Who and how made money from the myth about the destruction of the ozone layer by freons. Not everyone probably knows what the Montreal Protocol (MP) is. This is an international agreement, the full name of which in English is: The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. In translation: Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
Ozone phobias and the Montreal Protocol
Some will think that we are talking about some private, special issue of interest to a narrow circle of specialists. However, the significance of this document is very great. Firstly, the practical implementation of the MP has affected and continues to affect all of humanity as a whole, including Russia. Secondly, the story with MP is very instructive, it is an example of how you can fool all of humanity.
I started talking about the MP in connection with the milestone anniversary: it will soon be 30 years since the specified document came into force.
In the middle of the last century, no one discussed the problem of the ozone layer, just as, for example, we do not discuss issues related to the stratosphere every day. Even very narrow specialists did not think about the ozone, which, as it later turned out, existed in the stratosphere, at an altitude of 25-30 km above the Earth. But in 1957, as part of the International Geophysical Year, the study of many secrets of the Earth and its biosphere began, including systematic monitoring of the ozone layer. The impetus for such observation was also given by successes in space exploration; artificial Earth satellites, spacecraft and orbital stations helped monitor the ozone layer. It came as a surprise to everyone that in the period 1957-1962. a thinning of the layer was recorded, the thickness of which is already very small - at atmospheric pressure we are accustomed to, it would be less than four millimeters. Many geophysicists, biologists, and doctors believed that the ozone layer is important for humans and all life on the planet, as it protects all types of life from the harsh ultraviolet radiation of the Sun. The first alarming publications on the topic of ozone layer depletion have appeared. However, after a five-year observation period, the ozone layer began to return to normal again. During the period 1970-1980. its thinning or “exhaustion” began to be observed again. The thinning of the layer over Antarctica was especially noticeable. About forty years ago a frightening phrase appeared: “ the ozone hole».
Events further developed very rapidly. American scientists added fuel to the fire S. Rowland And M. Molina, and also a West German scientist P. Crutzen(Germany). These chemists in 1973-1974. put forward a hypothesis that main reason the formation of “ozone holes” and the danger threatening the entire planet are freons, more precisely, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). The chlorine contained in freons actually destroys ozone. These chemists stated that one chlorine atom can destroy at least 10,000 ozone molecules.
There is no scarier beast than freons
Where do freons come from? They are produced by man. A significant part of the chemical industry produces freons, which are used by humans in everyday life and are also consumed by various industries. CFCs are used as cooling agents in household and industrial refrigerators, for automobile air conditioners, cleaning the surface of printed circuit boards for microelectronics products, aerosol spraying of cosmetics and other products from aerosol cans, foaming raw materials in the manufacture of plastic products, and fire extinguishing. Other CFCs are used to make foam rubbers and foams, materials widely used in many consumer products ranging from disposable foam tableware to insulation materials, for cleaning electrical equipment and even for cleaning down spacecraft after flights. CFCs are also in demand in the defense industry.
Even before World War II, scientists were faced with the task of developing cheap, non-flammable and non-toxic substances for such applications, and it was solved. The most popular CFCs have become freon-11 and freon-12, intended for household refrigerators and air conditioners. Their rapid production and consumption began after the war. From 1950 to 1975, global CFC production increased annually by 7-10% with a doubling time of less than 10 years. In the 1980s, the world produced about one million tons of CFCs annually.
In the 1970s, after the appearance of the ozone hypothesis, a slight panic began in America. Although the conclusions of American chemists, in fact, had the status of a hypothesis, spontaneous campaigns of citizens began against the further use of freons. Aerosol cans (deodorants, cosmetics) began to come under particular attack - they also contained freons. Sales of such cans have fallen by more than half. In 1978, the United States even passed a law banning the use of CFCs in aerosol sprays. This dealt a serious blow to chemical industry, especially American. The lion's share of freon production at that time was accounted for by the American company DuPont. The same one that was in the early 1930s. developed these same CFCs in its laboratories.
DuPont: a fight on two fronts
Immediately after the publication of the Rowland-Molina hypothesis, the DuPont corporation launched a counterattack, calling the conclusions of American chemists “fantasies.” Thus, a representative of the corporation in 1974 made the following statement in the US Congress:
The hypothesis linking chlorine to ozone depletion is currently purely speculative and has no evidence to support it.
If reliable scientific evidence... shows that... CFCs cannot be used safely, DuPont will cease production of these compounds.
Chairman DuPont wrote in an article in Chemical Week on July 16, 1975, that the theory of ozone destruction was science fiction, nonsense, and made no sense.
For 14 years, DuPont operated on two fronts, expecting victory on at least one of them. The first front is the debunking of the hypothesis about the destructive effect of freons on the ozone layer of the planet. The second front is the development in their laboratories of new compounds that could replace old freons, and which were beyond suspicion from the point of view of their environmental characteristics. On the first front a turning point could not be achieved, but on the second there was progress. It was possible to develop new types of CFCs that really had no effect on ozone (the most famous is Freon-134).
And by the mid-1980s, the company’s tactics underwent a serious reversal: DuPont unexpectedly became the main critic of old freons and... a promoter of new ones. The same people who just yesterday ridiculed the Rowland-Molina hypothesis began to support it.
