Bloc Membership Register

AI Infrastructure Coordination — Nation Classification

WEO identifies two AI infrastructure ecosystems, each anchored by a principal actor with full-stack capability. Every nation is classified by which ecosystem its AI infrastructure primarily operates within. Classification reflects demonstrated infrastructure alignment — hardware dependencies, compute partnerships, and regulatory coordination — not political rhetoric.

The two ecosystems are defined by their respective Principal AI Actors — nations demonstrating sovereign capability across the full AI infrastructure stack. Each actor's ecosystem comprises the infrastructure dimensions through which other nations' AI capabilities are developed, deployed, and governed.

Last Verifiedⓘ
Last Verified
The register's last full verification snapshot — every nation's classification confirmed current to one date. The register is verified in full at least annually, even where no classification has changed.
 23 May 2026
Last Updatedⓘ
Last Updated
The most recent change to register content — a classification changed, evidence reinforced, or a correction applied.
 23 May 2026
Register Version 2026.05.23-001
Document ID WEO-REG-001
Status Living Register

Current Register Summary

42
Western Bloc
11
Eastern Bloc
9
Non-Aligned

Bloc Classifications

Western Bloc
42
Core
Core
Deepest alignment — the actor anchoring the ecosystem or hosting the most critical infrastructure nodes.
§ View in Methodology →
 (34)

Structural, long-standing alignment across supply chain, governance, and policy. Removal would require fundamental reorientation of AI infrastructure dependencies.

United States United Kingdom Canada Australia Japan South Korea Taiwan
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden
Integrated
Integrated
Embedded in the bloc's AI infrastructure through institutional, regulatory, or industrial integration.
§ View in Methodology →
 (4)

Active participation through formal agreements or bilateral partnerships with compliance conditions.

‹‹‹
›››
Nation Key Date Key Evidence Sources
UAE Nov 2025 G42 divested Huawei; US approved 35,000 NVIDIA Blackwell chips; Microsoft $1.5B investment with IGAA conditions; Pax Silica signatory (January 2026) [1] [2] [3]
Saudi Arabia Nov 2025 US approved chip exports to HUMAIN/PIF entities; NVIDIA strategic partnership; HUMAIN data centres Q2 2026 go-live (Riyadh, Dammam, 100MW each); not a Pax Silica signatory [1] [2] [3]
Israel Jul 2025 US-Israel AI & Energy MOU; Pax Silica signatory (January 2026); Fort Foundry One MOU — 4,000-acre US-Israeli AI/semiconductor technology park [1] [2] [3]
Qatar Jan 2026 Pax Silica signatory (12 January 2026); Country Group D:4 conditional export review [1] [2]
Engaged
Engaged
Active participation in bloc coordination without full institutional integration.
§ View in Methodology →
 (3)

De facto participation through technology choices and governance activities, without formal bilateral conditions.

‹‹‹
›››
Nation Key Date Key Evidence Sources
Singapore Nov 2024 AI Safety Institute Network founding member; Pax Silica founding signatory; NVIDIA/Google/Microsoft infrastructure dominance [1]
India Feb 2026 Pax Silica signatory (20 February 2026); Micron Sanand ATMP facility in commercial production [1] [2]
Philippines Apr 2026 Pax Silica signatory (16 April 2026); 4,000-acre Economic Security Zone designated at New Clark City [1] [2]
Peripheral
Peripheral
Geographic or economic proximity without substantive AI infrastructure coordination.
§ View in Methodology →
 (1)

Limited, recent, or single-vector connection to the bloc's ecosystem.

‹‹‹
›››
Nation Key Date Key Evidence Sources
Kenya 2024 AI Safety Institute Network member; US tech investment hub [1]
Eastern Bloc
11
Core
Core
Deepest alignment — the actor anchoring the ecosystem or hosting the most critical infrastructure nodes.
§ View in Methodology →
 (2)

Structural, long-standing alignment across supply chain, governance, and policy. Removal would require fundamental reorientation of AI infrastructure dependencies.

