Anatomy Of The Global Disorder: Choke Points, Currency and the Unravelling of the Post-War Order

The statement by President Donald J. Trump on Venezuela encapsulates a governing logic that closely resembles the historical model of the British East India Company. The sequence is strikingly similar: first, secure control over a country’s primary resource flows in this case oil then dictate how the proceeds from those resources must be spent, forcing the captive economy to recycle its earnings back into the imperial core through compulsory purchases of metropolitan goods. Once this extractive-commercial loop is established, trade is no longer free but conditional, weaponized through sanctions and embargoes that prevent the occupied or coerced territory from trading independently with alternative partners. The rhetoric frames this arrangement as mutually beneficial or even humanitarian, yet structurally it mirrors colonial mercantilism, where colonies were denied the right to diversify trade, industrialize, or retain surplus value. Under Trump, this logic is updated for the modern era: military occupation is replaced by financial coercion, gunboats by sanctions, and colonial charters by executive orders. The end result remains the same resource capture, enforced dependency, profit extraction, and the strategic suffocation of economic sovereignty under the guise of “America First.”

Thus recent interdiction of the Russian flagged tanker Bella 1 in the North Sea yesterday is far more than a routine maritime enforcement action; it is a stark illumination of the evolving geography of conflict in the twenty-first century. This incident underscores the immense, often overlooked strategic importance of Greenland to the United States and the revitalization of Cold War-era containment strategies. We are witnessing the reactivation of the GI-UK Gap the naval chokepoint between Greenland, Iceland, and the United Kingdom which the NATO powers historically viewed as the ultimate natural barrier. The intent is clear and uncompromising: to prevent Russian and Chinese naval assets from projecting power freely into the Western Hemisphere without the tacit permission of the Atlantic alliance. This maritime containment strategy is the physical manifestation of a broader geopolitical struggle, where the control of shipping lanes, energy corridors, and currency settlements defines the new global hierarchy.

As we pivot from the icy waters of the North Atlantic to the sweltering heat of the Horn of Africa, the strategy of controlling critical chokepoints remains identical, though the actors and alliances shift. The recent geopolitical maneuvering surrounding Somaliland serves as a prime example of this obsession with maritime control. Israel’s move to declare support for an independent Somaliland, coupled with the establishment of a base on the Gulf of Aden, is a calculated effort to secure the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. This narrow waterway, connecting the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden, is one of the world’s most vital arteries for global trade and energy.

The logic is one of counter-balance and redundancy. Across the waters from Somaliland lie the Houthi-controlled territories of Yemen, an Iranian proxy force that has actively fired upon Israeli interests and disrupted international shipping. In this context, Somaliland offers a pristine strategic asset: stability, deep-water port potential, intelligence access, and, crucially, a non-Iranian platform on the Red Sea. It mirrors the strategic rationale that led the United States to establish its only permanent military base in Africa at Camp Lemonnier in neighboring Djibouti. By entrenching themselves in Somaliland, Western-aligned powers are ensuring that the Iranian-backed disruption from Yemen can be flanked and monitored.

The intrigue deepens when one observes the synchronized diplomatic choreography between Israel and the United Arab Emirates regarding this Horn of Africa strategy. Following Israel’s overtures, the UAE has quietly but effectively recognized Somaliland’s autonomy without a formal global announcement. This recognition is operationalized through the acceptance of Somaliland passports and documents on the UAE’s official visa portals, a privilege starkly denied to visitors holding passports from the federal government of Somalia. This is not merely a bureaucratic detail; it is a wedge driven into the heart of Somali unity to serve broader geopolitical ends. The United Arab Emirates is actively challenging Saudi Arabia’s traditional dominance through proxy dynamics that extend from the Arabian Peninsula into the Horn of Africa. While Yemen has historically been viewed as Saudi Arabia’s strategic backyard, the UAE has projected its own power there, often diverging from Saudi objectives.

This rivalry has expanded into a broad, multi-theater contest for regional dominance. From backing the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in Sudan to cultivating significant leverage over federal member states in Somalia, and now encouraging fragmentation dynamics within Somaliland itself, the UAE is asserting itself as a hegemon independent of Riyadh. What makes this intra-Gulf rivalry globally significant is the tacit backing the UAE receives from Israel and the United States. This support is not accidental. It is a calculated response to Saudi Arabia’s growing independence in energy and financial policy, specifically Riyadh’s signal to the United States that it is open to selling oil in Yuan and other currencies, thereby threatening the exclusivity of the Petrodollar. In response, America and Israel are utilizing the UAE as a disruptive force to create chaos within the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and North-West Africa, pressuring the Saudi leadership by destabilizing its periphery.

