The year 2026 has marked a turning point in the history of the world economy, where the old equilibriums of stability have been replaced by a continuous “polycrisis.” The developments of the past week in the stock markets are not simply random fluctuations of numbers, but reflections of a deep tectonic transformation in the relations between great powers, technology and natural resources. The sudden fall of gold and silver in recent days marks the end of an era of euphoria for safe assets. This phenomenon is not explained only by the strengthening of the US dollar after the new 2appointments to the Federal Reserve, but also proves China’s new role as a “silent regulator” of global prices. By suspending strategic purchases, Beijing has shown that it can control the temperature of global markets with a single move, seemingly attempting to shift the center of decision-making from New York to Shanghai. In parallel, the cryptocurrency market, led by Bitcoin, is facing an identity crisis. Meanwhile, in the energy sector, we see a stark contrast: while natural gas remains hostage to Russia’s geopolitical games and new European sanctions, oil is displaying unusual stability. This “oil paradox” is perhaps the clearest evidence of an oversupplied market, where ample American supply has overcome fears of conflict, creating an artificial shield against energy inflation.

The Fall of Gold and Silver: From Records to “Flash Crash”

After a 2025 in which gold broke every historical record (approaching $5,600 per ounce), the first week of February 2026 brought a violent correction. Gold fell by about $150–$170 per ounce within five trading days, while silver suffered a double-digit decline within a few hours. Why did this happen?

The nomination of Kevin Warsh to succeed Jerome Powell as head of the Federal Reserve (Fed) was not just a name change in President Trump’s new administration, but a veritable monetary “earthquake” that reshaped investor expectations overnight. In financial jargon, Warsh is labeled a prominent “hawk.” This term is used to describe monetary leaders who prioritize the fight against inflation and currency stability over short-term economic growth, advocating “expensive money” policies through high interest rates. Markets reacted quickly to this nomination because Warsh’s economic philosophy is based on a strict doctrine: reducing the Fed’s massive balance sheet and eliminating the excess liquidity that has fueled markets in recent years. When the market predicts that interest rates will stay “higher for longer,” U.S. Treasury bonds immediately become more attractive. This leads to an increase in demand for dollars, strengthening the US currency against all other currencies and, especially, against precious metals. This dynamic created a “pincer” effect for gold.

First, since gold is quoted in dollars, a stronger dollar automatically makes gold more expensive for buyers using other currencies (such as the euro or the yuan), reducing global demand.

Second, gold is a non-yielding asset. In an environment where Kevin Warsh can keep interest rates high, investors prefer to shift their capital toward interest-bearing accounts or government bonds, which offer safe and tangible profits, unlike gold, which depends only on price increases. Furthermore, Warsh’s warning of a smaller central bank balance sheet means less money in circulation, which directly hits the narrative of gold as a hedge against currency depreciation. As a result, investors’ confidence in “gold as a safe haven” was shaken, causing the massive sell-off we saw this week, where capital shifted massively toward US monetary assets, leaving gold in search of a new supportive “floor.”

Gold’s dramatic decline this week was not only the result of geopolitical news, but also the result of a “chain reaction” caused by technical liquidations behind the scenes of stock exchanges. For months, optimism around gold had pushed hedge funds and institutional investors to accumulate “long” positions at record levels. This accumulation created an “inflated” market, where almost all participants were betting on growth, leaving the market structure extremely fragile to any negative swings. When the price of gold broke the technical limit of $5,500 per ounce, the “domino” effect began. Many investors trade using leverage, which means they borrow money from brokers to buy more gold. When the value of gold fell below a critical threshold, brokers urgently asked investors to deposit additional money to cover losses. Unable to find quick liquidity, many funds were forced to close their positions, forcibly selling their gold holdings, and even other assets such as silver or Bitcoin, to pay off their liabilities. This process, known as forced liquidation, turned a normal price correction into a technical “crash,” where selling was no longer driven by economic logic but by the mechanical need for financial survival.

