Yves here. Before readers reflexively reject the headline message, you will see below that it accurately represents the findings of study published by the prestigious Russian think tank/talking shop Valdai Club. It finds that the US efforts to tighten the sanctions noose are having an effect, even if they fall well below the original “shock and awe” intent of bringing Russia to its knees. Note also that this sort of impact does not apply to the EU’s zillionth, erm, 16th sanctions package. Here the vector is that Chinese banks are afraid of doing business with Russian businesses out of fear of being frozen out of dollar transactions.
Note the article advocates for the implementation of BRICS Pay. But that goes well beyond what was agreed in the Kazan Declaration mere months ago. From its final statement:
65. We reiterate our commitment to enhancing financial cooperation within BRICS. We recognise the widespread benefits of faster, low cost, more efficient, transparent, safe and inclusive cross-border payment instruments built upon the principle of minimizing trade barriers and non-discriminatory access. We welcome the use of local currencies in financial transactions between BRICS countries and their trading partners. We encourage strengthening of correspondent banking networks within BRICS and enabling settlements in local currencies in line with BRICS Cross-Border Payments Initiative (BCBPI), which is voluntary and non-binding, and look forward to further discussions in this area, including in the BRICS Payment Task Force.
66. We acknowledge the importance of exploring the feasibility of connecting BRICS countries’ financial markets infrastructure. We agree to discuss and study the feasibility of establishment of an independent cross-border settlement and depositary infrastructure, BRICS Clear, an initiative to complement the existing financial market infrastructure, as well as BRICS independent reinsurance capacity, including BRICS (Re)Insurance Company, with participation on a voluntary basis
There is no mention of a “BRICS Pay” in this document. This should not be surprising, since some key BRICS members, particularly India, have stressed that they intend to maintain an independent course and will maintain good commercial and foreign policy relations with both the Collective West and BRICS/Global South interests.
John Helmer, in his careful reading of the Kazan Declaration, highlighted the section above and noted:
This is an acknowledgement that there remains little agreement to date among the BRICS members, especially China and India with Russia, on the means for replacing the SWIFT and other payment systems which the US is manipulating to wage direct and indirect economic war. The Declaration buries especially sharp concerns in India over the rupee-rouble trade. The Chinese have now almost cancelled yuan payments with Russia; they deal in US dollars. The Indians are more accommodating but the Russians less so. In Kazan the Indians and Chinese have made it clear that BRICS is nowhere near being an alternative to the Bretton Woods institutions.
A source in New Delhi adds: “as usual pro-Russia commentators in the West are gung-ho because they do not understand the nuance. They don’t need to. They will be right in a few years. The Financial Times and Wall Street Journal understand the nuance and know these issues will be resolved and in five years from now a full alternative to the US dollar will be in play. A new settlement system in which Africans and South Americans can sell their resources to markets ( BRICS plus), earn corrupt kickbacks ( Dubai), draw investment (China), technology ( India), and arms (Russia), and still send their children to Oxford and Cambridge is in the making.”
Helmer did point out that the Kazan Declaration committing the participants to continued negotiations was a step in the right direction.
By Natalya Pomozova, Doctor of Sociological Sciences, Professor at the Russian State University for the Humanities, Leading Researcher at the Centre for Comprehensive Economics and Management at the Higher School of Economics; and Artyom Semenov,Deputy Director of the Higher School of Law, Academic Director of the HSE Programme “Business with China: Organisational, Legal, and Financial Support”. Originally published at Valdai Discussion Club; cross posted from InfoBRICS
Problems with settlements in Russian-Chinese economic relations have seriously damaged bilateral cooperation, causing concern among entrepreneurs. Lost profits for exporters, losses for purchasers, the search for “grey” payment schemes, and rising prices for goods for the end consumer are forcing Russian businessmen to look with caution in the direction of China.
We see how secondary sanctions, which until recently seemed like an ephemeral element of American discourse, are dealing a tangible blow to the “best relations in history” between two sovereign states. It turned out that Washington’s discursive power is so powerful that simple threats are enough to make Chinese banks refuse to accept payments from Russia in any currency, and transfers from other countries and from people with Russian surnames, are subject to additional checks. Transactions of any size, including such large projects as Arctic LNG-2, have come under attack. It is clear that our Chinese partners are acting in a spirit of pragmatism and behaving cautiously, trying to protect themselves from economic problems in cooperation with the US and the EU, whose markets are still of greatest interest to them.