The Saudi–American divergence begins around 2009–10, when the Obama administration embraced Muslim Brotherhood–aligned political Islam under its broader regime-reengineering approach in the Middle East in PSD-11 in Arab Spring that fundamentally alarms Riyadh, which views the Brotherhood as an existential threat to monarchical and regional stability. This political rift deepened after 2014 with the U.S. shale revolution, which reduced American dependence on Gulf oil and weakens the strategic energy interdependence that once anchored the alliance.

The gap widens further with the JCPOA and Washington’s attempt to normalize Iran’s regional role, a move Saudi Arabia interprets as a strategic betrayal that legitimizes Tehran’s expansion across Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. The Biden administration’s decision to delist the Houthis as a terrorist organization reinforced this perception, convincing Riyadh that U.S. security guarantees are increasingly conditional and unreliable.

In response, Saudi Arabia pivots toward pragmatic self-insurance: coordinating closely with Russia through OPEC+ to manage oil markets, expanding oil trade with China in yuan to hedge against dollar weaponization, and exploring regional defence arrangements with Pakistan rather than relying solely on American protection. What emerges is not a sudden rupture but a slow recalibration, where Saudi Arabia begins to act as an autonomous pole in a multipolar system, balancing between great powers as confidence in long-term American strategic commitment steadily erodes.

The West’s grand strategy extends eastward, linking the Middle East to the Indo-Pacific through a chain of volatile hotspots. The current political and military forays into Bangladesh, the destabilization of the Rakhine state, and the civil conflict in Myanmar are fundamentally about keeping the Malacca Strait dilemma for China alive and controllable. Just as the pressure on Iran is about the Strait of Hormuz and its non dollar trade of Oil with China, the pressure on Myanmar and Bangladesh is about controlling the access points to the Indian Ocean and the overland routes that could bypass the Malacca chokepoint.

This Saudi–American divergence also intersects with the Ukraine war and Europe’s strategic crisis, revealing the global nature of the realignment. The conflict in Ukraine accelerates the weaponization of finance, energy, and sanctions by the United States and its allies, reinforcing fears about overdependence on Western systems. Europe, particularly the European Union, pays the price through energy insecurity, inflation, and deindustrialization after cutting off Russian supplies, exposing how U.S.-led geopolitical decisions can impose asymmetric costs on partners.

Ukraine has become the central battlefield of Cold War 2.0 between US & Europe vs Russia & China, not only in military terms but as a test case for endurance in a fractured global system, where prolonged conflict accelerates de-industrialization, political polarization, and strategic fatigue across Europe. As the war drags on, European states are increasingly forced to confront the reality of a multipolar world in which U.S. leadership is no longer cost-free or stabilizing, and where autonomy—whether in energy, defense, or diplomacy has become a necessity rather than a choice.

The entire architecture of this conflict can be summarized as a dialogue of power between the West and the BRICS+ nations. It is as if the United States is saying to Russia, China, and Iran: “You may control the Rare Earths and the Commodities, but I control the Oil and the shipping routes required to move them.” The American plan is a grand oceanic encirclement, designed to kick China and Russia out of unfettered sailing into the Atlantic while simultaneously competing with them aggressively in the Indo-Pacific. Trump’s protege Lindsey Graham’s threat of passing a law giving wide powers to President Trump to impose 500% tariffs on India, China and Brazil who import Russian energy underscore the widening gulf and rupture between two sides. The hypocrisy is writ large on America’s targeting of India on Russian energy as while it seeks to sanction India on other hand it continues to import Russian Uranium and Titanium for energy needs & military industrial complex as well as fertilisers.

However, this grand containment strategy has faced a significant rupture due to the actions of India. Russia, displaying formidable strategic foresight, managed to secure the Reciprocal Exchange of Logistics Agreement (RELOS) with India. This agreement signed in February 2025 and ratified in December 2025 is a game-changer, granting the Russian Navy access to the vast Indian coastline and its shipping routes in the Indo-Pacific. This move has severely damaged Anglo-American plans to restrict communist and Eurasian powers from accessing warm water ports and energy routes. The ability of Russian vessels to refuel and resupply in Indian ports effectively breaks the containment ring that the West has sought to build from the GI-UK Gap to Malacca. This geopolitical defiance is the root cause of the current friction between Washington, London, and New Delhi.

