The idea of the dollar’s dominance ending is a complex and frequently discussed topic. While a sudden collapse is unlikely, a gradual erosion of its preeminence over decades is plausible, and it wouldn’t necessarily be replaced by a single currency.

How could the dollar’s dominance end?

The dollar’s dominance rests on several pillars:

1. Size and Stability of the US Economy: The US remains the world’s largest economy with a strong rule of law and predictable institutions.
2. Depth and Liquidity of US Financial Markets: US Treasury markets are the deepest and most liquid in the world, offering unparalleled safety and ease of transaction for global investors.
3. Network Effects: The dollar is deeply embedded in global trade, finance, and central bank reserves. This inertia makes it costly and difficult for others to switch.
4. Absence of a Credible Alternative: No other currency currently possesses all the attributes of the dollar.

For the dollar’s dominance to truly end, a combination of factors would likely need to occur:

• Continued “Weaponization” of the Dollar: If the US continues to use sanctions and financial restrictions frequently, it will accelerate the search for alternatives, as countries seek to reduce their vulnerability.
• Persistent US Fiscal and Debt Concerns: A sustained loss of confidence in the US government’s ability to manage its debt and deficits could erode trust in the dollar’s long-term stability.
• Decline in US Economic Competitiveness: A significant and sustained decline in the relative size and dynamism of the US economy compared to other major blocs.
• Emergence of a Strong, Stable, and Liquid Alternative: This is the most challenging hurdle. A potential replacement would need:
  • A large, stable economy to back it.
  • Deep, liquid, and open financial markets for easy trading and investment.
  • Independent and transparent institutions that inspire global trust.
  • Full convertibility with no capital controls.

When and by Whom?

It’s highly unlikely to be a sudden event. Historically, shifts in reserve currencies have been gradual, occurring over decades. The British pound’s decline and the dollar’s ascent took many years, with an “interregnum” where neither was fully dominant.

Here’s a breakdown of potential scenarios and contenders:

• Gradual Multipolarity (Most Likely): Instead of a single replacement, the world could move towards a more multipolar currency system. This means:
  • The Euro: Already the second-largest reserve currency. Its main challenges are political fragmentation within the Eurozone and the lack of a fully integrated capital market. However, efforts to strengthen European financial integration could boost its role.
  • The Chinese Renminbi (Yuan): China’s economic size is immense, and it’s actively promoting the yuan’s internationalization through trade agreements, swap lines, and its digital currency (e-CNY). However, its major hurdles are capital controls, lack of full convertibility, limited transparency of its financial markets, and concerns about the rule of law. If China were to significantly liberalize its financial system and address these issues, the yuan’s role could grow considerably.
  • A Basket of Currencies / SDRs: Some propose a system based on the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights (SDRs), which is a basket of major currencies (currently including the dollar, euro, yuan, yen, and pound). This could offer a more stable alternative, but it would require significant international cooperation and agreement.
  • Other Currencies: Smaller, stable economies with strong fundamentals, like the Japanese Yen, British Pound, Canadian Dollar, or even the Norwegian Krone, could see increased roles as reserve assets, but are unlikely to challenge the dollar’s overall dominance alone due to the relative size of their economies and financial markets.
  • Gold and Commodities: A return to commodity-backed currencies is generally seen as impractical for a modern global economy. However, central banks are increasing their gold reserves, suggesting a desire for diversification away from fiat currencies.
• Accelerated Decline (Less Likely, but Possible): A rapid decline could be triggered by a severe and prolonged US economic crisis, a loss of confidence in US political stability, or a series of policy missteps that actively undermine the dollar’s credibility. In such a scenario, the transition could be more disruptive.

Timeline:

Most analysts suggest that any significant shift in the dollar’s dominance would unfold over decades, not years. The dollar’s share in global foreign exchange reserves has slowly declined from over 70% in 2000 to around 58% in 2024, indicating a very gradual trend.

In summary, the dollar’s dominance is not immutable, and forces are at play that could gradually erode it. However, a complete and rapid replacement by a single other currency is highly improbable in the foreseeable future. A more likely outcome is a multipolar currency system where several currencies play significant international roles, with the dollar potentially retaining a leading, though less overwhelming, position.

