A candid, first-person interview with Russian economist Artem GENKIN, Doctor of Economics and founder of the business magazine Invest Foresight, was featured on the program Ottebyatina (Unscripted Perspective). The show is a joint project of the Moscow International Currency Association (MICA) and the Finversia news website, airing on the Naidi Mamonta (Find the Mammoth) channel on Rutube.
The host, MICA President Alexei Mamontov, launched the discussion by referencing the Russian Ruble Day 2025 round table held in July, where the lexicon of collapse – deglobalization, disintegration, fragmentation, disorientation – dominated the conversation. But what emerges from the rubble? Are we in an era of deconstruction?
The expert partly agreed with the host, stating that the era of globalization has indeed ended. According to Artem Genkin, we are no longer even in the phase of a mere slowdown in globalization – that stage has already passed. He pointed to compelling statistics: since 2008, for the past 17 years, the share of international trade in global GDP has been steadily declining. In other words, countries are trading less across borders and relying more on domestic markets. At the same time, since 2008 there has been a steady rise in sanctions, trade restrictions, and government interventions, barriers that states impose for geopolitical, epidemiological, or socio-demographic reasons. These trends have prevented globalization from advancing.
Artem Genkin suggested that since around 2020 we have entered a new phase: the era of deglobalization. He also noted some findings that verge on conspiracy theories but remain thought-provoking. For instance, the concept of “friendshoring” – first appearing in U.S. government documents in June 2021 – may have been prompted by the global pandemic, which disrupted traditional supply chains and global logistics.
Friendshoring implies that if production and supply chains cannot be brought back entirely to the domestic economy (a process known as onshoring), then at the very least they should be relocated to friendly nations – states aligned through common blocs or partnerships – so that business can continue within a trusted circle.
In the fall of 2022, IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva introduced a striking concept at the World Economic Forum: “geoeconomic fragmentation.” She compared the world economy to a once-unified plate shattered into many smaller pieces, a metaphor that aptly captures the current state of global fragmentation.
Numerous local and regional examples highlight the deterioration of international economic ties, cases where neither onshoring nor friendshoring provided solutions. Producers were left without their traditional markets, while consumers faced supply shortages. In the food sector, this dynamic nearly triggered a hunger crisis in several developing countries.
According to various estimates, between 5% and 7% of global GDP has been lost in different years since 2020, largely because replacement mechanisms could not always be established for disrupted trade and economic ties.
The situation now appears to be improving somewhat, as economic actors gradually adapt to unfavorable conditions. Stabilization has likely occurred because the global economy has, in effect, been supplanted by the economies of regional and political blocs of countries.
The interviewer posed a question: to what extent are the crises of the global monetary system, politics, and geopolitics, highlighted by the renowned American economist and investor Ray Dalio in his recent widely discussed report, linked to the central player in the world’s economy, trade, and politics: the United States?
Artem Genkin believes that one of the root causes lies precisely here. The cornerstone that once upheld the global economic order – despite its negative externalities and monocentric structure – has crumbled. The very actor expected to sustain the system has ceased to do so.
For example, a survey of 75 central banks, together managing around $5 trillion in reserves, a highly representative sample, asked which assets they planned to increase holdings of over the next five years. The U.S. dollar received just 4% of responses. This figure is not merely modest; it is strikingly low. Gold (40%), the euro (25%), and even the yuan all ranked higher, as did smaller currencies such as the Canadian and Australian dollars. In other words, the U.S. dollar is no longer seen as a safe-haven asset, nor as the currency of choice for strategic planning or expansion. While central banks continue to maintain substantial reserves in dollars, its appeal is no longer growing – as it once reliably did.
According to official statistics, only six central banks worldwide currently hold reserves in yuan. However, the data suggest that at least as many more are considering doing so in the near future.
At the same time, much of the ground lost by the dollar has been taken up by the euro. While it is also just another fiat currency, global financial decision-makers appear to value the euro for the predictability of its macroeconomic policy.
