The United States and China are locked in a multifront contest for technological dominance, divided broadly into hard control and soft control. Hard control refers to the tangible instruments of power—manufacturing capacity, export restrictions, raw materials, energy supply, and physical infrastructure like chips, satellites, and drones. It’s about who owns, builds, or blocks the critical hardware that makes modern technology possible. A clear example is Washington’s export ban on advanced semiconductors and lithography equipment to China, which has constrained Beijing’s ability to produce high-performance chips for AI and military use.
Soft control, by contrast, is about influence—who sets the rules, writes the standards, and defines what “safe,” “ethical,” or “open” technology looks like. It’s less visible but just as powerful, shaping global behavior through norms and adoption patterns. For instance, China’s recent push to create a World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization, headquartered in Shanghai, aims to position Beijing as a global rule-maker in AI governance, presenting its framework as open and inclusive while countering U.S. dominance in Western-led institutions. Together, these two spheres—hard and soft—form the twin battlegrounds of the new global tech order.
The Hard-Control Front
At the heart of the U.S.–China tech confrontation lies the hard infrastructure: chips, semiconductors, hardware, supply chains, military systems, and physical access to networks and bases. The U.S. retains dominant levers—control over advanced semiconductor equipment, leadership in key standards for defense/wireless technologies, and intelligence-sharing alliances like Five Eyes, which give Washington leverage far beyond its borders. Meanwhile, China has been under increasing pressure: export controls from the U.S. have curtailed Beijing’s access to top-end chips and manufacturing equipment, while allied countries are blocking Chinese hardware from sensitive installations. For example, Israeli decision-makers recently withdrew Chinese-made electric vehicles from military use after security assessments flagged data-leak risks.
In essence, China’s progress toward matching U.S. capabilities in hardware and semiconductors is being deliberately slowed, while Washington works to preserve its lead and protect the network of allied nations that depend on its technological and security framework from being outpaced or undermined by Beijing.
The Soft-Control Front
But controlling the hardware isn’t enough. Equally critical is who writes the rules, sets the norms, and becomes the default ecosystem everyone else plugs into. This is the soft control axis. China is aggressively positioning itself here—promoting the idea of a global AI governance body headquartered in Shanghai, arguing that AI should be a “public good”, and extending its green-technology and AI exports to the Global South. Through these moves, Beijing seeks to shape the narrative of technology as inclusive, cheaper, and accessible—a contrast to U.S. messaging of “restrictions” and “decoupling.”
At the same time, the U.S. increasingly recognizes that dominance isn’t just about blocking China—it’s about being the easiest, safest, most attractive partner. That means publishing open toolkits, aligning with allies on standards, and making U.S./allied tech the path of least resistance for the rest of the world. When countries adopt American primes, they implicitly sign on to U.S.-led governance, interoperability, and supply-chains—even if they never hear a speech about it.
How Hard + Soft Interact
What’s fascinating is how these two fronts complement each other. A hard-control move—like export restrictions on chips—creates urgency and scarcity, which drives many countries to search for alternatives (thus creating opportunity for China). On the flip side, if the U.S. can dominate the soft-control front—rules, standards, tool-chains, ecosystems—then even if hardware comes from elsewhere, the ecosystem, data flows, and control nodes remain aligned with Washington. Consider drones: you can ban a Chinese drone from a base (hard control), but if the software, telemetry, update server, certification labs, and developer ecosystem are U.S.-anchored, you’ve won soft control.
The latest trade deal between the U.S. and China (covering chips, soybeans, rare earths) is a hint of this interplay. On the surface it’s about trade flows and supply chains (hard); but behind the scenes, China used it as a stage to pitch its global AI governance body (soft), and the U.S. used it to signal that it can deliver relief to markets (soft + hard). Meanwhile, middle powers like South Korea and Israel are being courted on both axes—they’re feeders into supply chains and hosts of standards-dialogue.
At the same time, the United States is beginning to understand that technological dominance can no longer rely solely on obstruction or containment. Simply denying China access to advanced chips or manufacturing tools slows its progress but does not, by itself, secure global influence. Lasting dominance depends on attraction—on making the U.S. system the most efficient, trusted, and seamless option for others to join. This shift means that Washington’s strategy must evolve from defensive gatekeeping to proactive ecosystem building. By publishing open-source toolkits, sharing transparent standards, and coordinating regulatory frameworks with allies, the U.S. can position its technology as the world’s default infrastructure—the system everyone plugs into because it works, scales, and protects their interests.
When foreign governments or companies choose American hardware, software, or cloud ecosystems, they are not merely buying a product; they are entering an orbit defined by U.S.-led norms of governance, cybersecurity, and interoperability. Each adoption quietly reinforces the American model—how data is secured, how AI is audited, how supply chains are verified. These choices accumulate into soft alignment, often without the need for formal treaties or overt political declarations. In practice, the U.S. doesn’t have to compel allegiance through rhetoric; the architecture of its technology—its accessibility, reliability, and compatibility—does the persuading. The more Washington refines this balance of openness and trust, the more its influence becomes self-perpetuating, embedded not in mandates or sanctions, but in the simple logic of convenience and confidence.
The same logic applies to China’s strategy, which is why the contest between Washington and Beijing isn’t only about innovation or trade volume; it’s about who becomes the world’s default operating system.