There were only a couple of “buts” that confused me: the new freons turned out to be several times more expensive than the old ones, were prone to flammability and had a worse effect on human health. But DuPont and his assistants (the media, representatives of “science,” environmentalists, etc.) did not notice these “little things.” Apparently, the United Nations (UN) also became one of the “helpers,” which began to unconditionally support the Rowland-Molina version and actively fight for the preservation of the ozone layer by replacing the old generation of freons with a new one (I say this with confidence, since for some time was a consultant to the UN, dealing with environmental issues). The Americans S. Rowland, M. Molina and their German colleague P. Crutzen became heroes of science. Thus, their hypothesis suddenly acquired the status of a theory in the 1980s, and in the 1990s it became an axiom. So that no one would be tempted to question this axiom, in 1995 the mentioned trio of chemists were awarded the Nobel Prize.
To make a hypothesis Charles Darwin it took almost a century to turn the origin of man from ape into a “theory.” And it took only two decades to transform the Rowland-Molina hypothesis into an “axiom.”
UN at DuPont's service
DuPont's appetites and ambitions became overwhelming. Hiding behind the Rowland-Molina hypothesis, she could easily push through the US Congress the adoption of a law that would ban the use of old freons and stimulate the production and consumption of new ones. Such a law would ensure the company's monopoly position in the American market. But this was not enough for the corporation - it was about the global market. International organizations were used as a battering ram, primarily the UN and its specialized structures: UNEP (UN Environment Program) and the Global Environment Facility (GEF). To begin with, the UN initiated the International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone Layer on September 16. In 1985, an international framework document was adopted - the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer. Work began at an accelerated pace to prepare an international agreement of direct action, which would deal exclusively with the topic of CFCs and contain specific obligations and deadlines for replacing old freons with new ones.
Such a document was the Montreal Protocol, with which we began our conversation. It was signed by thirty countries in 1987 and came into force on January 1, 1989. The MP provided for freezing the production of old-generation freons (they are designated by numbers 11, 12, 113, 114, 115) at the 1986 level, starting in 1992. And in the period 1993-1998. reduce, according to the schedule, the production level to 50% of the original level. Since then, the protocol has been revised (towards stricter) seven times: in 1990 (London), 1991 (Nairobi), 1992 (Copenhagen), 1993 (Bangkok), 1995 (Vienna), 1997 (Montreal) and 1999 (Beijing). Some other compounds have been added to freons that can destroy the ozone layer. For example, halons, hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), carbon tetrachloride (CTC).
Surprisingly, almost all countries of the world unanimously joined the banner of the MP. As of December 2009, 196 UN member states had ratified the original version of the MP. UN Secretary General (1997-2006) Kofi Annan said that
Perhaps the only very successful international agreement can be considered the Montreal Protocol.
UN documents constantly sound optimistic about the ozone future of humanity: they say that if countries adhere to the provisions of the MP, the planet’s ozone layer will be restored by 2050.
Freon strike on the USSR and Russia
The overwhelming majority of countries that have signed the MP are neither hot nor cold from this document. They do not produce CFCs. But a number of states - several Western ones, the USSR, China and India - at the time of signing the MP were very large producers of freon. They, of course, produced those old CFCs that were created back in the early 1930s. China and India refrained from signing the MP, continuing the production of old or “gray” freons. But the Soviet Union, which began the destructive “perestroika” under the leadership M. S. Gorbacheva, went out of his way to please the West. On September 15, 1987, in Montreal, the Soviet delegation, consisting of professionals, refused to sign an absurd and dangerous document for the country. One of the delegation members, Vladimir Matveevich Zakharov, leaving Montreal, said:
There are no scientific grounds, any serious, for signing it.
A menacing shout sounded from the Kremlin. We signed the document forcibly on New Year's Eve 1988.
Thus, with the chimes ringing, a significant part of the country’s chemical industry was sentenced to destruction. Production of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) in Russia reached its maximum in 1990 and amounted to 197,490 tons, including CFCs - 110,140 tons. In 1996, the total production of ODS decreased to 47,575 tons (a 4.1-fold reduction), including CFCs - to 17,122 tons (a 6.4-fold reduction). Of the ODS produced in 1990, 47,575 tons or 58.8% were used domestically, and in 1996 - 15,408 tons or 32.4%. The remaining part was exported to the CIS republics and developing countries (the “gray” ODS market).
A peculiarity of the production of freons and other ODS in our country was that a significant part of the products was intended for the defense industry. The thoughtless signing and implementation of the MP, first by the Soviet Union and then by the Russian Federation, dealt a serious blow to the military-economic potential of the country. Among the civilian industries, the production of household and industrial refrigerators suffered the greatest damage. Part of the ODS production ended up in new states that emerged from the ruins of the USSR. First of all, this is Ukraine, which, after gaining independence, automatically became a member of the MP.
