There have been discussions around India exploring access to Anthropic’s Mythos AI model through the United States. On the surface, this looks like a routine technology discussion. In reality, it highlights something more important.
In a previous article, I discussed how dependency is shaping modern power. What we are now seeing around Mythos is a practical example of how that dependency begins to form.
The Mythos model is not widely available. It is being released in a controlled manner, with access limited to a small set of organizations. Governments and institutions are already trying to understand its impact, even without having direct access to it.
This is not just about who has the technology. It is about who can access it and who cannot.
When access is limited, dependency begins to form. Nations and institutions that need the capability must rely on those who control it. Over time, this dependence shapes priorities and influences decisions.
The control may not be directly visible, but it is real.
The Mythos situation makes this clear. If a system can identify vulnerabilities across critical infrastructure at scale, then not having access to it creates a gap. Those with access can prepare and respond faster. Those without it operate with limited visibility.
This is where access starts to create influence.
This is not an isolated case. Similar patterns already exist in areas such as cloud platforms, semiconductor supply chains, and core digital infrastructure. In all these cases, the issue is not just ownership. It is about relying on systems and capabilities that are controlled by others.
If access to advanced AI systems is delayed or restricted, organizations may fall behind attackers in identifying vulnerabilities. This increases risk exposure, extends the window for exploitation, and delays patch validation and incident response. As a result, reliance on these AI systems becomes a critical operational dependency.
This also changes how disruption happens.
Earlier, disruption occurred through attacks such as DDoS, malware, or system compromise. Today, the same impact can be achieved by restricting or denying access to critical systems.
In this case, disruption is not caused by an attack, but by restricted, denied, or delayed access to critical systems.
The Mythos situation is an early sign of this shift. As more advanced capabilities are developed and controlled by a limited number of providers, access will become more important in shaping outcomes.
This raises several questions.
How reliable is access when it depends on a limited set of external vendors?
How do organizations prepare for risks they cannot fully control?
How do nations respond when critical capabilities or access to resources are not directly available to them or are denied?
These are no longer theoretical concerns. They are real.
The answer to these questions is difficult at this point in time.
About the Series
This article is part of the broader series:
Digital Sovereignty, Cyber Power and the New Geopolitical Landscape
