board, AI-related or otherwise.

The Sovereign Debt Connection

Perhaps the most significant — and least discussed — finding from the Bank’s analysis concerns how an AI-related equity correction could interact with sovereign bond markets. In its modelled scenario, debt-to-GDP ratios rise following a hypothetical AI valuation correction, but the Bank notes that both the US Treasury market and UK gilt market continued to function well under the scenario tested — with an explicit warning that had those markets come under pressure instead, the consequences could have been considerably more severe.

That finding sits uncomfortably alongside the Federal Reserve’s own hawkish pivot under Chair Kevin Warsh, detailed elsewhere in this series. A Fed moving toward rate hikes rather than cuts directly raises the cost of the debt financing now underpinning much of the AI infrastructure buildout — a tightening that could pressure highly leveraged data-center financing structures at precisely the moment the sector’s borrowing needs are accelerating.

ALSO READ : The Chip War: A Patriotic Battle for China's Technological Sovereignty

What Regulators Are Doing About It

Rather than attempting to directly restrain AI-related credit growth — not typically a central bank mandate — the Bank of England is focused on strengthening the plumbing that would need to absorb a shock if one occurs. It points specifically to reforms already announced for money market funds across the UK and Europe, alongside exploratory changes to bolster resilience in the gilt repo market, as the primary tools available to prevent an AI-financing-driven credit event from cascading into broader market dysfunction.

The Investor Takeaway

For fixed-income investors and credit allocators, the practical shift is this: AI exposure can no longer be assessed purely through equity valuation multiples. The debt structures financing data-center buildouts — their leverage ratios, their sensitivity to a hawkish Fed, and their concentration among a narrow set of borrowers — now represent a distinct and growing risk factor in global credit markets, one that central banks on both sides of the Atlantic are actively modelling, even as they stop short of calling it a bubble outright.

Featured Snippet

Is AI infrastructure being funded by debt or equity in 2026? AI companies are increasingly relying on debt financing rather than equity to fund data-center buildouts, a shift the Bank of England describes as historically unprecedented in pace, raising new financial stability questions around leverage concentration and credit market resilience.

Post Views: 530

Discover more from The Monitor

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

AI

AI Chip War 2026: How Singapore & Malaysia Got Caught Between US and China

Published

1 week ago

July 11, 2026

Abdul Rahman

New guidance from the US Department of Commerce issued in late May 2026 has tightened licensing requirements for Nvidia’s most advanced processors, including its Blackwell series, closing a loophole that let Chinese firms acquire restricted chips through overseas subsidiaries — and putting Singapore and Malaysia squarely in Washington’s crosshairs as the two Southeast Asian hubs most exposed to diversion risk (NaturalNews).

Table of Contents

A Trillion-Dollar Market, and a Widening Grey Zone

Under the current three-tier US export framework, Singapore and Malaysia sit in “Tier 2” alongside roughly 120 other countries, including India and the UAE, meaning firms there must obtain individual licences or validated end-user authorisation before accessing the most advanced AI chips (Asia Times). That has not stopped both markets from becoming critical waypoints in the global AI supply chain: Singapore alone accounted for roughly one-fifth of Nvidia’s $215.9 billion in revenue for the fiscal year ended January 2026, making it the company’s second-largest market after the United States.

The scale of the enforcement challenge became public in May 2026, when the US Department of Justice charged three individuals connected to a technology supplier in a scheme involving roughly $2.5 billion worth of Nvidia-powered servers, allegedly routed to Chinese brokers using dummy replicas to defeat physical audits (Model Diplomat). That case echoes an August 2025 indictment involving chip shipments transiting through Malaysia and Singapore en route to Hong Kong, underscoring how the region has become a persistent pressure point for US export enforcement.

ALSO READ : The Jack Smith Report: What We Know About the Sealed Classified Documents Investigation—And Why It Matters

Malaysia Moves First, Thailand Lags Behind

Regional responses have diverged sharply based on exposure and regulatory capacity. Malaysia acted earliest, introducing a mandatory Strategic Trade Permit in July 2025 covering the export, transshipment and transit of high-performance US-origin AI chips — a move widely read as Kuala Lumpur choosing to tighten oversight rather than risk its reputation as what one Eco-Business analysis calls a “weak link” in the compliance chain (Eco-Business).

Thailand has proven more exposed. In May 2026, US authorities publicly flagged a Bangkok-based firm tied to the country’s national AI initiative for allegedly helping divert billions of dollars’ worth of Nvidia-powered servers to Chinese companies including Alibaba — a case that illustrates how national AI ambitions and export-control compliance can pull governments in opposing directions.

Beijing’s Answer: Building Around the Restrictions

China’s response to tightening controls has increasingly been to accelerate domestic substitution rather than simply seek workarounds. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang told CNBC in May that he had effectively “conceded” the Chinese data-centre market to Huawei, with the company now assuming zero data-centre chip revenue from China going forward — a remarkable admission given that the Chinese market generated an estimated $12–15 billion in H20 chip sales as recently as 2024 (Model Diplomat).

China’s own supercomputing ambitions received a symbolic boost in June 2026 when the domestically built LineShine supercomputer, developed at Shenzhen’s National Supercomputing Center, reclaimed the top spot on the global TOP500 ranking, surpassing the US-built El Capitan system. Analysts tracking China’s fifteenth five-year plan note that Beijing has explicitly directed its AI sector to develop “extraordinary measures” to defeat export controls, with domestic players Huawei, Cambricon and SMIC forecast to reach at least 50% market share within China by the end of 2026.

ALSO READ : PAKISTAN'S DIPLOMATIC DISCONNECT: A PRODUCT OF POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC TURBULENCE

Why Southeast Asia Cannot Simply Pick a Side

Chatham House’s assessment of the broader export-control strategy is unusually blunt: rapid global demand growth for AI compute makes enforcement extraordinarily difficult, and countries like Malaysia and Singapore have become de facto grey markets whether or not their governments intend that outcome (Chatham House). The US Chip Security Act, working its way through Congress, aims to close some of these gaps by requiring companies to verify that chips remain in authorised locations — but even proponents acknowledge that legislation alone cannot fully police a supply chain running through dozens of jurisdictions with varying regulatory capacity.

For Singapore and Malaysia, the dilemma is structural rather than merely diplomatic: both governments actively court data-centre investment from American and Chinese firms alike, because both flows generate genuine economic value, jobs and technology transfer. Neither wants to be forced into an exclusive alignment with Washington or Beijing on chip policy, yet the political and legal risk of appearing to enable diversion is rising sharply with each new DOJ indictment. The likeliest trajectory for the rest of 2026 is not a clean resolution but an intensifying game of regulatory whack-a-mole, with Southeast Asian governments tightening rules just fast enough to avoid becoming Washington’s next enforcement headline, without fully closing the door on Chinese capital.

Post Views: 707