The denouement of the "freon war"
I witnessed those dramatic events of the 1990s. Dozens of chemical enterprises in the country, according to the requirements of the MP, were subject to either closure or conversion. Representatives of the military-industrial complex sent SOS signals to the government, warning that the defense industry was left without the necessary chemicals. The government (Primes Gaidar, Chernomyrdin, Kiriyenko) and the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources of the Russian Federation stated that fulfilling international obligations is more important than the country’s defense capability. The directors of the enterprises resisted in every possible way, refusing to obey the demands of the MP. The World Bank was used as a battering ram, which issued a loan to Russia ($110 million) for the implementation of the Environmental Management Project (EMP). In addition to loans, the project issued grants (their total amount was several tens of millions of dollars) for the “reconstruction” of enterprises producing ODS. In fact, these were bribes to ensure that businesses closed.
Thus, the DuPont corporation, under the MP banner, won the behind-the-scenes war against our chemical industry. In December 2000, the last seven Russian factories that produced substances allegedly destroying the ozone layer were closed. Since then, our entire industry has been based on the use of products from the American corporation DuPont.
What if Donald Trump, as part of economic sanctions against Russia, prohibits DuPont from supplying us with the necessary chemical compounds? How does this relate to the declarations of our authorities on strengthening the economic and military security of Russia? A year ago, a conference was held in Moscow under a very significant title: “From the Montreal Protocol to the Montreal Tribunal.” It was dedicated to the 30th anniversary of the signing of the protocol. The speech at the conference was especially interesting and poignant Grigory Kruchenitsky, Head of the Ozone Monitoring Department of the Central Aerological Observatory of Roshydromet.
Here is a fragment of this speech:
In order to comply with the conditions of the protocol and refuse to produce a number of chemical substances, the chemical sector of the USSR defense complex was virtually destroyed. Moreover, it was destroyed with the money that the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development allocated to the Soviet Union for the restructuring of the chemical industry for new freons. The money was given to Western experts with a complete technological description of our chemical plants in Volgograd, Leninsk-Kuznetsky and Perm. After that we found ourselves hostage to the situation.
The Montreal Protocol is one of the biggest scams of the late twentieth century. The American corporation DuPont is its main beneficiary. Using this protocol, she managed to achieve the closure of so-called ODS production facilities around the world. It captured the world market for a new generation of freons, establishing sales of more expensive and profitable products.
Of course, other companies also made money from MP. For example, those that produce refrigerators and air conditioners. Old cars were thrown into the trash, a new generation of refrigeration and air conditioning equipment appeared, which began to be called environmentally friendly. By 2005, in the United States alone, replacing old refrigerators and air conditioners with new ones cost households and businesses more than $220 billion. True, household refrigerators with new freons from the DuPont corporation periodically explode, burn, poison and send their owners to the next world. But these are all trifles against the backdrop of such a grandiose task as saving humanity from the threat of ozone layer depletion.
Science has become a servant of capital
I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the entire DuPont ozone scam is built on the so-called Rowland-Molina theory, which was awarded the Nobel Prize. In fact, this is not a theory or even a hypothesis, but an outright fake. The same as Charles Darwin's fake about the origin of man from ape. If the American chemists Rowland and Molina received a Nobel for their “discovery,” then I believe that the injustice must be corrected in relation to the English “genius” Charles Darwin. I propose to posthumously award him the title of Nobel Prize laureate!
The format of the article does not give me the opportunity to reveal the full absurdity of the Rowland-Molina-Crutzen “axiom”. An endless number of articles and several fundamental books have been written about the ozone-freon fake. One of them was published in France in the late 1990s: Oshot Hammar "Ozone - a hole out of nothing"" I wrote the foreword to it Garun Taziev, world famous French volcanologist. Here is an excerpt from that preface: “Stratospheric ozone is not in danger of disappearing. Those who over the past ten years have been trying to convince humanity of this are betraying scientific truth. This is contrary to the truth when, as a pretext for blaming chlorofluorocarbons for the destruction of ozone over Antarctica, they claim that the now famous “ozone hole” was discovered in 1985, since it existed back in 1956. Scientists who have falsified the truth at least once have never are no longer trustworthy, and it no longer matters what subject they speak on.”
- Give me 2100 mm of the Russian border, I will become rich and provide for my grandchildren.
— Why exactly 2100?
— This is the track width of a modern truck.
(Modern joke)
Smuggling is a giant “hole” of the Russian economy
For more than a quarter of a century, there has been a continuous robbery of Russia (almost from the moment of its birth Russian Federation). I have already spoken more than once about such a robbery channel as cross-border capital movement.
Firstly, with the exception of two or three years throughout the existence of the Russian Federation, the Bank of Russia recorded a net outflow of private capital. 2014 was one of the record years; the net outflow of private capital at the end of the year exceeded $152 billion.
Secondly, throughout the existence of the Russian Federation, foreign investors withdrew more income from our country than Russian exporters received income from investments abroad. For example, the international balance of investment income in Russia in 2016 looked like this (billion dollars): income receivable - 36.75; income payable - 69.24. Thus, net losses (negative balance) amounted to $32.49 billion.
Thirdly, the Russian banking system also participates in cross-border capital operations, but works only in one direction - “there”. The export of capital is expressed in the increase in international reserves, which, according to the latest data, reached $412.24 billion (as of July 1, 2017). Without monetary gold, international foreign exchange reserves were equal to $343.77 billion. For comparison: as of July 1 last year, international foreign exchange reserves amounted to $329.26 billion. Thus, the net increase in the export of capital by bankers for the year amounted to $14.51 billion.