The expert noted that offshore yuan reserves are primarily being accumulated by countries heavily indebted to Chinese companies. Through its Belt and Road Initiative, bilateral currency swaps, and other mechanisms, China has already established a strong presence in major infrastructure projects across Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe, and Southeast Asia.
Alexei Mamontov asked whether the current developments suggest that this isn’t basically about the US dollar, but rather about the fundamental flaw in the very strategy of creating a monocentric economic and monetary system.
Artem Genkin responded that China, through its current actions, appears to be essentially mirroring this approach, but with a twist: they look to the experience of the 1970s and 1980s for inspiration, as described in Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, a book by John Perkins. They are pushing forward with infrastructure projects and offering loans in a currency that is regional – however, with over a hundred countries borrowing from China, this currency is increasingly vying for the role of a reserve one.
Another key development, which the expert community has yet to fully grasp, is related to Trump’s stance, Artem Genkin said. Everyone remembers (and it was widely disseminated in the media) that in October 2024 and shortly after his inauguration in January 2025, Donald Trump warned countries and blocs – including BRICS – that any attempt to challenge the ‘mighty dollar’ would lead to severe consequences.
Just a slight digression: people from our generation typically call any copying device a ‘Xerox.’ You most likely have one in your workplace, and you can’t be fully positive that the Xerox Corporation is its manufacturer.
Similarly, when Trump refers to the ‘mighty dollar,’ no one asks whether he is talking about the Federal Reserve dollar specifically. Recent news, such as the passage of the GENIUS Act to legalize stablecoins as well as the Trump family’s investments in a stablecoin issuing company, suggests that the current system is not as set in stone as it may appear: it might not be the Federal Reserve dollar that holds this monocentric position forever.
Trump held back from firing Jerome Powell, the chair of the Federal Reserve – the former had even toured the Fed’s headquarters construction site, seemingly hinting at potential upheaval and looking for contractual grounds to fire Mr. Powell. And yet, despite this, the Federal Reserve remains operational and governed by the same executives. Stablecoins, however, could challenge the Fed’s monopoly over the dollar and might even shift its dominance while preserving the dollar’s central role but on new, different terms.
According to Alexei Mamontov, global shocks linked to a single currency’s monopoly only confirm the law of conservation of risk: when risks are concentrated, they accumulate until they trigger a collapse. So, why hasn’t humanity learned from this?
Artem Genkin believes that China is not following America’s entire path of dollar monopolization in global trade, trying to avoid the obvious missteps the US made. Since the 1970s, there has been an informal agreement between the US and oil-rich monarchies in the Persian Gulf, where the US provided arms and other paramilitary services in exchange for oil purchases made with dollars or acting as foreign holders of US debt – which resulted in the extreme development of the current situation.
China, however, is pursuing a different route: they are issuing the digital yuan, which could potentially become a reserve currency, while also securing infrastructure in countries where they invest. If a borrower defaults, China might seize valuable assets like ports, airports, or agricultural land. While this poses certain risks, they are at least geographically diversified. Any unrest in these borrowing countries – which has already occurred – could threaten the collateral they hold.
In contrast, with US national debt, the risk falls squarely on the issuing country. The US has even created an additional risk for itself, with growing inflation and the looming threat of devaluation. There’s a website that tracks US debt in real-time, a truly alarming sight.
Unlike the 1970s, today’s global financial situation is more precarious. With the US having become both a global creditor and debtor, we are deeply entangled in this massive financial pyramid built on uncontrollable emission of dollars, the interviewer noted.
Artem Genkin agreed, citing remarks by a highly-regarded expert – whose assumptions are based on political science rather than economics – about what could serve as a bubble and what market and niche policymakers could sacrifice in order to preserve the dollar monopoly.
The alternatives to the current tariff path might produce more severe consequences for the world, leading to the collapse of entire regions or certain key industries. For now, at least, the chosen route offers a chance to survive without plunging into chaos. That said, Russia is much less affected by these issues compared to the US’s stock market traders, its main trading partners, and geopolitical allies.
“We aren’t beneficiaries, but we aren’t victims either. This is one of those rare moments when we can observe the US ‘fire’ from the outside and learn from it,” Artem Genkin noted.