China’s role in the gold market over the past two years has been that of a “global wholesaler” dictating the pace of growth. During 2024–2025, the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) embarked on an aggressive gold accumulation campaign, adding hundreds of tons to its reserves as part of a broader strategy to “de-dollarize” the economy. This unwavering demand served as a solid floor for the price of gold because whenever Western markets faltered, Chinese buying kept the price steadily rising. However, this week, that support faded as Beijing gave clear signals of a slowdown in strategic buying. By withdrawing from the gold market, China is preserving liquidity to protect the yuan from depreciation in the face of an increasingly strong dollar. This “withdrawal” of the world’s largest buyer created a demand vacuum, leaving traders who were accustomed to having a bottomless cushion without protection. Without the “Chinese guarantee,” gold was left totally exposed to the strength of the dollar and the massive sell-off on Western stock exchanges. On the other hand, without Chinese demand, gold does not have the strength to maintain its high levels. This was proven by the actions of the last two days by the Chinese side, which, through the statements and instructions of its central bank, seeks to restore the increase in the price of gold. The influencing game is obvious.

This policy, for other reasons, also affected silver. The dominance in silver was conditioned by the green technology used in China. Unlike gold, silver is an industrial metal. China controls over 60% of the world’s solar panel production and is a leader in electric vehicle (EV) batteries. Why did silver fall? Due to the slowdown in the real estate sector in China and an excess of solar panel production. China has produced so many panels that the demand for new silver has temporarily fallen. China is no longer just a consumer, but has become the “price maker.” For the first time in 2026, major metal price movements are occurring during Asian trading hours. China, on the other hand, is exporting deflation. China is using its position as the largest buyer to keep raw material prices at levels that interest its industry. The decline in gold and silver this week is evidence of a temporary shift in the economic center of gravity from Wall Street to Shanghai.

The “Anti-Dollar” Strategy and the Fall of Cryptocurrencies

Bitcoin’s fall this week seems to have an indirect but strong connection to China. China is pushing the use of the digital yuan (e-CNY) and cross-border payment systems that bypass the SWIFT system. Whenever China tightens rules on “secret Bitcoin mining” or the movement of capital abroad through stablecoins (like USDT), the crypto market suffers a shock. This week, rumors of stricter controls on capital flows in Hong Kong (which serves as a “bridge” between China and crypto) exerted significant selling pressure on Bitcoin.

China’s strategy in relation to the dollar and digital assets is not simply a technological issue, but a well-calculated geopolitical move to create a parallel financial architecture that seeks to escape US dominance. At the heart of this process lies Beijing’s ambition to replace “dollar hegemony” with a system based on digital monetary sovereignty and strict control of capital flows. The main pillar of this strategy is the digital yuan (e-CNY), unlike Bitcoin, which is decentralized and difficult for the state to control, e-CNY is a digital currency issued by the central bank (CBDC), transforming it from an experimental tool into a core component of the banking system. This tool allows China to conduct international transactions directly with its partners (such as Russia, Saudi Arabia or ASEAN countries) without the need for the SWIFT system, which is controlled by the West. This is the “trump card” of the anti-dollar strategy: creating a fast lane for oil and commodity trade to bypass Washington’s hands altogether.

In this scheme, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin are seen by China more as a threat than as an asset. Why? Because Bitcoin and stablecoins (like USDT, which is pegged to the dollar) allow Chinese capital to “flow” out of the country in an uncontrolled manner. This week showed that Beijing has no intention of tolerating Bitcoin’s monetary competition, and the strict intervention to block the launch of stablecoins in Hong Kong proved that China wants innovation only on its own terms. By hitting the “bridges” that connect China to the global crypto market, it is forcing users and traders to turn to state-owned systems. Consequently, Bitcoin’s decline this week is a reflection of this Chinese pressure. Essentially, for Beijing, the fight against the dollar is not about freeing the market, but about shifting the center of control from the Federal Reserve to the People’s Bank of China. Will the US allow this?

Between sanctions and blackmail: The European gas odyssey in the shadow of Moscow’s moves

During this first week of February 2026, the natural gas market in Europe has become a real battlefield of nerves, where prices have jumped feverishly between uncertainty and cold geopolitical strategy. At the center of this drama is once again Russia, which is playing the “last move” of its energy chess with the European Union, before the new REPowerEU regulations come into force in full.

