Feature: Oligarchs in Power
- Dirk Vandereyken
- Mar 14
- 6 min read
Updated: May 2
No, dedicating an entire article to oligarchs wasn't born out of coincidence. In recent history, the term has been most commonly linked to immensely wealthy Russians, but truth be told, that association may be somewhat unfair and narrow-minded. The actual definition is, in fact, much broader and applies to any select group of individuals who have amassed enormous wealth, wield considerable influence, and – often – maintain close ties with political leaders. Politicians like former U.S. presidential candidate and social democratic activist Bernie Sanders have long warned about the alarming and unchecked rise of oligarchs across multiple continents – including his own – and it's time we examined this issue more closely.
Download the entire article in enriched PDF format
While the West celebrated the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the collapse undeniably plunged Russia into economic and political turmoil. During this period of instability, many state-owned companies were privatized – and, as one might expect, this process enabled a small group of individuals to significantly boost their personal fortunes. In the so-called 'wild 1990s,' financial heavyweights such as Roman Abramovich, Oleg Deripaska, and Mikhail Khodorkovsky expanded their wealth significantly, allowing them to wield greater economic power and deepen their political connections, influencing governance on an unprecedented scale.
Putin’s Iron Grip
Russian oligarchs appeared to have free rein until Vladimir Putin – now a daily presence in the news, sadly not for positive reasons – rose to power, seizing the opportunity to tighten his own economic and political control by making his rich subjects’ wealth and status contingent on loyalty to the Kremlin. A few, like Khodorkovsky, resisted their leader’s authoritarian tendencies. Invariably, they ended up not only losing their assets, but also being prosecuted. Those who did submit to the proverbial new tsar saw their empires expand – often with direct state backing – redefining the meaning of ‘oligarch.’ From that point onward, the economic might of these ultra-wealthy Russians became secondary to their political allegiance.
The American Divide
While we were growing accustomed to the phenomenon of the ultra-rich in post-Soviet states, oligarchic structures also took root in Western democracies. The United States stands out in particular, as the gap between the super-rich and the rest of the population has widened dramatically in recent decades. There’s a valid reason why Bernie Sanders frequently highlights the ‘top 1’, despite facing backlash and jokes – even from left-leaning talk show hosts – about his continuous criticisms of this group. The ‘1%’ Sanders references now possesses more wealth than the bottom 92% of the population combined. Even more striking is that 49% of all new income flows directly to this elite 1%.
To understand who truly holds power, one needs only to look at Donald Trump’s inauguration in January 2025. Seats traditionally reserved for top political figures were instead occupied by billionaires such as Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Sam Altman. They were joined by Sundar Pichai (CEO of Alphabet and Google, net worth $1.3 billion), Tim Cook (CEO of Apple, net worth $2.2 billion), Shou Zi Chew (CEO of TikTok), Bernard Arnault (CEO of French luxury conglomerate LVMH, net worth $191 billion), Mukesh Ambani (head of India's Reliance Industries, net worth $93 billion), and Miriam Adelson (widow of casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, net worth $31 billion).
Elon Musk
It’s easy to see why so many observers have been referring to Elon Musk as a ‘shadow president.’ The world’s richest man not only owns Tesla, SpaceX, and the social media platform X (formerly Twitter), but he is also able to exert unparalleled influence worldwide through his Starlink satellite network. For example, Musk can deploy his satellites to provide or deny military support, as demonstrated in Ukraine. Initially, Starlink’s service there was largely funded by SpaceX, but since June 2023, the U.S. Department of Defense has covered the costs, with Poland also contributing significantly by donating 19,500 of the 47,000 Starlink terminals delivered to Ukraine. In the fourth quarter, Starlink, partnering with Ukrainian mobile operator Kyivstar, will enable direct smartphone connections.
Musk has been a near-daily news fixture for years, recently making headlines for his push to integrate the digital currency Dogecoin into the federal payment system, potentially creating a parallel financial network bypassing traditional banks. He personally fuels the resurgence of conspiracy theories on X, and according to the independent fact-checker PolitiFact, which reviewed six key statements by the billionaire at the time of this writing, he hasn’t told the truth even once – not even partially. Musk delights in spreading biased falsehoods, influencing millions. With a single tweet, he has the power to sway financial markets and stock prices.
