21 June 2026
Every piece read against the primary source. Where the coverage gets it wrong, the note says so.
Five pieces on the debate of the moment: AI sovereignty, read from every side. Policy, a hyperscaler, the open-source camp, and two skeptics. Curated, commented, not aggregated.
What Brussels is actually doing, beyond the slogans: the Cloud and AI Development Act, the SEAL sovereignty scale, and ‘Union added value’ as a procurement criterion. If you talk sovereignty, read the instrument, not just the headlines.
The hyperscaler’s reply to the EU package. Serious engineering (customer-held encryption keys, EU-operated partner clouds), not marketing. But read closely for what it does not answer: US extraterritorial reach (the CLOUD Act). Data residency is not the same as control.
The bottom-up lever: over 100 European open-source firms calling for a binding ‘Open Source First’ rule in public procurement. Their core line lands: the public sector is the single biggest driver of proprietary lock-in in Europe.
The strongest case against my own line: do not substitute at all, dependency is historically normal, a sovereign frontier champion is economically irrational. On most layers Garicano and Grimm are right. On one I push back, continuity and the kill-switch risk. Required reading for both sides.
The cloud-economics skeptic: scale wins, sovereign-cloud champions will consolidate, often bought by the very US hyperscalers they meant to escape. Right about the fortress version, in my view wrong about the goal: sovereignty means substitutability and continuity, not a European AWS.
Related: Agentic AI — whether it pays, build vs buy, and where you stand →
Mine on this: How to think about AI sovereignty without losing your head → · 15 min
The reading list by email once the mailing starts: five pieces, my commentary. Unsubscribe anytime.