Sovereignty Cannot Be Outsourced
Digital sovereignty cannot mean strategic decisions influenced from outside Europe. Open source is part of the solution - but sovereignty requires control, ownership, and leadership rooted in Europe.
Over the past months, I’ve seen a sharp rise in conversations around European digital sovereignty. That’s a positive development. Europe does need stronger control over its digital infrastructure, supply chains, data governance, and strategic technologies. And yes, open source is unquestionably part of that equation.
But there’s a contradiction we shouldn’t ignore.
Many of the most visible and vocal advocates of European digital sovereignty today are US-based corporations, US-anchored foundations, and American experts shaping the narrative.
That raises an uncomfortable question: If the agenda, funding, standards bodies, and strategic direction are primarily influenced from outside of Europe, is that sovereignty - or simply a redistribution of dependency?
To be clear, this is not anti-American. The US remains Europe’s closest technological ally, and collaboration is essential. But sovereignty, by definition, requires agency, control over critical decisions, roadmaps, infrastructure, and economics.
Open source can absolutely enable sovereignty. But only if Europe:
- Builds and funds its own ecosystems, not just participates in others.
- Develops European-led foundations and standards bodies.
- Strengthens procurement policies that prioritize European vendors.
Digital sovereignty isn’t about isolation in any way. But strategic leverage does play a big role.
If Europe wants real sovereignty, it must be built by European institutions, supported by European capital, and delivered by European companies - in partnership with allies when necessary, but not in structural dependence on them.