AI, Power & Society

Europe can benefit from foreign AI without capturing an equal share of its rents Fiscal resilience requires compute, capital, ownership and local industrial capability The viable strategy is high adoption with minimum technological sovereignty

AI export controls protect U.S.

Managed Interdependence is the realistic path for middle powers Local data centers do not equal sovereign AI Real sovereignty needs leverage, exits and supplier choice The clearest warning in the sovereign AI debate is not a

EU trade de-risking should not be driven by import shares alone The real risk lies in concentrated, hard-to-replace inputs Europe needs selective resilience, not broad decoupling EU trade de-risking could fail in two c

EU strategic autonomy depends on reducing critical bottlenecks, not cutting trade China-linked inputs matter most where Europe cannot switch suppliers quickly The answer is targeted de-risking, stockpiles and crisis planning

Europe’s green transition depends on foreign-controlled supply chains Factories alone do not create industrial autonomy Selective de-risking is stronger than full decoupling In 2024, China supplied 98 per

South Korea bears real costs from US AI export controls The AI memory boom has provided temporary compensation Submarine cooperation adds a major strategic return In 2025, South Korea shipped $130.8 billion worth of goods to Ch

AI chip controls can buy time, not permanent dominance Chinese substitution limits their long-term power That time must build U.S. and allied capacity In 2024, U.S.

US restrictions exposed the fragility of allied AI access Europe needs leverage through capital, chips and compute A formal access compact could balance security with continuity One order from Washington on 12 June 2026 cut all f

The US–China AI split is becoming structural The Global South must secure access without accepting permanent dependence Cheaper AI matters only when it builds local capacity and bargaining power The global AI divide is ofte

AI adoption measures use, but not control. Europe’s deeper weakness lies in foreign-owned compute, cloud and energy infrastructure AI compute sovereignty requires shared capacity, open access and democratic oversight About three-

Time-to-power now shapes the economics of AI infrastructure Faster deployment can strengthen innovation but also shift grid costs to the public Governments need coordinated, transparent rules that reward speed without weakening fairness or reliability.

AI leadership depends on power, chips and secure infrastructure A democratic compute coalition could align faster delivery with allied cooperation Success depends on resilience, access and wider business adoption About 415 ter

The AI adoption gap is an institutional gap, not just a tool gap The U.S.

Europe’s AI future depends on compute power The gap is also about energy, chips and access Europe needs its own AI infrastructure, not full dependence on others Europe's AI problem is no longer a software probl

Europe should build chip power through indispensability, not full self-sufficiency The real strategy is to control key bottlenecks others cannot replace A stronger chip policy must focus on leverage, coordination, and industrial demand

Cloud compute controls are becoming central to AI power The article argues for narrow, risk-based rules instead of broad bans Compute access must be governed early When a country no longer needs to buy the top-tier AI ch

AI standards are the only realistic truce in the US-China AI race Rivals may not trust each other, but they can still agree on basic safety rules Without shared standards, AI competition will become more costly, fragmented, and dangerous

AI growth is becoming a major test for energy systems Regulation must track power use, grid pressure, and clean-energy claims AI can expand responsibly only if its energy costs are transparent and fairly managed If AI energy

Data center jobs are real, but most local gains happen during construction After launch, many software and operations jobs can be done remotely Dense regions should approve data centers only when land, power, and local jobs justify the trade-off