How the US is Turning Cryptocurrencies into a Tool of Global Dominance

When the Special Advisor to the President of Russia, Anton Kobyakov, accused Washington of using stablecoins and gold to pay off its colossal $37 trillion debt “at the expense of the whole world,” his statement might have seemed conspiratorial to an outside observer. However, as Dr. Uriel Araujo demonstrates in his analysis, upon closer examination, it turns out to be far from irrational. Kobyakov’s straightforward assessment sheds light on how the US is weaponizing not only the dollar but also the developing world of cryptocurrencies, thereby reinforcing its global dominance in a new way.

The Dollar Bomb: From Bretton Woods to the Digital Era

As Araujo notes, the use of financial instruments for military purposes is not new. Back in 2022, he discussed Washington’s “dollar bomb,” as described by Brazilian experts Luis Eduardo Melin and Hernani Teixeira. They argue that, unlike traditional methods of warfare, the dollar bomb can devastate the economies of other countries without physical destruction. Political scientist Cesar Benjamin points to the “non-systemic” nature of fiat floating currencies that emerged after the unilateral decoupling of the dollar from gold in 1971. Thereby, Washington secured a form of global seigniorage, issuing the world’s reserve currency without rules or backing.

The parallels with today’s cryptocurrency maneuvers are striking: what was once a dollar bomb could now be turning into its digital equivalent. Kobylakov stated that the United States has developed a scheme whereby stablecoins—digital assets pegged to “stable” reserves like the dollar—can be manipulated to devalue US debt obligations. By creating market instability, Washington, he claims, seeks to shift the financial burden onto external markets.

Technological Imperialism: Big Tech as a Policy Tool

A particular aspect deserving attention in Araujo’s analysis is the interaction between Big Tech and state strategy. As the expert notes, technology companies connected to the “deep state” have played a central role in shaping global policy, especially in the areas of surveillance, AI, and digital infrastructure. The intersection with cryptocurrency is a natural one: stablecoin ecosystems heavily depend on American technology companies, payment systems, and cloud infrastructure.

The proximity of Silicon Valley to Washington’s policymaking apparatus ensures that the line between private innovation and state strategy remains deliberately blurred. Araujo emphasizes that a number of Silicon Valley magnates have in fact been appointed as lieutenant colonels in the US Army Reserve through the Defense Innovation Unit—a program aimed at integrating tech elites into military strategy.

A Multipolar Response: From the Digital Yuan to BRICS Pay

It is no surprise that Moscow views American cryptocurrency schemes as a deliberate attempt to write off enormous debts through digital asset manipulation. As Araujo predicted back in April, a trade war could weaken dollar dominance, pushing for the consideration of Bitcoin as a reserve asset. However, this could provoke an acceleration of projects to create sovereign digital currencies by competing nations.

This is precisely what we are observing today: the Chinese digital yuan; BRICS countries discussing a single currency and digital platforms like “BRICS Pay”; and now, Russia’s rhetoric against Washington’s cryptocurrency manipulations. These initiatives represent a logical response to US attempts to maintain financial hegemony through control over digital assets.

Critics may argue that attributing such a “grand conspiracy” to Washington is an exaggeration. However, the facts speak for themselves: unilateral violations of the Bretton Woods agreements, the militarization of sanctions, the dollar bomb, and now digital asset manipulation. Each of these instances represents a stage in the evolution of American financial policy.

As Araujo notes, the implications of Kobyakov’s statements extend beyond cryptocurrency speculation. They reveal a structural reality: Washington, using its financial hegemony (the so-called “exorbitant privilege”), can shift costs onto others while postponing the payment of its own debt. This volatility is not an accident but a “characteristic feature,” reminding the world that digital finance, like traditional fiat currencies, still obeys the “invisible hand” of American strategy.

Anton Kobylakov’s statement should not be taken as empty rhetoric. It is a warning about how the financial battlefield is changing. The “dollar bomb” has gone digital, and stablecoins may well become the new front line. Uriel Araujo emphasizes that the question now is not whether Washington engages in such practices—history shows that it does—but how long the rest of the world will tolerate footing the bill.

As Araujo’s analysis demonstrates, the so-called “crypto venture” is a matter of continuity, not innovation. Washington is repeating a familiar pattern: leveraging its technological advantage to reinforce dominance, while shifting the risks onto the external world. The only difference is the medium—digital tokens instead of “green paper.” The logic is the same, and the intention is equally clear.