"Today, international trade does not depend solely on production or demand, but largely on the ability to insure goods, infrastructure, and transactions.
In a climate of escalating geopolitical instability, regional conflicts, naval tensions such as those in the Strait of Hormuz, and energy market volatility, any difficulty in providing insurance coverage could slow — or even paralyze — global trade flows…"
— We are in the midst of a transition toward a multipolar world. Who is reaping the greatest benefits from the current chaos, and who, by contrast, risks being pushed to the margins of history?
— In this era of "Controlled Chaos", three powers are reaping the greatest rewards while accelerating the transformation of the global order: the United States, Russia, and China. The United States is currently repositioning its global influence, drawing inspiration from the "Technate of America" — a project by Technocracy Inc. (led by Howard Scott and championed in Canada by Joshua Haldeman, Elon Musk’s grandfather). This model aimed to manage the continent as a single entity based on energy and physical resources rather than debt-based currency.
This strategy is taking shape through control of the Panama Canal, which has effectively become a "cash machine" for U.S. maritime security. Record-breaking tolls and security premiums are being paid by those fleeing blocked Eurasian routes, particularly those bound for Japan and South Korea.
Simultaneously, the U.S. is managing Venezuela’s oil revenues—controlling them financially and logistically while remaining open to collaborations with China and India, thereby maintaining both strategic and commercial dominance. Furthermore, Greenland is being integrated into the American blueprint as a pivotal piece for Arctic projection and the security of the American-Pacific pole. This completes a layer of strategic depth alongside Canada, which serves as an indispensable energy and mineral reservoir for the Americas.
The Russian Federation, for its part, is fortifying its physical hegemony and shifting its geopolitical center of gravity away from Europe. Since late 2025, Moscow has accelerated its maneuvers: through a memorandum with the Alliance of Sahel States, it now controls the gold and uranium of Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso, having effectively expelled Western military bases. It is developing logistical hubs in Eritrea and Sudan to dominate the Red Sea, while simultaneously strengthening ties in Central Asia by elevating its relationship with Kazakhstan to a "Global Strategic Partnership".
The 20-year agreement with Iran unlocks the North-South Transport Corridor, bypassing the Suez Canal and the Strait of Hormuz to provide alternative logistical routes. On the military front, a Physical Technology Axis is being established, characterized by shared drones, missiles, and defense systems. Through these developments, Russia is positioning itself as the energy and strategic core of a new multipolar bloc, far from Western influence.
Finally, China is leveraging its record trade surplus and control over precious metals like gold and silver to build potent geopolitical leverage. Through the "Dual Circulation" strategy of its New Five-Year Plan (2026–2030), Beijing is reducing external dependence, shielding domestic consumption, and utilizing exports as a political tool. In doing so, it has overtaken Europe as a primary trading partner while accumulating critical physical assets for the tech and industrial sectors.
Furthermore, as of this writing, the Chinese government has moved to halt fertilizer exports — mirroring Russia’s earlier restrictions on nitrates — until at least mid-April. With urea already in short supply, the global outlook is grim: the crisis now threatens not only the energy sector but the very foundations of the world’s agri-food industry.
The actor most at risk of being relegated to the margins of history is the European Union. Lacking an autonomous strategy, internally fragmented, and energy-dependent, the EU is seeing its influence progressively diminish. While other global powers gamble with tangible resources and strategic routes, Europe — hampered by illogical ideologies and flawed strategic planning — risks sliding into obsolescence within the new global order.
— Are we heading toward a "New Cold War" divided into rigid blocs, or toward a fluid global disorder where alliances shift according to the convenience of the moment?
— We are not witnessing a "New Cold War" in the classical, rigid, and ideological sense of opposing blocs. Instead, we are seeing the birth of a tripartite international system—dynamic and rooted in spheres of influence, strategic depth, and resource self-sufficiency.
In practice, alliances shift based on the convenience of the moment and each pole’s ability to leverage its tangible resources. The first of these poles is the American-Pacific bloc, which consolidates the energy, military, and technological power of the Americas extending through to Japan.
This is where the concept of "Greater America" takes shape: a self-sufficient system built on strategic infrastructure such as the Panama Canal, Greenland for Arctic projection, and Canada as a source of energy and minerals. Canada supplies the United States daily with millions of barrels of oil, uranium for nuclear reactors, hydroelectric power, and rare minerals critical to Japanese manufacturing and technology.
In this way, the Americas become a productive and defensive stronghold, capable of operating without depending on the unstable routes and markets of Eurasia.