China has been pursuing precisely this kind of “ecosystem capture” for over a decade, especially through its hardware, software, and cloud infrastructure exports. Where the U.S. seeks to dominate through trust, transparency, and democratic alignment, Beijing’s approach relies on integration through dependence. Its offerings—smart city platforms, surveillance systems, cloud services, telecommunications gear, and AI analytics—often come at a fraction of the Western price and with turnkey deployment. For developing countries facing limited budgets, that combination of affordability, financing through Chinese banks, and fast results is irresistible. Once installed, the equipment and software are difficult to replace, locking governments into Chinese maintenance contracts, update cycles, and data frameworks.
In this way, the China model mirrors the U.S. playbook, but with a different value proposition. Instead of emphasizing open standards and collective governance, it sells efficiency, scale, and state-backed reliability. A nation that uses Huawei for its 5G backbone or Tencent Cloud for municipal services isn’t just buying connectivity—it’s implicitly accepting Chinese cybersecurity protocols, data-routing practices, and surveillance tolerances. Over time, these technical norms reshape administrative habits, policy assumptions, and even public expectations about privacy and state authority.
Basically, whichever country’s tools are easiest to implement becomes the quiet rule-maker. The distinction lies in how each system sustains its network of influence. The U.S. depends on voluntary adoption through trust and collaboration; China depends on embeddedness through infrastructure and cost advantage. Both create dependence, but of a different nature. One is grounded in governance compatibility—the sense that you’re operating within a shared legal and ethical frame. The other is grounded in practical necessity—you can’t easily unplug without breaking the system that runs your power grid, your cameras, or your cloud.
Washington’s influence comes from making partners feel they are operating inside a familiar and trustworthy framework: transparent regulation, predictable rule of law, data-protection norms, and interoperability with other democratic systems. Countries choose U.S. or allied technology because it aligns with their own governance values and international compliance obligations. That is governance compatibility approach.
Beijing’s leverage arises from embedding its hardware, software, and cloud systems so deeply in a partner’s infrastructure that removing them would be prohibitively expensive or technically disruptive. This dependence is maintained not through shared legal principles but through the sheer indispensability of Chinese-built networks, data centers, and platforms. This is the practical necessity approach.
In short, the U.S. builds influence through trust and shared governance, while China builds it through integration and dependency.
That’s why the real struggle isn’t just about who builds better technology—it’s about who builds the technology that others can’t live without.
FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
The next phase of the U.S.–China technology struggle will hinge on several interlocking dynamics. The first is the race for supremacy in semiconductors and advanced packaging. If China manages to close the technological gap, America’s hard-control advantage—the ability to dictate access to cutting-edge hardware—will weaken. Equally important is the competition to establish which technical standards reach global adoption first. Whether it involves AI model certification, drone airspace systems, or IoT safety protocols, the side whose standards become operational at scale will shape the world’s technological defaults and consolidate soft control.
Emerging markets will also play a decisive role. Most developing nations will gravitate toward whichever ecosystem offers smoother integration and lower costs. If the United States links its hardware exports to development financing and transparent governance frameworks, it can win long-term influence; but if China moves faster with cheaper, ready-to-use technology, the global ecosystem may tilt toward Beijing. Middle powers—such as South Korea, Israel, Singapore, and India—stand at the crossroads of this contest. Their procurement choices, research collaborations, and decisions about hosting international institutions could determine whether they function as diplomatic bridges between the two blocs or become firmly embedded within one.
Finally, the growing fusion of security and commercial technologies adds another layer of complexity. Drones, autonomous systems, and AI-enabled defense tools blur the line between civilian and military applications, turning dual-use innovation into a new front of competition. These hybrid domains—where consumer technology can double as intelligence or weaponry—are emerging as the true battleground where hard and soft power converge.
INHERITING LOGIC : CCP or USA?
Earlier, I described how “over time, these technical norms reshape administrative habits, policy assumptions, and even public expectations about privacy and state authority.” In essence, that line captures how technology imported from one political system carries with it an invisible set of rules about how power operates. When a state adopts these systems, it isn’t just buying hardware or software—it’s inheriting the logic that built them. Over time, those embedded assumptions begin to guide how officials govern, how citizens behave, and how the boundary between state authority and personal freedom is defined.
What makes those “technical norms” so powerful—and potentially dangerous—is that they don’t need to arrive as ideology or coercion. They arrive as convenience. A government buys a surveillance network, a data-management platform, or an AI policing tool because it works and it’s cheap. But every embedded protocol quietly carries its own worldview: how much data can be collected, who owns it, how long it can be stored, who has back-end access, and what level of citizen consent is assumed. Over time, those defaults start to govern behavior inside the adopting country.
Take a hypothetical—but increasingly familiar—case: a city in Africa or the Middle East purchases a “Safe City” package from a Chinese state-linked firm such as Huawei or Hikvision. The system comes with cameras, facial-recognition software, and a central command dashboard. The initial goal might be traffic safety or counterterrorism. But the system’s architecture assumes continuous, centralized monitoring, indefinite data retention, and real-time analytics on individuals’ movements. Local police soon rely on it for routine enforcement; mayors use it to monitor protests; ministries request broader access “for efficiency.” Within a few years, the technical infrastructure has normalized a level of surveillance that was once politically impossible. Citizens internalize the change—they expect to be watched—and officials stop debating privacy law because the technology has made the debate seem irrelevant.
That’s how administrative habits shift: decisions move from legal frameworks to interface settings. Policy assumptions follow—the state begins to see data not as a regulated asset but as a resource to be mined. And public expectations erode: privacy becomes a luxury, not a right.
