It would have stayed apolitical if no governments would have purchased it or talked about creating a bitcoin reserve. Since big corporations are buying it, especially in US, it's not apolitical anymore. Just like oil, countries have already started building their Bitcoin reserve. So it's not apolitical.
I share that slight
uncomfortable sentiment about governments' strategic reserves.
Now: in my case at least, that's related more to the issue of a government with a large Bitcoin reserve positioning itself in the case of a hard fork, just like Vitalik Buterin did in the ETC/ETH fork (Vitalik's ETH "reserve" was even larger than any strategic reserve of a country will be). And that could have consequences harmful for Bitcoin's value, for example in the case of a Bitcoin update which adds privacy -- and the government(s) not liking it.
But could a government use Bitcoin politically against internal or external adversaries? That's something I doubt.
One scenario that comes into mind: Country A is at war with Country B. Country A has large gold reserves and almost no BTC, while Country B has both gold and BTC reserves. Country B could thus manipulate the gold market using Bitcoin, for example selling their gold reserves to buy more Bitcoin, with the intention to devalue the gold reserves of the adversary. Basically a "pump and dump" on nation-state level.
However, even in such a case, Bitcoin itself would still be apolitical. The manipulation in this case would be political, but Country A could also be buying Bitcoin in this case once the manipulation has started and it would at least decrease the effect of the manipulation on its own reserves' value.