Total sovereignty will take years
The EU faces a prolonged battle as governments realize that American hyperscalers dominate in services, scalability, and innovation, with billions invested in platforms that surpass European options in infrastructure, AI, and ecosystems. Many member states prefer US providers’ practical benefits over sovereignty concerns. Denmark, the Netherlands, and the Baltic states are opposed to strict sovereignty clauses.
Pushing for stricter sovereignty won’t fix Europe’s dependence. American providers offer “sovereign clouds” that comply with European laws but rely on US parent companies, showing market closure is futile without strong internal options. The EUCS faces years of regulatory battles and tech compromises as member states balance economic, legal, and strategic needs.
What each side must consider
The current debate provides valuable lessons beyond Europe. First, regulatory alignment needs to strike a balance between protecting sovereignty and preserving innovation. EU policymakers need to understand that strict restrictions alone will not create competitive local ecosystems. Regulatory frameworks should incentivize development, R&D investments, and collaboration between governments and European tech firms. For US providers, adaptability is key. Finding ways to create value within regulatory constraints helps companies compete fairly in Europe.