We’ve already seen early versions of this pattern. In Ecuador, the ECU-911 emergency system built with Chinese technology quietly expanded into facial-recognition surveillance across major cities. In Serbia, Huawei’s “Safe City” network gave law enforcement new monitoring capabilities that critics argue exceed European privacy norms. Even where the tools aren’t abused, their architecture teaches institutions to prefer opacity and centralized control.
The danger, then, is not only espionage or data exfiltration—it’s institutional drift. Once governance adapts to the convenience of permanent visibility, rolling it back is politically and economically painful. The code becomes the constitution. A government that adopts these systems may find, years later, that it has rewritten its own social contract without ever passing a law.
What can the Trump Administration do now?
The U.S. could amplify this insight—that the true risk of authoritarian technology is institutional drift—by reframing its message to partners away from espionage paranoia and toward governance preservation. When Xi Jinping laughed off security fears during his exchange with South Korean President Lee Jae Myung—joking that he should “check if there’s a backdoor” in the Chinese smartphones he gifted—it wasn’t just humor. It was calculated dismissal, a public mockery of the West’s “China is spying” narrative that made such warnings sound outdated and paranoid. Washington’s answer shouldn’t be to repeat the same alarm. Instead of saying, “China will spy on you,” the U.S. can say, “You may wake up one morning and discover your institutions now think like China’s.” That’s the deeper danger and the sharper message—because most governments, even those comfortable with centralized control, instinctively fear the quiet erosion of their own agency more than the idea of surveillance itself.
To make this message resonate, the U.S. needs to pair demonstration with diplomacy. It can fund transparent “digital governance audits” for countries considering foreign infrastructure deals, revealing how imported systems change data access rules, decision chains, and citizen oversight. Offer competing U.S./allied systems that are modular and auditable, with open logs, local data custody, and reversible architectures. In other words: give governments a way to modernize without surrendering control of their own rulebook.
Here’s how the institutional-drift dynamic might look in two very different contexts predictive analytics model we have created PandoraAI showed how in summary this would affect various nations:
France.
France already prizes a strong, centralized state, but it also operates within the European Union’s strict privacy and data-protection framework. If Paris integrated large-scale Chinese “smart city” infrastructure across transport and policing networks, it would gradually create technical contradictions with EU law. Automated analytics and continuous surveillance would normalize pre-emptive policing; data collected under “public safety” exemptions could be repurposed for social management. Over time, the administrative reflex would tilt toward efficiency over legality—preferring what the system can see to what the law permits. The shift would be subtle: ministers citing “AI recommendations” in security briefings, regulators bending GDPR interpretations to fit the hardware. France wouldn’t become an authoritarian state overnight, but its civil apparatus could quietly migrate from a rights-based model to a risk-based one, where visibility replaces deliberation.
Zimbabwe.
In a developing-state context, the change would be more overt. Zimbabwe might adopt a subsidized Chinese e-governance or surveillance platform to manage urban growth, crime, and elections. Initially, it would promise modernization—digital IDs, smart traffic systems, automated welfare distribution. But the system’s architecture would hand centralized access to national authorities and Chinese technicians. Municipal officials would soon depend on it for routine management; opposition zones could be flagged algorithmically; and maintenance contracts would keep Chinese engineers embedded in data centers. Within a few years, transparency would vanish beneath the dashboard interface. The country’s institutions would internalize the technology’s design logic—total visibility as order, opacity as stability. The hardware would still function, but the rule of law would atrophy around it.
In both cases, the code becomes the constitution: the algorithm defines what can be known and acted upon, and political culture adjusts to its tempo. The U.S. can counter this not by scolding nations for buying Chinese tech, but by teaching them how governance itself becomes hostage to code—and by offering systems that keep the law, not the algorithm, in charge.
What about Russia?
Russia sits in an uneasy, opportunistic middle—not the architect of the tech race, but a spoiler who benefits from its turbulence. Moscow lacks the industrial base and consumer ecosystem to compete directly with either Washington or Beijing, yet it plays a crucial role as the strategic disruptor and enabler within this new technological order. Its position can be understood along three dimensions: dependency, leverage, and alignment of narrative.
In hardware and infrastructure, Russia is increasingly dependent on China. Western sanctions after the invasion of Ukraine severed its access to semiconductors, advanced optics, and dual-use machinery. Beijing filled that vacuum with secondary exports through front companies, quietly supplying the chips, routers, and drone components Moscow needs to sustain both its military and civilian industries. Chinese cloud platforms and surveillance systems now underpin parts of Russia’s digital infrastructure, meaning that Moscow’s “sovereign internet” is only partially sovereign—it runs on Beijing’s ecosystem. The result is a reversal of hierarchy: where once Russia sought to shape China through arms sales, it now leans on Chinese hardware to stay functional.
But dependency does not mean submission. Russia retains leverage through chaos. By waging information warfare and cyber campaigns against Western targets, it tests the defenses and political cohesion of the U.S. alliance network—actions that indirectly serve Beijing’s interests while keeping Moscow relevant. In forums like the BRICS bloc and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Russia echoes China’s calls for “multipolar digital governance” and “technological sovereignty,” lending geopolitical legitimacy to Chinese proposals. Yet it also competes with Beijing in arms and nuclear exports, and remains wary of becoming China’s junior partner. Russia’s comfort zone is disruption: destabilizing Western norms enough to create gray zones where its hybrid tactics—cyber intrusion, influence ops, and mercenary tech exports—can thrive.
