Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Over the past decade, advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have reshaped many domains of global affairs – from diplomacy and economics to security and governance. International relations scholars now study AI through lenses such as great-power rivalry, information warfare, and global governance. This essay examines these themes in the context of Central Asia, a strategically pivotal region where five states (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan) are rapidly adopting AI technologies amid competing Russian, Chinese, and Western influences. We argue that Central Asia’s digital ambitions and multi-vector diplomacy make it a revealing case of how AI affects modern international relations. The analysis draws on recent academic and policy literature, highlighting how local AI strategies intersect with global power politics, security challenges, and development goals. AI’s impact on international affairs has become a major focus for scholars. Bode (2024) observes that IR literature on AI clusters around four themes: the balance of power, disinformation, governance, and ethics. In practice, this means analysts examine how AI capabilities (e.g. robotics, data analysis) shift military power or create arms races, how AI tools spread propaganda, how new regulations or organizations emerge, and how ethical norms are challenged. For instance, recent studies note the “AI race” between the U.S. and China as a transformation of the global balance of power, with both sides seeking technological leadership and strategic partnerships. Likewise, experts warn that generative AI can amplify propaganda: Russian-sponsored “AI propaganda” networks have even begun to flood the internet with fake content to train chatbots on misleading narratives. In sum, AI is not a neutral tool but one that is rapidly being woven into statecraft and power politics. As Bode (2024) summarizes, most studies of AI in world politics have used traditional IR frameworks, but emerging scholarship is pressing beyond these frameworks to ask how AI itself might reshape concepts like the state, sovereignty, and multilateralism.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kakhkhor et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: