In a recent post, Rob Vos observed that Europe’s pursuit of digital autonomy is increasingly perceived by foreign governments, particularly the United States, as an attack. That perception matters in diplomatic terms, but we should ask the deeper question:
If regaining control over technology feels like provocation, what does that say about how dependency has become normalized in the first place?
This is the starting point of a necessary debate about the nature of sovereignty, the limits of European frameworks, and the real control that nation states must reclaim over their digital infrastructure.
Perception Versus Reality#
External powers perceive moves toward autonomy as disruptive. But perception alone should not define strategic priorities. A defensive posture defined by how dominant actors feel amounts to strategic subordination. If autonomy invites scrutiny, perhaps it is because dependency has long been taken for granted.
Dependency that feels comfortable to incumbents is not stability; it is inertia disguised as strategy.
Why National Sovereignty Matters More Than EU-Level Autonomy#
The EU is not a sovereign in the traditional sense. It does not command coercive authority in the way nation states do. It cannot guarantee continuity in moments of geopolitical crisis, and it cannot override extraterritorial legal mechanisms that reach deep into cloud infrastructure operated by foreign entities.
This has been a recurring theme in my own analyses:
- The Panopticon Economy: EU China-Lite: EU regulatory ambitions inadvertently centralize control, tightening the knot rather than loosening it
- Dutch Government Digital Autonomy Vision 2025: admits full sovereignty is unrealistic and focuses on “grip” rather than true control
Both illustrate the same trap: dependency dressed up as autonomy.
EU-level autonomy becomes a fallback strategy that still fails to break structural reliance on external platforms and legal systems.
Sovereignty Is Not an Abstraction: It Is Control#
Real sovereignty must be:
- Legally enforceable at the national level
- Operationally independent from foreign corporate ownership
- Architecturally controlled by domestic entities
- Supported by genuine exit strategies, not just vendor diversification
Switzerland’s recent move toward domestic control over collaboration platforms shows what meaningful autonomy looks like in practice. (Switzerland’s First Domino of Digital Sovereignty)
Superficial compliance with EU standards or local storage requirements does not confer sovereignty. If anything, it creates the illusion of autonomy without removing the vectors of dependency.
The VOC Mentality Revisited#
The Dutch historical metaphor of VOC mentality is not about colonial nostalgia. It is about self‑determination, risk acceptance, and technological initiative. In the modern context, digital sovereignty means building, owning, and operating infrastructure on our own terms rather than outsourcing control to distant entities governed by laws we cannot influence (VOC Mentaliteit & Digital Sovereignty).
This is not anti‑collaboration. It is anti‑dependency.
The Stakes Are Real#
This debate is not abstract. It touches on:
- Cybersecurity as a national priority: where political urgency must match technical investment, not just compliance checkboxes (Digital Security NL: Political Urgency)
- Operational control versus outsourcing: where cloud convenience has a hidden cost in resilience and sovereignty (Bare Metal vs Cloud: My Perspective)
- Geopolitical leverage and legal reach, where foreign law can override contractual protections
These are structural vulnerabilities with real consequences for national security, economic stability, and civil liberties.
Conclusion#
If the reassertion of control is perceived as an attack, then dependency has already become the baseline of normalcy. In that case, the real debate should not be about whether autonomy is provocative, but whether dependency has become too comfortable for those who benefit from it.
This reframes the discussion away from pragmatism versus ideology, and toward control versus compliance. The question is no longer just “Where is the line between pragmatism and strategic naivety?” It is “What are we willing to sacrifice for genuine national sovereignty, and why has dependency become the default?”