Narratively, Russia amplifies China’s line while adding its own edge. Beijing mocks Western fears of spying, as Xi did with his “check for a backdoor” quip; Moscow goes further, pushing the idea that Western warnings about Chinese or Russian surveillance are hypocrisy—that the U.S. simply wants monopoly control of information flows. Russian disinformation outlets frame Washington’s talk of “governance preservation” as neo-colonial preaching, weaponizing postcolonial resentment to make Chinese tech expansion look like emancipation. In many regions—Africa, Latin America, Central Asia—this twin propaganda stream paints U.S. technology as exploitative, Western surveillance as moralistic, and Sino-Russian alternatives as symbols of autonomy.
The structure of this rivalry is that, China builds the architecture, the U.S. writes the rules, and Russia throws sand in the gears. Moscow’s role is almost parasitic but potent: it helps Beijing by blurring accountability, testing Western cyber resilience, and giving nonaligned states plausible deniability when adopting Chinese systems. Yet the long-term trajectory is clear. The digital iron curtain forming between the Western and Sino-Russian blocs has two engineers, but only one contractor with the factories and scale to sustain it—and that’s China. Russia provides the ideological smoke, the battlefield data, and the cyber tactics; China provides the hardware, standards, and legitimacy. Together they form a kind of authoritarian interoperability, but the blueprint belongs to Beijing.
What about Israel?
Israel occupies one of the most delicate and strategic positions in the entire U.S.–China technological rivalry. It isn’t a frontline combatant like the U.S. or China, nor a disruptor like Russia. Instead, Israel is the hinge—a small but powerful innovation hub sitting at the intersection of Western security architecture and Chinese economic gravity. Its choices matter disproportionately because they show how a technologically advanced democracy manages the impossible task of staying tethered to both superpowers without losing sovereignty.
At the hard-control level, Israel is deeply embedded in the American system. Its defense industries, intelligence networks, and high-end semiconductor sector are inseparable from U.S. supply chains and export controls. It receives billions in U.S. military aid annually and shares real-time intelligence feeds across domains from cyber to missile defense. This alignment means that when Washington draws red lines—such as restricting dual-use technology transfers to China or prohibiting Chinese-made vehicles on military bases—Israel must comply. The recent decision by the Israel Defense Forces to withdraw Chinese-made electric vehicles from service illustrates this perfectly. Ostensibly, the issue was data security, but the move signals Israel’s growing alignment with U.S. hard-security norms: Chinese technology is too opaque, too interconnected, and too risky to trust inside sensitive environments.
Yet at the soft-control level, Israel’s private tech ecosystem is far more pragmatic—and exposed. Its startups are built on global capital, and for years China has been one of their most enthusiastic investors and customers. The Changzhou Innovation Park in Jiangsu Province, for example, has become a magnet for Israeli companies in AI, optics, autonomous vehicles, and cybersecurity. These firms often operate through Chinese subsidiaries, employing local engineers and embedding their IP into China’s industrial fabric. This commercial pragmatism has been lucrative, but it creates friction with Washington. Each new Israeli technology that scales inside China strengthens Beijing’s innovation base while complicating export compliance for Tel Aviv. The danger is that Israel’s innovation economy could become an inadvertent conduit—feeding Chinese civilian projects that have downstream military applications.
This tension—security alignment with the U.S., economic engagement with China—defines Israel’s entire strategic posture. It is the prototype of the “dual-track” state: one operating system for defense, another for commerce. The United States tolerates this as long as the firewall holds; China exploits it by offering access, capital, and flattery of Israel’s technological prowess. Beijing presents itself not as a rival but as a partner in “civilian innovation,” subtly drawing Israeli talent and IP into its orbit while respecting the visible boundaries of defense technology.
For Israel, the risk is the same kind of institutional drift we discussed earlier—but playing out through markets rather than ministries. As Chinese partnerships deepen, commercial dependence can start to shape policy behavior: decisions about export approvals, regulatory definitions of “dual use,” or participation in international tech standards. These are small bureaucratic levers, but over time they can tilt a country’s alignment. The code doesn’t have to be Chinese; the incentives are.
In this way, Israel serves as a microcosm of what middle powers across the world are facing. It relies on American protection, but it thrives on Chinese markets. It believes in open innovation, but it must now vet every line of code for geopolitical implications. It doesn’t want to choose—but the structure of the tech war is built to force exactly that.
So, where is Israel in all this? It stands precisely on the fault line. Militarily and ideologically, it lives in the U.S. system; economically and technologically, it has one foot in China’s. That makes Israel both a prize and a precedent. If it can sustain its dual track—protecting sovereignty while engaging both giants—it becomes the model for others. If it fails, it will prove that even the most sophisticated middle powers cannot remain neutral in a world where data, code, and governance have become the new borders.
Those who stand between two giants are crushed not by malice, but by gravity. ~ Terpsehore Maras
CHINA FINDS LEVERAGE IN ISRAEL
Israel sees the United States as its only existential ally. That’s not rhetoric; it’s strategic reality. Israel’s defense systems, financial aid, and even its nuclear ambiguity policy are all underwritten by U.S. protection. The alliance isn’t merely military—it’s infrastructural. From missile defense to advanced radar systems to shared cyber capabilities, Israel is wired directly into American systems. That interdependence means that any data, code, or subsystem touched by Israeli innovation has, in effect, a backchannel into the U.S. defense and intelligence ecosystem.