Since 2014, Russia has been attempting to build a financial settlement system independent of Western counterparties, which involves switching to mutual settlements in national currencies and abandoning SWIFT. Successes in the first of these (in 2023, according to Russian estimates, the share of mutual settlements with China in national currencies was 95%) did not ensure the invulnerability of bilateral economic cooperation, since an alternative to the American payment system was never introduced, although the integration of the national SFPS and CIPS has been discussed many times.
The cooling of interest of Russian entrepreneurs in the Chinese market and the search for new external partners as a way out of the current situation for domestic business are also associated with difficulties. Even among friendly countries, their list is very limited for the same reason – Western players can put pressure on them at any time using the same methods.
Taking into account the new input and rapidly changing external circumstances, businesses are looking for ways to solve problems and are using all sorts of “grey” schemes – from attracting payment agents and intermediaries in third countries to barter exchanges. Attempts to work with third-tier local banks in China are still an option for solving business problems in the short term, but they are not always successful.
China has accumulated significant experience working with countries that have been under sanctions for a long time. Financial structures created specifically for interaction with Russia, similar to those that provide settlements with the DPRK and Iran, are the most obvious solution, but require significant time and material resources due to the volume of Russian-Chinese economic cooperation. The only branch of a Russian bank in Shanghai is facing difficulties, and is simply unable to cope with the volume of demand for its services. Even taking into account the plans of Alfa-Bank, Sberbank and Gazprombank to follow its example and open representative offices in China, it is hardly possible to talk about a solution to a problem that has a cumulative effect.
All of the listed options are akin to treating the symptoms rather than the causes of the disease. At the moment, in addition to unreliability, increased transaction costs and other material costs, such a state of affairs causes reputational damage to the parties involved. The discursive policy of the PRC, reflected in the modern foreign policy concepts it addresses to developing countries, is aimed at forming the image of China as the leader of the global South. The track of China’s cooperation with Russian partners is forced to slow down due to Beijing’s pragmatic and cautious policy, since it is necessary to take into account Washington’s threats. In the context of a dynamically changing international situation, developing countries may have concerns – if the United States does not like their policy (external or even internal), will China suspend cooperation with it?
It turns out that the sword of Damocles hangs over the relations of sovereign states – in the event that a country behaves in a way that is unacceptable to Western countries, its external cooperation can be sharply limited, and not only with the help of economic instruments – it turns out that sometimes discursive methods are enough.
Global changes in the system of international relations, the main examples of which are the movement towards multipolarity and the increase in the weight of developing countries in world economy and politics, have become one of the signs of the current historical moment. This trend is reflected, among other things, in the increased interest of countries in organisations without a dominant leader such as BRICS, which already unites 10 states representing 45% of the world’s population. It seems that a turning point has come when the association has a chance to show its significance and effectiveness in terms of solving issues that do not have only an economic but also an ideological dimension for the countries of the world majority. Problems in mutual settlements between Russia and China can be solved by introducing the BRICS Pay system. Based on blockchain technologies, it can become an analogue of SWIFT for transactions in national currencies. Its development has been underway since 2018, [ https://brics-pay.com/ ] and the major banks of the member countries of the association (Sberbank, VTB (Russia), ICBC and Bank of China (China), Petrobras (Brazil), State Bank of India) have already even begun to develop corresponding mobile applications. It is assumed that settlements through this payment system will be carried out via national digital currencies. In Russia, the possibility of settlements with China through the use of digital currencies is being actively discussed, but in order to implement this practice, it is necessary to soften the positions of national regulators on cryptocurrencies.
Thus, the problems that have arisen in the best Russian-Chinese relations in history, are not only important for the economic cooperation between the two countries. In the context of tectonic shifts occurring in the system of international relations, they are acquiring a global dimension. BRICS as an association has received a historic chance to show the world that mantras about genuine multipolarity are not just loud slogans. If the BRICS Pay system is implemented, the countries of the World Majority will be able to conduct economic policy without looking back at third players dictating their terms depending on the political situation. If Russia and China are able to resolve current difficulties by becoming pioneers in the field of cross-border digital mutual settlements, the development of the world economy has a chance to change its vector, the weight of developing countries will increase significantly, and strategic sovereignty will acquire real, not declared outlines.
36 comments
Comments are closed.
