When the Berlin Wall fell, the U.S. stood alone as the world’s leading superpower, dominating in military, economic, and political spheres. Fast forward 15 years, and there's a new challenger in town, but it might not be who you think. And this shift in global power dynamics could turn our lives upside down. but not in a good way. Let’s dive in and look at what’s happening to shake up the world’s status quo. To truly understand the power dynamics between the world’s largest economies today, we need to rewind the clock all the way back to the Cold War and find out what really makes a superpower In the mid-20th century, the two largest economies in the world were the Soviet Union and the United States. They were creating entire geopolitical blocks in their spheres of influence and guiding economies around them. This bipolar order was entrenched with the constant threat of nuclear war. This put the superpowers at odds with one another as both sought to wield military power and dominate the economic, scientific, and military playgrounds of the world. When the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia emerged as a shadow of its former economic and geopolitical self, pinning the blame for the new world order on the West, particularly the United States. While countries such as Japan and Germany stayed in the relatively comfortable top five spots, it was the United States that truly won, remaining as one of the world’s biggest economies and representing roughly a quarter of the entire world’s total GDP. Due to the U.S. having complete control over a huge chunk of the world’s money, it could inject those funds into a peacekeeping, or rather peace-inducing, force abroad. There was no other country that could field such a large military and transport it across the world as fast as the U.S. This gave the world’s sole superpower a truly global reach and the ability to influence others politically, ideologically, and economically. But the U.S. largely failed in that mission, and for three key reasons. First, Russia was the biggest and most important successor to the Soviet Union, and it was kept firmly out of the U.S. influence and the Western economy. Russia was stuck between trying to bring back its former territorial glory—as evidenced by Russia continuously instigating conflicts in former Soviet countries—and the overwhelming political and economic influence of both the U.S. and the neighboring European Union. Ultimately, the country has made several grave tactical errors that culminated in the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, a move that wiped 90% of its standing military and will likely set it back economically for the rest of the decade. Whether the West is truly responsible for Russia’s downfall is up for debate, but what isn’t, is that the US was unable to stop Russia despite Russia being outmatched by the US in virtually every way. The second aspect lies in China’s economic and industrial leap at the start of the 21st century. The country was greatly helped by the economic influence—and needs—of the West. With rampant capitalism encouraging Western powers to seek lower manufacturing costs, China realized its potential as a major manufacturer, which allowed it to become the world’s second largest economy by 2010. The U.S. was under the belief that capitalistic tendencies would influence China to become more like Western nations, and in turn, fall in line under the influence of the US. But the Chinese ultimately relinquished most of its ties to the West and tried to exert influence in its immediate vicinity and reclaim the territory it had previously lost. The growing conflict with Taiwan, where the U.S. military needs to keep a constant naval presence around the island China asserts is its own, has been a sore point for the Chinese geopolitical success for decades. Other Indo-Pacific countries such as India, Japan, and Australia have begun relying on the U.S. to “keep the peace” with China, forming an alliance called the Quad to counter it. But as China grows economically and becomes more independent of American trade—despite the two countries having more trade relations than ever—its new alliance with Russia might give China the last push it needs to officially look into staking serious claims in its surroundings. Finally, while the U.S.’s goal was to bring democracy to other countries, its internal policies have all but led to the failure of democracy within its own borders. As the political system in the U.S. became more and more favorable to the already rich, the wealth gap and income inequality in the country continued to increase. With the advancement of technology putting millions of Americans behind the curve as globalization makes them redundant, the U.S. leaders are no longer the beacons of trust and hope for the “common man.” As such, the U.S. has made moves towards more insular management and isolation, as evidenced by pulling a bulk of its military forces out of the Middle East in the past few years without achieving its stated goals. So we can see the US is slowly but surely losing its status as the world’s sole superpower, but what effects can we already see stemming from this change? And who is emerging as the next superpower? Mounting global issues, such as the crises in North Korea, Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel, are symptomatic of the problem of losing the US as the one global superpower. Now there are multiple countries exerting limited influence in their surroundings. However, even this is a simplification. In reality, there are three axes of the human experience where one or more countries or entities dominate. These separate and multipolar world orders are likely to carve out a new reality and could have significant ramifications for the global population moving