Perhaps most troubling, under the banner of free speech, Musk backs far-right parties in countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany. These groups seem to have been especially delighted by the double Hitler salute he enthusiastically performed for the cameras during Donald Trump’s inauguration on January 20. Though he claims it wasn’t a deliberate Nazi reference, his support for parties that (in some cases increasingly openly) embrace neo-Nazi ideology, coupled with the Nazi-related puns he’s since unleashed, certainly suggests that his fans, who are eager to point out Musk’s autism and awkward behavior, are wrong to defend a gesture that is outright banned in several countries.
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) initially said Musk’s gesture wasn’t necessarily a Nazi salute, calling it an ‘awkward move in a moment of excitement.’ It quickly backtracked when he began making Nazi-related jokes, prompting the ADL to label his actions ‘inappropriate’ and ‘highly offensive.’ Claims of a ‘Roman salute’ are unfounded (no evidence exists of Romans using such a gesture), and meanwhile, hundreds of videos on platforms like TikTok show Republican mothers proudly teaching their children to copy Musk’s salute. At the very least, it’s clear he has diminished the gravity of a gesture that is banned or punishable in many countries.
Jeff Bezos
With Amazon, Jeff Bezos has built one of the world’s largest companies and also owns the influential newspaper The Washington Post. During the recent presidential election, the paper had, as usual, prepared an endorsement – this time for Kamala Harris – but Bezos intervened. For the first time since 1988, the outlet announced it would not endorse any presidential candidate, a decision Bezos called the ‘right’ principled stance.
Bezos’ choice sparked significant internal unrest at the paper. Several editors resigned, over 250,000 subscribers canceled, and critics like former editor-in-chief Martin Baron accused him of cowardice, fearing Trump’s retaliation. Still, as noted earlier, this didn’t stop the Amazon chieftain from standing near the president during his inauguration.
Mark Zuckerberg
Through Meta (formerly Facebook), Mark Zuckerberg controls the world’s largest social media platforms, which have repeatedly been embroiled in scandals over data misuse and political influence. Various foreign powers and companies have leveraged Facebook ads and Instagram posts to sway elections, igniting a global debate about social media’s impact on democracy – one of the most simmering issues of our modern world.
Sam Altman
Sam Altman, one of the billionaires whose business was hit quite hard when it became clear that China’s DeepSeek AI is far cheaper than his OpenAI, is a major player in artificial intelligence. Having curried favor with figures like Donald Trump, Altman currently holds unprecedented sway over how AI is utilized and regulated – much more about that in a later article. With the AI revolution underway, AI agents on the horizon, and an AI race between companies and nations looming (if not already in full swing), his influence is far from trivial.
Our Own Backyard
While we may point fingers at countries far beyond our own borders, Belgium isn’t immune to oligarchic influence. Though less visible, Russian oligarchs do play a role here, investing in sectors like the gas stations of (you guessed it – Russian) oil company Lukoil. In one of our major cities, a certain Russian businessman was even said to have wielded political influence from his private club. Moreover, a handful of companies own a large share of our media landscape, raising concerns about the diversity and independence of our news. A healthy dose of vigilance seems essential, to say the least.
Global Impact
The reach of oligarchs extends beyond their home countries, with investments and activities often carrying global consequences. Russian oligarchs, for instance, hold significant stakes in Western nations – from real estate to sports teams. This international scope complicates government efforts to regulate their influence and raises questions about national sovereignty and economic security.
Similar patterns are emerging elsewhere. In China, ultra-wealthy entrepreneurs and party-loyal businessmen maintain close government ties, while in India, billionaires like Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Adani play growing roles in both the economy and politics.
Politicians struggle increasingly to resist these billionaires’ influence, especially in the U.S., where election campaigns rely heavily on donations. Former President Joe Biden’s recent warning about the threat of oligarchy in America is no empty rhetoric: when economic power is concentrated in the hands of a few, it directly undermines democracy. Whether our governments can preserve their independence remains highly uncertain. The fact that such political shifts were long predicted by science fiction writers – whose subgenre exploring megacorporations versus governments has thrived for years – shows how little we’ve learned from these thought experiments, which clearly held a vital yet wholly ignored predictive value. Why? We fear the answer is simple yet chilling: because those writers grasped a particularly unenviable facet of human nature. But we'll be covering that issue in another article.
Dirk Vandereyken
Comments