The anger in American and British policy circles regarding India’s RELOS agreement with Russia is palpable and has spilled over into other diplomatic arenas. This tension was exacerbated when Prime Minister Modi condemned the drone strikes on President Putin’s palace in Novograd attacks that were allegedly abetted by intelligence and logistical support from MI6 and the CIA. By publicly opposing these strikes, India signaled a refusal to align completely with Western regime-change tactics against Russia. This divergence explains the sudden shift in tone from the United States leadership, particularly the renewed rhetoric from President Donald Trump. The insults and threats directed at India and Prime Minister Modi, including the refusal to entertain a trade deal, are punitive measures intended to discipline a strategic partner that has refused to act as a vassal. The West is engaging in a high-stakes power play against the expanding BRICS+ alliance, viewing India’s multi-alignment as a betrayal of the America’s grand containment strategy of Russia & China.

At the heart of this conflict is the existential threat of De-Dollarisation and the rise of non-dollar trade settlements. The BRICS+ nations India, Russia, China, Brazil, and Iran, along with Saudi Arabia to a limited extent are building an alternative financial infrastructure that bypasses the US dollar. If commodities, particularly oil, are traded in local currencies or on a new BRICS payment settlement system, the ability of the United States to export its control the flow of trade, commodities and sanction them evaporates. This fear drives the aggressive posturing against any nation that facilitates this transition. The security architecture mooted by America having other Indo-Pacific allies known as the QUAD is effectively comatose, having failed to rally India exclusively to the American cause. In its place, a new alignment is emerging lead by America having all Quad members, Israel, UAE, Singapore while excluding India out of #PaxSilica to reshore semiconductor supply chains. This new configuration relies on a tighter, more compliant axis of USA, UAE, Israel, Japan, Australia etc nations that are more deeply integrated into the US security and technological umbrella.

The energy transition is another theater of this war. The recent withdrawal of the United States from the International Solar Alliance (ISA), an initiative led by India, is not a retreat from green energy in principle, but a strategic maneuver to protect the primacy of the dollar. A rapid transition to green energy, dominated by supply chains in China and India, hurts the bottom lines of Big Oil. Since the global oil trade is the anchor of the US dollar’s value (the Petrodollar system), a shift away from oil toward solar and renewables sectors where the US does not hold a monopoly threatens American financial hegemony. The withdrawal from the ISA is a defensive move to slow down a transition that benefits the East at the expense of the West’s financial control.

The world is not merely witnessing disconnected regional conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, Iran, Venezuela or Myanmar. We are observing a singular, cohesive global struggle over the plumbing of the global economy. From the ice of Greenland to the warm waters of the Indian Ocean, the battle lines are drawn between those who control the commodities and those who control the flow. The United States is leveraging every tool from maritime interdiction and proxy wars to currency weaponization to maintain its grip on the global chokepoints. Meanwhile, the BRICS+ nations are manoeuvring to create alternative routes and alternative payment systems. The outcome of this struggle will determine whether the twenty-first century remains an American century or transitions into a multipolar order where the control of the seas and the currency is shared rather than monopolized.

The debasement of the U.S. dollar, the erosion of the post–World War II international order, the onset of a Cold War 2.0 between United States & Sino-Russian bloc, and the rise of multipolarity are not separate phenomena but interconnected outcomes of a single structural shift in global power. Decades of monetary expansion, weaponization of the dollar through sanctions, and financialization of the U.S. economy have steadily weakened confidence in the dollar as a neutral store of value and medium of exchange, prompting states to explore alternatives in trade settlement, reserves in Gold & Silver, and energy pricing.

As monetary credibility erodes, so too does the legitimacy of the rules-based international order built around U.S.-led institutions, which increasingly appear selective, coercive, and inconsistent in their application of rules. This loss of legitimacy fuels strategic hedging and bloc formation, giving rise to a Cold War 2.0 between US & its allies viz China and Russia defined less by ideology and more by control over technology, supply chains, energy routes, and financial infrastructure. Unlike the bipolar Cold War of the 20th century, today’s contest unfolds in a fragmented landscape where multiple power centers across Eurasia, the Middle East, and the Global South assert autonomy rather than alignment. The result is an emerging multipolar system marked by instability, transactional alliances, and persistent friction, as no single power can impose order, yet many possess the capacity to disrupt it.