Keeping Europe’s Technological Choices Open

2026-07-02 · Source: Oxford Internet Institute · Field: Government & Public Sector — Public Policy & Governance, Regulatory & Compliance · Depth: Intermediate, short

Summary

In July 2026, Johanna Ballesteros and Nicklas Berild Lundblad analyze Europe's precarious position regarding frontier AI, following the US government's early June export controls on Anthropic's Fable 5 and Mythos 5 models. This decision, which forced Anthropic to disable models for all customers, underscored Europe's dependence on US tech and the potential for geopolitical discretion to restrict access overnight. The authors reference the "Europe 2031" scenario as a warning against losing the ability to chart its own technological path. They argue that true technological sovereignty involves building capacities to keep future choices open, rather than seeking full independence, which is neither possible nor desirable. Europe must focus on making interdependence negotiable through strategic investments in energy, compute, capital, talent, and robust procurement contracts that ensure continued access and portability.

Key takeaway

For European policy makers and procurement officers navigating technological dependencies, you must proactively build domestic capacities in compute, energy, and talent. Implement procurement contracts for critical technologies that include continuity terms, portability requirements, and penalties for service withdrawal. This strategy ensures your ability to choose between systems, use them at scale, and maintain alternatives, thereby securing future technological freedom against geopolitical chokepoints.

Key insights

Access to frontier AI can be geopolitically restricted, necessitating Europe to build capacities for future technological choice.

Principles

• Technological sovereignty is the ability to keep choices open.
• Future sovereignty builds capacities for what doesn't exist.
• Interdependence should be reciprocal, not one-sided.

Method

Europe must build capacities in energy, compute, capital, and talent, treating data centers as critical infrastructure. It should invest early in high-value sectors and use procurement to ensure access and portability.

In practice

• Include continuity terms in critical technology contracts.
• Ensure portability requirements for procured services.
• Keep alternative systems ready for different tasks.

Topics

• AI Geopolitics
• Technological Sovereignty
• Export Controls
• Frontier AI
• European Tech Policy
• Critical Infrastructure

Best for: CTO, VP of Engineering/Data, Director of AI/ML, Policy Maker, Consultant, Executive

Related on AIssential

• The Quest for ‘Technological Sovereignty’ in Europe (and Why It’s So Hard) — Europe cannot achieve full digital independence, necessitating a strategic focus on partial technological autonomy.
• America has hit the AI kill switch. How should Europe respond? — US export controls on AI models can abruptly cut off foreign access, highlighting critical digital sovereignty risks.
• Europe cannot regulate its way to technological sovereignty — Europe's technological dependence, especially in AI and cloud, creates a strategic vulnerability requiring urgent sovereign investment beyond regulation.
• What the EU’s new Sovereignty Package means for European tech — The EU's Tech Sovereignty Package aims to reduce reliance on foreign tech by boosting domestic AI and cloud infrastructure.
• Does Europe Really Have a Plan for Tech Sovereignty? — Europe's "Tech Sovereignty Package" risks deepening reliance on US Big Tech through policy design and existing procurement.
• What You Need To Know From Forrester’s Global Sovereignty Forecast, 2025 To 2030 — Total technological sovereignty is unattainable; the focus must shift to managing dependence and maintaining agency.

See Counsel's argued verdicts on the open AI decisions leaders are weighing →

Open in AIssential →

Editorial summary, takeaway, and curation by AIssential. Original article published by Oxford Internet Institute.