China understands this very well, and this is precisely why Beijing cultivates Israeli partnerships—not because Israel can sell it stealth fighters or ballistic systems, but because Israel sits at the heart of the Western technology bloodstream. By embedding itself in Israeli civilian tech ecosystems—AI, optics, quantum sensors, and dual-use semiconductors—China can study, adapt, and sometimes reverse-engineer technologies that are only one degree removed from U.S. military applications. It’s not direct espionage; it’s structural osmosis.
This is how China benefits: it gains insight into Western innovation cycles and R&D priorities through Israel’s commercially open, entrepreneurial landscape—one that often blurs civilian and defense boundaries. Chinese venture funds, often state-linked, invest in Israeli startups that are notionally civilian but operate at the frontier of military-adjacent technologies: computer vision, autonomous systems, secure communications. The data, talent, and IP that flow through these ventures form a soft intelligence network — a kind of indirect embedment into U.S. systems through trusted Israeli intermediaries.
EXAMPLE ISRAEL DUAL ALIGNMENT NATSEC CONCERNS
Mobileye, the Israeli autonomous-driving pioneer is now owned by Intel. It remains an Israeli company at its core, but it depends on partnerships with Chinese automakers and data platforms to scale its driver-assist systems. Every time Mobileye deploys its vision stack inside a Chinese-made vehicle, the underlying algorithms—built under U.S. export and IP protections—interact with Chinese sensor suites, mapping databases, and connectivity networks. It’s not espionage, but it is technological cross-pollination: a flow of insights about edge-processing, safety logic, and data architecture that can’t be fully firewalled once commercial integration begins.
Firms like Qualcomm, Intel/Mobileye, and even Nvidia’s Israeli research units exemplify this soft-network phenomenon. They operate fully within U.S. regulatory and security frameworks, yet their Israeli research nodes sit at a crossroads of Western defense collaboration, open academic science, and aggressive Chinese commercial outreach. It’s in that intersection—not in any single act of espionage—that the “soft intelligence network” forms.
Israel’s attempt to sustain deep technological ties with both Washington and Beijing is creating a subtle but potentially volatile dimension of U.S. national security concern. The country’s innovation ecosystem acts as a living bridge between two competing digital orders: one governed by American security standards and export controls, the other driven by China’s hunger for advanced hardware, algorithms, and design talent. Within this intersection, U.S.-aligned firms operating in Israel—companies like Qualcomm, Intel/Mobileye, and Nvidia—become inadvertent conduits through which expertise, data practices, and development methodologies can circulate across geopolitical boundaries. This isn’t espionage in the traditional sense; it’s structural permeability born of globalized science and venture capital. The challenge for Washington is to preserve the creative openness that makes Israel so valuable as an ally, while preventing its research and investment networks from serving as quiet transmission lines between rival systems. To manage that balance, the soft intelligence network must be defused—not by isolation, but by methodically identifying and tightening the silent arteries through which capital, code, and talent flow unchecked.
SOFT INTELLIGENCE DEFUSING STRATEGY IS NEEDED
A soft intelligence network is best defused by shrinking the quiet pathways—capital, code, data, and talent—through which know-how seeps from one ecosystem into another, without strangling legitimate collaboration. The first move is mapping the network with precision: follow the money across venture rounds, board seats, and university labs; trace code lineage through repositories and model weights; inventory where sensitive datasets, design kits, and toolchains actually live. Once you can see the arteries, you can selectively clamp them.
From there, swap blunt bans for contractual and architectural containment. Every cross-border partnership that touches dual-use tech should carry auditable data-governance terms (local custody, narrow purpose, deletion timelines), reproducible build environments, and clean-room development so algorithms can be improved without exposing core IP. Keep source accessible to partners only as interfaces—stable APIs, SDKs, and encrypted model endpoints—rather than full repositories. Tie milestones and payments to third-party compliance attestations, and make breach-of-trust clauses automatic and expensive so the default behavior is caution.
On the technical side, harden the stack so value flows as performance, not as extractable IP. Use privacy-preserving learning, on-device inference with signed modules, SBOMs and firmware attestation, and compartmentalized architectures where sensitive models reside in controlled enclaves while partners interact through telemetry and evaluation harnesses. For hardware, require trusted BOMs and secure elements; for software, require deterministic reproducible builds so you can prove what shipped. If knowledge must move, move it as validated benchmarks and red-team reports rather than raw data or weights.
Talent is a major leakage channel, so manage it with incentives, not walls. Create fellowships and secondments that rotate high-value researchers through allied institutions with clear IP assignments, cooling-off periods, and post-employment disclosure requirements. Pair that with targeted visa lanes into trusted ecosystems, so the best people don’t have to choose dubious sponsors to do frontier work. Where risk is highest, rely on “need-to-know” team topology, fine-grained repo permissions, and immutable audit logs that make inappropriate access visible and career-ending.
Finance and insurance can do quiet work that policy alone can’t. Condition development-bank loans, export finance, and cloud credits on verifiable governance safeguards; reward compliant projects with cheaper capital and cyber-risk premiums. Offer a voluntary trust label that certifies secure update chains, data-minimization, and incident reporting; let ports, hospitals, and smart-city buyers lower their insurance costs by choosing labeled systems. When the cheapest, least risky path is the clean one, soft networks starve.
