Diversification, finally, provides alternative streams through which to access AI enablers without binding middle powers to the strategic interests of a single actor.

While other factors influence AI acquisition among middle powers, 2C1D provides the foundation to understand these efforts.

Collaboration concerns efforts aimed at working with partners to augment access to the necessary enablers of AI. Contribution, tangentially, refers to norms- and standards-building efforts that give middle powers the ability to shape behavior in the international system.

While great powers are better able to weather these difficulties, middle powers enticed by the benefits of AI are at a disadvantage. As such, we assert that these actors adopt a strategy centered around the notions of collaboration, contribution, and diversification.

Responding to the transformative potential of AI, states are racing to acquire the capabilities necessary to exploit this disruptive technology.

Nevertheless, compute, data, and talent are constrained by material and structural realities - further compounded by resurgent great power competition.

Key Finding 3:
Strategic ties aren’t everything. Public attitudes are also shaped by economic, military, and societal perceptions of the partner country.

Key Finding 2:
Formal alliances matter—up to a point. U.S. alliances generate stronger public backing than informal partnerships, but this distinction fades when retaliation comes up.

Key Finding 1:
Conflict aversion is strong. While the public supports partners facing Chinese aggression, support declines sharply when retaliation is involved.

Furthermore, these mechanisms are unaffected by the respondents’ partisanship. These findings serve to temper the exceptionalism that continues to surround cybersecurity politics, enabling effective policy development - promoting stability in the international stability.

Using a survey experiment on a representative sample of the U.S. public, we show support for embattled allies in cyberspace is driven by reputational, instrumental, and moralistic considerations - echoing similar mechanisms at work within the conventional domains.

While the literature suggests continued adherence to these obligations, the underlying mechanisms are understudied. Given its unique characteristics and the ease with which partners could renege on commitments, unpacking the foundations that drive public support is critical.

As cybersecurity is integrated into existing bilateral and multilateral alliances, it becomes necessary to ascertain whether publics of security guarantors are willing to risk costs by adhering to these commitments following aggression in this human-made environment.