Fearing crypto and China, the US hesitates to pull Russia’s SWIFT access

The U.S. is hesitant to block Russia from SWIFT, in part because doing so could push the global economy away from the U.S. dollar.

Woman holding "Sanctions On!" sign

Why are sanctions against Russian banks still on the table, while cutting off SWIFT access has been deemed a step too far?

Photo: Sergei Supinsky /AFP via Getty Images

Following Russia’s movement of troops into two separatist regions of eastern Ukraine, the U.S. and its Western allies are poised to begin rolling out a sanctions package unlike any other in terms of the scope of targeted trade and the size of the sanctioned economy.

“We in Germany are prepared to pay a high price economically — that’s why everything is on the table,” German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said on Friday.

“These are some of the greatest sanctions, if not the strongest that we’ve ever issued,” Vice President Kamala Harris reiterated at the Munich Security Conference over the weekend. “It is directed at institutions — in particular, financial institutions — and individuals, and it will exact absolute harm for the Russian economy.”

Yet for all the aggressive posturing, the U.S. coalition has seemingly backtracked on SWIFT, deciding not to block Russian access to the international payments communication system. Pundits have come to refer to SWIFT sanctions as “the nuclear option.” But some policy experts say this characterization is wildly overstated, arguing instead that SWIFT sanctions wouldn’t be nearly as effective as those directly targeting Russian banks.

So why are sanctions against Russian banks still on the table, while cutting off SWIFT access has been deemed a step too far? There’s a simple answer: Removing Russian access would constitute an economic shock that U.S. politicians and corporations would rather not instigate.

There’s a more complicated and consequential explanation, however, that has to do with anxiety over the U.S. dollar’s status as global reserve currency. SWIFT sanctions, rather than being a “nuclear option” thwarting Russia, could be the first domino in a sequence of events that bolster China- and Russia-backed alternative digital payment systems. Such sanctions might also, in the long run, steer emerging markets toward blockchain-based systems that would reduce global reliance on the U.S.-centric international monetary system. Altogether, SWIFT sanctions could very well incite the dedollarization of the world economy.

Over 11,000 financial institutions spread across more than 200 countries use SWIFT to communicate payments and securities transfers. The system was launched in 1977 by a coalition of banks and headquartered in Belgium, likely in part to convey the “strict neutrality” that SWIFT purports to uphold.

But the vast majority of SWIFT transactions are settled in U.S. dollars, which helps solidify the currency’s status as the global reserve currency. This gives the U.S. tremendous influence over the world economy, allowing the federal government to borrow at discounted rates, rack up national debt that now exceeds $30 trillion and exert influence over foreign nations through punitive monetary policy. Despite the supposed neutrality of SWIFT, the U.S. wielded its influence to boot Iran from the service twice. In both cases, the sanctions had the intended consequence of hamstringing the Iranian economy by limiting international trade.

“I think most experts would say that impactful measures were the direct secondary sanctions on Iranian banks, and SWIFT was the cherry on top,” Chris Miller, an assistant professor at Tufts University’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, told Protocol.

But even U.S. allies have an uneasy relationship with SWIFT: They know their banks rely on it, but would prefer to turn toward less U.S.-centric alternatives. For instance, in a 2018 speech explaining why Europe needed a home-grown version of SWIFT, German Foreign Affairs Minister Heiko Maas said, “We must increase Europe's autonomy and sovereignty in trade, economic and financial policies.” At the time, European nations were seeking a means of conducting transactions with Iranian financial institutions in the aftermath of the abandoned nuclear deal.

For Russia and China, the need to develop SWIFT alternatives is more pressing.

Even if the U.S. chooses not to block Russia from SWIFT this time around, the threat can certainly still be used as leverage in future standoffs. Russia can look toward the example of Iran to see that oil exports would likely take a serious hit if SWIFT access were cut off. Losing access would reduce Russia’s GDP by 5%, according to estimates from the Carnegie Moscow Center. Some Russian parliamentarians have said SWIFT sanctions would be tantamount to a declaration of war.

As for China, its economy is too large and too important to reasonably be booted from SWIFT. But if China ever wants to seriously challenge the U.S. as the global hegemonic power, it will need to develop a viable alternative to SWIFT that helps wean the global financial system off the U.S. dollar. China has so far struggled to promote CNY on SWIFT, as the currency only accounts for around 2% of settlements.

Here’s the catch: Plenty of SWIFT alternatives already exist. The EU, Russia and China have each created their own systems. There are also emergent blockchain-based alternatives such as Ripple, which aim to usurp SWIFT through technological prowess rather than political influence.

The difficult part isn’t creating a new system, but gaining enough adoption such that the network becomes useful to member banks. For instance, Russia’s alternative system, SPFS, has only gained traction within the country; even then, only 20% of domestic bank settlements used it as of 2020. Only one Chinese bank belongs to SPFS. By contrast, China’s SWIFT alternative, the Chinese Cross-Border Interbank Payment System, managed to attract 613 indirect participating banks from overseas in 2021. While it may seem CIPS is better positioned to challenge SWIFT, it still has a long way to go, as it stands at around 0.3% the size of SWIFT.

The U.S. therefore risks pushing its luck too far by kicking Russia off of SWIFT, which could then incite a coalition of disgruntled nations to actually adopt alternatives. Russia and China have already offered to help the EU improve its INSTEX system, which is currently limited to facilitating humanitarian trade payments permitted by U.S. sanctions. El Salvador’s bitcoin experiment might also look more attractive within the context of a decentralized blockchain-based international payments system, should that become the more prominent SWIFT alternative. Fintech companies such as Plaid have suggested that blockchain technologies could become a faster, cheaper alternative to SWIFT.

In the long term, U.S. policy around SWIFT should, in theory, be guided by the perceived threat of dedollarization. The problem is that no one can agree on the threat level.