All this means is that new ways will have to be found to bypass the effect of secondary sanctions. If you give up and the just accept it, you will always be subject to blackmail and this is very much true with Trump in power. It may even turn out that in the same way that countries like Panama accept ship registration for ships around the world, that you might have a tiny country do the same sort of services financially. Can you imagine if this happened for Mongolia? They border both Russia and China and would grow wealthy from all the transactional taxes of all the wealth going through their borders. What would the US do? Blockade their coastline? Have aircraft overfly them on a continuous basis?
Rev, you nailed it on the first sentence. I have family in Russia who have for many years been involved with the manufacture and integration of high-priced add-ons for Chinese industrial equipment. As the article says, the Chinese banks they previously used for transfers got cold feet, but it was just a matter of weeks before alternate arrangements were made. My understanding is that this has happened a couple of times now, but it’s barely a blip in the action. Business is booming. But the parties involved are long-term trusted partners.
Everything I see confirms the point of the article that sanctions add friction to the delicate process of setting up new businesses and new connections. They add uncertainty and difficulties. If you already have momentum then no problem, but if you’re trying to set up something new these sanctions are a pita.
*Sigh*
The Valdai Club would not have run this article if this were not a real problem. The sanctions have now been on for over 8 months. The fact that your family members are positioned to ride this out does not make them representative.
But at what point does this issue “lose impact”, for lack of a better phrase, when viewed against general US antagonism towards China? And while I understand economics isn’t physics, at some point one force will overwhelm the other. Work arounds will be come more prevalent, and once against the effectiveness of sanctions will fade.
“The Chinese have now almost cancelled yuan payments with Russia; they deal in US dollars.” — Really? Maybe I’m misunderstanding something, because I thought that the two countries were doing most of their (growing) trade in their own currencies, bypassing the $ completely. A brief search on Google and Yandex found no data to substantiate Helmer’s claim; maybe somebody else can provide a link or otherwise clarify this.
About once a month for the past 3 years, like clockwork, a story pops up in the media about how secondary sanctions are causing devastating problems for Russian business, usually in the form of foreign bankers or traders abruptly refusing to have any dealings with anyone linked to Russia. It’s like a rotating flavor of the month: first Turkey, then Dubai, then Kazakhstan, then China, then India, then back to Turkey, etc. Yet trade continues to grow. It reminds me of the constant drip of Russiagate revelations against Trump: the walls are closing in, we’ve really got him this time, etc. Yet Trump is president again. So I’m a bit skeptical about these claims, as clever middlemen always seem to find workarounds. “It’s the lure of easy money, it’s got a very strong appeal.” — Glenn Frey, Smuggler’s Blues, 1984.
I certainly didn’t see any shortages of anything while I was in Moscow. Lots of Chinese imports everywhere, at good prices. I bought a chainsaw for our dacha while I was there, exactly the same Chinese brand that I had bought last year for our property in Tuscany (a Greenworks battery-powered model), and its price in Moscow was roughly half the price that I had paid in Tuscany. Just sayin’.
It’s interesting that Valdai published this. The two authors (Pomozova and Semenov) are both associated with the Higher School of Economics, a Moscow university known for its neoliberal views. Perhaps it’s a subtle hint to Chinese policymakers that Russian patience has its limits.
“The Chinese have now almost cancelled yuan payments with Russia…”
By 2024, more than 90% of transactions between Russia and China were being settled in the domestic currencies. China has now been Russia’s largest trade partner for the last 14 years:
https://english.news.cn/20240515/4a0e818d20114550a68ef689aa0f25c9/c.html
Your data is irrelevant.
Published May 2024.
Secondary sanctions imposed June 2024.
Thanks to Yves Smith for clarifying:
https://www.scmp.com/economy/global-economy/article/3279018/china-russia-trade-inches-us-sanctions-and-payment-issues-strain-growth
September 19, 2024
China-Russia trade inches up as US sanctions and payment issues strain growth
After a historic rise in trade between China and Russia last year, their energy exchanges keep slowing, and analysts point to settlement challenges
By Mandy Zuo
Shanghai – Trade growth between China and Russia has continued to slow after a year of rapid expansion, as settlement becomes a bigger obstacle amid secondary sanctions from the United States over Russia’s war in Ukraine.
In the first eight months of the year, trade volume between the two countries was US$158.5 billion, a year-on-year increase of 1.9 per cent, according to data released by China Customs this month.