forward. First, the security order is still being largely dominated by the U.S. While other countries have ramped up their military efforts, the U.S. is still the one country that can deploy its soldiers virtually anywhere, at any time and exert military pressure and influence globally. While other countries are mainly trying to shore up their immediate military influence. Consider the next three biggest contenders on the list: China, India, and Russia. China has been making significant advancements in its military technology and has unveiled multiple projects to counter U.S. air and naval power. However, the country’s actual technology levels are still lagging severely behind the competition. Take the newest stealth fighter, the Chengdu J-20 or “Mighty Dragon.” Although the aircraft is purported to be China’s answer to the fifth-generation fighters such as the American F-22s and F-35s or the Russian Su-57s, its actual capability is similar to fourth or earlier generations. The J-20s were introduced at a time where NATO was actively getting rid of its fourth-generation aircraft by donating them to Ukraine and replacing them with American fifth-gens, which is consequently developing sixth-generation aircraft as we speak. Additionally, the U.S. Marine Corps redesign planned to take effect in 2030 aims to directly refurbish that section of the U.S. military force into semi-independent littoral combat units that can exert significant air and naval control over the islands in the South and East China Seas. This would mean that China can only realistically aim to control its immediate vicinity militarily. Furthermore, Beijing is already bordered by the other two most powerful militaries in the world, with India sure to pose a significant threat of its own. India has made great strides militarily due to its participation in the Quad, the strategic military dialog that India participates in along with the US, Japan, and Australia. The country has also passed China in total population and has experienced rapid technological and geopolitical growth in recent years. As China moves to isolate itself against foreign influence, India has come to embrace it and will pose a serious security threat for China moving forward, especially as the two countries already have a bitter history over claims in the Himalayas. Finally, Russia’s previous military might has largely been dismantled by its paltry efforts in the Ukrainian invasion. With 315,000 troops either killed or injured, Russia has lost a majority of its pre-invasion military capacity and is now being forced to rebuild. The country’s economy is almost fully committed to the short-term goal of funding the war effort as gas and oil exports to China are only a fraction of their full potential. As a result, the country is basically sitting at the mercy of China to maintain its finances and faces the significant threat of collapsing politically if, or when, its military does. For now, the United States will keep being the largest military force on the planet. However, the country can no longer use this as leverage for economic and sociopolitical alignment, which is where the second axis—the economy—comes in. Economically, the U.S. and China are by far the biggest world economies, but neither has the capability to distance itself from the other. Despite waning political alliances, the two economies have only grown more intertwined over the years, hitting a record high in bilateral trade in 2022. The global market wants to utilize both American security and the rising Chinese economy, which has allowed for smaller markets to create zones that both countries have to fight over. For example, the European Union is by far the largest common market in the world, setting standards that global companies—whether from the U.S., China, or elsewhere—have to abide by to do business in Europe and reach lucrative EU trade deals. However, India, Japan, and the Middle East are all significant players in the economic field. Take for example, the proposed EU-Middle East-India economic corridor was announced at the 2023 G20 summit. Plans were proposed to create deeper economic ties between the three markets and bypass the bottleneck presented by the Suez Canal. Simultaneously, the corridor is a direct threat to China’s planned Belt and Road Initiative that targets these same markets. Consequently, the Middle East stands to gain the most from these plans, considering the two proposals not as opposites but as complementary economic incentives for the regions that could bring it up to par with other markets. The disparity between U.S. security and economic influences in the world has been a sore point for the U.S. in recent years, leading to flagging economic areas as potential security concerns. One of the first such decisions was the sweeping set of semiconductor export controls, which aimed to prevent U.S. companies from using foreign manufacturing platforms. The move was ultimately designed to limit China, Iran, Russia, and North Korea from accessing U.S.