“The plumbing is being built and tested to work around the United States,” former U.S. Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew told the Atlantic Council in 2019. “Over time, as those tools are perfected, if the United States stays on a path where it is seen as going it alone … there will increasingly be alternatives that will chip away at the centrality of the United States.”

Since Lew made his remarks three years ago, inflation has risen to near-record highs. Foreign nations that invest in U.S. treasuries will therefore get a weaker dollar back over time. The fact that Russia controls so much energy also means that an escalation in the conflict would only drive inflation higher, making the dollar less attractive.

But others don’t see an imminent risk of dedollarization. “There [are] basically no data points — other than politicians’ statements in Iran, China and Russia — that suggest dedollarization is happening,” Miller told Protocol. “As U.S. sanctions on Iran and Russia have intensified over the past decade, the role of the dollar increased. So I understand that people can make the claim that that’s going to change in the future, but the evidence in the past decade is decisively that that’s not happening.”

What happens next depends on the situation on the ground in Russia and Ukraine. The Biden administration is still weighing what sanctions to impose to deter Russia’s move westward, as Congress remains conflicted. The president is expected to deliver public remarks on the matter on Tuesday afternoon.


Gensler: Bitcoin may be a commodity

The SEC has been vague about crypto. But Gensler said bitcoin is a commodity, “maybe.” It’s the clearest glimpse of his views on digital assets yet.

“Bitcoin — maybe that’s a commodity token. That has a big market value, but that goes over there,” Gensler said, referring to another regulator, the CFTC.

Photoillustration: Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images; Protocol

SEC Chair Gary Gensler has long argued that many cryptocurrencies are subject to regulation as securities.

But he recently clarified that this view wouldn’t apply to the best-known cryptocurrency, bitcoin.

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers crypto and fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Google Voice at (925) 307-9342.

Sponsored Content

Why the digital transformation of industries is creating a more sustainable future

Qualcomm’s chief sustainability officer Angela Baker on how companies can view going “digital” as a way not only toward growth, as laid out in a recent report, but also toward establishing and meeting environmental, social and governance goals.

Three letters dominate business practice at present: ESG, or environmental, social and governance goals. The number of mentions of the environment in financial earnings has doubled in the last five years, according to GlobalData: 600,000 companies mentioned the term in their annual or quarterly results last year.

But meeting those ESG goals can be a challenge — one that businesses can’t and shouldn’t take lightly. Ahead of an exclusive fireside chat at Davos, Angela Baker, chief sustainability officer at Qualcomm, sat down with Protocol to speak about how best to achieve those targets and how Qualcomm thinks about its own sustainability strategy, net zero commitment, other ESG targets and more.

Keep Reading Show less
Chris Stokel-Walker

Chris Stokel-Walker is a freelance technology and culture journalist and author of "YouTubers: How YouTube Shook Up TV and Created a New Generation of Stars." His work has been published in The New York Times, The Guardian and Wired.


What the economic downturn means for pay packages

The war for talent rages on, but dynamics are shifting back to the employers.

Compensation packages could start to look different as companies reshuffle the balance of cash and equity.

Illustration: Nuthawut Somsuk/Getty Images

The market is turning. Tech stocks are slumping — which is bad news for employees — and even industry powerhouses are slowing hiring and laying people off. Tech talent is still in high demand, but compensation packages could start to look different as companies recruit.

“It’s a little bit like whiplash,” compensation consultant Ashish Raina said of the downturn. Raina, who mainly works with startups that have 200 to 800 employees, previously worked as the director of Talent at Index Ventures and head of Compensation and Talent Analytics at Box. “I do think there’s going to be an interesting reckoning in terms of pay increases going forward, how that pay is delivered.”

Keep Reading Show less
Allison Levitsky
Allison Levitsky is a reporter at Protocol covering workplace issues in tech. She previously covered big tech companies and the tech workforce for the Silicon Valley Business Journal. Allison grew up in the Bay Area and graduated from UC Berkeley.

How 'Zuck Bucks' saved the 2020 election — and fueled the Big Lie

The true story of how Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan’s $419 million donation became the 2020 election’s most enduring conspiracy theory.

Mark Zuckerberg is smack in the center of one of the 2020 election’s multitudinous conspiracies.

Illustration: Mike McQuade; Photos: Getty Images

If Mark Zuckerberg could have imagined the worst possible outcome of his decision to insert himself into the 2020 election, it might have looked something like the scene that unfolded inside Mar-a-Lago on a steamy evening in early April.

There in a gilded ballroom-turned-theater, MAGA world icons including Kellyanne Conway, Corey Lewandowski, Hope Hicks and former president Donald Trump himself were gathered for the premiere of “Rigged: The Zuckerberg Funded Plot to Defeat Donald Trump.”

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky

Issie Lapowsky ( @issielapowsky) is Protocol's chief correspondent, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. She also oversees Protocol's fellowship program. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University's Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing.


From frenzy to fear: Trading apps grapple with anxious investors

After riding the stock-trading wave last year, trading apps like Robinhood have disenchanted customers and jittery investors.

Retail stock trading is still an attractive business, as shown by the news that crypto exchange FTX is dipping its toes in the market by letting some U.S. customers trade stocks.

Photo: Lam Yik/Bloomberg via Getty Images

For a brief moment, last year’s GameStop craze made buying and selling stocks cool, even exciting, for a new generation of young investors. Now, that frenzy has turned to fear.

Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev pointed to “a challenging macro environment” marked by rising prices and interest rates and a slumping market in a call with analysts explaining his company’s lackluster results. The downturn, he said, was something “most of our customers have never experienced in their lifetimes.”

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers crypto and fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Google Voice at (925) 307-9342.

Latest Stories