The slowing pace has occurred as some Chinese financial institutions signalled plans to limit their connections with Russia amid pressure from Washington, which alleges that China is helping Russia in its war through their closer trade ties.
Since Russia was cut off from the Swift financial messaging system in February 2022 following its invasion of Ukraine, trade with China and the Chinese yuan have become crucial for its economy.
However, in contrast to a boom last year, China’s exports to Russia were valued at US$71.91 billion in the first eight months of the year – a slight increase of 0.4 per cent from the same period in 2023.
And the value of its imports from Russia was US$86.56 billion, up 3.2 per cent…
an aside: If you are a person then I apologize for thinking you write/respond like a state sponsored a.i. program. / ;)
Thank you so much for explaining.
I have no idea what a “state sponsored AI program” would be. I am not nearly skilled enough in English, but I try to be clear and document all assertions I make. My credentials would likely be surprising, but I work hard to learn and have seemingly managed to.
The USA’s Puritan bourgeoisie has decided that autists are going to be the next Jews for the camps, basically.
“The two authors (Pomozova and Semenov) are both associated with the Higher School of Economics, a Moscow university known for its neoliberal views. Perhaps it’s a subtle hint to Chinese policymakers that Russian patience has its limits.”
Does this mean that even selected Russian intellectuals have difficulty accepting socialism with Chinese characteristics?
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1r5Vt
August 4, 2014
Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for China and Russia, 1990-2023
(Indexed to 1990)
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1r6kJ
August 4, 2014
Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for China and Russia, 2000-2023
(Indexed to 2000)
This is ad hominem and irrelevant. I told you we were taking a tougher line on comments. I don’t like having to waste time on comments trash.
Since when does reporting that Chinese banks are not accepting transactions with Russian companies and that is hurting Russian companies have bupkis to do with “socialism with Chinese characteristics”? Your remark is nonsensical.
And to be more specific, so you are further asserting that Chinese banks refusing to do business with Russian companies is ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics”?
“This is ad hominem and irrelevant. I told you we were taking a tougher line on comments. I don’t like having to waste time on comments trash.”
Sorry, I was simply being stupid. I did not understand why the Russian writers might be “Impatient” with Chinese banking. Chinese bankers need always to protect the financial system.
Stupid comment by me all through!
I thought English was your first language, your grammar is excellent? You are also very courteous. I am sorry you were told off!
Why not keep track of trade on computer systems and at some agreed upon time (say annually) transfer wealth between countries? Trading companies (or even individuals) would collect payments locally from their countries banks.
The banks could use gold or something else to occasionally transfer wealth and keep some sort of balance between countries. It seems to me that if the gold (or whatever) moved between countries done in secret there would be no way to impose sanctions on the transaction.
https://english.news.cn/20250131/ad9cf701324941a28e2de7571a6374ba/c.html
January 31, 2025
Russia launches themed train to mark Chinese New Year
MOSCOW — Moscow unveiled a themed metro train on Wednesday to mark the start of the Spring Festival, the traditional Chinese New Year according to the lunar calendar.
Speaking at a ceremony dedicated to the launch of the train, Chinese Ambassador to Russia Zhang Hanhui noted that the Spring Festival is gaining popularity in Russia, becoming an important part of Moscow’s cultural life and a bright symbol of the friendship between the two countries.
“The train, decorated with elements of the Chinese Spring Festival, will attract the attention of Muscovites and tourists from all over the world,” the Chinese ambassador said.
“They will be able to experience the culture of this wonderful holiday in a new way and share the joy and good fortune that it brings to the Chinese people,” he added…
Re: Helmer’s comments
“…The Financial Times and Wall Street Journal understand the nuance and know these issues will be resolved and in five years from now a full alternative to the US dollar will be in play. A new settlement system in which Africans and South Americans can sell their resources to markets ( BRICS plus), earn corrupt kickbacks ( Dubai), draw investment (China), technology ( India), and arms (Russia), and still send their children to Oxford and Cambridge is in the making…”
The implications of BRICS going through all of that for such an end result: (facepalm)
Probably beyond almost anyone’s ken, but I would love to see a balance sheet for the effect of sanctions across the conflict going back to ’14. My impression–reading against the grain–has been that they prompted Russia to take many steps that strengthened its economy, in large and small ways, including with food. (I was intrigued, as a food ecologist, to read that Russia had become all but independent in its food production, because of sanctions–that’s been a huge elusive (and sometimes debated) goal of many poor countries (and may not equate to an unalloyed good, since integrated local and regional production–sometimes across boundaries–can be a still better goal, especially as disruptions mount across agribusiness chains. . .)
