Nemanja Plotan is a political economist currently serving as a Geopolitical Risk Analyst at the Vienna office of the GEA Group, a global technology supplier in the food processing industry.
When people think of geopolitical conflict, they often envision a war room with a map spread across the table—military generals and political leaders maneuvering plastic figurines in strategic formations, reminiscent of the board game Risk. Yet this image is becoming increasingly outdated. As we move deeper into the digital age, the new geopolitical “map” is dynamic and intangible—shaped not by fixed borders, but by algorithms, metadata, and artificial intelligence. The wars of tomorrow may no longer hinge on tanks and aircraft carriers, but on codes, drones, and digital narratives. The digital revolution is fundamentally reshaping how power is projected and contested on the global stage.
Traditionally, geopolitical power has been inseparable from geography. A state’s location has often been its greatest asset—or its greatest vulnerability—pushing some to become empires and reducing others to buffers or battlegrounds. This static, physical environment has long influenced the structure of international relations, reinforcing the logic of anarchy, shaping national interests, and determining access to resources, conflict zones, and trade routes. Geography has conditioned our understanding of the international system and even human nature itself.
Yet, despite geography’s enduring influence, the rise of digital technologies has begun to loosen its grip. States can now overcome some of their geographic constraints by projecting influence through cyberspace, artificial intelligence, and virtual platforms—tools that transcend borders. In doing so, they are redefining power in the twenty-first century and expanding their strategic reach in ways once thought impossible.
The Asymmetric Nature of Digital Warfare
The main characteristic of digital warfare is a steep asymmetry of cost and power. If a million-dollar missile is used to destroy a $10 tent in Yemen, it’s an obscene imbalance. But if a $1,000 drone is used to destroy a $10 million tank or aircraft, the imbalance works in reverse—it’s like using a tent to bring down a castle. This power imbalance shows that the defining feature of digital warfare is not just who brings the biggest gun to the playground, but whether it is efficiently utilized. The story of David and Goliath may very well describe the future of warfare, where digital transformation has shifted the scales of power, ushering in an era of unstoppable multipolarity.
Although Russia has more soldiers and the upper hand on the ground than Ukraine, operation “Spider’s Web” has perfectly illustrated the asymmetry in modern warfare. Houthis with their drones and missiles have forced the U.S. Navy to fire multi-million-dollar interceptors just to neutralize them. Because of low-cost technology such as drones and cyberattacks, traditional warfare has never been more expensive than it is now, shifting the balance from industrial power to tactical innovation and adaptability. However, to fully understand the role of digital technologies in power competition, one needs to step aside from realist thinking and into constructivist thinking, from conventional warfare into informational.
Digital Geopolitics is the Fourth-Generation Warfare
Data is the new gold of the twenty-first century, and digital geopolitics is the playground where this gold is extracted from and utilized for strategic use. The digital age enables states to shape narratives and project influence through a vast array of online platforms—often at a fraction of the cost of conventional means. The rise of cyber troops—state- or party-affiliated actors tasked with manipulating public opinion online—has blurred the lines between war, propaganda, and political influence. According to a 2020 study by the Oxford Internet Institute, at least 81 countries have deployed such digital operatives, employing tactics ranging from bot armies and algorithmic manipulation to targeted advertising and fake news dissemination.
For major powers like the United States, Russia, or China, engaging in such information campaigns—including attempts to influence elections in smaller democracies—may seem unsurprising, given their technological capacities and global reach. But what is truly remarkable is the reverse: small states and non-state actors using digital tools to influence the political discourse within great powers. Digital platforms have given even the smallest actors a megaphone—and sometimes, a lever.
Other studies have shown that states may use private companies to spread misinformation online for political purposes, suggesting that digital warfare is a fourth-generation warfare with an opaque distinction between the roles of civilians and actual cyber troops. In the age of code and connectivity, the asymmetry of power is no longer as rigid as it once was.
TikTok as a Form of Digital Geopolitics
States and private companies now possess an unprecedented ability to conduct their digital geopolitical strategies completely undetected. Besides TikTok having access to all the stored data on the user’s device—which has led to its complete or partial ban in many countries—its true strength lies in social engineering. Social media platforms, including TikTok, can shape identity, control published information, and shape preferences.
TikTok has completely different algorithms in international markets and in China, sparking a heated debate in the West on its nature. In China, TikTok (locally known as Douyin) reinforces a “model citizen” ideal, closely aligned with Confucian values, nationalism, and productivity; thereby cultivating a culture marked by high achievement, discipline, and national pride. On the other hand, in the West, the algorithm promotes what critics call low-effort content, addictive trends, or distraction, which leads to short attention spans, validation-seeking behavior, and a decline in intellectual depth.
ByteDance, a company that owns both TikTok and Douyin, claims that the content is based on user engagement and not ideological manipulation. Even if TikTok isn’t intentionally harming Western working culture, the CCP mandates that platforms promote “positive energy” content and is intentionally using the algorithm to promote its own agenda. In the long run, the overall productivity and competitiveness of China is greater than that of its Western counterparts, which can be perceived as a form of broader digital geopolitical strategy.
Generative AI Will Reshape Soft Power
Of all digital transformations, artificial intelligence will probably have the biggest impact on international relations. Although generative AI carries with it many benefits to the state that “controls it,” one stands out especially in digital warfare—the creation of a narrative.
Power in international relations is often reduced to its kinetic characteristics. In other words, the biggest and strongest army generates the greatest influence. However, history does not attest to this fact, as the states that misuse too much of their military power to ensure global domination usually end up losing moral high ground and popular support. Additionally, it is easier to create a preference than to change it—therefore, the new competition for global domination is a fight for the hearts and minds of the global populace. In this regard, generative AI can play an important role in reshaping the identities and preferences of its users in a way that supports the digital hegemony and narrative of the state in question.
There is a growing trend among internet users in the world who regularly use generative AI instead of search engines such as Google to inform themselves on any topic. The majority of people now believe that generative AI will replace search engines in the future.
This is especially prevalent among younger generations, as more than 45 percent of ChatGPT’s users are under the age of 25. Additionally, more than 85 percent of students in the world use generative AI for homework assignments. Although generative AI can be a powerful tool that can reduce unnecessary workload, if it becomes standard practice—especially among those attending primary schools—it can have a detrimental impact on the collective ability to critically think and digest information.
The issue with this is that generative AI can dictate certain narratives, as the user, unaware of the content that is presented in the chat, will accept all the information and form an opinion, even if the information is partial or simply not factual. In theory, an authoritarian state can create an AI model that supports its own ideology and influences users; or it can follow the public sentiment based on user engagement. Additionally, foreign states can use generative AI to create deepfakes and use them on social media to influence election results. In other words, policymakers are faced with a long list of challenges that need to be tackled in order to preserve the sovereignty and democratic pillars of their respective states. If left unregulated, in the long run, artificial intelligence can completely reshape the values and beliefs of entire generations, and the power dynamics in the international arena.
These examples showcase the difficulty of states upholding their sovereignty in the digital age. In the past, states had to worry about their neighbors and how their actions might influence them. Now, every state and non-state actor in the world is a potential attacker, and it is harder than ever to define what constitutes state borders in the digital sphere. This will be one of the most pressing challenges in the future.