The second pole is represented by the Russian Federation, which has moved beyond a Cold War-style diplomatic game to impose a geopolitics of raw materials. By exerting physical control over critical resources such as uranium, gas, and grain across Eurasia — and by opening alternative logistics routes like the North-South Corridor through Iran and Central Asia — Moscow has transformed its geographic depth into a tool of global interdiction.
This means that Western sanctions have limited impact: if London or Brussels impose sanctions, Moscow can respond by rerouting supplies or shutting off physical pipelines, thereby maintaining a central role in Eurasia’s energy and logistics supply chains.
The third pole is the Asian Pole, led by China, which transforms its economic strength into political leverage. With a record trade surplus and control over precious metals such as gold and silver, Beijing protects domestic consumption through the Dual Circulation strategy and uses exports as a tool for international pressure.
Although Europe remains an important trading partner, it is thus becoming increasingly dependent and strategically marginalized. In this context, Europe risks finding itself on the margins of the new global balance, while the three major powers compete using real resources, strategic logistics, and energy security, demonstrating that today’s world is no longer divided by rigid ideologies, but by those who have the concrete ability to transform resources and infrastructure into geopolitical power.
— What is the real "endgame" for Israel and the United States in the Middle East? Is it a quest for short-term security, or an attempt to reshape the regional order by permanently excluding Iran?
— The goal is not tactical security, but a radical restructuring of the region’s energy and logistics landscape. Israel and the United States aim to transform the Jewish state into the definitive energy and infrastructure hub of the broader Mediterranean, thereby gradually rendering Iran’s ability to block traffic through the Strait of Hormuz obsolete.
The true cornerstone of this strategy is the so-called Ben Gurion Canal project: a physical and sovereign alternative to the Suez Canal which, when combined with the development of the Levant gas fields — Leviathan and Tamar — would create a direct corridor linking the Indo-Pacific, the Middle East, and Europe, free from traditional choke points and, above all, from Iranian influence.
In this framework, the Abraham Accords also take on a different significance: they are not merely a diplomatic milestone, but the foundation of a new model of cooperation regarding strategic assets.
The Gulf monarchies might accept Israel’s technological and military dominance in exchange for stability in energy supplies and secure access to global markets, particularly those in Asia.
In this context, Iran represents a structural obstacle. Not only because of its ability to control the Strait of Hormuz, but also because of its role as a destabilizing actor capable of operating on multiple fronts: military, energy, and financial. For this reason, its marginalization is not only military, but also economic and systemic.
The endgame, therefore, is not merely containment, but the construction of a secure, alternative energy corridor, in which Israel serves as an infrastructural, technological, and even "insurance" hub for these flows.
In other words, there is an attempt to shift the center of gravity of power: from control of vulnerable maritime passages to direct control of land-based infrastructure and integrated routes. In this shift, there is a key element that is often underestimated: whoever controls the transit of raw materials also controls the value of currency.
From this perspective, the United States and Israel are not merely managing a regional crisis, but are seeking to build a physical system capable of separating wealth tied to real assets from economic models perceived as unstable or based on debt dynamics and indirect pressure.
— How does the U.S. reconcile its unconditional support for Israel with the need to maintain its influence over Arab monarchies and avoid getting bogged down in a new regional conflict while shifting its focus to the Asia-Pacific region?
— Trump’s United States is resolving these tensions by definitively moving beyond the Sykes-Picot colonial framework in favor of a new architecture based on real assets. Support for Israel is not a sentimental choice, but rather the creation of an energy hegemon in the Mediterranean capable of replacing Iran.
The endgame is clear: the attack on Iran’s South Pars gas field and the consolidation of control over the Levant Basin are intended to create a supply gap that Israel will fill with its 3.453 trillion cubic meters of gas.
The final piece of the logistical puzzle is the Ben Gurion Canal: a physical alternative to the Suez Canal located on Israeli territory that would give Jerusalem (and thus the U.S.-Pacific hub) simultaneous control over both production and shipping routes, thereby dismantling the speculative intermediary role played by London and Paris, which are losing influence in regions where they were once leaders.
Arab monarchies might accept this plan because the United States offers them physical escape routes from Iran and thus from the Strait of Hormuz. While Israel strengthens its position through nuclear deterrence (based on French expertise from Dimona), the U.S. supports projects such as the East-West Pipeline to Yanbu in Saudi Arabia and the Development Road Project between Iraq and Turkey.
