The 2026 Great-Power Tech and Resource Competition: Escalating Strategies and Emerging Risks

As 2026 unfolds, the global geopolitical landscape is increasingly dominated by a high-stakes competition among great powers—primarily the United States and China—centered on technological sovereignty, control of critical resources, and strategic influence across frontier domains. This intensifying rivalry is reshaping international alignments, economic policies, and security paradigms, pushing the world toward a new era characterized by strategic decoupling, technological innovation, and interconnected vulnerabilities. Recent developments underscore both the opportunities and dangers embedded within this complex contest.

---

Accelerating Technological Sovereignty and Frontier Innovation

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and semiconductors remain at the core of the great-power rivalry. China has significantly advanced its efforts to develop self-sufficient AI systems, autonomous platforms, and domestic chip manufacturing, aiming to reduce reliance on Western technology amid aggressive US export controls. Beijing's strategy includes deploying "good enough" AI stacks across civilian, military, and dual-use sectors, effectively blurring civilian-military boundaries to build strategic resilience.

In response, the United States has intensified efforts to limit Chinese access to advanced AI chips, deploying revised export controls and subsidies to strengthen its domestic semiconductor industry. Washington is also actively shaping international standards in AI and autonomous systems, seeking to maintain strategic advantage by influencing global norms.

The race in hypersonic missile systems exemplifies this technological push. China’s successful tests of maneuverable hypersonic glide vehicles demonstrate its effort to neutralize missile defenses and extend long-range strike capabilities. Russia complements this with a focus on nuclear modernization and Arctic military infrastructure, aiming to deter US and NATO influence and enhance second-strike resilience.

Dual-use technologies—encompassing cyber capabilities, space exploration, and autonomous systems—are increasingly central to this competition. China's lunar missions, satellite constellations, and investments in space situational awareness serve both civilian ambitions and military reconnaissance, creating an environment of strategic ambiguity that complicates traditional threat assessments.

---

Critical Resources and Supply Chain Realignment

Control over critical minerals—such as rare earth elements, lithium, nickel, and cobalt—remains a decisive factor. China's dominance in rare earth supply chains grants it significant leverage, exemplified by Premier Li Qiang’s inspections of key facilities and Beijing’s ongoing efforts to secure resource access globally.

In response, resource-rich nations are recalibrating their strategies to diversify supply chains and maximize resource value:

• Indonesia is tightening nickel export controls to capitalize on its booming EV battery industry.
• Gulf states like Saudi Arabia and the UAE are heavily investing in critical mineral projects and processing infrastructure to diversify their economies and enhance strategic resilience.
• Malaysia positions itself as a semiconductor manufacturing hub to counter Chinese influence and strengthen Western supply chains.

This resource diplomacy is reinforced through ports, infrastructure investments, and international cooperation efforts aimed at securing supply lines and expanding geopolitical influence—notably in regions like Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia.

---

Frontier Domains: Space, Undersea, and Arctic

Space

The US prioritizes space superiority through deployments of anti-satellite (ASAT) capabilities, protecting critical satellite infrastructure, and establishing military space commands. China advances its lunar exploration, satellite constellations, and space infrastructure, seeking to establish a lunar presence and expand space situational awareness.

However, increased space debris and conflicting satellite networks elevate risks of miscalculation and conflict escalation. Recent reports highlight the proliferation of space assets that blur civil-military boundaries, complicating efforts to establish norms for responsible conduct in space.

Undersea

China’s expanding submarine fleets and dominance over undersea communication cables challenge US naval supremacy. Heightened submarine patrols in the South China Sea and resource-rich seabed claims increase the risk of accidental clashes and strategic misperceptions, raising concerns about the stability of undersea domains.

Arctic

As climate change melts Arctic ice, new shipping lanes and vast resource reserves become accessible. China’s investments in icebreaker fleets, scientific stations, and infrastructure projects aim to shape Arctic governance and control strategic routes. Recent deployments, including long-term scientific stations, reflect Beijing’s intent to secure access and assert regional influence, challenging traditional Arctic powers and Western dominance.

---

The Role of Dual-Use and Frontier Technologies

China’s development of dual-use technologies—particularly in autonomous systems, cyber capabilities, and space exploration—embodies a comprehensive approach to militarization and influence. Its lunar missions and satellite networks serve both commercial and military objectives, fueling strategic ambiguity.

Hypersonic weapons are rapidly evolving, with recent successful tests of maneuverable hypersonic glide vehicles designed to evade missile defenses and project long-range strike power. Russia’s focus on nuclear modernization and Arctic military infrastructure aims to bolster deterrence and second-strike resilience.

This convergence of frontier technologies raises significant escalation risks. The absence of comprehensive norms or treaties governing cybersecurity, autonomous weapons, and space conduct exacerbates the danger of misperception and accidental conflict.

---

Economic Statecraft and Resource Diplomacy in Action

Resource diplomacy remains a central tool. China’s expansion into regions like Central Asia via the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) seeks to secure supply chains and expand influence. Its seizure of strategic ports, such as in Panama and Sri Lanka, exemplifies efforts to control maritime infrastructure and counter US dominance.

In the Arctic, permitting processes increasingly emphasize national security considerations. Beijing’s investments in icebreakers, scientific stations, and infrastructure serve to shape Arctic governance and access to resources and shipping lanes.

Emerging Intelligence and Influence Risks

A notable recent development involves US-funded research projects that have been found to include Chinese government-linked researchers. As revealed in a February 2026 report, more than a dozen sensitive defense grants awarded by American intelligence agencies have been compromised through insider knowledge transfer or collaborations with Chinese entities. This underscores vulnerabilities within research vetting processes and highlights the risk of intellectual property leakage to strategic adversaries.

Simultaneously, analyses of Russian tactics and Indicators and Warnings (I&W) suggest that Putin is actively weaponizing uncertainty, employing disinformation and strategic denial to obfuscate intentions and undermine Western cohesion. These tactics include misinformation campaigns and cyber operations aimed at dividing alliances and disrupting decision-making.

---

Policy Implications and Future Risks

The rapid development and deployment of advanced autonomous, hypersonic, and cyber weapons—coupled with the erosion of arms control treaties like New START—heighten destabilization risks. The absence of international norms for AI, space conduct, and autonomous weapons leaves open the possibility of miscalculation escalating into conflict.

Key policy imperatives include:

• Building resilient supply chains through diversification and strategic stockpiles.
• Establishing clearer international norms and treaties for cybersecurity, space conduct, and autonomous weapons.
• Improving vetting and transparency in research funding to prevent insider threats and knowledge transfer.
• Enhancing early warning systems and confidence-building measures to reduce misunderstandings.

---

Current Status and Broader Implications

As of 2026, the strategic competition is intensifying across all domains. Both the US and China are doubling down on their respective approaches: technological innovation, resource control, and frontier domain influence. The contest increasingly takes the form of multi-domain, decentralized conflicts that threaten global stability.

The ongoing effort to establish norms, increase transparency, and strengthen resilience—particularly in space, cyber, and autonomous systems—is crucial. Without robust international frameworks, the risk of miscalculation, conflict escalation, and global instability remains high.

In conclusion, control over the emerging domains of power will determine the future international order. The US and China’s relentless pursuit of strategic dominance in technology, resources, and frontier domains will shape world affairs for decades, setting the stage for either a new era of stability or a prolonged cycle of conflict and uncertainty.