AI’s Global Power Play: Cooperation Or Control?

Artificial intelligence, at its core, is a force multiplier. It enhances capabilities, accelerates decision-making, and gives those who wield it an unprecedented advantage — economic, military, and geopolitical. That is why AI is no longer just about automating work or improving healthcare; it is about shaping the global order. Every major power is racing to ensure that its version of AI dominates, controls, and dictates the terms of engagement. It is the ultimate power play, and in this high-stakes game, governance is secondary, if not entirely irrelevant.

History of nations, at least in the past 100 years, has shown that self-interest is calculated smartly and advanced to meet national strategic power goals. The ability of rising powers to be opportunistic amidst great power conflicts helps build their own capabilities and ascend the world order. The AI race will be no different. Just as emerging nations leveraged Cold War rivalries to secure economic and military advantages, today’s rising powers will exploit AI competition to carve out a stronger position for themselves. Meanwhile, established global powers will ensure that AI remains another instrument of their dominance, embedding their influence into the very foundation of AI development. Cooperation, when it happens, will be conditional and transactional — designed not for true collaboration, but for tactical gains.

Artificial intelligence, at its core, is a force multiplier. It enhances capabilities, accelerates decision-making, and gives those who wield it an unprecedented advantage — economic, military, and geopolitical. That is why AI is no longer just about automating work or improving healthcare; it is about shaping the global order. Every major power is racing to ensure that its version of AI dominates, controls, and dictates the terms of engagement. It is the ultimate power play, and in this high-stakes game, governance is secondary, if not entirely irrelevant.

History of nations, at least in the past 100 years, has shown that self-interest is calculated smartly and advanced to meet national strategic power goals. The ability of rising powers to be opportunistic amidst great power conflicts helps build their own capabilities and ascend the world order. The AI race will be no different. Just as emerging nations leveraged Cold War rivalries to secure economic and military advantages, today’s rising powers will exploit AI competition to carve out a stronger position for themselves. Meanwhile, established global powers will ensure that AI remains another instrument of their dominance, embedding their influence into the very foundation of AI development. Cooperation, when it happens, will be conditional and transactional — designed not for true collaboration, but for tactical gains.

History has already shown us that when a new, transformative technology emerges, regulations often arrive too late, or are conveniently ignored. Nuclear weapons were meant to be contained, yet the world now lives with the constant threat of proliferation. Social media was meant to connect people, yet it has been weaponised for political control and misinformation. AI is far more potent than both, and if history is any indication, the idea of global cooperation on AI safety might just be a smokescreen — one that allows nations to develop their AI dominance under the pretext of responsible progress.

In public discourse, there is much talk about AI safety frameworks, ethical guidelines, and international agreements. Countries and companies pledge to ensure AI remains beneficial, transparent, and free from bias. But in private, the real conversations are about securing AI superiority. Who controls the most powerful AI models? Who gets to influence the datasets that train them? Who dictates the rules? These are the questions driving national policies, not whether AI is fair or safe. The risk, therefore, is not just that AI could cause harm, but that global commitments to its responsible use might be nothing more than diplomatic theatre — a distraction while nations quietly position themselves to become AI superpowers.

The impact of this unchecked AI race is already visible. Nations are pouring billions into AI research, not to ensure inclusivity or equal access, but to outpace rivals. Governments are partnering with tech giants, not for ethical oversight, but for strategic advantage. Regulations are being debated, but enforcement mechanisms remain vague, allowing enough flexibility for selective compliance. It is a familiar pattern — publicly endorse cooperation, privately pursue dominance.

What makes AI even more dangerous in this context is its ability to reshape societies without people realising it. Unlike nuclear weapons, which are visibly destructive, AI’s influence can be silent and insidious. Algorithms can manipulate public opinion, influence elections, and control information flows. Automated warfare could make conflicts more impersonal, reducing the threshold for military action. Economic AI models could determine access to financial systems, giving unprecedented leverage to those who control them. AI does not need to be an explicit weapon to be powerful — it only needs to dictate the terms of engagement, and it is already doing so.

Governments may talk about AI regulation, but they will not willingly limit their own advantage. Any AI governance framework that does emerge will likely have loopholes, exemptions, or vague enforcement clauses, ensuring that no major power is truly restricted. The idea of a global AI treaty may sound reassuring, but in practice, it will function much like past arms control agreements — compliance will be selective, and violations will be justified under national security imperatives.

Global AI summits, despite their grand declarations, have so far proven to be little more than diplomatic showcases — events where leaders reaffirm the importance of ethical AI while quietly continuing their own competitive pursuits. The recent gatherings in major capitals have produced statements of intent but no binding commitments, let alone tangible action. Nations sign pledges to promote AI safety, yet back home, their policies are driven by a singular objective — securing AI dominance. The lack of operational collaboration between countries is glaring; there are no shared AI research initiatives at scale, no real-time intelligence exchanges on AI risks, and certainly no coordinated frameworks that actively regulate AI’s geopolitical use. Instead, each country is focused on fortifying its own AI capabilities, often in secret, while publicly advocating for collective responsibility.

If there were genuine efforts to govern AI globally, we would see joint task forces with actual enforcement powers, collaborative AI research hubs working across borders, and AI development principles that are legally binding, not just voluntary guidelines. Instead, what we have are carefully worded communiqués that sound reassuring but change little on the ground. Even the most high-profile AI agreements lack enforcement mechanisms, leaving room for selective adherence. This is why the so-called AI governance movement is unlikely to change the current trajectory — nations will continue to pursue AI superiority, using these summits as diplomatic cover rather than a platform for real cooperation.

In this environment, the world must prepare for an AI-dominated order where power is concentrated in the hands of those who control the strongest AI systems. This is not fearmongering; it is simply the logical outcome of the current trajectory. Unless nations genuinely commit to transparency, accountability, and equitable AI development, the future will not be defined by cooperation, but by control. AI will not be a tool for collective progress — it will be the battleground for global supremacy.

Discalimer: The views expressed here are those of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views of NDTV Profit or its editorial team.

Dr. Srinath Sridharan is a policy researcher and corporate advisor.