These corridors make it possible to transport millions of barrels per day while bypassing the Strait of Hormuz, although the volumes are still smaller, not exceeding 7 million barrels. In this way, the U.S. ensures the economic survival of its Arab allies by delegating the role of "energy regulator" to Israel, allowing Washington to disengage militarily and concentrate all its resources in the Asia-Pacific region to compete with China.
— Why is it that the European Union, despite being the main trading partner of many actors in the region, fails to exert effective "soft power" and often appears divided — or at least passive — when it comes to external crises?
— The European Union struggles to exercise effective soft power, primarily due to a structural issue: it lacks full strategic cohesion and a truly unified foreign policy. Added to this are factors such as energy dependence and a certain degree of fragmentation in decision-making.
Meanwhile, much of the so-called Global South no longer views the European model as the sole benchmark, but rather as one of several possible models. This reduces Europe’s ability to influence the global balance of power.
If we examine the situation from a purely geopolitical perspective, the United States is gradually withdrawing its protective umbrella; Russia is no longer supplying the low-cost energy that used to facilitate European industrial production — by its own choice; and China is no longer guaranteeing production. In this context, Europe is effectively isolated.
— Italy is caught between its unrequited loyalty to the Atlantic alliance and its energy interests in the Mediterranean (the Mattei Plan). In this new geopolitical landscape, is Rome a player with its own strategy, or merely an executor of others’ directives?
— Today, Italy is not merely a follower of others’ directives, but is part of a broader project aimed at reshaping the global landscape in the wider Mediterranean region.
Rome, backed by the U.S. and others, will help maintain the balance of power between the U.S. and Russia in the region, largely because Italy also possesses significant gold reserves.
The national strategy is embodied in the Mattei Plan, which aims to strengthen energy sovereignty, maritime security, and industrial leadership. On the energy front, Rome has strengthened cooperation with Algeria to increase gas supplies via the Enrico Mattei pipeline, making Italy the main entry point for African gas into Europe.
With regard to infrastructure, Southern Italy is being developed as a strategic port and logistics hub capable of supporting critical trade and energy flows. Security is ensured by the Navy, which safeguards maritime routes and energy assets throughout the Wider Mediterranean, thereby strengthening the country’s ability to operate independently.
Lastly, regarding resources, agreements with Kazakhstan ensure access to 40% of the world’s uranium and rare earth elements, while oil reserves in the Basilicata region, in southern Italy, and new discoveries of gas and raw materials in the Mediterranean further strengthen Italy’s energy independence.
Thanks to this combination of energy, infrastructure, security, and resources, Italy stands as a true strategic bridge between East and West, capable of mediating between blocs, controlling critical resources, and maintaining decision-making autonomy, while integrating Atlantic alliances with a pragmatic approach toward Eurasia.
— Despite the sanctions, Russia remains a global energy powerhouse. How is Moscow using its resources to strengthen its alliance with the BRICS nations and challenge the dollar’s hegemony?
— Despite Western sanctions, Russia continues to play a central role in the global energy system thanks to its vast reserves of gas, oil, and strategic raw materials. Moscow is leveraging these resources as a tool for economic and diplomatic influence to strengthen its ties with the BRICS countries.
Through bilateral energy agreements, long-term supply contracts, and infrastructure investments, Russia guarantees its partners access to critical raw materials, reducing their dependence on Western markets and creating a network of interdependencies that strengthens the BRICS bloc.
At the same time, Moscow is promoting the use of currencies other than the dollar — such as the ruble, the Chinese yuan, and the local currencies of its partners — for energy and trade transactions.
This approach not only threatens the dollar’s dominance in global transactions, but also builds a parallel financial system capable of supporting international trade among BRICS countries, strengthening the strategic autonomy of its members and consolidating Russia’s geopolitical position as an energy hub and a pivot between East and West. However, if we look at the data, it will still take a few more years for the dollar to be replaced.
— Central Asia, and Kazakhstan in particular, are at the "heart" of Eurasia. How is Astana handling the pressure from Russian influence, Chinese Belt and Road investments, and Western interest in rare earth minerals?
— Kazakhstan, the strategic center of Central Asia, the so-called "Heartland", is handling the simultaneous pressure from Russia, China, and the West with great pragmatism.
Astana is not merely a supplier of raw materials; it is transforming its immense material wealth into a lever of political and economic sovereignty.
The country’s integration as a strategic partner of BRICS Plus, set to be formalized in January 2025, represents a concrete alternative to dependence on speculative Western stock markets and the devaluation of fiat currencies.
