n 1942, Joseph Schumpeter argued that capitalism endures by dismantling its own structures, a process he termed creative destruction. For eighty years, this concept has shaped our understanding of markets. With the G7 convening in Évian-les-Bains, creative destruction is reshaping the geopolitical order and requires immediate attention.
Traditionally, security alliances relied on shared doctrine. NATO was founded on democratic principles, and the G7 brought together market democracies. This foundation is now being replaced by a new logic. Alliances are shifting from shared values to coalitions based on capabilities such as compute access, semiconductor supply chains, and AI infrastructure. Washington’s Pax Silica framework illustrates this shift, organizing cooperation around shared dependencies like critical minerals, manufacturing capacity, and data ecosystems. Today, the basis of alliances is no longer ideology but computing power.
Schumpeter would have recognized the consequences of this shift. When alliances form around supply chains instead of values, those who control these chains gain significant power. A private company’s decision to withhold an AI model from a government now carries more strategic importance than many treaty clauses. In the past year, key security decisions have been made through cloudy, bilateral procurement contracts between states and technology firms, often without public accountability. This governance–by–invoice marks the most significant unacknowledged change in the geopolitical order since the Cold War.
As the nature of alliances shifts, diplomacy must also evolve. For the G7 to remain relevant amid shifts to alliance networks, it must move beyond the idea that current diplomatic tools can manage these dynamics. Summit communiqués and framework declarations were designed for a time when states determined the pace of security. Now, a model developed in San Francisco can reshape military doctrine in allied capitals within weeks, and semiconductor export controls can alter alliances faster than diplomats can respond. The pace is now set by actors outside the traditional diplomatic system.
Schumpeter’s insight shows that creative destruction enables renewal, not chaos. The opportunity at Évian is to create a security system that can adapt and evolve. This requires conditioning allied AI procurement to shared standards such as auditability and red–teaming, ensuring that compute interdependence includes democratic safeguards. The G7 should also commit to clearly documenting disagreements beyond communiqués, acknowledging differences rather than overlooking issues that reappear after the summit.
History does not remember summits that kept things the same. It remembers those who were brave enough to face reality and act. At Évian, the G7 has a rare chance not only to navigate the transition from one era to another but also to shape it with purpose, responsibility, and a focus on global democracy. The era of computing power is here, ready or not. The real question is whether our institutions will step up to guide this change or simply stand by as it happens.
a global affairs media network
The G7’s post–ideology, post-treaty “compute reckoning”
Nighttime view of Évian-les-Bains, where the G7 will be held. Image by Deralpinbergsteiger, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
June 15, 2026
The basis of alliances are shifting from shared values to high-tech supply chains and capability. To meet its remit, the G7 at Évian must look beyond traditional tools of diplomatic practice to build governance fit for a post-ideology world, writes Rui Duarte.
I
n 1942, Joseph Schumpeter argued that capitalism endures by dismantling its own structures, a process he termed creative destruction. For eighty years, this concept has shaped our understanding of markets. With the G7 convening in Évian-les-Bains, creative destruction is reshaping the geopolitical order and requires immediate attention.
Traditionally, security alliances relied on shared doctrine. NATO was founded on democratic principles, and the G7 brought together market democracies. This foundation is now being replaced by a new logic. Alliances are shifting from shared values to coalitions based on capabilities such as compute access, semiconductor supply chains, and AI infrastructure. Washington’s Pax Silica framework illustrates this shift, organizing cooperation around shared dependencies like critical minerals, manufacturing capacity, and data ecosystems. Today, the basis of alliances is no longer ideology but computing power.
Schumpeter would have recognized the consequences of this shift. When alliances form around supply chains instead of values, those who control these chains gain significant power. A private company’s decision to withhold an AI model from a government now carries more strategic importance than many treaty clauses. In the past year, key security decisions have been made through cloudy, bilateral procurement contracts between states and technology firms, often without public accountability. This governance–by–invoice marks the most significant unacknowledged change in the geopolitical order since the Cold War.
As the nature of alliances shifts, diplomacy must also evolve. For the G7 to remain relevant amid shifts to alliance networks, it must move beyond the idea that current diplomatic tools can manage these dynamics. Summit communiqués and framework declarations were designed for a time when states determined the pace of security. Now, a model developed in San Francisco can reshape military doctrine in allied capitals within weeks, and semiconductor export controls can alter alliances faster than diplomats can respond. The pace is now set by actors outside the traditional diplomatic system.
Schumpeter’s insight shows that creative destruction enables renewal, not chaos. The opportunity at Évian is to create a security system that can adapt and evolve. This requires conditioning allied AI procurement to shared standards such as auditability and red–teaming, ensuring that compute interdependence includes democratic safeguards. The G7 should also commit to clearly documenting disagreements beyond communiqués, acknowledging differences rather than overlooking issues that reappear after the summit.
History does not remember summits that kept things the same. It remembers those who were brave enough to face reality and act. At Évian, the G7 has a rare chance not only to navigate the transition from one era to another but also to shape it with purpose, responsibility, and a focus on global democracy. The era of computing power is here, ready or not. The real question is whether our institutions will step up to guide this change or simply stand by as it happens.