In some years, Russia’s net losses only in the three above-mentioned positions, which are recorded by official statistics, significantly exceeded the level of $100 billion. And in 2014, the sum of the three components reached $200 billion. And this, by the way, is equivalent to approximately half of the revenue side of the Russian budget in the specified year.
But official statistics do not reflect all losses. These are, first of all, losses, which are called smuggling. It refers to the cross-border movement of capital, goods and services that is not recorded by state control authorities. However, in addition to the classical, or “ black contraband, there is also the so-called “ gray contraband. When transactions are recorded by customs and other authorized organizations, but the transaction data is falsified in the interests of the “beneficiaries” of the transactions. In some cases, there is simply deception of customs and other services, but most often the falsification occurs with the connivance and direct participation of control services. It's no secret that the level of corruption in customs services is off the charts. A type of “gray” smuggling is the transportation of goods prohibited for export and import through third countries. A classic example of such “gray” smuggling is the supply of goods from Ukraine to Russia through Belarus, which is used as a “transit” or “buffer” territory.
The breeding ground for gray smuggling is corruption in the customs service. Journalists have repeatedly compiled unofficial ratings of Russian departments based on their degree of corruption. The Federal Customs Service (FCS) was consistently among the top five. We all remember well the scandal of last summer, when in the country mansion of the head of the Federal Customs Service Andrey Belyaninov The FSB conducted a search. The official was suspected of corruption on an especially large scale. As always, the matter was put on hold. Belyaninov was fired and the investigation was terminated. Apparently, as always, they were afraid to “expose” the “patrons” standing above the official.
As for “black” smuggling, there is complete freedom for it in Russia. After all, our state border has become leaky over the years of “reforms”. Due to the fact that the country's border service has weakened. Smugglers use hundreds of proven “paths” and “corridors” through which they not only carry, but also smuggle thousands of tons of cargo by car. Small quantities of smuggled goods can be supplied using individuals. We are talking not only about drugs or precious metals, but also about a wide range of household consumer goods. Here, for example, is how “small-scale” smuggling is organized on the Russian-Finnish border. Hundreds of citizens of the Russian Federation, mostly of retirement age, are involved in it every day. They are called "jerboas". Early in the morning, these “jerboas” cross the Russian-Finnish border in private cars. In Finland, a truck with 20 tons of goods is already waiting for them, which is distributed among two hundred cars, 100 kg per car. Individuals legally transport goods, ostensibly for personal use, without paying duties. Customs post employees help shuttles quickly cross the border. On the Russian side, another truck is waiting for them, into which goods are being loaded. During the day, the “jerboa” manages to make up to three trips back and forth, earning 3 thousand rubles.
However, the purpose of my article is not to try to give an overview of all the methods and technologies of “black” and “gray” smuggling. Even the format of a thick book would not be enough for such a brief review. I will just try to reveal what the motives for smuggling are, what (at least approximately) its scale is, and what its consequences are for the Russian economy.
So, what are the goals and motives for smuggling?
First of all, for the movement across the border of goods prohibited for import and export by private individuals by law. We are talking, first of all, about drugs, weapons, nuclear materials, ammunition, etc. The same list can include counterfeit products that do not meet standards and pose a threat to human life. However, in some cases we are not talking about smuggled imports, but smuggled exports. For example, weapons. The list of such goods dangerous to the life and health of people is contained in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in Chapter 24 “Crimes against public safety” in Article 226`, which establishes criminal liability for their movement without special permits. And it is precisely the sale of such goods on the domestic Russian and foreign markets that provide huge profits.
The second motive for smuggling is evasion of taxes and duties. What taxes and duties are we talking about? — First of all, about those that are levied when importing and exporting goods. Take, for example, a group of goods related to light industry. As noted by the head of the Foreign Economic Activity Support Center Galina Balandina, “on average, payments to the budget when importing light industrial goods into Russia amount to 30-35% of the cost of the consignment.” However, figures for individual products can vary greatly. As an example, experts from the Foreign Economic Activity Support Center calculated the amount of official fees for a specific batch of Turkish goods (auto parts, coffee makers, furniture, sheepskin coats, clothing) worth $64 thousand according to the invoice (a shipping document provided by the seller to the buyer) in the transit declaration (the goods traveled through Baltic states). The result was 56 thousand dollars, that is, almost 90%. Another example is a batch of Italian clothing worth $13 thousand. Payments to the treasury amounted to 183 thousand rubles, or $3.2 thousand - approximately 25% of the cost of the goods (a relatively modest level for this group of goods). As you can see, the “issue price” is considerable. There is something to take risks for.
The third motive is to use the smuggling of goods and services as a channel for the export of capital, and such that it is already difficult to find ends. We are most often talking about “gray” smuggling, when the goods formally pass through customs, but prices are falsified. When exporting goods, prices are reduced. And the difference between the “false” price appearing in the documents and the real selling price is sometimes measured in tens of percent or times. This difference ends up abroad in the form of bank deposits or other assets. When importing goods, the opposite picture occurs: prices in documents are artificially inflated. And again, money ends up abroad in the form of bank deposits or other assets. This is an illegal export of capital based on “gray” smuggling. One of the purposes of such exports is to avoid paying taxes on income from foreign assets to the Russian treasury.
