When people talk about “deglobalization,” they usually imagine a reversal to a pre-global world: nations cutting ties, supply chains collapsing, and technology walls rising. That is the wrong mental model. The world is not moving backward into isolation. Instead, it is entering a new phase of selective globalization—a system that is more interconnected within blocs, more fragmented between them, and structured around technology sovereignty rather than pure efficiency.
AI sits at the heart of this transformation. It is not simply a technological race but a geopolitical sorting mechanism, forcing countries to align, hedge, or decouple. To understand how the AI bubble reshapes geopolitics, we need to analyze four core dynamics: (1) the fragmented globalization paradigm, (2) technology access as a new trade architecture, (3) commercialization-weaponization cycles, and (4) fragmented supply chain strategies.
In the 1990s–2000s, globalization was singular and universal:
The US-led order was unipolar.
Technology flowed across borders with few restrictions.
Capital moved freely, fueling hyper-efficiency supply chains.
In the 2020s, that architecture has broken into selective globalization:
Competing spheres—primarily US-anchored and China-centric—shape technology flows.
Instead of one integrated global system, we now have multiple parallel globalizations.
Strategic inclusion/exclusion defines access to critical technologies like semiconductors, AI, and quantum.
Importantly, this is not deglobalization. Trade volumes remain high, supply chains persist, and collaboration continues. What changes is where integration is deep and where separation is enforced.
Technology Access as New Trade Architecture
The old globalization was about removing tariffs. The new globalization is about graduated access to technology. This creates a tiered sovereignty system:
T1: Deep Integration
Core allies share cutting-edge tech and collaborate on joint development.
Example: AUKUS defense pact includes submarine systems, F-35 jet production, and AI-enabled surveillance.
This is not protectionism but shared sovereignty among trusted partners.
T2: Managed Access
Countries may access technology but under strict monitoring, caps, and usage restrictions.
Example: Chip export caps limiting China’s access to advanced lithography.
These guardrails create dependencies without allowing full autonomy.
T3: Strategic Denial
Complete exclusion from critical tech.
Forces nations into parallel development paths, often slower and costlier.
Example: China developing domestic GPU alternatives after US restrictions.
This framework explains why semiconductors are now treated like oil. Access defines sovereignty. Without chips, no AI superpower is possible.
Commercialization-Weaponization Cycle
A defining feature of AI’s geopolitics is its dual-use spiral. Unlike nuclear weapons, AI did not emerge as a military project that later spun off into civilian use. It followed the opposite trajectory:
Private Innovation – Foundation models, GPUs, and cloud infrastructure were built for commercial purposes.
Military Applications – Surveillance, autonomous systems, cyberwarfare quickly adapted AI advances.
Export Controls – Once military value became clear, governments imposed restrictions to control diffusion.
This cycle creates permissioned networks, not closed autarkies. Allies can access advanced clusters; rivals cannot. Examples include:
Semiconductors – Control of <7nm nodes restricted.
AI compute – Access to top-tier clusters limited to close allies.
Quantum – Shared selectively within trusted blocs.
The result is chokepoint control without autarky. The US does not seek complete self-sufficiency; it seeks leverage at key bottlenecks that can be weaponized when necessary.
Fragmented Supply Chain Architecture
The old model optimized for single-source efficiency. The new model prioritizes multi-source resilience through what I call multi-shore reality:
Friend-shoring
Primary production in close allies.
Example: semiconductor fabs in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and US-based manufacturing as insurance, not total replacement.
Near-shoring
Secondary capacity in proximate allies.
Example: Mexico supporting US supply chains; Eastern Europe supporting EU production.
Maintained Offshore
Non-critical goods still manufactured in traditional low-cost hubs.
Example: consumer electronics assembly in Southeast Asia.
Parallel Systems
China-centric and US-centric supply chains operating in parallel.
Multinational companies hedge by maintaining dual supply systems, activating one or the other depending on political alignment.
This creates a strategic premium matrix: redundancy costs more but buys optionality. For example:
The US requires 50% premium for domestic semiconductor production as a resilience hedge.
Rare earths are diversified not to replace China but to create alternatives in case of cutoff.
Electronics maintain dual sourcing to allow selective geopolitical activation.
Key Insight
The US-led order has not collapsed. Instead, it has restructured into a selective, high-trust network that is more internally integrated than ever, while maintaining external separation from rivals. The paradox of fragmented globalization is that alliances become tighter as global integration weakens.
Strategic Implications
For Governments: Power comes from controlling choke points, not volume. AI sovereignty will be defined by access tiers (T1, T2, T3).
For Companies: Supply chains must be re-architected not for cost, but for resilience and dual-operability.
For Investors: Winners will emerge not from global scale but from aligned scale within blocs. Markets will bifurcate between US-led, China-led, and hedger-neutral systems.
Gennaro is the creator of FourWeekMBA, which reached about four million business people, comprising C-level executives, investors, analysts, product managers, and aspiring digital entrepreneurs in 2022 alone | He is also Director of Sales for a high-tech scaleup in the AI Industry | In 2012, Gennaro earned an International MBA with emphasis on Corporate Finance and Business Strategy.
