The Central Bank of the Russian Federation has openly supported import substitution within the banking sector, while also acknowledging the practical hurdles that come with replacing the existing terminal infrastructure. This stance, reported by TASS via the editor’s press service, highlights a nuanced approach: backing the broader strategy of reducing reliance on foreign systems while recognizing the limits of substitution when it comes to hardware and networked platforms. The bank’s officials emphasize that national software and operating systems can replace foreign options where viable, yet they concede that equipment and infrastructure do not always offer ready-made alternatives. In other words, while software ecosystems can be swapped more readily, the physical components and their compatible ecosystems present a more stubborn challenge (Source: TASS).
Historically, the Association of Russian Banks urged the Ministry of Industry and Trade to provide targeted subsidies to participants in the payments sector to accelerate the substitution of POS terminals. The appeal underscored the urgency of enabling banks to migrate away from Ingenico terminals, the French manufacturer whose devices previously dominated roughly half of the market with an estimated 2 million active terminals. The banks estimated the cost of a comprehensive replacement at about 40 billion rubles, underscoring the scale of the transition and the capital outlay required to maintain seamless card acceptance as the market shifts away from a once-dominant supplier (Source: Association of Russian Banks reports via TASS).
In response, the Bank of Russia clarified that decisions regarding the allocation and sizing of subsidies fall under the purview of the Russian government. The central bank described this as a systemic task that must be coordinated not only at the policy level but also within the manufacturing and technology supply chain. The message to financial institutions and technology providers alike is clear: the transition requires a coordinated effort that aligns fiscal support with domestic production capabilities, supplier diversification, and the gradual phasing out of foreign hardware while maintaining service continuity for customers. This approach, while rooted in national priorities, resonates with similar shifts seen in other large economies that seek greater sovereignty over critical payment infrastructure and the security of financial transactions (Source: Bank of Russia communications via TASS).
From a broader perspective, observers in Canada and the United States can glean several lessons about how central banks and industry groups balance import substitution with operational stability. First, the emphasis on substituting software and operating systems where feasible mirrors a global trend toward reducing dependency on single foreign suppliers. This can be especially relevant for multinational banks and payment processors that operate across borders and must ensure interoperability and compliance with evolving regulatory expectations. Second, the emphasis on hardware substitution demonstrates the lasting importance of robust, scalable infrastructure, including terminals, point-of-sale devices, and the networks that connect them. Finally, the call for government-backed subsidies—aimed at accelerating local production and easing capital outlays—highlights the important role of public policy in guiding private investment and technological resilience (Source: cross-border industry analysis and statements from financial authorities).