A Splintered Internet? Internet Fragmentation and the Strategies of China, Russia, India and the European Union
From the Covid-19 pandemic to the ramifications of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, international events are fueling fears of an accelerated fragmentation of the global Internet.
Internet “fragmentation” refers to the idea of a crumbling of the network of networks, or even the secession of certain parts of the Internet. It describes the segmentation of the global network and its tendency towards regionalization. This study examines how major powers, through their domestic and foreign policies, are likely to accelerate this fragmentation, whether voluntarily or not. The role of private companies, notably the major digital platforms, is also considered.
The study begins by analyzing the different types of fragmentation: technical, (geo)political and commercial. Technical fragmentation results from decisions which, deliberately or not, permanently or temporarily, break or limit digital connectivity between one part of the Internet and the rest of the network. Proposals for alternative protocols and standards to those already in use worldwide fall into this category. (Geo)political fragmentation stems from a variety of practices: data localization, deliberate Internet shutdowns, policies aimed at excluding Chinese companies from all Internet layers, and, in particular, from connectivity infrastructures, and so on. At the same time, since the 2010s, the idea of economic and commercial fragmentation has emerged, driven by protectionist strategies on the part of national authorities, the spread of proprietary software and hardware, and the exploitation of captive user data by major digital platforms. By building their own infrastructure, platforms create their own network while becoming the main gateway to the global Internet.
The study underlines that while U.S. diplomacy has long supported the global nature of the Internet infrastructure as part of its national interests, the instrumentalization of its privatized backbone now represents one of the key determinants of the dynamics of “fragmentation”. The study then examines the policies pursued by China, Russia, India, and the European Union, whose initiatives are driven by very diverse goals and are also reconfiguring the Internet. Indeed, these initiatives are manifold, reflecting the distinct visions of digital capitalism held by these state actors.
This publication is also available in French.
Available in:
Regions and themes
ISBN / ISSN
Share
Download the full analysis
This page contains only a summary of our work. If you would like to have access to all the information from our research on the subject, you can download the full version in PDF format.
A Splintered Internet? Internet Fragmentation and the Strategies of China, Russia, India and the European Union
Author(s)
Julien NOCETTI
Associate Fellow, Russia/Eurasia Center and Center for Geopolitics of Technology, Ifri
Related centers and programs
Discover our other research centers and programs
Center for Geopolitics of Technology
Artificial intelligence (AI), 5G, cybersecurity, robotics, semiconductors, space... Technology, especially in the digital domain, is now deeply affecting all human activities and, by extension, international relations. The resulting political, strategic, economic and social issues manifest themselves at multiple political scales involving states, international organizations and private companies. The dynamics of international competition and cooperation are transformed.
It is to respond to these challenges that Ifri is launching the Geopolitics of Technology program in the fall of 2020, which builds on the work it already carried out on these subjects for several years.
The program takes a resolutely European approach to international issues related to so-called critical technologies. Its work is organized around four cross-cutting themes:
- Power: redistributions of power caused by new technologies, in particular digital; military and dual innovations; transformations of international competition;
- Sovereignty: definition of critical infrastructures and technologies; industrial and innovation policies in strategic sectors; opportunities and risks associated with international value chains;
- Governance: ethical and legal issues; interactions between companies, states, international organizations and users; public-private partnerships and GovTech;
- Society: political and social impacts of technological innovations; risks and opportunities for the future of work, health, the fight against climate change; connectivity and economic development.
Find out more
Discover all our analyses
The “Huawei Saga” in Europe Revisited: German Lessons for the Rollout of 6G
While the European Union attempted to coordinate a collective response through its 5G Toolbox in Europe’s 5G infrastructure, member states diverged significantly in balancing political, economic, and technological considerations. Germany, despite its economic ties to China and status as Europe’s largest telecom market, only reached a tentative agreement in July 2024—one that appears largely symbolic.
European Startups and Generative AI: Overcoming Big Tech Dominance
Europe is at a crossroads. Faced with the domination of American Big Tech across the entire generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) value chain, from foundation models to cloud infrastructure, distribution channels, and open source, it risks long-term technological and economic decline. Yet generative AI also represents a major opportunity for economic transformation, with a potential value estimated at 1.5 times France’s gross domestic product (GDP). To turn it into a driver of renewal, Europe must move beyond the illusion of total technological independence and instead build an ecosystem that leverages Big Tech resources while strengthening its own innovation capabilities.
A "DeepSeek Moment"?
DeepSeek, hailed as a champion of Chinese AI, represents less a revolution than a significant optimization of existing technologies. Doubts remain regarding the figures put forward by the start-up, inviting a more measured response to the media hype surrounding China’s technological catch-up. Nonetheless, DeepSeek signals the need to question an economic model based solely on the race for computational power. By betting on open innovation, Europe can carve out its own path in a competition that is far from being a zero-sum game.
Artificial Promises or Real Regulation? Inventing Global AI Governance
The risks inherent to the unregulated use of AI, a key technology and vector of profound transformations within societies underline the pressing need to harmonize governance efforts at the international level. The Summit for Action on Artificial Intelligence to be held in Paris in mid-February could be an unprecedented timely occasion to agree on a global governance framework of AI for the public good.