Finally, coordinate with allies so the rules travel with the work. Harmonize investment screening, dual-use export definitions, and research-security norms across the U.S., EU, South Korea, Japan, Israel, and Singapore; publish shared conformance tests and reference implementations that partners can adopt tomorrow. In practice, this turns “defusing” into a steady state: open where it’s safe, partitioned where it’s not, and always auditable. The aim isn’t autarky. It’s to make the lawful, trusted corridor the path of least resistance—and to ensure that when collaboration happens, the code doesn’t quietly become the constitution.
Yet even as the United States works to synchronize its allies under a shared framework of transparency and controlled openness, the system itself functions inside an environment of organized chaos. Perfect coordination is impossible in a world where every partner state has overlapping loyalties, economic dependencies, and political imperatives. The global tech alliance that Washington envisions—auditable, interoperable, and rule-based—exists within a lattice of competing incentives that no amount of policy harmonization can fully contain. Israel illustrates this tension in sharp relief: a nation woven so tightly into the U.S. defense and intelligence architecture that it effectively shares Washington’s nervous system, yet commercially intertwined with China’s innovation networks and venture capital pipelines. In that space between alignment and autonomy, chaos doesn’t appear as disorder but as structure—a self-sustaining equilibrium where each actor pursues its interests while claiming cooperation. This is the geopolitical paradox of the digital age: the more the United States seeks to bring order to its alliances, the more complex and entangled the system becomes, creating precisely the conditions through which influence, data, and trust can be both shared and weaponized.
Israel sees the United States as its only existential ally. That’s not rhetoric; it’s strategic reality. Israel’s defense systems, financial aid, and even its nuclear ambiguity policy are all underwritten by U.S. protection. The alliance isn’t merely military—it’s infrastructural. From missile defense to advanced radar systems to shared cyber capabilities, Israel is wired directly into American systems. That interdependence means that any data, code, or subsystem touched by Israeli innovation has, in effect, a backchannel into the U.S. defense and intelligence ecosystem.
China understands this very well, and this is precisely why Beijing cultivates Israeli partnerships—not because Israel can sell it stealth fighters or ballistic systems, but because Israel sits at the heart of the Western technology bloodstream. By embedding itself in Israeli civilian tech ecosystems—AI, optics, quantum sensors, and dual-use semiconductors—China can study, adapt, and sometimes reverse-engineer technologies that are only one degree removed from U.S. military applications. It’s not direct espionage; it’s structural osmosis.
This is how China benefits: it gains insight into Western innovation cycles and R&D priorities through Israel’s commercially open, entrepreneurial landscape—one that often blurs civilian and defense boundaries. Chinese venture funds, often state-linked, invest in Israeli startups that are notionally civilian but operate at the frontier of military-adjacent technologies: computer vision, autonomous systems, secure communications. The data, talent, and IP that flow through these ventures form a soft intelligence network — a kind of indirect embedment into U.S. systems through trusted Israeli intermediaries.
RUSSIA EXPLOITING THIS DYNAMIC
Here is where chaos vector comes in. Russia thrives on ambiguity and fracture. It doesn’t need to control Israel or China; it just needs to exploit the trust gaps between the U.S. and its allies. If Moscow can make Washington suspect that Israel’s open innovation ties to China pose a security risk, or make Beijing believe that Israeli cooperation with the U.S. threatens Chinese interests, it deepens the mistrust that weakens both networks. That’s the essence of Russian hybrid strategy — to stir enough uncertainty that alliances fray and coordination slows.
Russia also benefits operationally. By observing or even covertly amplifying these crosscurrents, it can gauge how information moves between the U.S. and Israel, and how China leverages that relationship. Russian intelligence understands that in the digital era, “allies” are also attack surfaces. Every integration point—joint defense programs, shared cloud infrastructure, or dual-use innovation hubs—creates an entry vector not for physical espionage but for influence and informational asymmetry.
The chaos is exactly this: Israel, America’s most intimate partner, is also one of the most penetrated innovation ecosystems in the world. China benefits from its openness; Russia benefits from the doubt that this openness creates. Israel’s brilliance—its ability to exist in both worlds—is what makes it indispensable. But it’s also what makes it vulnerable, not because it’s unfaithful, but because in a world built on data and code, even trust can be weaponized.
Israel isn’t secretly working for Beijing; That would be the destruction of Israel itself, and to be frank, the dependency chains and political costs make that impossible. But the structure of the competition almost guarantees that Israel becomes a pressure valve in someone else’s strategy. Washington will tighten controls around dual-use tech and investment flows, forcing Tel Aviv to prove loyalty in ever more visible ways. Beijing, unwilling to lose access to one of the world’s most fertile innovation clusters, will keep probing through commercial partnerships, venture capital, and joint research that sit just below the security threshold. The result is not betrayal but exhaustion: an ally pulled so hard in opposite directions that its openness itself becomes the resource everyone tries to exploit.
The solution unfolding is a managed alignment—Israel is gradually hard-wiring itself deeper into the U.S. security and semiconductor ecosystem, while Chinese participation is pushed to peripheral, civilian sectors. The price will be economic: fewer investment options, slower scaling for startups, and a visible cooling of China ties. But the payoff is strategic survival. The United States cannot afford to lose Israel’s technical edge or intelligence integration, and Israel cannot afford to gamble on China’s protection in a real crisis.
