Are we witnessing a shift to lasting geo-economic tensions?

It feels like we’re heading into a really important time where conflicts aren’t just about traditional wars anymore. Just look at what's happening with Russia; the economic fallout from their actions shows that warfare can really mess with a country’s economy. Now, solving these conflicts often involves trade barriers, sanctions, and even controlling supply chains. Economics is turning into a weapon in the world of geopolitics. Because of this, trade whether it’s multilateral or bilateral has become way more than just about money; it’s turning into a strategic game.

Countries used to believe that forming ties with other countries and trading extensively between themselves was the path to peace. However the new reality is that this peace is now controlled and the way to protect peace and independence and survival, is to cut off ties, raise and impose heavy sanctions or even create alternatives so they don't get stuck and at the mercy of the other party. It's something else really, because this current reality is leading to expansion of the economic architecture like the launch of BRICS bloc, development of the decentralized systems for cross border settlements and transactions, rise of non dollar bilateral trade agreements, just to bypass the original reliance on a specific financial system or trade route that can be attacked all of a sudden.   So yes, we are definitely seeing the rise of geo economic conflict and new alternatives as counter measures.

Indeed, but in the end there is long term instability for the countries that utilize economic weaponization. When the sanctions are too many, the trade pressure too large and the manipulation of the supply chain too intense, a nation may build up other systems, lessen its reliance on the dollar and also forge new alliances outside of the old power circle. Already, countries are making the transition towards diversified reserves, localised production and autonomous payment systems. Finally, geopolitical use of trade might jeopardize cooperation at a global level and result in fragmentation of the world economy. In places where trade is not based on strategic coercion, it flourishes best. Even strong economies can be jeopardized over time without trust.

I see it more as an ongoing situation with the occasional break. Trust has been shaken, but, as I expected, trade remains important. If payment methods, energy or chips become subject to political interference, people will seek alternatives. It's not a pleasant prospect, but it's probably quite realistic.

All these aren't new this is how it has been for a long time, back to the old Roman wars, To Napoleon, Genghis Khan and all notable conqueres on war, they do everything to win and that can include using trade restrictions, food or supply blockage or any other means to weaken or frustrate their opponents. Geo-economic conflict may not be permanent but can arise between anyone when it calls for it, so it is not permanent but a persistent challenge in the world.

Depends on who is imposing the sanctions. Back in the day, the US sanctions worked quite effectively. I am not sure if that will be the case in the next few years or decade. The US and the rest of its western allies have tried to impose sanction on Russia but as of today, the country, and it's government are still standing strong. It appears the sanctions only work on Third World countries like Cuba who rely on handouts. The wars will happen, but we all know there is a new Empire in the horizon, and it's just a matter of time. They haven't even bombed a single country yet during their rise

Nothing is permanent in this world. What we are seeing now are just the current tendencies of our time, although they can change at anytime, especially once people start being heavily prejudiced by them. The point is that in order for the situation to improve, it still has to get a lot worse first. You know that every conflicts always have their peak, and while the peak of the conflict isn't reached, the situation doesn't improve at all.

Nothing new. I think it has been true since post-WW2 that strong countries won't attack each other directly, but use proxies and economic means to beat others. They called it Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) because of nuclear weapons. We only see this more clearly now simply because of the internet, which enables a massive amount of information sharing worldwide. In the past, we only had mainstream news networks that were tied to the government.

Trade restrictions and sanctions have proven to have a direct effect on the ordinary citizens when cost of things starts going up at an exponential rate. Through that, the government and authority concerned have no option other than pushing for peace because whatever gets to the masses will always trigger reaction that disturbs on the internal structure of any government. You don't fight a government or nation that's at war with direct war, you will end up worsening the whole situation. If you're able to face them through restrictions, sanctions and any other salient policies that paints them black in the midst of international community, you're likely going to get a faster result from it and that's why it has become a strategy that's now being adopted in settling country to country crisis.

Honestly when big countries use economy as a weapon, its impact not only affects that country but also countries like us. Like global conflict and trade pressure were behind the dollar crisis or increase in import costs in Bangladesh. We have felt its pressure even without being directly involved in the war. And now the situation is such that no country can be completely safe alone. For example our country's garment sector also depends a lot on the foreign market. Therefore if there is political tension in big countries, it affects our export reserve and market. This is why economy is now not just a matter of economics, it has actually become a part of the global power game.

These sort of simmering geotensions are the same sort of environment that led to world war 1 and 2. It's a very dangerous time right now, but in other ways the forces of countries like Russia are very depleted. America has just used a massive load from their expensive and high technology arsenal to send stone age Iran.. back to the stone age? China is rising and looks like the next flashpoint when they try to take over Taiwan with unknown consequences, but that might be the split where other countries cannot look away any more. If and when that happens it will force places like Europe to reindustrialize in order to stop importing as many goods, but also seek out new sources for the dirty raw ingredients that make them. This is all driven by sad old men trying to carve out some kind of legacy in history or a means to hang on to power, but that legacy will probably just be mass murder and genocide.

If your country has dependent on the country that they big countries are suffering then your country will be affected but if not then you will not be affected by anything. I think countries should have Long term plans to be self sufficient incase of war, some countries has already prepared for that because I saw an article about countries that will survive if world war three was to happen.

Its a universal law that nothing is permanent in this world, its means that not every thing is same forever and every thing is in its temporary form and keeps going towards the final stat. In world economic and social tensions some time converts into political conflicts and these situations often helps to began some thing bigger because some crises citizen to take action. But the hearful thing is that in this duration the ordinary people suffers more than others. During conflicts awareness is creating but government should thinks about its people before to push a conflict. But if nations waiting for a long time to maintain the situations then its puts the huge impact on next generation. So meaningful success comes when people works in unity and learn from there past then this system gives benefits to all communities not just some specific people. Changing always comes with hard work and consistency.

The sad old men are constantly being lobbied by big business so they have to act. Look at this war on Iran, there was no excuse or reason for it other than Netanyahu wanted the US to attack for the last 40 years. Absolutely,look at how effective a disruption to the Strait of Hormuz has become. Causing economic pain is just as effective as bombs. Rare Earth minerals have become so important to a very large sector of manufacturing that controlling them creates power and leverage. China put restrictions on their rare Earth minerals back in October then the US strived to control oil from Venezuela and then attacked Iran. Its all linked, Netanyahu just had to point Trump in the right direction.

Nations are not fighting on the war level rather they are competing with each other on the economic level to gain benefit they are putting pressure on their rivals by making strick trade rules for their opponents to gain advantage in term of economics activities and strategic level . This shift has caused a huge benefit for Nations as they are not wasting their money on the name of war rather they are putting that money into their economic growth and this strategy is going to stay for a long period of time as they are trying to safeguard there strategic power and creating more channels of trade to make their economies stronger and wealthier  . So it is entirely true that trade is becoming more strategic rather than purely economic.

Modern warfare does not only deal with waging war with your enemies, it's more about strategically destroying your economic strength, so what they normally do this time around is to actually give direct threats to your economic allies and giving them a better option or ways and how to do business, and your allies will suddenly stop trading with you. The major problems with situation like this is that hence the bigger countries impose trade sanctions on their perceived enemies, it will boomerang in a way that will cause those other countries to form alliance with themselves and begin to have a common cause, and situations like that will degenerate to worse than what we see on the surface level.