Recently, someone has been discussing an interesting question: if the US strategy were to adjust in the future, would the existing international order really change? This reflects a deeper issue—the long-term trajectory of US national strategy.

On the surface, policies may indeed undergo minor adjustments. In other words, rephrasing or slight modifications, but major moves? Almost none. More importantly, once international trust is broken, it’s hard to repair. Even if there is a genuine desire to revert, it’s not that easy.

What does historical data tell us? The policy recalibration over the past four years has not been as significant as imagined. The overall framework of trade restrictions has not fundamentally changed, and major actions like the withdrawal from Afghanistan are simply continuations of existing strategies. What does this indicate? It shows that US strategic contraction is not the idea of a single faction but a deep consensus across both parties. If you still fail to see this now, it’s truly a matter of information gap.

What is the core logic? The US dollar.

The US dollar is currently under unprecedented pressure. All visible measures—interest rate cuts, increasing money supply, expanding debt—point in the same direction: extracting as much value as possible before the dollar’s credit completely collapses. When a systemic financial crisis truly hits, what will be the outlook for US Treasuries, US stocks, and the dollar? This question is right in front of us. At that point, debts will either be repaid with devalued currency or simply default—such cases are not rare in history.

This also explains why there is suddenly a strong interest in certain geopolitical regions and resources. Taking advantage of the international order and dollar order that have been built over decades before they fully collapse—this is a race against time. Once the dollar truly crashes, it will be too late to act.

Many observers actually underestimate the coherence of US strategy. A series of actions since 2016—comprehensive withdrawal from overseas commitments, adopting a more conservative posture abroad, emphasizing domestic priority—are not impulsive but a grasp of the broader trend. The underlying logic of US geopolitics is changing; the national strategy is adjusting. Some leaders are merely riding this wave rather than creating it.

For those paying attention to global capital flows, what does this mean? It means ongoing pressure for dollar depreciation, with emerging market assets and safe-haven assets remaining in the spotlight for the long term. As an asset class independent of the traditional dollar system, cryptocurrencies’ role in this broader context deserves in-depth consideration.

Geopolitics is no longer just headline news; it is a force that genuinely influences global capital allocation.