Introduction
Five Cents explores Who Really Runs the World by looking beyond the tempting idea that one country, company, or institution sits at the controls. We’ll look at military reach, financial networks, technology chokepoints, energy supply chains, and the alliances that turn resources into influence. The useful question is not who looks strongest on paper, but who can make others change course when it matters.
Power is the ability to shape another actor’s choices
Power is the ability to shape another actor’s choices. Sometimes that means coercion: raising the cost of resistance through force, sanctions, or blocked access. Sometimes it means offering something others need, from market access and investment to security guarantees and advanced technology. And sometimes it means writing the rules: setting technical standards, controlling a voting process, or deciding which issues reach the negotiating table.
That makes global power less like a throne and more like a network. A country with a vast economy may have broad influence but struggle to act quickly. A smaller state can become crucial if it sits beside a shipping route, processes a scarce mineral, or holds a decisive vote. Companies can run systems used by billions, yet still depend on governments for legal protection, electricity, workers, licences, and physical security. Start with dependence, and the picture gets clearer.
Military power is still the most visible form of leverage. The United States maintains a global network of bases and alliances. China has expanded its naval capacity and missile forces. Russia retains a large nuclear arsenal and has shown how military pressure can reshape regional security far beyond a battlefield.
But force has limits. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine demonstrated that military size does not guarantee a quick political outcome. Ukraine’s resistance, external military support, sanctions, logistics, and domestic resilience all changed the calculation. The same lesson applies to nuclear weapons. They can deter direct attack because the risk of escalation is so severe. But they are poor tools for governing territory, rebuilding an economy, or winning public consent.
A state may be able to threaten destruction without being able to produce a stable result. Military power matters most when it can be supplied, sustained, and linked to a realistic political goal. Financial power is often less dramatic and more persistent. The US dollar remains the leading currency in official reserves, commodity trade, and global finance. That gives Washington unusual reach when it uses sanctions or limits access to its financial system.
After Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine
After Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, restrictions on Russian central bank assets and parts of its financial access showed how quickly networks can become geopolitical tools. But centrality is not the same as total control. China has worked to expand the use of the renminbi in trade and cross-border payments. Other governments have also looked for ways to reduce exposure to sanctions or currency swings.
Building alternatives is difficult because global finance runs on trust, deep markets, legal certainty, and habits built over decades. Still, every new payment channel or trade arrangement can reduce dependence at the margins. Technology has created some of the sharpest modern chokepoints. Advanced semiconductors are designed by firms such as Nvidia, manufactured at leading facilities including those operated by TSMC, and made possible by highly specialised equipment from companies such as ASML.
No single actor owns the whole chain. That is exactly why it is so powerful. Each step depends on others, and replacing a missing link can take years. Governments understand this. Export controls on advanced chips and chipmaking tools have become a major part of strategic competition, especially around artificial intelligence and military capabilities.
The direct consequence reaches well beyond governments. It affects which companies can train the most powerful AI models, where data centres are built, how fast new devices reach consumers, and which countries can develop critical industries without relying on a rival.
Energy follows the same pattern. Oil and gas producers still hold influence, particularly when prices rise or supplies are disrupted. Yet the energy transition is shifting attention toward electricity grids, batteries, solar equipment, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt, and rare-earth processing. Having a mineral underground is useful. Refining it, manufacturing components, shipping them reliably, and connecting them to a functioning grid may be more valuable still.
What it means
A common mistake is to treat headline numbers as a power ranking. Gross domestic product does not automatically create leverage. A huge defence budget does not guarantee victory. A popular technology platform does not control governments. Real power depends on whether an asset is scarce, whether others can replace it, how quickly they can adapt, and what it costs the powerful actor to use that leverage.
Sanctions can hurt both sides. Export controls can accelerate local alternatives. Alliances can strengthen a member, but they also require compromise. So who really runs the world? No one does alone. Power is shared, contested, and highly specific to the problem at hand. Military force can deter. Finance can isolate. Technology can bottleneck. Energy can disrupt. Alliances can multiply strength, while institutions can make decisions more legitimate or harder to block.
To continue, you can generate Five Cents episodes on The Global Chip Supply Chain and How Sanctions Really Work. And with that, you're up to speed in a few minutes.