-borne chips and technology, but most chip magnates have significant holdings in China and rely on the country’s beneficial manufacturing climate. This means that the top chip companies will be forced between the U.S. economic and political benefits or the Chinese manufacturing ones. Many industry leaders are now warning that this move could have negative ripple effects. Since China is still one of the largest chip markets, the reduced income from the export ban could impede U.S. research funding and ultimately allow China to “catch up” in chipmaking technology, even if that point is decades away. Another U.S. government move that saw widespread media attention is the looming potential ban on TikTok for the American audience. The social media platform is operated by a Chinese-owned company, and the U.S. government wants to limit the influx of data from American users into China. While TikTok has roughly a year to comply with the law, which will almost undoubtedly be challenged in court and potentially delayed even longer, the country’s economy stands to lose significantly if the platform were to get banned. According to TikTok’s own statistics, it is used by an estimated 7 million U.S. businesses and over 150 million Americans. Considering the severance of organic traffic to those companies, the U.S. ban could cost the economy roughly $7 billion dollars for companies alone. The ban could also stifle the growing influencer industry, creating a paradigm shift in American marketing. Other countries have lukewarm commitments to following the same standards as the U.S. While the EU aligns itself with some American proposals, its lack of unified military means that it stands more to gain by disentangling security and economic issues. As such, the economic world order would likely have multiple countries or economic entities, such as the EU, vying for more control as they try to ensure that the securities of the world’s greatest powers can’t dictate other countries’ economic policies. So if a single country won’t emerge as the world’s next superpower due to economic or military power, then what will give them that edge? Between the push and pull of these two world orders, a new one is emerging. It’s the digital world order, and it’s guided not by countries or governments, but by corporations. And it could mean the effective end of borders or a complete reinforcement of them. The biggest technology companies have already been a turning point in the major conflicts of the 21st century. Consider their impact on the current Russian invasion of Ukraine. NATO has been largely responsible for training the Ukrainian military and providing it with key equipment to physically defend its territory. However, without access to cybersecurity measures and modern communications devices provided by tech companies, Russian cyberattacks on Ukrainian communications channels could leave Ukraine wide open and in the dark about Russian army movements. Some companies have suspended their operations and exports to Russia, preventing Moscow from being able to utilize vital resources and funding that the companies provide via taxes and expenditure. For example, Apple suspended map support and its payment platform in Russia and removed vital Russian news outlets from its App Store outside of Russian territory. Google has also disabled live views of Ukrainian soil, hampering Russia’s ability to assess key targets. Even Chinese companies were largely ambivalent about the conflict or ended up siding with Ukraine. Without the tech company support, Ukraine might not have been able to turn what was meant to be a blitzkrieg into a prolonged war of attrition. And if Russia won the war single-handedly, the entire geopolitical situation between NATO, Russia, and China would’ve been turned on its head. Russia could exert significant military and economic influence on Western Europe, keeping its economy focused on industrial and technological growth rather than military upkeep. And China might not have been able to leverage cheap Russian oil and gas, remaining dependent on U.S.-monitored naval trade routes between the Suez and Strait of Malacca. But the reach of global tech companies goes beyond military efforts. Modern communication options are what allow Donald Trump to mount a successful presidential campaign and speak in real time to millions of Americans about dropping out of NATO and imposing more isolationist policies. They allow people to come together and plan for government-toppling protests, such as the January 2023 incursion on Capitol, the trucker protests in Canada, the revolt in Brazil, or the anti-government protests in the formerly Soviet Kazakhstan. The tech companies effectively have the power to corral masses into unified action, directing the flow of information, or in many cases disinformation, for their own goals. Tech companies now arguably have more control over major decisions in a country than its actual citizens, and can also directly control how users interact with the rest of the world through them. For example, major political campaigns can leverage enormous data pools that big tech companies have to target specific groups with precisely controlled political messaging and propaganda. Then, those platforms can seamlessly curate the content shown to the user to create an “echo chamber” or a micro-environment that can reinforce existing beliefs or sway them towards the desired rhetoric. If successful, tech companies can effectively control how people vote and who they vote for. During the 2016 U.S. presidential elections, the political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica acquired personal data from millions of Facebook users without consent. Worryingly, it was used to target American voters with political advertising, raising concerns about privacy and the ethical use of data in elections. This isn’t only a national issue, as international companies often perform targeted propaganda attacks for foreign presidential campaigns. Russian Oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin admitted that Russia has been interfering with the U.S. elections and would continue to do so. The main method of attack is through “troll farms,” groups of accounts specifically made to perpetuate a Russia-favored prerogative and disseminate it to U.S. citizens. The tech companies that own the communication platforms used in these attacks often have little control or incentive to stop them until the problem is so widespread it impacts revenue or reputation. Considering the sheer scale of the attacks, it’s highly likely that the