Russia, feeling that its leverage over pipelines is crumbling, has changed tactics, focusing on liquefied natural gas (LNG). Thus, as soon as prices on the Dutch TTF exchange were trying to stabilize, news of the redirection of Russian LNG ships to Asian ports immediately caused “sparks” of growth. This is a psychological manipulation of the market. Moscow is reminding Europe that, while it can live without pipeline gas, any small shortage in the global LNG market will cost the European consumer dearly. Russia’s role this week has been that of a provocateur rather than a peacemaker. However, this game no longer has the striking force of 2022. Europe is better prepared today, with full storage tanks and new regasification terminals. Consequently, this week’s fluctuations showed that Russia can no longer dictate the long-term trend, but can cause short-term “headaches,” forcing European buyers to pay a risk premium just to ensure calm at the end of winter. At the end of the week, the price of gas suffered a slight drop, not because Russia withdrew, but because the market realized that the global glut and the relatively mild winter are making Russian energy blackmail increasingly less effective. Russia is finally losing its status as the “key” to European energy, turning into a player that can only muddy the waters, but not change the direction of the current.

“Gas dances” but oil remains constant

Even though there is unrest in the Middle East or sanctions against Russia, oil is not rising because China is buying less than expected. The market thinks: “If China is not consuming, why should the price increase?” This factor keeps the price of oil “frozen” regardless of geopolitics. China is the largest importer of oil in the world. Its economy is going through a deflationary phase (falling prices and consumption). To understand why oil remains the “island of calm” in the midst of a storm that has engulfed gold, Bitcoin and gas, we need to analyze a new balance of power between the two largest producers and consumers in the world: the United States and China. While traditional logic dictates that geopolitical unrest should push the price of Brent oil toward $100, this week we have seen stubborn stability around the $55–60 level. This phenomenon is not a coincidence, but the result of a “flood” of American supply and a “cooling” of the Chinese engine.

On one side of the equation is the United States, which in 2026 broke every historical production record. Thanks to advanced oil extraction technology and an aggressive policy of the new administration for “energy dominance,” the US is pumping over 14 million barrels per day. This massive increase has created a “liquidity shield” in the market. Whenever there is tension in the Middle East or a move by Russia, American oil floods global markets, neutralizing any attempt by OPEC+ to raise prices through production cuts. For investors, the presence of the US as the number one producer has eliminated what is called a “risk premium”; the market no longer fears a physical shortage of oil.

On the other side of the equation, China is exerting silent but powerful downward pressure. As the world’s largest importer of oil, Chinese demand is the compass for prices. However, this week it was confirmed that the Chinese economy is going through a painful transformation. The massive shift to electric vehicles (EVs) and a slowdown in the construction sector have caused China’s thirst for oil to reach its peak earlier than expected. When China buys less, the global market feels “saturated.” Even if there is unrest, the fact that the world’s largest buyer is not rushing to replenish reserves keeps prices anchored. This stability is effectively an “energy cold war” between Washington and Beijing. The US is using cheap oil as a means to keep domestic inflation low and weaken the revenues of Russia and Iran. On the other hand, China is exploiting this stability to increase its strategic reserves at low cost, without shaking the market. Moreover, the stability of oil this week is also explained by the fall of Bitcoin and gold; investors fleeing speculative assets are not finding refuge in oil, because it is now seen as an abundant industrial commodity and no longer as a rare asset.

In conclusion, oil is not moving because we have a clash of equal forces: the record supply of the US is stifling any attempt at growth, while the structurally weakened demand of China is preventing any panic.

As can be seen, the old rules of economics are being rewritten under the pressure of geopolitics and technology. By observing the fall of gold, the fluctuations of gas and the stability of oil, we understand that we are witnessing the end of an era in which markets moved only according to the principle of supply and demand. Today, every movement on stock market charts is also a reflection of the battle for supremacy between the great powers.

***

So this week proved that success in future markets will not depend on luck, but on the ability to read the strategic moves of states. For an economist or a researcher in a university environment, the message is clear: innovation and entrepreneurship must develop by understanding this new global architecture, where energy security, monetary sovereignty and technology are inseparable. This is the new rule of the game, where stability is no longer the absence of conflict, but a fragile balance of forces.

*Academician, Prof. Dr Anastas Angjeli is an economy expert, former Minister and MP, founder and President of the Mediterranean University of Albania