The core of this strategy lies in the development of a solid energy technology hub: through a complete nuclear supply chain and collaboration with giants such as Rosatom and CNNC, Kazakhstan leverages its approximately 40% of the world’s uranium reserves to ensure total energy autonomy and the ability to influence energy prices in Eurasia.
This approach, combined with the development of rare earth resources, enables Astana to transform its physical resources into instruments of tangible power and strategic stability. At the same time, the country is building its sovereignty in logistics through the so-called "Middle Corridor".
The development of the Trans-Caspian route offers BRICS partners a secure alternative to naval blackmail at strategic chokepoints such as Hormuz and Suez, consolidating Kazakhstan’s role as a guarantor of Eurasian stability.
In this system, goods and raw materials are traded within a secure network based on real assets and the BRICS financial system, ensuring that every investment is reinvested in domestic development, from water infrastructure to industrial modernization.
In short, Kazakhstan is emerging today as a central bank of physical resources, where gold, uranium, and rare earth elements have become instruments of real geopolitical power. Thanks to this combination of energy autonomy, logistics control, and integration into BRICS Plus, Astana is able to balance Russian influence, Chinese investment, and Western interests, consolidating its role as a central hub in the strategic triangle between Russia, China, and India, and challenging the dominance of Western economies based on debt-based currency.
— Beyond the ongoing crisis in the Strait of Hormuz, what is the "black swan" event that international politics is overlooking, and which could shape the coming years and affect our lives?
— An often underestimated and potentially disruptive risk to international politics concerns the global system of financial and insurance guarantees.
Today, international trade depends not only on production or demand, but to a large extent on the ability to insure goods, infrastructure, and transactions.
In a context of growing geopolitical instability, regional conflicts, naval tensions such as those in the Strait of Hormuz, and energy market volatility, any difficulties in providing insurance coverage could slow down or even block global trade flows.
This scenario would not be caused by a lack of demand or goods, but by a lack of instruments capable of hedging against risks. The consequences would be far-reaching: the importance of physical assets and strategic raw materials — such as gold, natural gas, oil, and rare earth elements — would increase, and they would become true instruments of security and economic power.
Essencially, this would usher in a new phase in which the real value of tangible resources would replace that of abstract financial instruments, placing those with tangible control over energy, logistics and raw materials at the center of geopolitics, and prompting nations to reconsider their strategies for self-sufficiency and resilience.
Note: These analyses represent hypothetical strategic scenarios developed by Dr. Fabio Tiburzi, based on public data, official sources, and geopolitical trends; they do not constitute confidential information nor have they been confirmed by governments or third-party entities.
Expert Profile:
Fabio Tiburzi is a senior research fellow at the BRICS-Lab for the International Department of EURISPES, specializing in Italy-China relations. He was a member of the Diplomatic Cultural Institute and promotes Italian modern and contemporary art through the works of Maestro Maurizio Fusco (awarded the "Trophée Azurenne — Nobel Prize of Art" in Monte Carlo in 2002).
He has collaborated with the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, the Italian Space Agency, and the Chinese Consulate in Rome.
He fosters contacts between representatives from the Italian and Chinese political, business, and cultural sectors by participating in forums and in the activities of specialized centers such as: Shenzhen Digital City World Congress & China Public Security Expo 2025; World Drone Congress 2025 — Shenzhen; Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei High Tech Industry Expo (AI, Aerospace, Energy, Automotive); World Intelligence Congress — Tianjin; International Poverty Reduction China Center; China Internet Information Center; China-EU Sustainability Forum — Jinan, Shandong Province.
As the representative for the Political Office of the Italy-China Center for Collaboration and Cultural Exchange "The Belt and Road Initiative", led by Professor Giuseppina Merchionne, and as a China expert for the Connect Italia Association, he has proposed projects in the energy, automotive, AI, raw materials, and preventive healthcare sectors.
Among his recent works and international recognitions, the following stand out:
RAND Corporation Citation (2025): His report, "China’s Polar Silk Road and Geopolitics of the Arctic Zone" (2022), was cited by the RAND Corporation in 2025 regarding the development of joint Russia-China projects in the Arctic.
"Bandung at 70" (2025): Author of the paper "BRICS Plus and the Spirit of Bandung: Policies and Actions for Building a Just Global Multilateral System in the 21st Century", published/presented for the Bandung Spirit 70th-anniversary commemorations.
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), Beijing (2019): Published an article for CASS on Italy, China, and the New Silk Road; also authored "Internationalization Processes in the Mediterranean: The Role of BRICS in Economic and Social Transformations".
Interviewer: Pietro Fiocchi