Law enforcement agencies keep some statistics on smuggling. Crimes classified as “smuggling” are recorded (registered), but the percentage of their detection is extremely low. Moreover, even registered cases are only top part iceberg Experts are trying to determine the extent of the entire iceberg called “corruption” through surveys. However, estimates vary greatly and are unreliable.
Perhaps the most reliable assessment method is statistical. I want to dwell on it in more detail. We are talking about a comparison of foreign trade (customs) statistics of Russia and its trading partners. Such a comparison shows that there is a noticeable (sometimes very significant) discrepancy between the figures for exports from Russia to another country according to Russian statistics and the figures for imports from Russia according to the statistics of the counterparty country. In the same way, there may be discrepancies in the figures of imports into Russia from any country and exports from this country to Russia. The emerging differences give an idea of the scale of Russia's smuggling trade. Some discrepancies in the figures of customs statistics of Russia and partner countries may, of course, arise for technical reasons (for example, differences in methods for valuing goods, some discrepancies in the time of export and time of import of goods, etc.). But such technical differences may amount to no more than a few percent. If the discrepancies are 10 percent or more, there is no doubt that smuggling is taking place.
Assessments carried out by Russian experts show the following picture at the end of the last century. In the period 1992-2000. the total volume of smuggling was estimated in the range from 25 to 65 billion dollars. Calculated per year, it turns out to be from 3 to 7 billion dollars. I will give one example from my book “ Capital flight from Russia"(M.: Ankil, 2002). It concerns Russia's trade with Japan in marine fisheries products in 1995. Russian customs statistics showed the export of fish and seafood from Russia to Japan in the amount of 7 thousand tons worth $85 million. Japanese statistics recorded the import of these products weighing 56 thousand tons worth $622 million. It turns out that smuggling is only for one commodity group and trade with only one country exceeded half a billion dollars.
Maybe later it was possible to reduce the scale of smuggling? - Not at all. I will use the calculations that were kindly provided to me Mikhail Alexandrovich Bocharov, famous political and public figure, entrepreneur. Here, for example, is a generalized picture of Russia’s foreign trade for 2011, based on various sources (billion rubles):
|
Type of operations (indicator) |
WTO and UN data |
RTS data |
|
|
Trade turnover |
|||
As you can see, the data on trade turnover of the Russian Federation provided by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the UN are twice as high as the data from the Russian Customs Service (RTS). At the same time, the level of smuggling operations for exports was higher than for imports (and in our media, by the way, the main attention is paid to various stories related to smuggled imports).
Here are more specific calculations. They concern only exports and only one product group in 2015. We are talking about product group No. 27 (according to Russian customs statistics) “Mineral fuels, oils, distillation products.” The group is very important, one might say, the main one for Russia. According to the RTS, goods from this group were exported to all countries of the world in the amount of $216.1 billion. But according to statistics from partner countries, imports from Russia of the same goods amounted to $338.2 billion. The size of the “hole” is astronomical - 122. 1 billion dollars. This is smuggling of goods from group No. 27. Smuggling in relation to “white” exports amounted to 56.5%! The share of smuggled exports to the USA was especially high (the excess of smuggling over “white” exports was 1.9 times), to Germany (1.5 times), to France (2.5 times), to Spain (1.75 times). Smuggling exports to Spain amounted to 63% of the “white” exports, to England - 46%, Belarus - 50%, Ukraine - 76%, Poland - 21%, Japan - 3%, China - 7%. For the last two countries, I can assume that the discrepancies in customs statistics are not due to smuggling, but to technical reasons.
According to official statistics, in 2016, exports of goods from Russia amounted to $281.85 billion; imports - $191.59 billion. The total trade turnover was thus equal to $473.44 billion. If we assume that the volume of smuggling trade is approximately equal to the volume of “white” trade (as was the case in 2011), we get: that last year the volume of smuggling trade in Russia amounted to an astronomical value - more than $470 billion. If we make a conditional assumption that trade turnover is subject to duties and taxes of 10%, then we come to the conclusion that the Russian treasury, due to the presence of a “hole” called “smuggling,” lost almost $50 billion. In terms of national money at the current exchange rate, this is equivalent to approximately 3 trillion rubles. By the way, this amounts to 22.3% of the Russian budget revenue planned for 2017. Last year, when a scandal broke out around the Federal Customs Service (in connection with the dismissal of the head of the service, Belyaninov), a State Duma deputy from A Just Russia Mikhail Vasilievich Bryachak declared the need to restore order at customs. He said that smuggling, encouraged by the Federal Customs Service, leads to the treasury annually losing 2.5 trillion. rub. The figure is very close to the estimate I gave above.
Instead of plugging the smuggling “hole” of the Russian economy, our authorities are beginning to “tighten the screws” and cut social and other vital expenses. I don’t remember that anyone from the Russian government even mentioned the smuggling “hole” and the need to take measures to eliminate it. If it is not shut up, then the ship called “Russian Economy” will inevitably sink.
The other day, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev wrote on his Facebook page that the new US sanctions against the Russian Federation are “comprehensive” and will last for decades, and they will be “tougher than the Jackson-Vanik Act.”
