This article is the third installment in a series examining the geopolitical implications of SPIEF 2026 and the broader transformation of the international order.
Part I, From Economic Forum to Geopolitical Stage: SPIEF 2026 and the Shaping of a Multipolar Order, explored the forum as a platform through which Russia articulates its vision of an emerging multipolar system.
Part II, BRICS+, De-Dollarisation and Financial Fragmentation: SPIEF 2026 and the Emerging Architecture of a Multipolar Economy, examined the efforts of BRICS+ countries to diversify financial relations and reduce dependence on Western-controlled financial infrastructure.
Part III focuses on the growing role of sanctions, financial networks, and economic statecraft in shaping contemporary geopolitical competition.
City of London – For more than three decades, globalization was widely understood as a force that would deepen economic interdependence and, in turn, reduce the likelihood of conflict among major powers. Expanding trade, financial liberalization, and increasingly integrated markets were expected to foster stability, prosperity, and cooperation.
Recent events tell a different story.
The war in Ukraine, the unprecedented sanctions imposed on Russia, the growing strategic rivalry between the United States and China, and the increasing use of economic statecraft have revealed a reality often overlooked during the era of hyper-globalization: the global economy is not merely a space of cooperation, but also an arena of geopolitical competition.
SPIEF 2026 offered a particularly revealing illustration of this shift. Beneath discussions on multipolarity, BRICS+, and de-dollarization lies a deeper transformation: the growing use of finance as an instrument of geopolitical power.
From Interdependence to Economic Coercion
In recent years, the concept of the weaponisation of finance has gained increasing prominence in international affairs. While sanctions have long been part of the foreign policy toolkit of major powers, their scope, sophistication, and strategic impact have expanded considerably.
In a world where international payments, reserve assets, capital markets, and financial messaging systems are concentrated within a relatively limited set of institutions and infrastructures, control over these networks has become a source of structural power.
Finance is no longer simply a mechanism for allocating capital. It has become an instrument through which states can exert pressure, influence behaviour, and pursue geopolitical objectives.
The distinction between economic and strategic power is becoming increasingly blurred.
The Structural Power of the United States
No country possesses a comparable degree of influence within the global financial system as the United States.
The dominance of the US dollar, the depth and liquidity of American capital markets, the central role of US financial institutions, and Washington’s influence over key financial infrastructures collectively provide the United States with a unique form of structural power.
Access to global finance continues, directly or indirectly, to depend on participation in networks denominated in dollars and subject to US jurisdiction.
This power was demonstrated most clearly after 2022, when a significant portion of Russia’s foreign reserves was frozen in response to the invasion of Ukraine. For many observers, this marked a historic turning point: a reminder that sovereign assets themselves can become instruments of geopolitical leverage.
The episode reinforced a broader perception that financial globalization is not politically neutral.
The Response of Emerging Powers
The growing politicization of finance has prompted a gradual response from a number of emerging economies.
This response does not necessarily amount to a rejection of the global economic order. Rather, it reflects an effort to increase strategic autonomy and reduce vulnerability to external pressure.
Many of the initiatives discussed at SPIEF 2026 should be understood in this context:
- expanding trade settlement in local currencies;
- developing alternative payment systems;
- strengthening non-Western multilateral financial institutions;
- reducing reliance on financial infrastructures perceived as politically exposed.
BRICS+ has become one of the principal laboratories for this process.
More than an anti-Western bloc, it represents a platform through which a diverse group of states seeks to expand its room for manoeuvre within an increasingly competitive international environment.
China and Russia: Different Strategies, Shared Objectives
Although often grouped together in geopolitical analysis, China and Russia are pursuing distinct strategies.
Russia, operating under extensive sanctions, has been compelled to accelerate the development of alternative trade, payment, and financial channels. Its efforts are largely driven by necessity and adaptation.
China’s approach is more gradual and strategic.
Beijing has little interest in dismantling the existing global financial system, from which it continues to derive substantial benefits. Instead, it seeks to reduce long-term vulnerabilities through the internationalization of the renminbi, the expansion of the Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS), and deeper financial cooperation with partners across the Global South.
If Russia’s strategy is primarily one of resilience, China’s is one of selective transformation and long-term influence.
The Fragmentation of Financial Globalization
Perhaps the most important trend emerging from recent years is not the rise of a fully fledged alternative financial order, but the progressive fragmentation of the existing one.
De-dollarization initiatives, the regionalization of supply chains, the development of parallel payment systems, and the growing role of geopolitical considerations in economic decision-making are contributing to a more complex and less integrated global landscape.
Competition among major powers increasingly revolves around control over critical economic infrastructures:
- financial networks;
- strategic technologies;
- logistics corridors;
- energy supply chains;
- digital systems and data flows.
Geoeconomics is becoming a central dimension of national security.
Beyond De-Dollarization: The Real Question Is Power
Framing the debate solely in terms of the dollar versus alternative currencies risks missing the broader picture.
The fundamental question is not which currency might eventually challenge the dollar, but who will control the infrastructures through which capital, information, and economic exchange circulate.
The competition underway is not merely monetary. It is a contest over the rules, standards, institutions, and networks that will shape the global economy throughout the twenty-first century.
In this sense, de-dollarization is only one manifestation of a much broader transformation: the transition from a relatively integrated model of globalization to one that is increasingly segmented, strategic, and geopolitically contested.
Conclusion
SPIEF 2026 demonstrated that finance has become one of the principal arenas of global strategic competition.
The growing intersection between economics, national security, and foreign policy is reshaping the foundations of the international order. Sanctions, financial infrastructure, reserve assets, and monetary autonomy are no longer technical issues confined to economists and central bankers. They have become core instruments of statecraft.
Rather than witnessing the end of the dollar-based financial system, we are likely entering an era characterized by overlapping financial networks, regionalized economic flows, and intensified competition between alternative governance models.
In such an environment, understanding finance increasingly means understanding power.
And understanding power is essential to understanding where the international system is headed.
Riccardo Cacelli | Geopolitical Analyst
r.cacelli@uam-vertiports.com
About This Series
This article concludes a three-part analysis of SPIEF 2026 and the evolving international order.
Together, the series explored three interconnected dimensions of contemporary geopolitical change:
- Multipolarity and geopolitical realignment
- BRICS+, de-dollarisation and financial diversification
- The weaponisation of finance and systemic competition
Taken together, these developments suggest that the future of globalization will be shaped less by universal integration and more by the interaction of competing political, economic and financial ecosystems.