Realistically the future is not espionage or defection; it’s attrition and consolidation. The chaos stays organized because every player still needs the others for something—China for access to innovation, the U.S. for trusted capacity, Russia for disruption that keeps everyone off balance, and Israel for the connective tissue that still holds. Over time that tissue will thicken in one direction: toward Washington. And the quiet truth beneath all the maneuvering is that in this era of code, chips, and data, neutrality is an illusion. Israel won’t be sacrificed, but it will be absorbed—its freedom to play both sides traded for the security of staying inside the only system that can truly defend it.
Will Israel Side with the US?
Israel won’t be sacrificed, but it will, inevitably, be absorbed—not through conquest or coercion, but through the slow, magnetic pull of strategic necessity. Its autonomy to navigate between the U.S. and China will contract year by year as technology, security, and intelligence systems continue to fuse across the American-led network. The very advantages that make Israel indispensable—its innovation capacity, cyber expertise, and integration into U.S. defense architectures—also make independence increasingly impossible. To remain credible inside the American security umbrella, Israel will have to surrender parts of its economic flexibility, submitting to tighter export controls, joint venture screening, and supply-chain transparency.
This absorption won’t be announced; it will unfold in the wiring. Israeli defense code will sync more deeply with U.S. military networks. Its chip foundries will prioritize American orders. Its startups will turn to Washington, Tokyo, and Seoul for capital instead of Beijing. The shift will feel administrative at first—new compliance rules, stricter oversight of dual-use research—but collectively it will redraw Israel’s perimeter. China, for its part, will interpret the drift as alignment by compulsion, not conviction, and will respond by tightening its own network of clients and proxies elsewhere.
What disappears in this process is Israel’s ability to play the hinge, the agile broker between superpowers that it once was. In the digital world, the space for ambiguity is collapsing. Data cannot serve two masters, and code cannot live inside rival architectures. So Israel will choose—though “choice” may be the wrong word. It will be drawn fully into the American system, trading the illusion of balanced diplomacy for the tangible protection of an order it helped secure but no longer controls. And in that trade lies the quiet paradox of the modern age: survival through submission, sovereignty sustained by integration, and independence measured not by distance from allies but by how deeply one’s systems are entangled with theirs.
To be trusted by both sides of a war is to be trusted by neither; neutrality becomes the mask of betrayal. ~ Terpsehore Maras
Israel choosing China Is A Strong Possibility
If Israel were to pivot decisively toward China rather than tightening itself into the U.S.-led system, it would represent a profound strategic rupture rather than a normal adjustment.
Economically, the first-order effects would look attractive. Beijing would move quickly to flood Israeli startups with capital, offer guaranteed procurement contracts for defense-adjacent technologies framed as “civilian,” and tie the country into Belt-and-Road digital corridors from Haifa through Suez into Africa and Central Asia. Israel’s export base in semiconductors, autonomous systems, and cybersecurity could suddenly find vast, lightly regulated markets. In the short term, Tel Aviv’s GDP might rise, and Chinese partnerships could ease the current pressure of Western compliance and export restrictions.
But within a few years, the costs would eclipse the windfall. The United States would have no choice but to treat Israel as a compromised node inside its defense web. Joint R&D programs would be suspended or relocated, the U.S.-Israel intelligence pipeline would shrink to a trickle, and congressional support for military aid—the foundation of Israel’s deterrence—would erode. European states would follow Washington’s lead, closing procurement and research channels. The global capital that sustains Israel’s innovation sector—venture funds, NASDAQ listings, dollar-denominated credit—would dry up almost overnight, replaced by yuan financing that cannot offer equivalent depth or liquidity.
Strategically, Israel would lose what no amount of Chinese investment can replicate: the guarantee of American military protection. Beijing would not risk confrontation with the U.S. Navy or NATO to defend Israeli interests in the region. Its aid would come in the form of contracts, not carrier groups. In this scenario, Israel would find itself isolated—politically distrusted by Washington, economically tied to Beijing, and militarily self-reliant in a far more dangerous Middle East.
Over time, such a shift would also change the country internally. Chinese infrastructure and data platforms would become the default in logistics, transport, and smart-city projects. Governance would begin to mirror the tools it relies on: centralized, data-driven, less transparent. Israel’s democratic resilience, long sustained by Western legal and institutional norms, would gradually weaken under the gravitational pull of Chinese administrative models.
In short, flocking to China might buy Israel a few years of economic freedom but at the expense of strategic loneliness. The U.S.-led alliance would move on without it, embedding alternative hubs in Greece, Cyprus, or the Gulf. Beijing would gain a showcase partner but not a protectorate—it would extract knowledge, not offer security. Israel’s independence would look intact on paper, yet in reality it would have traded one form of entanglement for another: U.S. oversight for Chinese dependence, democratic leverage for transactional survival.
That’s the realistic outcome—not a betrayal, but a reclassification. Israel would cease to be America’s closest ally and become another node in China’s global technology supply chain: wealthy, capable, and utterly alone.
RUSSIA’S CHAOS is NEEDED FOR MIDDLE POWERS
Bottomline for Israel is that whichever direction Israel turns — U.S. or China — it loses a measure of independence. The United States absorbs it through alliance; China ensnares it through economic dependence. Both superpowers, in different ways, diminish Israel’s strategic maneuverability. That’s the structural reality of being a small, hyper-technological power in a bifurcated world system.
