Part III of a four part series
Tourism, trade and the geopolitics of acceptance
The global payments system is no longer converging. It is fragmenting.
For decades, the question of how tourists paid abroad was largely settled. A handful of global card networks acted as universal translators, smoothing transactions across borders with little political friction. That era is ending. Payments are becoming aligned, selective and increasingly geopolitical.
Russia’s Mir system offers an early signal of what comes next.
When Western sanctions cut Russian banks off from Visa and Mastercard, Moscow accelerated the rollout of its domestic alternative, Mir. Crucially, Mir did not remain confined only to Russia. It was also enabled in a small number of foreign markets where Russian tourism mattered, including Egypt, parts of Turkey and selected destinations across Eurasia.
This was not ideological alignment. It was commercial necessity.
Countries that rely heavily on tourism face a simple constraint. Empty hotels do not make a political statement. Allowing Mir transactions ensured Russian visitors could still spend, preserving foreign currency inflows, employment and revenues in politically sensitive sectors. Payments became a tool to protect demand under geopolitical stress.
That precedent matters.
Europe’s emerging interoperable payments architecture is not Mir. It is broader, more open and rooted in optionality rather than exclusion. But once alternative rails exist, they tend to travel. And tourism is the most obvious transmission mechanism.
As payments systems proliferate, destinations will face a practical choice. Do they accept every rail to maximise inflows, or do they curate which systems they allow based on fees, compliance risk and political exposure?
This is where fragmentation becomes tangible.
In a multipolar payments world, retailers and service providers may find themselves weighing acceptance decisions that were once automatic. Some systems will be cheaper. Others will settle faster. Some will carry sanctions or compliance risk. Others may come with data or regulatory strings attached. The logic is already familiar. “No Amex” signs exist for a reason.
It is not difficult to imagine the next iteration. No Mir. No high-fee cards. No foreign wallets that impose onerous compliance costs. Or, conversely, QR-only payments routed through domestic or regional rails to minimise friction and retain control.
The geopolitics of payments will increasingly be decided at the checkout.
China has already demonstrated how alternative ecosystems can be normalised at scale, with domestic networks marginalising cards almost entirely. Europe is moving more cautiously, seeking redundancy rather than dominance. Russia has shown how payments can be re-routed under pressure. Each model may reflect different priorities but the direction of travel is definitely the same.
Global universality is giving way to layered acceptance.
For merchants, this creates complexity rather than collapse. Large retailers may accept multiple rails and manage the cost. Smaller operators will not. For governments? The temptation will be to nudge behaviour quietly through regulation, incentives or public procurement. For consumers, the experience will become more uneven. What works seamlessly in one destination may fail in another.
This does not mean Visa and Mastercard disappear. Far from it. Their networks remain deeply embedded, trusted and hard to replace at scale. But dominance is no longer uncontested. Optionality elsewhere weakens monopoly power everywhere.
Taken together, the three strands are clear. Europe is building optionality. Egypt used payments to preserve domestic control. Russia deployed Mir to defend revenue flows under sanction. None of these moves are symbolic. All are pragmatic responses to a world where infrastructure has become leverage.
The future of payments will not be defined by a single winner replacing the old system. It will be defined by selective acceptance, overlapping rails and political judgement embedded in everyday transactions.
The quiet era of neutral payments is over. What replaces it will be messier, more regional and far more strategic than most consumers ever see.
That, too, is the point.
—
In part IV of this four part series we will zoom in on how Europe is seeking to improve autonomy in other areas too – notably in the pharmaceutical industry.