Western investors are expressing hesitation about attending Saudi Arabia’s upcoming Future Investment Initiative (FII) amid recent lethal attacks on the kingdom’s infrastructure, including its airports. This unease reflects broader doubts about the effectiveness of Saudi Arabia and its allies in containing the Houthi rebel group, which continues to conduct strikes despite significant military efforts.
This situation forms part of a wider global pattern in 2026, where smaller or less conventionally powerful actors frequently challenge or frustrate larger states. Ukraine’s ongoing resistance against Russia’s invasion, despite having a smaller population and no nuclear deterrent, exemplifies this trend. Similarly, the United States has faced setbacks in its dealings with Iran, a country many expected to falter under pressure but which has instead exposed vulnerabilities in U.S. forward military positions in the Gulf. France’s withdrawal in 2022 from its long-running counterinsurgency campaign in the Sahel also underscores the limits of traditional power projections.
Some analysts suggest that advances in military technology, which have lowered the cost and increased the lethality of weapons, empower smaller actors to inflict disproportionate challenges on larger powers. However, this phenomenon is not confined to military engagements. Diplomatic encounters reveal similar dynamics: the recent U.S.-Denmark agreement over Greenland, for instance, was more balanced than former President Donald Trump’s initial threats had implied, signaling limits on America’s leverage even over much smaller nations.
Economic disputes also illustrate this shift. During the Covid-19 pandemic, Australia’s call for a global inquiry into the virus's origins angered China, which retaliated with tariffs and trade restrictions. Despite its relatively modest population, Australia maintained a firm stance, excluding Chinese firms like Huawei from its 5G network while eventually stabilizing bilateral relations with only sectoral economic impacts.
Experts argue that the traditional measure of power—based on scale of military strength, GDP, or population—is increasingly inadequate. Smaller countries wield influence through strategic geographic positions, specialized industries (such as the Dutch company ASML), or accumulated expertise, as seen with Ukraine’s military knowledge. Moreover, the use of hard power has become restrained by concerns over moral and diplomatic backlash. For example, had force been used against Greenland following Trump’s annexation threats, the U.S. would likely have suffered severe reputational damage.
The perception of global power is further complicated by the reduced dominance of historically large nations. The United States now accounts for a smaller share of global economic output than in the post-World War II era, while China’s proportional size is also less commanding than sometimes assumed. Targeted sanctions and tariffs by these countries often prompt affected nations to seek alternative trade partners. Additionally, the finite availability of military, intelligence, and diplomatic resources limits the capacity of major powers like the U.S. and its allies, including Saudi Arabia, to enforce their influence globally.
The global landscape has become more decentralized and complex, with many analysts pointing to an emerging "middle-power" era. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has championed this shift, although many of these middling states possess illiberal tendencies.
Technology, particularly artificial intelligence, remains an area where U.S. and China continue to excel due to the substantial capital and market size required to compete. However, dominance in AI does not directly translate into geopolitical supremacy. The world’s geopolitical fabric is more fragmented and unpredictable than what a purely technological lens might suggest. While technological scale confers significant advantages in certain domains, traditional and multifaceted forms of power remain critical in the broader international order.