On 19 and 20 February 2026, the central segment of the AI Impact Summit will take place in New Delhi, within a broader programme scheduled from 16 to 20 February, bringing together heads of state and technology leaders to discuss the global implications of artificial intelligence. More than a technical forum, the meeting is emerging as a stage where Asia, Europe and the United States will measure their strength in redefining the geopolitical and commercial power of the 21st century.
Artificial intelligence is no longer a sectoral tool. It is strategic infrastructure. It is comparative advantage. It is an instrument of international influence. In that context, the Global Artificial Intelligence Summit to be held in New Delhi takes on a dimension that goes beyond academic or business cooperation.
India positions itself as host at a decisive moment. The choice of New Delhi is not accidental. Over the past decade, the country has consolidated a robust digital ecosystem, combining public biometric identity platforms, nationwide digital payment systems and a growing software and technology services industry. India competes not only on technical capacity; it competes for legitimacy as a bridge between the West and the Global South.
The confirmed presence of European leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron, reflects the European bloc’s interest in remaining relevant in a landscape where its strength has been regulatory rather than industrial. The European Union has advanced regulatory frameworks such as the Artificial Intelligence Act, prioritising a risk-based approach and the protection of fundamental rights. However, the speed of technological deployment in Asia and the United States has raised questions as to whether European regulation can become a strategic advantage or whether it will consolidate a structural lag.
The European debate over regulatory overreach is intensifying. Industrial sectors argue that regulation may slow investment and the scaling of general-purpose artificial intelligence models. Brussels maintains that without ethical standards there will be no social trust or legal stability. The AI Impact Summit will provide a setting in which this tension will be projected globally: can Europe export its regulatory model as an international standard, or will it become trapped between American speed and Asian industrial planning? This hypothesis regarding European normative projection forms part of current geopolitical analysis and does not constitute an official position declared in those terms by European institutions.
The United States, for its part, maintains a hybrid position. It leads in the development of foundational models and in private investment in advanced artificial intelligence. Its advantage lies in highly capitalised business ecosystems, access to large-scale computing infrastructure and dominance in global digital platforms. However, it faces internal regulatory challenges and international pressure to adopt stricter standards on algorithmic security, privacy and the military use of AI.
China will not be absent from the background of the summit. From its official discourse in forums such as the United Nations, the G20 and the Global AI Governance Initiative proposed by Beijing in 2023, clear structural lines can be identified. For China, regulation must not be a Western monopoly. It maintains that technological standards cannot be defined unilaterally by the United States or the European Union and that rules must emerge from a broad multilateral process in which developing countries participate, not only advanced economies.
Beijing insists on digital sovereignty as a guiding principle. In its view, each state has the right to regulate artificial intelligence according to its social, cultural and political conditions. It rejects frameworks that may become instruments of geopolitical pressure or technological sanctions.
China also criticises what it calls technological fragmentation. In various diplomatic forums, it has questioned restrictions on advanced semiconductor exports and limitations on strategic supply chains promoted by the United States, characterising them as forms of technological decoupling. In this context, it argues that global governance of artificial intelligence cannot advance if the politicisation of critical technological infrastructure persists.
In relation to Europe, the competition is normative. Although the European model emphasises fundamental rights, Beijing interprets that the European Union aspires for its Artificial Intelligence Act to influence international standards. China does not reject regulation, but it does oppose its design under exclusively Western parameters. In international forums, it promotes an approach combining development, security and South–South cooperation.
In summary, for China the question of who will define the rules is not technical but geopolitical. In its view, rules must be multilateral, must not become instruments of strategic containment, must respect national sovereignty and must allow autonomous technological development. China seeks not only to participate in drafting standards; it seeks to prevent those standards from limiting its technological projection. It therefore combines normative diplomacy with massive investment in artificial intelligence infrastructure, semiconductors and quantum computing.
In this triangle — the United States, the European Union and China — India seeks to occupy its own space. It does not aim to replicate the American model of extreme private capitalisation nor the Chinese model of state-industrial integration. It aspires to consolidate itself as a digital node of the Global South, offering accessible and scalable technological infrastructure to developing countries.
The geopolitical impact of the AI Impact Summit can be analysed in three dimensions.
First dimension: global standards.
Artificial intelligence requires common frameworks for security, interoperability and accountability. The current competition is not only for markets, but for defining the rules of the game. If Europe manages to align part of the Global South with its regulatory approach, it could influence the international normative architecture. If Asia consolidates alternative models that are more flexible and deployment-oriented, the global standard may fragment.
Second dimension: value chains and trade.
Artificial intelligence depends on advanced semiconductors, data centres, stable energy and high-capacity networks. Technological trade has become an instrument of foreign policy. Export restrictions, industrial subsidies and strategic alliances shape a map where AI is both a product and a tool of power. New Delhi could become a space for negotiation on access to critical infrastructure and research cooperation.
Third dimension: political and narrative legitimacy.
The governance of artificial intelligence is not neutral. It includes debates on surveillance, privacy, military use, labour automation and inequality. Europe emphasises fundamental rights. The United States emphasises innovation. China emphasises stability and state sovereignty. India seeks to project a discourse of digital inclusion and equitable development. The summit will be a stage for a narrative dispute over which model best balances technological efficiency and human rights.
In commercial terms, competition is intense. Technology companies seek to consolidate markets in emerging Asia and Eastern Europe. Investments in data centres, AI applied to manufacturing and logistics automation are part of a race to position themselves before regulatory frameworks harden.
However, the AI Impact Summit may also open spaces for cooperation. Research in health, climate change, smart agriculture and disaster management are areas where artificial intelligence can become a public good. The question is whether geopolitical logic will allow substantive collaboration or whether bloc-based technological logic will prevail.
The outcome of the summit will not be measured solely in joint declarations. It will be measured in investment commitments, interoperability agreements and political signals regarding the export of standards.
Artificial intelligence is today the field where digital sovereignty, strategic trade and soft power intersect. New Delhi prepares to host a discussion that will define not only the immediate technological direction, but the architecture of power in the international system in the coming decades.
The central question is no longer whether artificial intelligence will transform the world. That is already happening. The question is who will define the rules under which that transformation will consolidate.
