|
Bakgrund och syfteDen globala maktkampen om kritiska och framväxande teknologier har blivit en avgörande faktor för nationell säkerhet, ekonomisk konkurrenskraft och geopolitisk inflytande. "Critical and Emerging Technologies Index" (CETI), publicerad av Belfer Center i juni 2025, är en omfattande analys och jämförelse av 25 länders kapacitet inom fem nyckelområden: artificiell intelligens (AI), bioteknik, halvledare, rymdteknik och kvantteknologi. Indexet syftar till att ge beslutsfattare, strateger och forskare ett robust, datadrivet verktyg för att bedöma och jämföra teknologisk makt mellan nationer1.
Metod och struktur Indexet bygger på över 3 000 datapunkter från både offentliga och kommersiella källor. Analysen utgår från 48 nyckeldimensioner, så kallade "pelare", som är uppdelade i sektorsövergripande (t.ex. ekonomiska resurser, humankapital, säkerhet, reglering) och sektorspecifika indikatorer (t.ex. chipdesign för halvledare, farmaceutisk produktion för bioteknik). Varje pelare har tilldelats en vikt baserat på dess strategiska betydelse, och sektorerna har viktats enligt deras påverkan på geopolitik och ekonomisk utveckling: halvledare (35%), AI (25%), bioteknik (20%), rymd (15%) och kvantteknologi (5%)1. Huvudresultat och trender USA:s ledarskap och utmaningar USA leder inom samtliga fem teknologisektorer, vilket främst beror på landets unika innovationssystem, starka ekonomiska resurser och breda humankapital. Den decentraliserade modellen – där myndigheter, universitet, startups och företag samverkar – har möjliggjort snabb kunskapsöverföring och innovation i stor skala. Dock hotas denna position av minskad forskningsfinansiering och ökande politisk polarisering, vilket kan leda till förlorad talang och minskade resurser framöver1. Kina närmar sig snabbt Kina är den främsta utmanaren och minskar avståndet till USA, särskilt inom bioteknik och kvantteknologi. Landet har dock fortsatt beroende av utländsk utrustning inom halvledare och avancerad AI, samt svagare privat forskning och kapitalmarknader. Kinas styrka ligger i centraliserad planering, stora offentliga investeringar och en snabbt växande forskningssektor. Särskilt inom bioteknik har Kina potential att snabbt gå om USA tack vare sin dominans inom läkemedelsproduktion och statligt stödd tillverkning1. Europas roll och begränsningar Europa är konkurrenskraftigt inom AI, bioteknik och kvantteknologi, men halkar efter i halvledare och rymdteknik. Fragmenterade marknader, brist på samordning och underutnyttjade resurser gör att Europa inte fullt ut når sin potential. För att stärka sin position krävs ökad integration, samordnade investeringar och mer centraliserade godkännandeprocesser för nya teknologier1. Teknologisektorer i fokus Artificiell intelligens USA har en tydlig ledning tack vare ekonomiska resurser, datorkraft och avancerade algoritmer. Kina har dock fördelar inom datamängder och humankapital, medan Europa har styrkor inom humankapital men begränsas av regleringar och splittrad innovationsmiljö. Utvecklingen av nya kinesiska AI-modeller visar att USA:s försprång kan minska snabbare än väntat1. Bioteknik Här är avståndet mellan USA och Kina minst. USA leder inom säkerhet, genetisk ingenjörskonst, vaccin och jordbruksteknologi, medan Kina dominerar inom läkemedelsproduktion. Europa har potential men behöver bättre samordning och investeringar för att inte halka efter ytterligare1. Halvledare Ingen nation kontrollerar hela värdekedjan för avancerade halvledare. USA är starkast inom design och utrustning men svagare i tillverkning. Kina leder inom produktion och förädling av material men är beroende av utländsk teknologi. Taiwan och Sydkorea är ledande inom tillverkning, men är sårbara för geopolitiska risker. Japan och Europa investerar kraftigt men har svårt att komma ikapp de teknologiska ledarna1. Rymdteknik USA:s dominans bygger på framgångsrika offentlig-privata partnerskap, vilket lett till ökad uppskjutningsfrekvens och minskade kostnader. Samtidigt är USA sårbart för kinesiska och ryska militära rymdkapaciteter, vilket ökar de strategiska riskerna1. Kvantteknologi Utvecklingen är ännu i ett tidigt forskningsskede. USA och Europa leds av universitet och startups, medan Kina satsar på en mer statligt styrd modell. Fragmenteringen och bristen på investeringar gör att ingen nation ännu har ett avgörande försprång1. Geopolitisk dynamik och samarbete USA:s styrka förstärks av samarbeten med Europa, Japan och Sydkorea, särskilt inom halvledare, kvantteknologi och bioteknik. Ingen nation har dock fullständig kontroll över hela leveranskedjan i någon sektor, vilket skapar sårbarheter och beroenden. För att bibehålla konkurrenskraften måste västvärlden fördjupa samarbetet och öka resiliensen i sina teknologiska ekosystem1. Slutsats CETI 2025 visar att teknologisk makt är en avgörande del av nationell styrka och geopolitisk balans. USA behåller ledningen, men Kina närmar sig snabbt, särskilt inom bioteknik och kvantteknologi. Europa har potential men behöver mer integration och samordning. Framtidens maktbalans kan snabbt förändras, särskilt om mindre teknologiska genombrott får spridningseffekter över flera sektorer. Policymakers måste därför kontinuerligt anpassa strategier och samarbeten för att hantera risker och möjligheter i en snabbt föränderlig teknologisk värld1.