The decision made in Washington could more correctly be called not a tightening of the sanctions regime against Moscow, but a declaration of a full-scale economic war on it. Even more than that: the new American law calls Russia an “enemy,” so attacks against it will be planned in all directions. August 2, 2017 (the date President Trump signed the law) can be considered the beginning of a new round of the Cold War; its previous round lasted 45 years - from 1946 to 1991.
The situation that has arisen sharply actualizes the study of the experience of counteracting the USSR, as well as other countries, against Western economic sanctions. From my point of view, a radical restructuring of economic management, transferring the country to the rails of a mobilization economy, is on the agenda. In the current conditions, maintaining a liberal economy threatens to become a path to defeat.
The topic of economic restructuring is very broad, in this article I will focus on only one aspect of it - the international reserves of the Russian Federation (the given data are taken from official statistics of the Bank of Russia, the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, the IMF, the World Gold Council, as well as the book: V.Yu. Katasonov. Gold in economics and politics of Russia. - M.: Ankil, 2009).
As of July 1, 2017, the international reserves of the Russian Federation amounted to $412.24 billion; including foreign exchange reserves - $343.47 billion (all international reserves minus monetary gold). Despite the economic sanctions adopted by the West earlier, the policy of increasing international reserves was maintained; In the first half of this year alone, Russia’s international reserves increased by $21.65 billion.
What line of behavior should be chosen in this situation?
First of all, one should proceed from the fact that a significant part of the international reserves of the Russian Federation is under strict control by the United States and its closest allies. The bulk is accounted for by foreign securities, mainly US Treasury bonds, as well as treasuries of other Western countries. As of July 1, 2017, reserves in securities amounted to $254.77 billion. Another large component of reserves is cash currency and balances in the accounts of foreign banks and international financial organizations - $77.64 billion. Both components account for 96. 5% of international foreign exchange reserves and 80.3% of all international reserves of Russia.
If someone believes that bonds and other debt instruments that make up international reserves are stored in paper form in the basements of the Central Bank of Russia and Washington’s hand cannot reach them, then this is not so: they are placed electronically in special depositories. Access to the securities is carried out using two keys - one is with the owner of the securities (Bank of Russia), the other is with the owner of the depository (storage). We know little about these owners, but they are all ultimately controlled by Washington. There is information that one of the depositories used by the Bank of Russia is located in Belgium.
The situation is even more difficult with those Russian reserves that are placed in accounts in foreign banks. Moreover, they are controlled by Washington (the mechanism of such control is the subject of a separate article).
The first thing you should try to do is to remove Russian reserves from a possible attack from Washington. The question of “where” and “how” is very difficult. I must honestly say that this should have been done yesterday. Today it is extremely difficult. We must be prepared for serious losses. So, output where? I would even say not “where”, but “what”.
It is necessary to withdraw it into gold - the most sanctions-protected asset (unless, of course, you store it in the United States, as dozens of countries do). Back in the 20th century, most of the international reserves of most countries of the world consisted of the yellow metal, the gold standard was maintained, and gold was the basis of monetary circulation. Today, gold is needed as emergency money - in case of war, collapse of reserve currencies, in the event of blockades and sanctions, etc. This is already gold as a strategic reserve.
Of course, in this regard, the United States has no competition. According to the US Treasury, the official reserve of US monetary gold has remained around 8,100 tons for several decades. If this gold is converted into dollars at market prices, it turns out that the yellow metal accounted for 95 to 99 percent of US international reserves.
Eurozone countries also have a high share of gold in international reserves, last years it averaged about 50%. In countries such as Germany, France, Italy and Holland, this figure is at the level of 2/3. If they do not accumulate monetary gold in their reserves, then at least they do not squander it, keeping it at the level that existed in the 70s of the twentieth century.
But the IMF strongly recommended and recommends that developing countries accumulate paper US dollars, euros, pounds sterling, yen, etc. For example, in Saudi Arabia the share of gold in international reserves is only 2.6%, in Qatar - 3.1%, in Kuwait - 8.8%, in the UAE - 0.3%. Another example: in the BRICS countries, the share of gold in international reserves at the beginning of 2017 was (%): China - 2.4; India – 6.0; Brazil – 0.6; South Africa - 10.9. Very modest indicators compared to most developed countries. At the same time, South Africa has long been first on the list of gold-mining countries. True, as for China, it, apparently, greatly underestimates the data on its gold reserves (today, according to official Chinese statistics, they are equal to 1,842.6 tons); in reality, these reserves, according to my estimate, are at least three times greater. However, even so, the share of gold in China's international reserves remains modest. However, gold statistics are manipulated not only by China, but also by many other countries. One of the popular methods is to distribute the gold reserves into two parts - monetary gold and non-monetary gold (the first type of metal is standard bars of a certain weight, of a certain standard with appropriate marks; transferring gold from one category to another is technically not difficult).