But Russia’s chaos does not “create“ sovereignty for Israel. What it creates is room to maneuver, a kind of artificial breathing space that Israel can exploit — temporarily. Moscow’s constant disruption of global norms and alliances destabilizes the rigid U.S.–China dichotomy. That instability allows middle powers like Israel to play in the gray zone longer than they otherwise could. When Washington is distracted by a cyber incident, or Beijing by sanctions or border tensions, Tel Aviv can quietly expand trade, recalibrate regulations, or accept new investment without immediate reprisal.
This is sovereignty as turbulence, not as autonomy. It’s not independence built on stability and self-sufficiency — it’s independence purchased by volatility. Russia’s interference prevents either bloc from closing the system completely, which gives Israel (and others like India, Turkey, or the UAE) short bursts of strategic flexibility. But chaos is an oxygen that burns. Over time, it corrodes trust, raises transaction costs, and pushes every state to harden its alignments just to survive.
In the narrowest sense, Russian chaos extends Israel’s freedom to hedge. It keeps the board fluid long enough for Israel to play both sides a little longer. Yet in the long game, that same disorder undermines the global predictability that small states need to thrive. It’s sovereignty on borrowed time — the illusion of independence sustained by everyone else’s instability. Eventually, the noise will settle into new blocs, and Israel will have to choose where to anchor.
In other words: Russia can give Israel space, but not safety. Chaos delays subordination; it doesn’t prevent it. True sovereignty will come not from exploiting disorder, but from mastering interdependence — from designing the terms of integration, rather than being forced to live within someone else’s code.
AFTERTHOUGHTS
Chaos—controlled, cyclical, and uneven—is increasingly necessary for the illusion of peace. In a world where life, governance, and identity are all online, stability isn’t the absence of conflict; it’s the managed oscillation between competing systems. The U.S. and China don’t merely dominate through armies or trade routes anymore—they dominate through architecture: networks, protocols, standards, and platforms. Every country, corporation, and even citizen now lives inside one of these architectures, whether through cloud systems, payment rails, data governance models, or AI ethics codes.
If either the U.S. or China were to achieve total, frictionless dominance, the world would stop breathing. A single, uncontested system—no matter how benevolent its intent—would calcify innovation, eliminate negotiation, and erase the small spaces where nations and individuals can improvise. Chaos, then, becomes the oxygen in a sealed digital ecosystem. It’s the turbulence that keeps power from becoming monolithic.
That’s what Russia, intentionally or not, injects into the system: entropy as equilibrium. By fracturing consensus, spreading disinformation, and destabilizing norms, Moscow ensures that no single hegemon can declare ideological or technological finality. This doesn’t make Russia a stabilizing force—it makes it the accelerant of permanent flux. Yet paradoxically, that very flux keeps the world’s arteries open. Middle powers—Israel, India, South Korea, Turkey—use those cracks in order to breathe, to maneuver, to retain a fragment of choice in a system that’s increasingly binary.
Technology is life, the contest is no longer abstract or external. The internet isn’t infrastructure—it’s habitat. To control networks is to shape thought, law, and identity. When you log into a platform, use an AI, or build a chip, you’re participating in a form of governance. This means the old Cold War vocabulary—territories, treaties, blocs—no longer fully applies. What we have now is teeter dominance an unstable equilibrium maintained by the constant tension between two digital empires, each too powerful to destroy the other, yet too dependent on global participation to dominate completely.
And within that precarious balance lies the strange truth of our time: chaos is not the opposite of order; it’s the condition that allows order to exist without collapsing into tyranny. The world’s peace is now a performance of imbalance—a choreography of instability in which everyone, knowingly or not, is dancing to stay alive inside the code.
The world lives in a managed state of stress, a permanent low-grade emergency that never quite becomes war but never fully returns to calm.
For nations, that means perpetual readiness: militaries running simulations against invisible cyberthreats, intelligence agencies scanning for data leaks in supply chains, regulators rewriting laws faster than technologies can stabilize. For citizens, it’s ambient anxiety—living inside platforms that track, predict, and monetize every impulse while telling us it’s for convenience or safety. Peace becomes the maintenance of tension, not its resolution.
This is why modern governance increasingly looks like crisis management as a form of control. Governments have learned to stretch moments of instability into enduring justification: pandemic, disinformation, cyberattacks, climate shocks—all feed into a narrative where emergency is the norm, and the promise of “security” is the perpetual subscription you can never cancel.
It’s not sustainable in the human sense, but it’s stable in the systemic one. Stress keeps the machine awake. If the world ever truly relaxed—if the networks went silent and the markets stopped trembling—the illusion of control might fall apart. The danger isn’t chaos; it’s stagnation.
Peace, as we now experience it, is a form of sustained, distributed stress. A hum that keeps civilization functional but restless. And the terrifying irony is that this restlessness is what passes for stability in the digital age.
So maybe now it’s clear: the billions aren’t just aid, they’re insurance—and the anti-Israel noise is the static of a Russian-designed script. Chaos is the currency. Stability is the illusion.
ENJOY THE SHOW>
If you like my work, you can tip or support me via TIP ME or subscribe to me on Subscribestar! I am 100% people-funded, I have NO SPONSORS. You can also follow and subscribe to me on Rumble and Locals or subscribe to my Substack. I am 100% people-funded. www.toresays.com
Digital Dominion Series is now on Amazon: VOLUME I, VOLUME II, and Volume III – and Pre-order for Digital Dominion Volume V is on presale now.