0 Comments
Globals flows and fragmentation - a deep dive conversation based on the Google Language Model3/29/2025 NATO and the Protection of Undersea Cables: US Interests and Flow Security Interdependence3/23/2025 The protection of undersea cables represents a critical security challenge for the United States and its allies in an era of increasing great power competition. NATO provides a valuable framework for coordinating multinational responses to threats against this vital infrastructure, demonstrating the concept of flow security interdependence in practice. The Alliance's existing initiatives, including the Baltic Sentry operation and the Maritime Centre for Security of Critical Underwater Infrastructure, serve US interests by distributing the security burden while maintaining American leadership.
However, significant limitations constrain NATO's effectiveness in this domain. Legal and jurisdictional challenges in international waters, divergent interests among member states, and the predominantly private ownership of cable infrastructure all complicate the Alliance's protective role. A comprehensive approach to undersea cable security will require combining NATO's military capabilities with broader international legal frameworks, public-private partnerships, and competitive market strategies. As international security experts warn about an emerging era of undersea conflict, galvanizing international action through NATO represents an important component of protecting what has been aptly described as the "soft underbelly of American power." However, this approach must be part of a broader, multi-faceted strategy that addresses the full spectrum of vulnerabilities facing this critical global infrastructure. How could North Vietnam survive a decade of massive American military might? How could the Taliban survive not only Russian but also Western military efforts to control the terrain in Afghanistan?
As governments in the West including in Europe worry about their dependence on increasingly uncertain deliveries of sophisticated military and technical components, the issue of resilience comes to the fore: Should we try make ourselves less vulnerable both in keeping our societies functioning in war time and make our military resilience less interdependent as well? That we need to learn from Ukraine is obvious but there are also modern day examples of resilience which need to be studied. The Houthis' remarkable resilience stems from a multifaceted approach that combines asymmetric warfare, flexible governance, ideological adaptability, diverse alliances, continuous learning, and geographical advantages. These factors create a resilient system that can absorb conventional military pressure while maintaining operational capabilities and territorial control. Traditional defense actors, with their reliance on expensive platforms, fixed infrastructure, and conventional doctrine, face fundamental challenges when confronting such adaptable non-state actors. The Houthis demonstrate how relatively small forces can effectively resist vastly superior military powers through strategies that exploit the weaknesses inherent in conventional military approaches. Their continued ability to threaten international shipping in the Red Sea despite repeated military interventions underscores the limitations of traditional military responses to this new model of resilient non-state actors. The implications extend beyond Yemen, providing important lessons for understanding other persistent non-state actors and the evolution of modern conflict. Future security frameworks may need to develop more comprehensive approaches that address the multidimensional nature of such resilient organizations rather than relying primarily on conventional military solutions. While the current tariff war is still in its early stages, the immediate retaliatory measures from Canada and anticipated responses from Mexico and China signal challenging conditions ahead for American exporters. Historical evidence from previous trade conflicts suggests that diminished demand for American products abroad is likely, particularly in sectors specifically targeted by retaliatory tariffs.
