Updated: 2026/01/17
Defence AI Transformation Strategies of Five Eyes Middle Powers
This study examines the defence strategies and defence–industrial cooperation of middle powers in the era of ‘artificial intelligence transformation (AX)’. In the contemporary era, ‘defence AX’, understood as the realisation of military innovation through AI, has become a necessary condition for maintaining national security. Unlike major powers, however, middle powers with limited technological and industrial bases tend to pursue defence AX through alliance-based cooperation under conditions of resource constraint. Middle powers within the Five Eyes—widely regarded as core U.S. allies—have likewise sought to modernise their armed forces and enhance integrated deterrence through AI-related defence collaboration with America. At the same time, they remain concerned that deepening dependence on Washington may reinforce technological subordination and undermine strategic autonomy. With the advent of a second Trump administration, U.S. alliance policy has increasingly been characterised by short-term national interest calculations and transactional modes of cooperation, while the restructuring of global technology supply chains around U.S.-centric priorities has intensified pressure on allies. As a result, concerns among these middle powers have become more pronounced, prompting a strategic shift in which they seek to sustain alliance cooperation while simultaneously fostering domestic defence industries and strengthening sovereign control over defence AI. To explain this trajectory, the study integrates Glenn Snyder’s alliance security dilemma framework with network theory and advances the hypothesis that middle powers in subordinate alliance positions pursue ‘limited exit power’ to manage the dual risks of entrapment and abandonment. In this context, defence strategies in the AX era are oriented toward securing strategic value and autonomy within alliance networks by combining short-term alliance cooperation with longer-term efforts at self-reliance.
Middle Powers’ Defence Cooperation Diplomacy and Shifts in Strategic Postures
This study examines the cases of defence cooperation diplomacy pursued by Canada and Australia, two traditional middle powers, in response to the changing security environment, and explores these cases in relation to shifts in each country’s defence strategic posture. While both countries are considered to be in similar situations in terms of military capability, alliance relationships, and geopolitical position, they have recently taken diverging paths in their defence cooperation diplomacy. Historically, both nations have pursued military modernisation based on close cooperation with the United States. However, recent developments have revealed differences in their approach to partnership with America. These differences are closely linked to changes in their respective defence strategic posture. Canada is shifting towards reducing its reliance on the U.S. and strengthening its self-defence, while still following its traditional ‘Three-Pillar defence strategy’, which focuses on the defence of the northern region and continental North America, as well as contributions to international security. In contrast, Australia is framing regional stability in the Indo-Pacific as directly tied to its national security, and establishing a new defence doctrine known as the ‘Indo-Pacific defence strategy’ that combines forward defence and the defence of Australia to address emerging geopolitical crises.
Countering AI-Enabled Cognitive Warfare: Lessons from the Five Eyes Countries
This study examines how the Five Eyes countries—including the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand—have responded to emerging cognitive warfare threats posed by generative artificial intelligence (AI), such as disinformation operations and foreign interference in democratic processes. It explores the coordinated development of response strategies across three key domains: international cooperation, whole-of-government approaches, and public-private collaboration. The study finds that while each country adopts slightly different frameworks, they share a recognition of the urgency posed by AI-enabled influence campaigns and the need for multidimensional countermeasures.