The race for Advanced AI is rapidly transforming from a technological competition into a defining geopolitical struggle for digital sovereignty.
Nations are not merely seeking dominance in processing power; the new measure of supremacy also includes control over critical resources like energy, water, and minerals.
Put another way, AI is no longer a tool; it is a new form of national power. As capability curves steepen, the question shifts from what AI can do to who controls it. Looking beyond the chip shortage, the crucial regulatory and philosophical battle being waged may well determine which nations will set the global standards for this transformative technology.
The distinct approaches of major economic blocs — from Europe’s focus on rights-based regulation and the U.S.’s innovation-first approach, to China’s centralized, governance-centric model — are divergent paths that will fundamentally redefine the international system and create new fault lines over the next decade.
The 2026 GESDA Radar’s stance on the geopolitical race for advanced AI, however, is not to treat it solely as a competition to be won, but as a domain requiring sustained anticipation, science diplomacy and coordinated international action.
“There are two options for analysis: try to imagine the evolution of trends that are already apparent; or try to ‘think the unthinkable,’ attempting to foresee developments for which there is as yet no evidence. Over the 10-year horizon, the first approach is the more reasonable without altogether excluding the second,” Emmanuel Goffi, an artificial intelligence ethicist, and Fabian Toux, a project manager at the Human Technology Foundation, write in a contribution to the latest Radar.
“AI systems could be influential through their direct application towards conflict, or through their unintended or undesirable effects as they converge and cross over with other technologies and infrastructures,” they explain. “Conversely, they could play a role in maintaining peace and international equilibrium. Analyzing massive quantities of data on theatres of tension or conflict could be critical in developing solutions for controlling or resolving them. Such intelligent surveillance systems could be used for early warning of conflict scenarios before they are evident.”
Their contribution, “Geopolitical Lens: Anticipating the Geopolitical Impact of Advanced AI,” further delves into how advanced AI will fundamentally transform warfare and challenge global governance. On the battlefield, the rise of quasi-autonomous weapons systems threatens to delegate critical decisions on targeting and force, raising complex ethical questions about the erosion of human responsibility and accountability of actions in war. The military race for technological supremacy intensifies asymmetries between nations and underscores the need for a new, solid ethical and legal framework.
However, they caution that establishing such a framework is complicated by how ill-suited international law is to address the new realities of AI and cyberspace, leading to the risk of a “standards war” between major powers that could hinder the consensus necessary for global stability. They also note AI’s potential to be a force for good through soft power, allowing “moral entrepreneurs” to amplify peace advocacy on a large scale and help define inclusive norms for global peace.
One approach, adopted by the U.S., is innovation-first and security-driven, leveraging private sector dominance and strategic export controls. The strategy is primarily market-centric, relying on executive orders and targeted export controls on advanced semiconductors and AI hardware to maintain a technological lead while restricting access for rivals. This approach is exemplified by recent U.S. government partnerships, such as the $1 billion deal with AMD to build two new AI supercomputers for national security and scientific research.
The nation is the clear leader in private investment, attracting four-fifths of the global total in the last year, or about $109 billion for its AI firms. It commands far more AI supercomputing capacity — nine times that of its primary competitor, a dominance that creates a self-reinforcing cycle: computational advantage drives breakthroughs that attract more investment.
A contrasting philosophy is embraced by the E.U., which focuses on rights-based regulation and trustworthy AI. This is a regulatory model, seeking to set global standards through its external effect. The passage of the landmark AI Act, the world’s first comprehensive AI law, classifies applications by risk and prohibits unacceptable uses like social scoring.
The “Brussels Effect” aims to make the E.U.’s law a de facto global benchmark for AI ethics. However, the E.U. lags on the investment front, attracting only about $8 billion in private AI investment recently.
The third distinct model is pursued by China, emphasizing state-centric control and indigenous capacity. The approach is rooted in industrial sovereignty, affirming state control over data and cyberspace through instruments like the Data Security Law and Personal Information Protection Law, underpinned by massive state-led R&D investment.
While China has shown a surge in the adoption of open-source models, recent analyses suggest its aspirations might be tempered by a lack of sufficient venture capital funding. Its regulatory system is designed to ensure information control and accelerate self-sufficiency in key technologies, largely in response to external export controls.
The Looming Risk: Fragmentation vs. Universal Standards
The battle for digital sovereignty creates a risk of technological and regulatory fragmentation. If the world settles into a ‘dual digital world order’ of three distinct and incompatible digital ecosystems — one market-driven, one values-driven, and one state-controlled — it will complicate global trade, scientific collaboration, and development of universal safety standards.