Here, if I’m reading right, the notion that sanctions impede financial development short-term seems like it could be less important than a stimulus for the BRICS to take moves that seem more and more obvious/necessary? Probably, it takes the bigger countries to implement, but it would be neat to see if they worked with a country like South Africa (Indonesia, etc.) to address obvious pressing basic needs issues. . .
“I was intrigued, as a food ecologist, to read that Russia had become all but independent in its food production…”
So too China has become self-sufficient in food production, with stores of 1 to 3 years in major crops. China is also energy self-sufficient.
If you Make Shit Up one more time, I am blacklisting you. I am not wasting more time debunking your falsehoods.
China is not self sufficient in food and is projected to become less so. From December 2023, and note the underlying source:
https://asiasociety.org/australia/why-food-security-top-priority-china
China is not self-sufficient in energy:
Energy self-sufficiency rate reaches 85% https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202412/17/WS6760d927a310f1265a1d34c6.html
“If you Make Shit Up one more time, I am blacklisting you. I am not wasting more time debunking your falsehoods.”
No, I was simply incorrect. I try never ever to make things up, but I surely make mistakes and English can still be difficult for me. I need to work harder, and document every assertion.
China has met basic harvest objectives for years and has built advanced storage facilities for large stores of basic farm produce. Food prices have been fairly stable.
As for energy, self-sufficient was simply a foolish term. China has energy piped in from Russia and Kazakhstan and other countries. Energy is shipped in from other countries. But, this means China has sufficient energy supply. Years have passed since a short-lived provincial energy shortage was experienced because coal use had been cut too quickly. Clean energy development has been emphasized and results realized for years.
https://english.news.cn/20241214/704b4081ee4b4777831e19ef5f249566/c.html
December 14, 2024
China’s 2024 grain output tops 700 mln tonnes, a record high
BEIJING — China’s 2024 grain output hit a record high of 706.5 million tonnes, an increase of 1.6 percent from the output last year, official data showed Friday.
The year 2024 also marks the first time that the country registered a grain harvest of over 700 million tonnes, according to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) data. Previously, the country’s annual grain output had been above 650 million tonnes for nine consecutive years.
In grain categories, the output of cereals rose 1.7 percent year on year, with rice, wheat and corn all reporting production rises. The output of tubers rose 1.5 percent. Soybeans, however, saw a decrease of 0.9 percent in output, the data showed.
This year’s bumper harvest was accompanied by a rise in grain planting areas in the country, which stood at over 119 million hectares, up 0.3 percent year on year. Meanwhile, grain output per unit area also increased 1.3 percent, the data showed…
I think you should stop annoying Yves, don’t you?
“I think you should stop annoying Yves, don’t you?”
Thank you; you are right!
Please notice:
Grain output in China was more than 700 million tonnes in 2024.
Advanced grain storage in China by the end of 2023 was more than 700 million tonnes, and Chinese storage has since continued to be built. *
Total consumption of grain in China was just above 700 million tonnes in 2024.
Chinese grain production has been steadily increasing for 9 years.
Also, China has been investing heavily to increase grain output and will continue.
So I foolishly pointed to what seemed to be sufficient Chinese grain production; and for that I sincerely apologize. But, I was not making anything up and never would.
* https://english.news.cn/20240602/2a53c45c9297455689616209e7c65f62/c.html
June 2, 2024
China’s grain storage capacity exceeds 700 mln tonnes by end of 2023: official
We warned after our comments shutdown that we were going to be bloody-minded about readers who persisted in arguments they had lost out of the desire to have the last word and win or try to appear to win.
This is grounds-shifting, which is bad faith and a violation of our Site Policies.
Your continuing to argue is a reader assisted suicide note, which we are only too happy to honor.
I am not sure to have understood well. It all means that, as the USD has such a strong grip on world trade, if the USD sunk to hell then the whole of the world goes after it. This mere fact should force each and every actor to have at least an alternate plan, because not even China could escape unharmed. There is no such thing anywhere. And this is an actual possibility which I am sure Trump will inflate its probability.