India is indeed “targeting” Turkey, or at least responding strongly to Turkey’s perceived pro-Pakistan stance, particularly after incidents like the Pahalgam attack and India’s “Operation Sindoor” in May 2025. This “targeting” is not a military one, but rather a diplomatic and economic pushback aimed at signaling India’s displeasure and seeking to influence Turkey’s foreign policy.

Here’s how India is doing it:

1. Diplomatic Condemnation and Strong Messaging:

• Direct Public Statements: The Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has issued strong, public statements urging Turkey to press Pakistan to end its support for cross-border terrorism. MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal, for instance, explicitly stated that “relations are built on the basis of sensitivities,” signaling that Turkey’s stance on Pakistan’s role in terrorism is a critical factor in their diplomatic ties.
• Emphasizing “Mutual Sensitivity”: India has consistently highlighted that bilateral relations must be grounded in mutual sensitivity to each other’s core concerns. This is a clear diplomatic signal that Turkey’s vocal support for Pakistan on issues like Kashmir and its condemnation of Indian actions are seen as insensitive to India’s national security interests.
• Deferring Diplomatic Engagements: India has shown its displeasure by taking actions like indefinitely deferring the ceremony for the Turkish Ambassador-designate to present his Letter of Credence to India’s President. This is a significant diplomatic snub.

2. Economic Pressure and “Boycott Turkey” Campaigns:

• Revocation of Security Clearances: India has revoked the security clearance for Turkish ground-handling company Celebi Airport Services India, citing “national security concerns.” Celebi was a major player operating at several Indian airports, and this move sent a strong economic signal. While Celebi has challenged this in court, the intent from India’s side is clear.
• Calls for Trade Boycott: Following Turkey’s stance, there have been widespread public and trade-body-led “Boycott Turkey” campaigns in India.
  • Consumer Boycotts: Indians have been urged to boycott Turkish-origin goods, including popular items like apples, marble, chocolates, and skincare products.
  • Tourism Boycotts: Turkey is a popular holiday destination for Indians. Travel portals like EaseMyTrip and Ixigo have issued advisories against non-essential travel to Turkey, and some have even suspended flight and hotel bookings or promotions for Turkish destinations. This aims to hit Turkey’s tourism sector, a significant part of its economy.
  • Trader Action: Organizations like the Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) have called for a complete halt to imports and exports with Turkey and a freeze on business deals. This has reportedly led to a decline in Turkish exports to India.
• Review of Turkish Investments and Projects: The Indian government is reportedly reviewing both active and completed Turkish-linked projects in India, particularly in infrastructure and strategic sectors, considering a “gradual and economic disengagement.”

3. Counter-balancing Alliances and Strategic Realignment:

• Deepening Ties with Turkey’s Regional Rivals: To counter Turkey’s growing influence and its alliance with Pakistan and Azerbaijan (the “Three Brothers” nexus), India has been actively strengthening its defense and strategic ties with countries that have strained relations with Turkey. These include:
  • Armenia: India has emerged as a significant defense supplier to Armenia, especially after the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict where Turkey and Azerbaijan supported Azerbaijan. India has supplied indigenous air defense systems (Akash) and other military equipment.
  • Greece and Cyprus: India is also enhancing cooperation with Greece and Cyprus, both of whom have long-standing disputes with Turkey.
  • UAE and Israel: India’s close and growing partnerships with the UAE and Israel are also seen in part as a counter to Turkey’s pan-Islamist and pro-Pakistan narrative.
• Leveraging Multilateral Forums: While India strives for strategic autonomy, it also uses its presence in global forums like the G20 to engage with countries and subtly counter narratives that are detrimental to its interests. The India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) is also seen as a project that bypasses Turkey, undercutting its traditional role as a land bridge between Europe and Asia.

India’s actions reflect a clear message that Turkey’s overt support for Pakistan on issues sensitive to India, particularly cross-border terrorism and Kashmir, will have consequences for bilateral relations, both diplomatically and economically. India is leveraging its growing economic clout and strategic partnerships to exert pressure and safeguard its national interests.

