Rapid shifts in mid-2026 have crystallised global AI governance around two competing access structures: the US-led Pax Silica, which gates frontier AI behind trusted supply chains free of Chinese influence, and China’s WAICO, which organises access around open-weight models for the Global South. The Mythos episode demonstrated that access within either structure is conditional and revocable, with frontier AI now firmly treated as a strategic asset. India, a Pax Silica member with limited indigenous capability, must move beyond access dependency towards building sovereign capability across the full AI stack.

Global AI governance was more dynamic in summer 2026 than in several preceding years, with the US applying, suspending and conditionally restoring export controls on a deployed AI model within weeks, while moving towards a de facto licensing system. Simultaneously, China launched WAICO, a 30-member intergovernmental AI cooperation body promoting open-source innovation for the Global South. The two countries’ moves have assembled competing coalitions, enrolling most of the world.

These rapid developments have created a structure in which AI access is organised around specific, often opposing, models. At the same time, framing AI as a strategic asset rather than a commercial product has gained traction, making it a subject of supply control. For any state that depends on imported AI, access architecture is becoming a central concern, especially as its frameworks take on an increasingly bipolar configuration. The volatility of AI development and access, alongside increasingly consolidated governance frameworks, requires strategic attention.

The Swerving Road to Access

Beyond its technical capabilities, Mythos marked a major turning point in AI’s geopolitical and governance considerations. Mythos 5 was described as a general AI tool with cybersecurity capabilities that could detect vulnerabilities at a massive scale. Anthropic released Fable 5, a safeguarded public variant of Mythos, while restricting Mythos itself due to its dual-use potential.[1] The two models have shown unprecedented capabilities in controlled testing set-ups that were presumably comparable to human expertise. For instance, Claude’s Mythos Preview and Opus 4.8 models were used to create functional protein ‘mini-binders’ with significantly higher success rates than industry standards.[2]

In late July 2026, reports emerged that during certain ‘capture the flag’ exercises with instructions to find system vulnerabilities, the model was involved in breaking out of isolated sandboxes and gaining access to the internet. The model reportedly sent emails, posted sandbox-circumvention analyses online, and hacked three organisations by exploiting system misconfigurations. Anthropic’s pending IPO may have incentivised it to aggrandise these capabilities, and independent verification remains limited.[3] Nevertheless, Mythos has come to represent a significant leap in AI capabilities and, along with the dual-use implications, has led to the model becoming subject to national controls.

While Anthropic initially restricted Mythos to Project Glasswing and released Fable with stringent guardrails, the company disabled both globally on 12 June 2026. This followed a US Department of Commerce directive prohibiting access for all foreign nationals and requiring government licenses for foreign supply under threat of civil and criminal penalties.[4] Unable to verify user nationalities in real time, Anthropic turned off the model class entirely. Notably, this marked the first time US export controls were applied to a deployed AI model rather than the underlying semiconductors (as before).[5]

Although the official reasons behind the ban remain undisclosed, speculation has focused on possible causes. One possible trigger was Amazon CEO Andy Jassy reporting a possible bypass, or jailbreak, for Fable 5’s guardrails.[6] The exploit reportedly raised concerns about diverting military intelligence to countries like China and Russia. It should be noted, however, that Anthropic itself called the reported vulnerability to be ‘narrow’ in a way that other models could also develop similar exploits. The company argued that making Fable 5 completely invulnerable to jailbreaks was impossible, and that an industry-standard defence-in-depth strategy involves monitoring, detection and rapid damage control.

Thus, the argument that the potential vulnerability could be exploited for adversarial use of military intelligence may not fully hold up. Alternatively, clashes over Anthropic refusing the Trump Administration unfettered defence access may explain the restrictions; earlier, the Pentagon had labelled the company a ‘supply chain risk’ in retaliation as well.[7] The executive order on AI and Cybersecurity, signed on 2 June 2026, was reportedly also drawn over concerns about Anthropic’s AI models. Combined with the fact that the Department of Commerce orders against Mythos class models had no comparable hit, the move may have been selectively used against Anthropic.[8]

Another critical context is the breach of the AI model after its release. Beyond reports of possible Chinese access to Mythos, reports also suggested the US Administration and Anthropic clashed over Anthropic giving South Korean company SK Telecom access to the model.[9] The allegations were centred on SK Telecom’s links to China,[10] which the company has denied.[11] Thus, several indications suggest that the AI’s technical capability was, at the very least, not the only reason for the unilateral decision to cut access to Mythos; geopolitical and strategic considerations also played a role.

Nevertheless, the decision to restrict the model was reversed swiftly. By 26 June 2026, Mythos was restored to more than a hundred trusted US-based companies.[12] By 1 July 2026, access to Fable 5 was restored worldwide. Mythos 5, however, was slated for re-release to selected ‘trusted partners’; access was given to Project Glasswing members, gated by standards set by the US government.[13] This is highlighted by the fact that although the license requirement for supplying the models was withdrawn, the US government retained the right to re-impose it.

The suspension alarmed US allies, who had assumed guaranteed, uninterrupted access. For instance, during the G7 Summit, French President Emmanuel Macron warned the United States that US allies “will not buy any model made by [US AI] companies if from one day to the next you can just turn off the switch“.[14] Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney called it a lesson to diversify, given the dangers of over-reliance.[15] In South Korea, meanwhile, this led to a call for AI sovereignty. US allies have also slowly been reducing their dependence on US-based companies for software, while migrating towards open source and/or sovereign-developed software ecosystems.[16] Nevertheless, given the AI stack’s transnational structure, full decoupling from US providers remains immediately impractical for........

© IDSA