In fact, trade collapse in late Roman Empire, if I am not wrong, was caused mainly (not only) by debased currency. Trump is clearly saying in facts and deeds that US is bankrupt (everybody has to pay for all and in expensive terms, cutting every expense that can be, and looking for plunder whatever wherever), so, what are those people waiting for?
First, Trump is wrong that the US will go bankrupt. We can always pay dollar obligations. We can generate too much inflation.
Second, China is not willing to take the steps to act as reserve currency, as in run trade deficits to get its currency in the hands outside China and drop currency/capital controls.
Third, no one is willing to adopt a bancor type system (which would force balanced trade and make bilateral trade in currency pairs much easier to manage and sustainable) because it entails loss of meaningful sovereignity. Participants have to be willing to accept economic punishments (forced de and re valuations and large fines) if they run trade deficits AND surpluses. Keynes thought that the surplus countries above all needed to be constrained because there were incentives to be a surplus country, which in the long haul worked to the detriment of everyone else in the trade system. China would NEVER NEVER NEVER accept being punished for surpluses, which they see as the result of their hard work and investment.
Let’s face it, this bancor thing that keeps coming up is just naive and idealistic. No country will accept it, period. Unless someone twists their arms reeeally hard (like aliens, for example).
as russia and chinas technology far far outstrips anything that can be made by the feebilized financialized way under invested western technology.
and can offer it for pennies on the dollar for what the feeble capitalist west can.
the rest of the world will want to use that technology, exposing the west’s only tool left, the dollar. the west free traded and deregulated their own wealth creation away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSE30qnWn20
This How Russia New PD-35 Engine Will The Aviation Industry!
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/z632ZpTQCFo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R0TkpUTycI
This Russia’s NEW POWERFUL ENGINE Will CHANGE The Industry!
they simply have to wait out the inevitable collapse of the west.
trump is surely speeding that up right now, with the help of the clintonite democrats.
Forgive my ignorance. I’m an engineer and not a finance guy. But this (and some of the more recent NC headlines) all kind of sounds like the US is winning at the game of empires and “bringing the world to heel.” That kind of makes me sad and ill to think about. I was rather hoping the world would be able to move on while we all collapsed. Not great for us, but I’m a humanist and more concerned with the well being of humanity at large than with one morally deranged country, even if it is the one I and many of us in the commentariat reside in.
To be clear, this site has long had an anti-globalist leaning. But we also try to be reality-based, which is often challenging given intense messaging by many interested parties.
Here our concern is that anti-globalists have been unduly cheerleading BRICS, which is a very weak alliance and has aspirations well beyond its present execution ability, and even actual commitments. The sad irony it that to accelerate the demise of considerable remaining Western imperialism would take a concerted, even united, effort…..which implies cedeing some sovereignity and would seem to contradict a major objective of the move towards multipolarity, which is that of strengthening national sovereignity.
Thanks for your clarification and your perspective. I’ve been reading NC on and off for the better part of 10 years now. It’s your dedication to realism and speaking truth to power that keeps me around.
On the note of ending western imperialism, I frequently have to remind myself that empires don’t collapse overnight, despite how movies and media depict collapse. My understanding is that, in olden days, it would take decades, or even centuries, for an empire to collapse. Even today I would think that, even with the speed of information, it can still take years, or even a decade or two. I also wonder if there might be brief surges or increases of imperial power that, in the moment, appear to be the empire reversing its decline, but in the long run were just brief surges before the fall. Not unlike the so-called “energy surge” I’ve heard of doctors referring to regarding dying patients.
Yes and no. Empires can collapse overnight if they overextend themselves militarily—the Thucydides Trap. Economically, they tend to sink slowly (relative to other powers), and in a century-ish, historians will pin a date on the decline.
E.g., a South China Sea military conflict that ends with the (what even still sails) US navy sunk, a few cities nuked in each continent, and no US medicine production, leaving China with a population of say 1.0 billion and the US with 100 million population and no diabetes or blood pressure or … drugs—yeah, that scenario changes the world power structure in a week or less. Still, there are infinities possible scenarios for the future (though most are not probable).
“The only branch of a Russian bank in Shanghai is facing difficulties, and is simply unable to cope with the volume of demand for its services”
Being inundated with demand for their services means they are able to offer a work around for the problem which would only need to be scaled up. That this would take time does not mean that ‘hardly possible to talk about a solution’, cumulative effect or not.