Middle Power Strategy: Rising Influence & Global Shifts

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney recently called on middle powers to act independently as major-power rivalry intensifies and differences emerge between the United States and its allies, signaling a shift towards a new world order dominated by major powers and increasingly assertive middle powers.

Drivers of Strategic Autonomy

The emergence of strategically autonomous countries – including India, Indonesia, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Brazil – is a recent development. During the Cold War, while many countries desired strategic autonomy, most lacked the capacity to pursue it effectively.

Following the Cold War, several nations became capable powers, but the need for autonomy diminished due to a stable international environment and U.S. leadership. Today, both the power of many countries and the necessity for strategic autonomy are resurfacing, driven by escalating crises, fracturing global interdependence, and a shifting U.S. role in international affairs.

The return of conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, and potential tensions between the United States and China, have made self-reliance a matter of national survival. Furthermore, the logic of globalization is giving way to geoeconomics, with countries prioritizing control over economic interdependence to advance their interests.

The United States’ evolving role, as outlined in the new National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy, also contributes to this trend.

Dynamics of Autonomy

Achieving strategic autonomy requires building national power, beginning with strong defenses. Countries worldwide are increasing defense spending, with NATO members agreeing to allocate 5% of their GDP to defense by 2035, and similar increases implemented by Japan, South Korea, and Australia.

Regaining control over global interdependence through economic statecraft is also crucial. Countries are incentivizing local production, particularly in strategic sectors, and establishing procurement linkages with trusted partners. Post-pandemic, the United States, the European Union, Brazil, and India have sought to re-shore, near-shore, or friend-shore supply chains for medical supplies, steel, and electric vehicle batteries.

Finally, flexible diplomatic engagement – diversifying relationships to reduce dependence on traditional powers – is essential. Many European, Asian, and Middle Eastern countries are broadening their partnerships beyond the United States and engaging in multilateral and minilateral groupings, such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, to facilitate coordination without ceding decision-making control.

Limits to Autonomy

Despite these developments, achieving strategic autonomy remains challenging. Building strong defenses is expensive, and many countries rely on foreign technology and expertise. Even with increased military spending, dependence on foreign sources remains a significant obstacle.

Economic and technological autonomy is equally difficult to achieve due to existing interdependence. China’s “dual circulation” strategy, aimed at reducing reliance on Western technology, has faced limitations, as the country remains dependent on Western semiconductors and software. The European Union also struggles to reduce its dependence on Russian gas.

Diplomatic diversification is also complex, as countries face pressure to choose between the United States and China. Regional constraints and the inability of middle powers to unilaterally drive outcomes further limit autonomy. Despite coordinated efforts to phase out fossil fuels, the final text of the 2025 United Nations Climate Change Conference sidestepped such a commitment.

US Options in an Autonomous World

An autonomy-centered world can benefit the United States by encouraging allies and partners to share more defense responsibilities and by creating more resilient global systems with diversified supply chains. It can also facilitate bilateral or minilateral negotiations with a wider range of partners.

However, this shift also carries costs, including the erosion of U.S. influence and the potential for incompatible systems or delayed coalition responses. Risks include allies developing independent defense capabilities, such as nuclear weapons, or aligning with U.S. competitors, as well as protectionist measures that could hinder innovation.

To navigate this changing landscape, the United States should encourage autonomous countries to act independently within a framework of coordination, cooperation, and shared rules. In defense, the U.S. should promote the development of complementary capabilities and interoperability with U.S. forces. Economically, the U.S. should pursue targeted restrictions in sensitive sectors while preserving open markets and fostering allied industrial cooperation, as exemplified by the Pax Silica initiative.

Ultimately, the United States can maintain its influence by leading through persuasion, empowerment, and the establishment of common standards, recognizing that effective leadership requires others to willingly follow.