Now about Russia. For a long time, she followed the course recommended to her by Washington (through IMF advisers) and accumulated green paper (US dollars) in international reserves, keeping the share of gold at an extremely low level. In physical terms, Russia's gold reserves in certain years were as follows (tons; at the beginning of the year): 1993 - 267.3; 1995 – 261.8; 2000 – 414.5; 2008 – 466.2. In the last ten years, there has been a fairly rapid growth in the official gold reserves of the Russian Federation (tons; at the beginning of the year): 2010 - 649; 2012 – 883; 2014 – 1035; 2015 – 1208; 2016 – 1415; 2017 – 1615. As of July 1, 2017, reserves reached 1717 tons. Today, Russia already ranks seventh in the world in terms of gold reserves (after the USA, Germany, IMF, Italy, France and China).
In 1993, the share of gold in Russia's international reserves was 56.9%. Here are the data for subsequent years (%): 1995 - 38.8; 2000 – 32.1; 2005 – 3.0; 2008 – 2.5. As we can see, paper currencies have been steadily crowding out the yellow metal from Russia’s international reserves. Then the trend changed, the share of gold began to increase. Here are the data by year (%; at the beginning of the year): 2009 – 3.4; 2010 – 5.2; 2011 – 7.5; 2012 - 9.0; 2013 – 9.5; 2014 – 7.9; 2015 – 12.0; 2016 – 13.2; 2017 – 15.9. Today, in terms of the share of gold in international reserves, Russia is comparable to Spain (17.6%) and Turkey (17.0%) and has even surpassed the UK (8.4%).
It is gratifying that today most of the production of the precious metal is no longer exported outside the country, but is used to form gold reserves. For example, the increase in gold reserves in 2016 was 200 tons, which is almost 70% in relation to production for the same year (288.5 tons). But there were years when not a single ounce of mined metal entered the gold reserve.
At the same time, in the context of a complicated geopolitical situation, the success achieved by Russia in accumulating gold reserves is insufficient. Let us remember that on the eve of the Great Patriotic War The Soviet Union accumulated a gigantic reserve of gold. Information about him has not yet been declassified. According to expert estimates, it was at least 2 thousand tons - despite the fact that for more than a decade before this, the country had been industrializing and making gigantic purchases of machinery and equipment on the world market for plants and factories under construction (in total, for the period from the end of 1929 to the start of the war 9600 enterprises were built). In the post-war years (declassified data), the maximum value of the USSR's gold reserves was reached by 1953 - 2050 tons.
What is needed to further increase Russia's strategic gold reserve?
First, 100 percent of domestic gold production should be used to replenish reserves. China, where annual production is at the level of 400 tons, judging by indirect data, is doing just that. The need for gold for industrial and technical needs can be met by scrap precious metals.
Secondly, it is necessary to convert the foreign exchange component of Russian international reserves into precious metal as much as possible through purchases of gold on the international market. China can serve as an example here too. According to some reports, he imports about 700 tons of metal per year through Hong Kong alone (however, the final buyers of imported metal are unknown). The USSR was also present on the world gold market - both as a seller and as a buyer. The Soviet foreign bank Voskhod Handelsbank, registered in 1966 in Zurich, actively bought gold in the 70s, when the gold standard was abolished and a favorable situation developed on the world market for buyers of this metal.
Thirdly, it is necessary to change the institutional structure of Russia's gold reserve. This reserve currently belongs to two institutions of monetary power - the Central Bank and the Ministry of Finance. There is no official data on the distribution of reserves between them, but here are my estimates of the share of the Russian Ministry of Finance (State Fund of Precious Metals) in the official gold reserves of Russia in individual years (%): 1993 - 59.0; 2006 – 11.1; 2008 – 10.9; 2013 – 2.6; 2014 – 2.3. True, the State Fund has a reserve of non-monetary gold that is not taken into account in official reserves, but even so, the Ministry of Finance’s share is still less than 10%. The advisability of maintaining the lion's share of Russia's gold reserves on the balance sheet of the Bank of Russia is questionable. If the presence of a significant part of Russia’s foreign exchange reserves on the balance sheet of the Central Bank is justified by the need to conduct foreign exchange interventions (to stabilize the ruble exchange rate), then gold cannot be used as an intervention tool. And if we agree that gold is now beginning to act as a strategic reserve, then it should be 100 percent on the balance sheet of the Russian Ministry of Finance. Decisions on its use must be made by the executive and legislative branches of the state. In Soviet times, the question of the distribution of gold reserves between the USSR Ministry of Finance and the USSR State Bank was not fundamental, since the State Bank was part of the government, and at one time it was actually a division of the Ministry of Finance.
And one last thing. If gold is a strategic reserve, information about its reserves should be classified. This axiom, especially during war. There is also something to learn from our own past: in the USSR, information about international reserves was classified as “top secret”; Some of this information has not yet been declassified. It’s the same in China: part of China’s foreign exchange and gold reserves are not reflected in official statistics.
Here I have touched upon only one aspect of the pressing issue of how Russia should respond to the United States declaring an economic and cold war on it. In the future, I expect to consider other vital aspects.
Donald Trump signed a bill on sanctions against Russia, as well as Iran and North Korea. The fact that by this Russia was declared economic war, we are recognized even at the highest level. For example, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said that by adopting sanctions, Washington declared a “full-fledged trade war” on Moscow. But our country doesn’t even think about preparing for this confrontation, he believes Doctor of Economics Valentin Katasonov.
