Europe's AI Sovereignty Dilemma: From Dependence on the US to Difficult Autonomy

Europe’s AI sovereignty dilemma: From reliance on the US to arduous independence

In mid-June 2026, two major conferences were held consecutively in France—the G7 summit in Évian-les-Bains and the VivaTech technology conference in Paris, attracting over 180,000 participants. On the surface, this was another collective global focus on AI from politics and business; beneath the surface, it reflects Europe’s deepening structural anxiety in the AI field: heavy reliance on the US for foundation models, cloud computing, and chip design, while a single US export control could easily cut off access to critical technologies.

US regulatory alarm

Just before the conferences, the US tightened restrictions on foreign nationals accessing Anthropic’s most advanced AI models. This move was seen by European policymakers and tech executives as a wake-up call. Although the US claims the measures are for security reasons, Europe perceives the naked risk of “technology cutoff”—if the political wind shifts, Europe’s AI development could stall instantly.

French Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu stated bluntly during the conferences: “We cannot rely on technological tools developed abroad. France must have its own tools.” This remark reflects Europe’s urgent demand for “technological sovereignty.” Yet a huge gap lies between the rhetoric and reality.

The cost of dependence

Europe is not without AI companies. French startup Mistral is seen as Europe’s most promising AI challenger and is increasing cooperation with local European enterprises. But even Mistral’s foundation still relies on US-controlled cloud infrastructure, chips, and basic AI models. Europe has invested billions of euros in AI R&D over the past few years, but these funds have not changed the fundamental dependency pattern.

Anna Paula Assis, Senior Vice President of IBM Europe, pointed out: “Technological sovereignty means having control over key links, not obsessing over where the technology comes from.” Europe’s dilemma is: to completely break free from US technology, it would need to build a complete AI stack from scratch—from chip design and manufacturing to cloud computing platforms and foundation models. This is not just a technical issue but also an economic and political one.

The European Commission is assessing the actual impact of US export control directives and emphasizes that measures should not discriminate against partners. Meanwhile, the EU has proposed plans to build AI “gigafactories” and large-scale computing infrastructure to provide sovereign computing power for Europe. New legislation also seeks to promote local cloud, AI, and semiconductor industries. But critics point out that Europe still lags years behind the US in AI.

The trade-off for enterprises

For European enterprises, technological sovereignty does not come for free. Karine Brunet, Chief Operating Officer of Capgemini, said that local European cloud alternatives require paying a premium of up to 40%. Companies must make trade-offs between cost and risk.法国电信运营商Orange声明称：“显然，欧洲拥有一个可控的、不会因一时兴起就被关闭的AI服务至关重要。”但Orange和其他企业同时也需要面对现实：完全替换美国供应商并不现实，也不经济。

VivaTech董事总经理弗朗索瓦·比图泽强调：“替代方案不是简单用一家供应商替换另一家。关键是建立更具韧性的技术战略，在关键堆栈部分利用欧洲创新，同时在合理领域继续与全球伙伴合作。”

战略自主的漫长道路

法国政府正在带头推动欧洲技术主权，计划在政府服务中逐步取代美国供应商。但这一进程面临巨大挑战：欧洲缺乏能与AWS、Azure、Google Cloud抗衡的云巨头；欧洲的芯片制造能力（如英飞凌、意法半导体）尚未切入最先进的AI训练芯片；欧洲没有一个基础大模型能匹敌OpenAI的GPT系列或Google的Gemini。

欧洲委员会正在协调成员国共同投资AI基础设施，但内部利益分歧和投资规模不足仍是制约因素。G7峰会上，包括Anthropic、OpenAI、Google DeepMind和Mistral在内的AI巨头高管与领导人共同讨论AI竞争力与监管，但讨论的结果并未改变欧洲作为“规则接受者”而非“规则制定者”的被动地位。

结论：自主与开放之间的钢丝

欧洲AI主权之争反映了一个更深层的地缘经济现实：在数字时代，技术自主已成为国家安全和产业竞争力的核心。欧洲试图在“战略自主”与“开放合作”之间寻找平衡，但短期内，依赖美国技术的现状难以改变。

欧洲的出路或许不在于完全另起炉灶，而在于聚焦自身优势领域——工业AI、医疗、能源等垂直应用——在这些领域建立不可替代的竞争力。同时，通过政策杠杆和联合投资，逐步夯实底层技术基础。这是一场持久战，而G7和VivaTech会议只是漫长征程中的两个坐标点。