The accusation of India being a “Trojan Horse” for the US and Israel within BRICS stems from observations about India’s evolving foreign policy and its perceived balancing act between different global power blocs. Here’s a breakdown of the reasons behind this perception:

1. Deepening Ties with the US and Israel:

• Strategic Partnerships: Over the past two decades, India has significantly strengthened its strategic ties with the United States, particularly in defense, technology, and intelligence sharing. This is evident in platforms like the Quad (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue) which includes the US, Japan, Australia, and India, often seen as a counter-balance to China’s growing influence in the Indo-Pacific.
• Defense Cooperation: India has become a major buyer of US and Israeli defense equipment, and there’s increasing collaboration in defense production and technology transfer. For example, India has robust defense and technology partnerships with Israel, including joint ventures and arms exports from Israel to India.
• Economic Alignment: India’s economic liberalization since the 1990s has led to deeper integration with the Western-led global economic system, including strong trade and investment ties with the US and its allies. India has also shown little interest in developing a common BRICS currency to replace the US dollar, preferring instead to promote trade in national currencies, which aligns with Washington’s interests.
• Middle East Policy: India’s increasingly pro-Israel stance, particularly visible in its diplomatic positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (e.g., abstaining from certain UN resolutions condemning Israel’s actions in Gaza), is seen by some as aligning with US and Israeli interests and diverging from the more critical stance of many other Global South and BRICS nations. This has raised questions about India’s self-proclaimed leadership of the Global South.

2. Divergence from BRICS’ Anti-Western Narrative:

• BRICS’ Aims: BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and its newer members) was formed, in part, to challenge the Western-dominated global order, including institutions like the IMF and World Bank, and to promote a more multipolar world. Some members, particularly Russia and China, view the bloc as a means to counter US hegemony.
• India’s “Multi-Alignment” Strategy: India, however, pursues a foreign policy of “multi-alignment” or “strategic autonomy.” This means it seeks to maintain good relations with all major powers and groups, including the US, Russia, and China, without fully aligning with any single bloc. This approach allows India to pursue its national interests, but it can appear contradictory to those who see BRICS as an anti-Western front.
• Slowing BRICS Expansion: India has been perceived as cautious about rapid BRICS expansion, partly to manage China’s influence within the bloc and to prevent it from becoming overly anti-Western.
• Disputes within BRICS: There are inherent differences and rivalries within BRICS, particularly between India and China, regarding border disputes and regional influence. India’s active participation in US-led initiatives like the Quad can be seen as a hedge against China, which is a prominent member of BRICS.

3. “Trojan Horse” Metaphor:

The “Trojan Horse” metaphor implies that India, while ostensibly part of BRICS, is subtly working to further the interests of the US and Israel, potentially undermining the bloc’s stated goals of challenging Western hegemony or promoting a truly alternative global order. This perception often arises from:

• India’s reluctance to condemn US/Israel: When BRICS declarations condemn actions by the US or Israel, India’s own official statements often tend to be more nuanced, milder, or even abstentions, leading some to believe it’s holding back due to its ties with these countries.
• Pursuit of separate interests: While BRICS aims to foster a collective vision, India’s actions are often interpreted as prioritizing its bilateral relationships and strategic autonomy over a unified BRICS front, especially when those bilateral ties are with Western powers.

It’s important to note that India views its foreign policy as one of strategic autonomy, aimed at maximizing its national interests in a complex global environment. It participates in BRICS to enhance its global leadership, promote multipolarity, and secure economic benefits, while also engaging with Western powers for security, technology, and economic opportunities. The “Trojan Horse” label reflects the tension and differing expectations among BRICS members regarding the bloc’s geopolitical orientation.

China’s new mega-dam project on the Brahmaputra River (Yarlung Zangbo in Tibet) could significantly affect India in several ways, raising concerns about water security, environmental impact, and geopolitical stability. Here’s a breakdown:

1. Water Flow Alteration and Water Security:

• Reduced Water Availability (Dry Season): While China insists the dam won’t harm downstream countries, India fears that the dam’s operation to meet China’s electricity needs could alter the natural seasonal flow. This could lead to reduced water flow in the Brahmaputra during the dry season, impacting agricultural irrigation, drinking water supply, and river navigation in India’s northeastern states like Arunachal Pradesh and Assam, and subsequently Bangladesh.
• Increased Flood Risk (Monsoon Season): Conversely, sudden releases of large volumes of water from the dam during the monsoon season could exacerbate flooding in already flood-prone regions of India and Bangladesh. This could devastate crops, displace populations, and cause significant infrastructure damage.
• Impact on Hydropower Projects: India has its own plans for hydropower projects on the Brahmaputra and its tributaries. Unpredictable water flow from China’s upstream dams could affect the viability and output of these Indian projects.