Question: So, Trump’s decision, which was heatedly discussed in advance, has already been made. What does it threaten us with?
Valentin Katasonov:Yes, on August 2, 2017, Donald Trump signed a law formally called the Economic Sanctions Act. This is the first sign, since the issue is not only about economics, and not even primarily about economics.
Question: From your point of view, does the document go far beyond its title?
Valentin Katasonov: We must soberly and honestly assess the current situation. In this law, Russia is essentially called an enemy. Therefore, this document lays down a series of other regulations, decisions, projects and actions in relation to our country.
Question: How can this be expressed specifically?
Valentin Katasonov: I would not like to be a prophet, but I will say that August 2 is the date of the beginning of the second round of the Cold War. The first round began with Churchill's Fulton speech in 1946, and the Cold War continued from that time until the collapse of the Soviet Union. That is, the Cold War lasted 45 years.
Question: Does the Russian leadership understand the seriousness of the situation?
Valentin Katasonov: For the first time in a long time, I agree with Dmitry Medvedev. It is gratifying that he gave an adequate assessment of the current situation. The Prime Minister wrote that US economic sanctions are long-term and serious, and will remain in place for decades. I would just add that we are talking about an economic war, that is, a broader concept than sanctions. This is not a game of ping pong; the issue does not come down to sanctions and counter-sanctions.
But alas, Presidential Press Secretary Peskov made a statement, the essence of which is that preventive measures have been taken to deal with the sanctions, and they consist in the fact that it has been decided to expel diplomats.
Question: Do you think this is not enough?
Valentin Katasonov: You can’t reduce everything to mirror actions! In the cold and economic war there must be a completely different approach. Moreover, the cold war may move into a hot phase.
Question: What would you advise the leadership of our country?
Valentin Katasonov: I would not describe the entire range of necessary measures now, but the economy needs to be rebuilt on a mobilization track. Unfortunately, I have not yet seen any steps from the authorities in this regard. If a Cold War is declared, then such a declaration must be responded to quickly. And what is being done is a theater, some kind of performance!
Question: Okay, we won’t discuss the entire package of measures, but what needs to be done first?
Valentin Katasonov: A decision should be made to change the status of the Central Bank, introduce controls on cross-border capital movements, develop a plan for economic mobilization, and so on.
Question: If we return to economic sanctions, how dangerous are they?
Valentin Katasonov: It's up to us. If we lie on our backs and they start trampling on us, then sanctions are scary, but for now we are lying on our backs. If we get into a fistfight position, everything will be different.
Follow us
“I have been working in the higher education system since 1974,” says the chairman of the Russian Economic Society. S.F. Sharapova, professor of the Department of International Finance at MGIMO (U) Valentin Katasonov. “And for four decades I have been observing the process of its degradation. This degradation is partly due to the fact that universities receive less than adequate applicants. But the universities themselves make their contribution to the matter, and a considerable one.
This happens, in my opinion, because the goal of the current higher education system is not at all to train qualified specialists, but to form a certain type of people’s consciousness.
Our universities create a person who should be as manageable as possible. Not only in the sense of its economic activity, but also in the broadest sense. From this point of view, the higher education system is a conveyor belt for producing, pardon the harshness, fools. Because, in my opinion, the most valuable resource in a market economy is a fool. Without fools, the market model simply won’t work.
This is not the first time I have observed this picture: when a person comes to the first year of university, he seems to still be thinking, asking some questions. But by the end of the university course, the average student, as a rule, goes crazy. He begins to think stereotypically and see the world as if through a narrow window.
Believe me, it pains me to talk about this topic. But I really believe that the current system of higher education does not form, but destroys people.
“SP”: - Does this system train specialists poorly?
The fact of the matter is that it trains specialists. But the damage from this system outweighs the positive results several times over.
“SP”: - Is this a purely Russian problem?
Oddly enough, no. We sometimes idealize higher education systems in the West. In fact, the problems there are no less acute. In Spain, for example, about 50% of university graduates cannot find work in their specialty at all. In Russia, the share of people with higher education who work in underskilled jobs is approximately the same as in OECD countries - 20%.
In short, this is a global problem. And I believe its roots are in stretching the learning process. Once upon a time in the West - as in the USSR - there was a ten-year system of secondary education. Nowadays, American schools are 12 years old. Once upon a time in our country there was a five-year system of training personnel in higher education. Now it takes 6 years: four years for a bachelor’s degree, two more for a master’s degree.
Such a lengthy learning process only brings chaos into it. And most importantly, because of this, the young man enters the labor market much later.
“SP”: - If the education system in Russia were normal, would it have a stimulating effect on the economy?
Of course, and not only on the economy. The education system should shape a person's personality. Keep in mind that in Soviet times we were not only taught in universities, we were educated. And no one was ashamed of this. On the contrary, universities emphasized that they were conducting not just the process of transferring some knowledge and skills, but also the process of education.
Without this education, I believe, there can be no civil society. After all, a person is primary precisely as a citizen, and not as a narrow specialist.
If Russia does not have a full-fledged civil society, there will not be a normal economy. I believe that the destruction of the educational component is the main problem of both the current education system and the country as a whole.
popular internet