De Dollarisation Explained: How US Sanctions and Asset Freezes Are Driving a New Multi-Currency World

The starting point is simple. The dollar still anchors the system. It clears most trade, dominates foreign exchange turnover and remains the main asset in central bank reserves. But the character of that dominance has changed. It is no longer taken on trust. It is taken with a discount for political risk.

Once you see the dollar system through that lens, the stories of Russia’s frozen reserves, Venezuela’s missing gold, China’s slow move toward alternative payment pipes and the surge in official gold buying stop looking like isolated anecdotes. They become rivets in a new structure. The question is not whether the dollar survives. It is what price Washington now pays to keep it on top.

From neutral plumbing to political weapon

The old deal was brutally clear. The United States provided a deep bond market, a predictable legal system and a navy that kept sea lanes open. In exchange, the rest of the world saved in dollars, invoiced trade in dollars and parked its surplus in United States government debt. That arrangement delivered what the French finance minister once called an exorbitant privilege: Washington could run deficits without facing the discipline it demands from every other debtor.

That privilege depended on one assumption. Reserves and payment pipes were neutral. A state might face sanctions on specific officials or firms. Its central bank assets were meant to be sacrosanct. That distinction has now been broken in full view of every finance ministry on the planet.

Seen from Washington or Brussels this is dressed up as rule of law. Seen from Moscow, Caracas, Beijing or Riyadh it is something else: the admission that reserve custody is a policy instrument like tariffs or visa bans. Once that line is crossed, the rational response for any state with surplus savings is not protest. It is diversification.

That diversification has not produced a new hegemon. There is no single rival currency ready to replace the dollar across trade, finance and reserves. What has emerged instead is a slow, broad hedging strategy in three directions at once: into other currencies, into gold and into new payment pipes that skirt United States jurisdiction.

The numbers behind a slow erosion, not a crash

The useful question is not whether the dollar is “finished”. It plainly is not. The useful question is what happens at the margin when trust erodes. The answer sits in three simple trends.

These are not numbers that trigger a financial heart attack. They do something more subtle. They change the terms on which Washington can fund itself. To roll over a growing public debt when foreigners are taking a smaller share of every new bond issue, either domestic buyers must step up or interest rates must do more work. In practice, both happen, and both tighten the constraint on United States fiscal policy.

That is the quiet meaning of “imperial liquidation”. The empire is not overthrown by a dramatic crash. It is forced to pay more for the credit that underpinned its reach.

Gold’s return as sanction resistant collateral

The second trend sits in the vaults. Central banks have rediscovered gold not as jewellery but as sanction resistant collateral. In the years since the Russian reserve freeze, official purchases of gold have been running at record or near record levels. Survey data show that a clear majority of central banks now expect to increase the share of gold in their reserves over the next five years.

From a Western vantage point, this can look like superstition. Gold yields no interest. It does not plug easily into modern financial plumbing. From the vantage point of an emerging state that has watched reserves weaponised, those are side issues. Gold has three qualities that matter in a sanctions era: it is nobody else’s liability, it can be moved, and there is no switch in Washington that makes it vanish.

Here again, the effect is second order but real. Every tonne of reserves that is shifted into bullion is a tonne that is not available to absorb new United States government issuance or backstop the next liquidity crisis through dollar swap lines. The dollar remains the core asset, but the cushion around it is thinner.

The new plumbing: BRICS, bilateral trade and parallel rails

The third trend is where the most alarmist narratives usually go wrong. Commentators who talk about a sudden “dumping” of Treasuries or an overnight switch to a new BRICS currency miss how risk managers actually behave. China cannot simply press a button and crash Wall Street without inflicting serious damage on its own exports, banks and reserves. Nor does it need to.

The real shift is slower and more granular. It happens every time two states agree to settle a slice of trade in their own currencies instead of routing it through United States banks. It happens when oil from Russia to India clears through a bank in Dubai, or when Brazilian soy beans are paid for in yuan. It happens when pipelines, fibre routes and payment systems are built that do not cross United States legal territory.

Put together, these developments amount to a regime change in how other states perceive the risks of funding the United States. The old assumption was that political alignment bought you protection inside the system. The new assumption is that alignment buys only temporary protection and can flip with an election in Washington or London.

What this really means for United States power

It is tempting in some circles to jump from these developments to an opposite fantasy, in which the United States is on the brink of losing dollar dominance entirely and with it any claim to global influence. That is not where the evidence points. The dollar still anchors trade invoices, dominates global lending and benefits from a scale and liquidity that no rival can match in the near term.

The real risk is more prosaic and more dangerous for Washington. It is the slow motion fiscal squeeze that follows when an empire with a large debt stock faces a world that is still willing to lend, but on more demanding terms. If foreign central banks and sovereign funds continue to nudge a few percentage points of their assets into gold, into smaller currencies or into non dollar claims each year, the incremental cost of funding United States deficits rises.

That is where domestic politics collides with imperial finance. Higher interest costs eat into the budget. The fight over who pays that bill then plays out through cuts, tax hikes or further attempts to export the burden abroad. In the meantime, the temptation to use sanctions and legal tricks one more time, to squeeze one more concession out of the system, does not disappear. It grows.

Why inflation, not formal default, is the likeliest exit

At the end of the chain sits a choice that every over extended hegemon faces. It can admit that the debts it has built up cannot be honoured in full real value, or it can disguise that admission. A declared default on United States Treasuries would detonate the global financial system and destroy the very privileges Washington is trying to salvage. That makes it the least attractive option.

Inflation, by contrast, is a stealthier path. It allows nominal promises to be kept while eroding their real content. It pushes the cost of adjustment onto savers at home and abroad who hold cash, deposits and long term bonds in dollars. It is the route that previous debt overloaded powers have taken, and the one that modern politics finds easiest to sell as misfortune rather than policy.

The more the dollar system is used as a tool of coercion, the more other states will hedge. The more they hedge, the tighter the arithmetic becomes for the issuer of the world’s reserve currency. That is the loop now closing around Washington. China does not need to press a panic button to trigger it. The logic is already embedded in the choices the United States and its allies have made since they decided that reserves and pipelines were fair game.

Living with a narrower kind of hegemony

The likely outcome is not a neat replacement of one centre of gravity by another. It is a messier transition to a world in which the dollar is still first among currencies, but no longer beyond questioning. That means more volatility, more visible bargaining between blocs and more open talk of collateral, custody and exit options in places that used to treat those topics as technicalities.

For Washington, the adjustment is psychological as much as financial. An order in which others quietly underwrite your deficits in exchange for access is giving way to an order in which those same states demand a higher price for the privilege. For citizens inside the system, the costs will show up slowly in mortgage rates, tax bills and the creeping erosion of savings masked as normal inflation. For citizens outside it, the shift will matter in a different way: it offers some room to move, but also forces hard choices about which pipes and which courts they trust.

The rhetoric from United States officials will not change overnight. They will still talk the language of leadership, rules and strength. The more interesting conversations are happening in central bank dealing rooms and finance ministries that have already drawn the obvious conclusion from Russia’s reserves and Venezuela’s gold. You do not have to hate the dollar to hedge it. You just have to treat it as what it has become: a powerful asset with a visible political risk clause attached.

References