2. Environmental and Ecological Impacts:

• Sedimentation: Rivers like the Brahmaputra carry vast amounts of nutrient-rich sediment that are crucial for maintaining the fertility of downstream floodplains and deltas. Dams trap this sediment, potentially leading to a reduction in soil fertility, impacting agriculture, and increasing coastal erosion in the delta region.
• Biodiversity Loss: Altered water flow, temperature, and sediment loads can disrupt aquatic ecosystems, affecting fish migration, spawning patterns, and overall biodiversity. This could impact species like the Gangetic dolphin and other unique flora and fauna dependent on the Brahmaputra’s natural flow.
• Ecological Fragility of the Himalayan Region: The dam is located in a seismically active zone of the Himalayas. Large-scale infrastructure projects in such sensitive areas raise concerns about potential environmental disasters, including dam failure due to earthquakes, which could lead to catastrophic flooding downstream.
• Water Quality: Stagnant water in reservoirs can lead to changes in water temperature and oxygen levels, potentially affecting water quality and promoting the growth of algae blooms or accumulation of pollutants.

3. Geopolitical and Strategic Implications:

• Lack of Water-Sharing Treaty: A major point of contention is the absence of a comprehensive, binding water-sharing treaty between China and India regarding the Brahmaputra. This lack of a formal agreement fuels mistrust and makes India vulnerable to unilateral decisions by China.
• Strategic Leverage: India fears that China, as the upstream country, could use its control over the Brahmaputra’s water as a strategic tool or “water weapon” during periods of heightened tension or conflict, potentially causing artificial droughts or floods in Indian border regions. The 2017 Doklam standoff, when China reportedly withheld hydrological data, highlighted this concern.
• Increased Tensions and Mistrust: The dam project, especially given its scale and location near a disputed border (Arunachal Pradesh), further escalates existing geopolitical tensions between India and China.
• Impact on India-Bangladesh Relations: If India’s water security is affected, it could put a strain on its relations with Bangladesh, another downstream nation heavily dependent on the Brahmaputra’s waters. Bangladesh may look to China, potentially creating a new dynamic in regional alliances.

India’s Response:

India has consistently urged China to ensure that the interests of downstream states are not harmed. It is closely monitoring the project and has indicated it will take necessary measures to protect its interests. This includes:

• Diplomatic Engagement: India continues to engage with China through existing mechanisms, like the Expert Level Mechanism (ELM), to emphasize the need for transparency and data sharing.
• Developing its own Projects: India is also considering and developing its own hydropower projects on the Brahmaputra, such as the Siang Upper Multipurpose Project, partly as a “defense mechanism” to regulate water flow within its territory and ensure water security.
• Raising Awareness: Indian politicians and experts are vocally highlighting the potential risks to create international awareness and pressure on China for responsible transboundary river management.

While China asserts the dam will not have negative impacts, India’s concerns stem from the immense potential for disruption, the strategic implications of China’s upstream position, and the lack of a transparent, legally binding framework for water sharing.

Surveys from 2023 and 2024 indicate a significant level of dissatisfaction with the current democratic system in Pakistan.
According to a Gallup & Gilani Pakistan survey in 2024, only 17% of Pakistanis “strongly agree” that democracy is the best system of governance, despite its flaws. When including those who “somewhat agree,” the percentage rises to 38% (17% strongly agree + 21% somewhat agree). This marks a significant decline from 40% who strongly agreed in 2007.
A Gallup International study from 2023 found that Pakistan topped the list of countries most dissatisfied with democracy, with 38% disagreeing (strongly or somewhat) with the statement “Democracy may have its flaws, but it is the best system of governance?” Furthermore, 68% of Pakistanis disagreed (strongly or somewhat) that their country is ruled by the will of the people, and 45% disagreed that elections in their country are free and fair.
Overall, while a large majority of Pakistanis may endorse the idea of democracy, there is considerable dissatisfaction with how it is functioning in practice and a growing skepticism about its effectiveness as a system of governance in the country.