‹‹‹
›››
Nation Key Evidence
China (PRC) Global AI Governance Initiative; Digital Silk Road; Huawei/semiconductor independence drive; export controls on critical minerals
Russia Xi-Putin Strategic Partnership (May 2024); Military AI cooperation statement (May 2025)
Integrated
Integrated
Embedded in the bloc's AI infrastructure through institutional, regulatory, or industrial integration.
§ View in Methodology →
 (2)

Active participation through formal agreements or bilateral partnerships with compliance conditions.

‹‹‹
›››
Nation Key Evidence
Belarus Russia-aligned; Union State integration
Iran Defence tech transfers; sanctions bypass cooperation
Engaged
Engaged
Active participation in bloc coordination without full institutional integration.
§ View in Methodology →
 (3)

De facto participation through technology choices and governance activities, without formal bilateral conditions.

‹‹‹
›››
Nation Key Evidence
Kazakhstan Digital Silk Road 2.0; Chinese "sovereign AI" infrastructure
Uzbekistan Digital Silk Road 2.0; SCO integration
Pakistan CPEC; Huawei/ZTE infrastructure lock-in
Peripheral
Peripheral
Geographic or economic proximity without substantive AI infrastructure coordination.
§ View in Methodology →
 (4)

Limited, recent, or single-vector connection to the bloc's ecosystem.

‹‹‹
›››
Nation Key Evidence Sources
North Korea Fully dependent on Chinese/Russian tech transfers; sanctions bypass
Egypt Smart city/surveillance tech; Digital Silk Road MoUs
Ethiopia Huawei/ZTE telecom infrastructure
Brazil BRICS Rio de Janeiro Declaration; Serpro-iFlytek AI cooperation protocol (April 2026); Anatel authorised SpaceSail (Chinese LEO constellation) for commercial services (February 2026) [1] [2] [3]
Non-Aligned
Non-Aligned
Nations with documented AI infrastructure partnerships with both blocs and maintained strategic autonomy. Classified to either bloc per event based on dominant partnership characteristics.
§ View in Methodology →
9

Nations not listed in Western or Eastern Bloc sections require event-by-event assessment using the Primary Partner Test. The same nation can appear in Western Bloc events, Eastern Bloc events, or sovereign events depending on specific partnership context.

‹‹‹
›››
Nation Tendency Notes
Indonesia True Hedging Microsoft $1.7B AND China-ASEAN AI Lab; successful "double-stacking"
Vietnam Western-leaning (Supply Chain) Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with US; Amkor, Marvell ecosystem
Turkey Isolated Excluded from US AI Safety Network AND BRICS full membership
Malaysia Western-leaning (Semiconductors) Intel, Infineon, Micron investments; "China Plus One" positioning
Thailand Balanced Mixed technology relationships
Mexico Western-leaning (Geography) USMCA; but diversifying
Argentina Shifting Political changes affecting alignment
South Africa Eastern-leaning (Political) Strong BRICS advocate; but limited 2025 AI treaty evidence
Nigeria Undetermined Largest African economy; mixed infrastructure

Classification Methodology

Technology over Politics: Bloc membership reflects observable technology/supply chain alignment, not political statements. Every classification requires documented evidence with sources.

Primary Partner Test (for Non-Aligned Nations)

01
Financial Backing
Which bloc provides ≥66⅔% of funding?
02
Technology Transfer
Which bloc provides critical/core technology?
03
Strategic Initiative Leadership
Which bloc initiated or leads the initiative?

Actor Capability Profiles ⓘ
Sovereign Capability Profiles
Seven-dimension framework assessing each actor's sovereign control across the AI infrastructure stack. Actors are designated as PAA (ecosystem anchor), AIK (structural chokepoint), ACS (significant but dependent capabilities), or Participant based on capability breadth, ecosystem independence, and platform sustainability.
§ View in Methodology →

Bloc classification determines which AI infrastructure ecosystem a nation operates within. The profiles below show what assessed actors independently control across the seven dimensions that define those ecosystems.

