The explosive growth of artificial intelligence, semiconductors, and the digital economy is often portrayed as evidence of a post-industrial world—one in which power supposedly shifts away from physical resources toward data, algorithms, and innovation. Yet current global dynamics point in a far more complex direction. Rather than eliminating traditional geopolitics, technological disruption is reviving and reshaping it.
Behind every breakthrough in AI lies a physical foundation: chips, energy, and vast quantities of strategic minerals. Far from becoming obsolete, these resources are once again central to global power competition. The digital future, paradoxically, is becoming more dependent on the material world.
AI systems require advanced semiconductors. Semiconductors require critical minerals such as nickel, lithium, cobalt, copper, and rare earth elements. And minerals depend on land access, energy availability, infrastructure, and geopolitical stability. In this chain, countries rich in natural resources are regaining strategic relevance. Indonesia, with the world’s largest nickel reserves and a growing role in global mineral supply, occupies a structurally important position in this emerging order.
A Multipolar Reality, Not a Simple East–West Divide
Today’s geopolitical map can no longer be understood through a simplistic “West versus East” narrative. The United States and the European Union increasingly pursue distinct and sometimes diverging strategies, driven by their own national interests—especially when it comes to securing energy and critical minerals.
For Washington, critical minerals are framed primarily as a national security issue. US industrial policy explicitly links mineral supply resilience to technological leadership and defense readiness. Securing access to strategic resources is therefore treated as part of broader security planning, not merely an economic concern.
This approach has fueled aggressive efforts to diversify supply chains through investments, diplomatic initiatives, and geopolitical engagement across Latin America, Africa, and even the Arctic region. The goal is to reduce dependence on any single supplier, particularly China.
The European Union faces a different risk profile. Europe’s manufacturing base—especially in automotive, renewable energy, and advanced machinery—remains heavily dependent on imported minerals and components, many of which originate from China. As a result, the EU’s critical minerals agenda is driven more by concerns over industrial sustainability and economic stability than by purely military considerations.
These differing priorities illustrate a broader trend: the West no longer speaks with a single voice. The global system is becoming more fragmented and fluid, creating new spaces for resource-rich countries to maneuver.
Energy and Minerals Return as Strategic Battlegrounds
Recent geopolitical developments confirm that energy and minerals are once again at the heart of global competition. Venezuela is frequently cited as an extreme example of how resource wealth can turn into a geopolitical liability.
Despite possessing the world’s largest proven oil reserves, Venezuela has suffered from prolonged economic collapse, international sanctions, and political instability. The problem is not a lack of resources, but weak governance and confrontational geopolitical positioning. The case demonstrates how international rules and market norms can become flexible—or even irrelevant—when strategic resources are involved.
Elsewhere, Greenland has emerged as a new arena of competition. The Arctic territory holds dozens of minerals classified as critical by both the United States and the European Union, including rare earth elements, graphite, and niobium. Growing geopolitical interest in Greenland reflects recognition that future high-tech industries and clean energy systems will require massive, long-term mineral supplies.
Control over such regions is no longer just about economic opportunity. It is about securing the foundations of future technological and military power.
Taiwan, Semiconductors, and Global Vulnerability
Tensions between China and Taiwan add another layer to this evolving landscape. The Taiwan issue is often discussed in terms of sovereignty or ideology, but it is equally about semiconductors and core technologies.
Conclusion
The euphoria surrounding AI and the digital economy has not overturned the fundamental lessons of global politics. Power still rests on energy, land, and minerals. Technology changes the form of competition, but not its foundations.
In a fragmented world where no single bloc dominates, Indonesia has a chance to influence the direction and tempo of the game rather than remain a passive target of geopolitical interests. Achieving this will depend less on the size of its mineral reserves and more on the quality of its strategy, governance, and long-term vision.
🔗 Related topic: https://www.tlogies.net/search/label/Ai%20News
