Iron Curtain 2.0

Strategic. Disruptive. Pervasive.

Power, by its very nature, tends to corrupt. It beckons for control lest it lose its standing, and in turn, strangles those in scarcity. This principle is vividly illustrated in China’s decision to seize the Hambantota Port, which exacerbated Sri Lanka’s economic collapse and suffering, all for their own geo-strategic potential. Similarly, the United States abused their power to impose sanctions on Iraq, in turn murdering 500,000 children, serving as the punishment of an entire nation for the wrongdoings of a singular regime. In a synonymous display of power, Russia severed its energy supply to Moldova, condemning its population to brave a harsh winter without adequate insulation, for no reason but to pettily strike their pro-European government. The idea is simple: once you find yourself on a pedestal, it simply gives you a higher ground to beat down those who have already fallen, to impose restrictions on those without the means to resist.

Economic tools have historically brought about adversity, functioning as a medium through which the leveraging powers may coerce and influence the decisions of target states. As long-standing as this tactic may be, the rising trend we are now witnessing raises several core issues. Sanctions, trade restrictions and debt traps have only gone upwards in both prevalence and intensity, making geo-economic coercion seem like a newfound fixture in modern geopolitics. EU sanctions on Russia and India’s trade leverage against Pakistan shed light on an emerging age where these restrictions no longer stand as a system to regulate power, but as weapons, to force nations into obedience, and consequently erode global cooperation and diplomatic solutions. 

Resources cannot be abundant at every instance, and thus as a consequence nations are condemned to obtain those deficient resources from external channels, forming streams which could be cut off or subjected to tariffs at the prerogative of the providing nation. It is due to this freedom of the supplier that all nations are then driven to politically and economically align themselves with the lending state, bypassing all historical, and cultural differences that should have otherwise stood in between them. The United States’ imposition of secondary sanctions on Chinese companies accused of supporting Russia's military efforts in Ukraine exhibits this very concept, where those 42 companies now placed on the entity list serve as an example, and a warning to all other nations planning to aid Russia.

The active weaponisation of such strategies is unfortunate in its regard as it is amplified in an age where ageing leadership is reinstated ad nauseam only to suffer the same fate. Decision-makers find themselves lost in the jungle of modern economics, carrying over their cold war paradigms of hard power and failing to recognise the long-term effects of geo-economic strategies. And it is the perpetuation of such short-sighted policies that will eventually lead not only to unsustainable practices but the growth of global tensions.

So it seems the shift has played out its course and the age of firepower has expired. Dominance now lies not in your ability to destroy but in your ability to disrupt. To be able to control supply chains and influence markets, that is true unfettered strength. And if we were to take any inspiration from our past, what they are unbridledly wielding is not going to lead to the cementation of their control, but a complete collapse of the systems we have long stood behind.