It's silly to talk about goals - which is what the article is doing - while ignoring actual motivations, which are what the comment above reminds about.
If we were to discuss motivations it seems incredibly reductive to post a few links that paint a specific narrative rather than to focus on the whole picture.
I was convinced by the USofA politicians that Russia is "a gas station masquerading as a country" (Sen. John McCain, on the Senate floor nonetheless [1]) and that "Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbours, not out of strength but out of weakness" (POTUS Barack Obama [2]).
So, why is USofA obsessed with Russia, why is it even wasting its time on Russia? The US politicians must be right (and I really believe them; after after all, the US is the pinnacle in democracy and its representatives are all elected in free and democratic elections).
Even if rhetoric like “a gas station masquerading as a country” was literally true, plenty of non-state actors can be a significant threat to a nation.
And a regional power attacking others out of weakness, likewise, though without a dismissal of their existence as a nation.
Blackrock has thousands of funds, hedge funds, ETNs, subsidiaries resulting from acquisitions which have their own funds. It still matters that they are all under the control of Blackrock and this single entity may drive decisions at the board level through their different vehicles.
They basically own 10% of the DAX. Which is a massive concentration of power over german companies (and it must be similar in other countries).
To the point that if I was a regulator I would question whether it is ok to have a single entity (and the likes of Blackrock) have that much control over the country's corporate landscape.
It looks like they differ based on geographical location and how they are regulated. Two in Germany, two in the UK. Two are asset management companies, two are advisers.
People and countries outside the US don't use the dollar because of the US military, any more than they use the Swiss franc because of the Swiss military. They use both currencies (and the UK pound, and the Euro, and the Japanese yen) because decades of experience show that the countries that issue said currencies are the least likely to default on their financial obligations, and are most transparent about their own financials.
Russians and Chinese themselves avoid using their own countries' currencies when abroad as much as possible because they are most aware of this. To put another way, the primacy of the dollar isn't a supply issue (something that the US directly forces), but a demand issue (it's the currency everyone else prefers to use).
(This is where you'll bring up the "petrodollar". No, the petrodollar isn't real. Well, it's real in the sense that oil is, like almost every other product, usually denominated in US dollars when sold internationally. What's not real is the theory that the US has a particular need for (say) Iraq back in the day to denominate its oil sales in dollars, as opposed to Euro. Or that Venezuela attempting to denominate its oil in yuan today surely augurs the collapse of the US economy tomorrow.)
There is absolutely nothing stopping an American, Japanese, Iraqi, Venezuelan, Russian, Chinese, German, or Indonesian company in offering its products for sale to foreign customers in Canadian dollars, yen, renminbi, dinars, rubles, Euros, or bhats. A US carrier isn't going to appear off the shores of your country for doing so.
They don't do so (or, when they do so, they also denominate in US dollars) because customers by and large prefer using US dollars. They also like using Euros, yen, and Swiss francs. (They have no problem with Canadian or Australian dollars, but obtaining it can sometimes be more difficult.) But the US dollar is the one currency that is absolutely, positively, 100% guaranteed to be wanted by both the buyer and seller, no matter where and for what.
Let me repeat: The primacy of the US dollar is driven by demand, not supply.
Also, these days it's less the petrodollar and more the technodollar as shown by the handwringing over US/China technological dependence/independence and how many key technologies in electronics/aerospace/biotech each country has or can develop to create a globally competitive and resilient ecosystem of technology products.
Twenty years ago, a bearded man in a cave ("Ali Baba") and his 19 "thieves" have managed to attack the superpower with a combined security budget (military and all intelligence agencies) of around 1.000 billions (1) on its soil, (2) using only box cutters!
The explanation offered to the world by the superpower was: Everyone failed. Yet, no one of those in high positions in the security aparatus of the superpower who has failed at doing his highly responsible job has resigned and no one was prosecuted.
What sounds like a (bad) fairytale really happened. Over 3.000 people died that day and many more thousands have died and are still dying as a consequence of what happened that day.
Attackers budget was probably 0.00...1% of the budget of the superpower.
Yay... let's put a price tag on everything! Let "the market" decide. What could we also sell... let's see: Air, water, children... the highest (richest?) bidder decides.
Especially if he got rich by exploiting workers (through low wages and bad working conditions, like wearing diapers) and exploiting state regulations (through tax evasion).
