Yesterday at 20:01
The U.S. aimed to curb China’s technological growth by restricting access to critical technologies, hoping to tip the scales. However, global innovation is driven by a network of interconnected players — and the U.S. isn’t in control of them all. With allies showing reluctance or pushback, can Washington prevail in this tech rivalry alone, or is it risking greater losses than gains?
Read more about this in the article by Ihor Petrenko, founder of the “United Ukraine” Think Tank, Doctor of Political Sciences for The Gaze.
First of all, Petrenko argues that in today’s world, technological dominance translates into power over the economy, defense, cyberspace, and even public perception. A nation that leads in AI, microelectronics, and biotech shapes global norms — from market dynamics to international security.
This is why the U.S. is working to restrict China’s access to cutting-edge semiconductors and crucial innovations. But this goes beyond mere rivalry — it’s a battle over who will shape the future.
Secondly, political scientist explains that in October 2022, the U.S. government ushered in a new chapter in the global tech rivalry with a decisive move.
This wasn’t just another policy declaration or symbolic gesture. Washington imposed sweeping export controls on advanced chips and the equipment used to manufacture them — a strategic attempt to stall China’s technological progress.
The goal was unmistakable: to block Beijing’s access to cutting-edge processors essential for advancing AI, autonomous weapons, cyber capabilities, and large-scale surveillance systems.
While this built on policies introduced under the first Trump administration, the Biden team acted with greater reach, coordination, and ambition.
Yet U.S. policymakers knew that domestic measures alone wouldn’t be enough. The semiconductor industry is deeply international, with key technologies and components produced in countries like the Netherlands, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan — far beyond U.S. borders.
Petrenko emphasizes that the U.S. began to encounter obstacles that raised doubts about the effectiveness of its strategy. Take ASML in the Netherlands, for instance — the sole global producer of extreme ultraviolet lithography machines, essential for manufacturing the most advanced chips.
If the Dutch government doesn’t fully align with U.S. restrictions, China retains a critical backdoor. A similar situation exists in Japan, where companies like Tokyo Electron continue dealings with Chinese firms unless there’s coordinated and binding regulation.
South Korea presents a particularly sensitive challenge. With Samsung operating major facilities in China, and Seoul often torn between its security ties to Washington and its economic interests, the country’s stance remains uncertain. This fragmentation weakens the sanctions regime — it may look solid on paper, but in practice, it leaks like a sieve.
Finally, the expert analyzes that If the United States fails to maintain coordinated tech policies with its allies, future flashpoints may extend beyond Taiwan or the South China Sea — potentially emerging through proxy conflicts. In this context, Ukraine serves not as an outlier but as a cautionary example.
The choice between acting unilaterally or pursuing diplomacy goes beyond the U.S.-China rivalry. It’s fundamentally about global confidence in American leadership — from Asia to Europe. And in Europe, the stakes are high: Russia’s war against Ukraine persists, and U.S. allies are watching closely to see whether Washington remains a dependable strategic partner. If the U.S. pressures its Asian allies while simultaneously showing signs of fatigue in supporting Ukraine, it risks projecting a troubling image of inconsistency.
In today’s interconnected tech landscape, even nations not typically linked to chip production play pivotal roles. Ukraine, for instance, is a major supplier of neon gas, essential for laser-based chip engraving. Russia’s full-scale invasion exposed just how fragile parts of the global supply chain can be. This further underscores the need for broad-based international cooperation — not isolationist techno-nationalism.
Read the full article by Ihor Petrenko on The Gaze: Can America Contain China’s Tech Rise Alone?
Read also: Designing a Peace Mission for Ukraine: What Would It Take