For instance, the E.U.’s extraterritorial reach, intended to champion human-centric AI, could create friction with the U.S.’s market-driven approach, which prioritizes a faster pace of innovation. Meanwhile, the U.S.’s use of export controls as a strategic tool against China underscores how economic and security policies have merged in the AI era.
An analysis by the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered AI showed the U.S. was the global leader in AI, followed by China and the U.K., as of 2024. Its tracking tool measured key indicators such as research papers, private investment and patents from 36 countries. The U.S. released the most notable machine learning models, invested the most private capital in AI, and published the most responsible AI research, the analysis found, while China is a distant second to the U.S.
“AI has increased as a topic of national interest for countries across the globe, and correspondingly narratives about which countries lead in AI have become more prominent than ever,” said Nestor Maslej, project manager of Stanford’s AI analysis. “However, there’s limited data providing a clear, quantitative view of where countries actually stand in AI.”
Switzerland, the host nation of GESDA, is uniquely positioning itself to mitigate this fragmentation. Looking with interest at China’s state-centric regulatory model, Swiss authorities view their traditional neutrality and diplomatic skillset as essential for bridging the growing divide between the Eastern and Western approaches to AI governance. Through diplomatic talks and initiatives, Swiss authorities are seeking common ground with both Beijing and Washington to help align global safety and data standards.
Following the fourth round of the China-Switzerland Strategic Dialogue in October, the two nations affirmed they will vigorously pursue “active bilateral dialogue mechanisms across various fields” including AI. Switzerland welcomed a Chinese initiative that “aims to reform and improve the global governance system” and pledged to “strengthen cooperation with China” on mediation.
This geopolitical struggle is precisely why the work of multilateral initiatives is critical. The push for a harmonized, interoperable approach to AI governance — championed by bodies like the U.N. Secretary-General’s AI Advisory Body and the Hiroshima AI Process — is an effort to maintain a delicate balance between safety, innovation, and competitiveness. Science diplomacy offers the only pathway to prevent the full balkanization of the global digital order.
The Radar concludes that the scientific anticipation of breakthroughs in advanced AI and related areas such as computing and quantum technologies must be matched by anticipatory science diplomacy — a framework for renewed multilateralism that focuses on real-world early applications and engages with philosophical and geopolitical lenses to navigate a complex landscape, acknowledging the ‘geopolitical weaponization of technology’ and urgent need for a global charter on AI resources.
Global AI Power Rankings: Stanford HAI Tool Ranks 36 Countries in AI
Where the science and diplomacy can lead us
The 2026 GESDA Science Breakthrough Radar®, distilling the insights of 2,390 leading researchers from 89 countries, shows how advanced AI can be a force multiplier for both war and peace, emphasizing trends over a 10‑year horizon.
Key Radar references:
→1.1. Artificial Intelligence — Aims to produce intelligence using algorithms and machines. Its rapid progress is poised to disrupt societal norms. The key sub-fields are future of generative AI, world-modelling and embodied AI, AI for science, and AI foundations.
→1.2. Quantum Computing — Uses quantum physics phenomena (superposition, entanglement) to achieve novel computational capabilities. It has the potential to significantly impact fields like finance, cryptography, materials science, and drug discovery.
→1.3. Unconventional Computing — Research exploring non-silicon-based approaches, such as neuromorphic computing (inspired by the brain’s biology for data-efficient learning) and optical computing (using light), for extraordinary new eras of computing efficiency.
→1.4 Robotics and Embodied Intelligence — The integration of advanced AI into robotics to create systems that can physically interact with and deeply understand their environments. This includes the shift from traditional software to massive, integrated models that solve perception, control, and planning.
→1.5 Extended Reality — The technology that tightly meshes the real and virtual worlds. As hardware becomes ubiquitous, XR will change the nature of daily interactions, creating more integrated digital experiences.
→1.6 Collective Intelligence — Focuses on enhancing and guiding human collaboration to tackle global challenges, founded on the principle that the sum of human problem-solving can be greater than its parts.
→Geopolitical Lens: Anticipating the Geopolitical Impact of Advanced AI — AI systems are being deployed on a massive scale throughout the world. While the technology is still developing, it is clear that it will have equally massive potential consequences for a wide variety of sectors — and diplomacy and international relations are no exception.