problem just circulates between the most popular and effective platforms once they can figure out how to skirt their protective measures. Furthermore, tech companies are actively becoming some of the biggest players in the global economy, with market valuations in trillions, on par and in many cases larger than some countries. At the same time, the current political landscape in the U.S. allows large corporations to avoid paying most of their federal income taxes. This means that the U.S. government is losing tens of billions of dollars in tax income, putting significant strains on other sources of income, such as personal income taxation or smaller businesses, to make up for that loss. In fact, instead of paying corporate taxes, many corporations actively get tax breaks or government funding programs, creating an actual expense for the government. Additionally, corporations typically have much greater control over the American administrative and legal system. Corporate lobbying can actively redirect and impede the U.S. government’s efforts to control corporations within its borders. While a significant change would require a massive, one-sided effort from the American government, the current multi-faceted lobbying system with an incredibly competitive environment makes enacting these changes difficult. Until the entire corporate system is overhauled, the U.S. government will continue to increasingly favor the interests of large corporations such as tech companies over the needs of its citizens. These corporations typically have the resources necessary to hire adequate personnel who can navigate through the American legal system. In addition, they also regularly invest in academic research and think tanks that shape the intellectual environment in their industry to suit their interests. This means that tech companies effectively can take control over the country from the ground up. Beyond political control, tech companies have the power to shape people’s minds and identities. The average American spends more than one hour a day on TikTok. The social media platform uses an algorithm to present content to the viewer. While the algorithm is supposedly using the user’s history, there’s no way for anyone to know how the content is actually placed into the user’s feed without direct insight into the process. That means that the algorithm developed by a tech company can direct what part of the world politics, ideology, or trends any given person is subjected to. The upcoming generation isn’t being brought up entirely by their parents, peers, and the immediate environment. Some studies suggest that children as young as three are being regularly exposed to social media, allowing tech companies significant influence on rearing the newest voters from a young age. Once exposed to this form of media made addictive by algorithms and trends, people brought up with constant access to technology will push to integrate it even more into their futures. This allows tech companies to remain perpetually in control over human lives. Overall, tech companies can make meaningful, civilization-changing decisions due to their ability to influence both local and international economics and geopolitics. This will likely lead to one of three possible scenarios. If the U.S. and Chinese governments manage to wrest control over their corporations and the tech companies align their policies with their home governments, the world could see a scenario similar to the Cold War transfer to the digital sphere. Each country in the world will have to pick one of a select few major platforms and be completely inundated with its ideology while remaining relatively ignorant or wary of others. The digital fragmentation will be followed by economic and political shifts, reversing globalization and creating relatively independent areas of influence dominated by the U.S., China, or whichever country holds the headquarters for the next biggest tech company. Tech companies may forgo this alignment and push for independent competition between the digital and physical spheres. They will only look at global growth strategies in their own industry. In turn, the economic and security world orders will be joined by a globalized digital world order dominated by them. This would create competition between the country governments and the biggest corporations. Since geopolitics and profits typically go hand-in-hand, corporations likely would never be able to completely ignore governmental policies or international events. Furthermore, since corporations in the Western world have far more influence than in China, the digital world order would likely heavily impede upon the others. And this leads to the last possible scenario in which the potential next global superpower emerges, as tech companies actively overwhelm the local governments and control global economics. It would lead to the digital sphere completely dominating the physical one, resulting in a new type of superpower, a potentially global multipolar technocracy where the tech companies effectively emulate physical governments. But should this come to pass, what would change? Interestingly, the actual effect it would have on the global economy is unlikely to be much different from the current situation, as it would change relatively little in the number of players and the key driving factors behind major policies. What real difference would it mean for the majority of the global population if power was split between the US and Chinese governments, or US and Chinese based global corporations? Only time will tell. But what do you think? Can countries retain their status as superpowers independent of the major tech companies? What is the next world order going to look like? Leave a comment below to let us know and thank you for watching the video.