The situation remains fluid, with further developments expected as retaliatory measures are fully implemented and their economic impacts materialize. American exporters will need to develop strategies to maintain competitiveness in increasingly challenging international markets while policymakers weigh the domestic benefits of tariffs against their impacts on export-oriented industries. Sanctions and embargoes disrupt supply chains through multiple interconnected mechanisms, creating operational, financial, and strategic challenges for global businesses. From direct trade flow disruptions and financial transaction impediments to restricted access to critical materials and compliance complexities, these policy instruments fundamentally alter how goods and services move throughout the global economy.
Understanding these specific disruption mechanisms enables businesses to develop more resilient supply chain strategies that can withstand geopolitical pressures. As sanctions continue to feature prominently in international relations, companies must adapt their supply chain architectures to navigate an increasingly complex regulatory environment while maintaining operational effectiveness. Those that successfully develop these capabilities will gain competitive advantage in a global marketplace increasingly shaped by geopolitical considerations alongside traditional economic factors. The evidence is clear: geopolitical rivalries are fundamentally reshaping global supply chains, moving away from the efficiency-maximizing models of previous decades toward security-prioritizing configurations. This transformation is not a temporary adjustment but a structural shift in how the global economy functions. While complete decoupling remains unlikely, supply chains are becoming more regionalized, diversified, and aligned with political relationships rather than purely economic considerations.
For businesses, this new landscape requires a more sophisticated approach to supply chain management. Companies must develop enhanced capabilities in geopolitical risk assessment, consider friend-shoring and multi-shoring strategies, and balance efficiency with resilience in their operations. Those that successfully navigate these complex waters will gain competitive advantage in an increasingly fragmented global economy. For policymakers, the challenge is to promote supply chain security without undermining the benefits of international trade and specialization. Too aggressive a push toward self-sufficiency risks sacrificing prosperity and innovation, while insufficient attention to vulnerabilities could leave economies exposed to disruption during crises. Finding this balance requires nuanced, sector-specific approaches rather than blanket policies. The reconfiguration of global supply chains in response to geopolitical rivalries represents one of the most significant transformations in the international economic system since the end of the Cold War. While the final shape of this new system remains uncertain, it is clear that the era of globalization driven purely by economic efficiency has given way to one in which security considerations play an increasingly central role in determining how goods and services move around the world. The interconnected transformation of global human, material, and virtual flows presents profound challenges for system stability and European security. The convergence of Trump's retreat from globalization, proliferating conflicts, environmental degradation, and technological vulnerabilities creates unprecedented systemic risks. While a total global collapse remains a distant possibility, the increasing probability of partial systemic failures demands urgent attention.
For Europe, these dynamics create both vulnerabilities and strategic imperatives. European security frameworks must evolve to address not just traditional military threats but also data security, resource dependencies, environmental risks, and the potential fragmentation of crucial global flows. The EU's comprehensive approach to security provides a foundation for addressing these interconnected challenges, but requires further development to match the scale and complexity of emerging threats. The evidence suggests that humanity stands at a critical juncture, with decisions made in the coming years likely to determine whether global systems experience controlled transformation or chaotic collapse. Rather than passively allowing limits to growth to impose themselves, there remains an opportunity to consciously choose alternative pathways that enhance resilience while respecting planetary boundaries. For Europe, this means not only strengthening traditional security capacities but also building strategic autonomy in critical resources, protecting data sovereignty, and fostering international cooperation despite the headwinds of nationalism and protectionism. The fragmentation of global flows does not necessarily mean the end of global cooperation, but rather requires its reinvention to reflect new geopolitical realities. Europe's security in this transformed landscape will depend on its ability to navigate these complex dynamics while maintaining its core values and strategic interests in an increasingly turbulent world. The pause on U.S. offensive cyber operations against Russia represents a significant shift in American cybersecurity policy with potential diplomatic and security implications. While the directive appears to be part of a broader strategy to facilitate negotiations with Russia regarding the conflict in Ukraine, many questions remain about its scope, duration, and ultimate impact on U.S. cyber capabilities and national security.
The divergent reactions from administration officials, lawmakers, and security experts highlight the complex and contentious nature of this decision. As the situation evolves, continued scrutiny will be essential to understand how this pause affects both diplomatic efforts with Russia and America's cybersecurity posture in an increasingly challenging digital threat landscape. see also David Ignatius: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/03/04/trump-cyber-operations-russia/ |
compilation of sourcesPartly AI-generated - reservation for errors ArchivesCategories |
RSS Feed