PAA
Principal AI Actor (PAA)
Ecosystem anchor — ≥3 dimensions met, passes ecosystem independence (severance) test, holds at least one sustainable platform dimension (D4 or D5).
§ View in Methodology →
 Principal Actor
AIK
AI Infrastructure Keystone (AIK)
Structural chokepoint leverage within an ecosystem without providing the ecosystem itself — ≥3 dimensions, passes severance test, no sustainable platform dimension.
§ View in Methodology →
 AI Infrastructure Keystone
ACS
Advanced Capability State (ACS)
Significant sovereign capabilities that the actor cannot sustain autonomously under withdrawal of a PAA's ecosystem inputs — ≥3 dimensions, fails severance test.
§ View in Methodology →
 Advanced Capability State
PRT
Participant
Fewer than 3 dimensions met — operates within ecosystems shaped by PAAs and AIKs.
§ View in Methodology →
 Participant
D1 Chip Design
D1: AI Accelerator Design
Designs and commercially markets merchant AI training-relevant accelerators (GPUs, TPUs, NPUs).
§ View in Methodology →
 D2 Fabrication
D2: Advanced Semiconductor Fabrication
Production-capable fabrication at ≤7nm process nodes.
§ View in Methodology →
 D3 Equipment
D3: Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment
Globally essential semiconductor production equipment (lithography, deposition, etching, metrology).
§ View in Methodology →
 D4 Compute
D4: Cloud AI Compute Services
Hyperscale data centre clusters for AI training and inference on the actor's territory.
§ View in Methodology →
 D5 Models
D5: Frontier AI Model Development
State-of-the-art foundation models with general applicability.
§ View in Methodology →
 D6 Regulation
D6: AI-Specific Regulatory Authority
Enforceable AI compliance frameworks with extraterritorial reach.
§ View in Methodology →
 D7 Investment
D7: Sovereign AI Infrastructure Investment
Nationally transformative public capital towards AI compute, fabrication, or infrastructure capacity.
§ View in Methodology →
‹‹‹
›››
Actor Designation Dims D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 Score
Assessment date: May 2026 · 20 actors · Methodology V1.4 Full dimension assessments, qualification evidence, and Dimension Watch tracking are available on the Profiles page. View Profiles → Explore on Map →
Changes since Version 2025.12.14-001 23 May 2026
India Non-Aligned → Western (Engaged)
Qatar Unclassified → Western (Integrated)
Philippines Non-Aligned → Western (Engaged)
UAE Western (Integrated) — reinforced
Saudi Arabia Western (Integrated) — reinforced
Israel Western (Integrated) — reinforced
Brazil Eastern (Peripheral) — reinforced
3 reclassifications · 4 reinforced 23 May 2026

Snapshot History

23 May 2026 Current Register (2026.05.23-001) Active
14 Dec 2025 Version 2025.12.14-001 — Verification snapshot (no classification changes) [Archive]
30 Nov 2025 Version 2025.11.30-001 — Initial register creation
The following classification decisions predate the formal register and were incorporated into the initial register state on 30 November 2025.
20 Nov 2025 UAE, Saudi Arabia → Western Bloc (Integrated)
Jul 2025 Brazil → Eastern Bloc (Peripheral); Israel → Western Bloc (Integrated)
Nov 2024 Singapore → Western Bloc (Engaged); Kenya → Western Bloc (Peripheral)

How events are anchored to this register

Each event's bloc is classified when the event enters the database, under the register version in force at that time. The classification is fixed at that point and does not change.

Event Classification Permanence: Events retain their original bloc classification permanently, even if a nation subsequently changes bloc alignment. Historical snapshots enable accurate audit trails for longitudinal analysis.

Document Information

Document Type
Living Register
Update Frequency
As required (geopolitical shifts)
Authority
WEO Methodology Team