Petr Fradkov, chairman of PSB Bank, has offered a blunt assessment of one of global finance's most sensitive pressure points: cross-border payments. In an interview with RBC, Fradkov said the sector remains among the most closed parts of the economy, shaped by restrictions, compliance barriers and geopolitical friction that have made traditional international payment routes harder to use. His remarks point to a fast-evolving landscape in which alternative payment infrastructure is no longer a theoretical concept but a practical response to disruption.
Closed Financial Channels
Fradkov's comments arrive at a moment when the architecture of global payments is under unusual strain. Cross-border transactions, once routed through a relatively stable network of correspondent banks and international clearing systems, have become more fragmented as sanctions, de-risking and regulatory scrutiny have narrowed access for many institutions and companies. For businesses, that has meant slower settlements, higher costs and greater uncertainty over whether payments will clear at all.
The PSB Bank chief framed this environment as one in which the sector's traditional openness has given way to a more guarded and selective model. That shift has broad implications well beyond banking. It affects trade finance, industrial supply chains, consumer imports and, increasingly, mobility-related sectors that depend on international procurement, from automotive manufacturing to electric vehicle components and charging infrastructure. When payment rails become unreliable, the movement of goods and capital is constrained in tandem.
Fradkov's remarks also reflect a wider reality: payment systems are now strategic infrastructure. Access to them can determine whether companies can buy parts, settle invoices or expand into new markets. In that sense, the issue is not merely technical. It is geopolitical, commercial and operational at once.
A7 And New Rails
At the center of Fradkov's interview was the A7 international payment system, which he said functions in an environment where international payments are effectively absent. That formulation is significant. It suggests that A7 is not simply an incremental upgrade to existing rails, but rather an attempt to create a parallel mechanism for moving money across borders when established channels are unavailable or unreliable.
The rise of such systems reflects a broader trend in global finance: the search for redundancy. When one network is constrained, market participants look for alternatives that can preserve continuity. These alternatives may rely on different settlement arrangements, regional partnerships or nontraditional routing structures. Their appeal lies in resilience, even if they do not yet match the scale, reach or familiarity of the dominant global payment ecosystem.
Fradkov's description of A7 also highlights the paradox at the heart of alternative infrastructure. It is designed to facilitate cross-border movement, yet it emerges precisely because the conventional notion of international payments has become difficult to sustain in some contexts. In other words, the system is operating in the space left behind by the breakdown or restriction of the old one.
For the automotive and mobility industries, this matters because supply chains are deeply international. EV production in particular depends on a web of cross-border transactions for batteries, semiconductors, rare earth inputs, software and specialized equipment. Any payment bottleneck can ripple through production schedules, pricing and investment decisions. Alternative rails may not solve every problem, but they can reduce the risk that a commercial transaction is blocked by financial plumbing rather than market demand.
Strategic Implications
The emergence of alternative payment infrastructure is likely to accelerate a broader reordering of financial relationships. Companies and banks are increasingly being forced to think in terms of payment resilience, jurisdictional exposure and settlement optionality. That is especially true in markets where access to established international systems is limited or politically sensitive.
Fradkov's comments suggest that institutions operating in this environment are no longer waiting for a return to the old normal. Instead, they are building around it. The result may be a more segmented global payments landscape, with multiple systems serving different corridors, risk profiles and regulatory regimes. Such fragmentation could increase complexity, but it may also create new channels for trade where none currently exist.
For India and other major emerging markets, the development is worth watching closely. As trade patterns diversify and companies seek more flexible settlement options, the ability to move money efficiently across borders will remain central to industrial growth, including in automotive and EV supply chains. The broader lesson from Fradkov's remarks is that finance is adapting to a world in which access, not just technology, defines the future of payments.
The interview underscores a simple but consequential point: the global payments system is no longer a single, universal network. It is becoming a contested field of competing rails, each shaped by politics, regulation and the practical demands of commerce. In that environment, alternative infrastructure is not a side story. It is increasingly part of the main story.