Middle power AI agency: Preserving choice between the United States and China

Brookings Institution | Douglas A. Rediker

Middle powers including Europe, Japan, and South Korea face severe geopolitical subordination unless they collectively preserve independent capabilities across critical physical and industrial artificial intelligence sectors. As U.S. capital spending on infrastructure approaches $700 billion in 2026 and Chinese industrial robot installations reach 54% of global volume, scattered national projects fail to alter the strategic balance.

Superpower technological monopolies risk converting superficial national sovereignty into structural reliance. To prevent unilateral coercion or supply chain embargoes, non-superpower nations must pursue a strategy of modular sovereignty by pooling scale-intensive compute, foundation models, and procurement commitments. A modular strategy maintains resilience amid escalating technological competition. This approach allows these states to retain control over sensitive deployments in critical infrastructure, healthcare, defence sustainment, and telecommunications. Rather than seeking autarky or confronting Washington and Beijing, pooled middle-power purchasing leverages shared assets into operational data and bargaining power.

Comment

Washington's leverage over advanced microprocessors and cloud architecture increasingly transforms coalition diplomacy into enforced technological alignment. The US-led Pax Silica initiative demonstrates how supply chain security agreements can restrict non-aligned strategic choices. By linking access to Nvidia graphics processing units with exclusive security protocols, American policy forces allied capitals to choose between raw technical capability and sovereign policy choices.

This structural pressure creates friction within traditional alliance structures as member states seek parallel frameworks to shield dual-use industrial systems. Japanese investment in the Noetra initiative illustrates how middle powers attempt to isolate critical infrastructure from unilateral foreign export controls. Dual-use software pipelines in Japanese and European port facilities will increasingly diverge from Washington's centralised Pax Silica compliance mandates.

Strategic Question for Discussion

Which factor will exert greater influence on coalition cohesion in the Indo-Pacific — the operational necessity of integrating Nvidia-powered AI architectures, or the sovereignty risks imposed by Pax Silica compliance mandates?

The trajectory indicates that sovereignty risks will outweigh immediate operational performance gains for critical infrastructure deployments. While Nvidia hardware offers unmatched baseline compute capacity, middle powers will prioritise regulatory jurisdiction over critical logistics and port operations to insulate key nodes from unilateral export restrictions. Secondary alliance frameworks will consequently fracture into localised, sovereign AI stacks despite the higher capital costs required.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

To read in details click here