European organizations and governments rely heavily on American digital services. In practice, this often means Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace for email, documents, and collaboration—and AWS, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud for the cloud platforms on which critical systems run.
For many years, this was primarily an efficiency choice: fast, scalable, familiar. Until the rules change.
Imagine stricter regulations around digital services—through sanctions, export controls, or amended licensing terms determined in the United States. In that case, a provider may be required to restrict services, impose additional conditions, or, in the extreme, temporarily stop serving certain organizations.
At that moment, dependency becomes visible. Not as an abstract debate, but as a simple question: if a core service becomes unstable today, how quickly can you switch?
That is what digital sovereignty is about.
In concrete terms
Digital sovereignty is the degree to which you have control and freedom of choice over your digital infrastructure, data, and critical software—so that you can continue operating when circumstances change.
It is not about building everything yourself or banning foreign technology. It is about freedom of action: do you have alternatives, can you switch, and can you keep critical functions running if something external shifts?
Why this matters especially for Europe
Europe is digitally strong, but dependency is concentrated in a few core layers. This is visible across four domains: cloud platforms, AI/compute, office/productivity, and communication. These layers are so deeply embedded in daily operations that you cannot simply "switch overnight."
That is why this is not just an IT discussion. It affects:
- continuity (the ability to keep operating under pressure)
- legal certainty (who ultimately has the power to enforce rules)
- strategic resilience (how vulnerable you are to shocks)
Risks you should not underestimate
1) Being locked in without realizing it
On paper, you can always switch. In practice, this is often complex and costly. The longer you use a single stack, the more processes are built around it. A price increase, contract change, or restriction can then quickly become a structural problem.
2) Rules you do not control
If your digital core functions depend on a provider subject to foreign jurisdiction, rules can change without your influence. This does not imply bad intent—but it can mean new requirements, delays, or uncertainty for your organization.
3) No real alternative when it matters
Failover sounds simple, but it only works if a practical alternative exists: reliable, scalable, and suitable for everyday use. If that is missing, dependency remains structural.
The stress test
You do not need a perfect metric to make digital sovereignty tangible. These five questions make it concrete quickly:
- 1. Which three services are truly critical for us (mail/identity/cloud/workplace)?
- 2. Can we switch within 3–6 months without the business or organization grinding to a halt?
- 3. Where are the hard couplings (identity, integrations, data egress, workflows)?
- 4. Do we have a real alternative, or only a theoretical one?
- 5. What happens if support or updates stop—can we continue operating?
If you do not have clear answers, that is not a failure. It is a signal.
What you can do
For entrepreneurs: design your stack to preserve options. This does not mean "everything must be multi-cloud." It does mean avoiding unnecessary lock-in, keeping data exportable, reducing hard identity coupling, and ensuring your team understands what an exit looks like. An exit plan should not just be a contract clause—it should be executable.
For policymakers and public institutions: embed choice through procurement and standards. Portability and exit requirements only have value if they are verifiable (evidence, migration paths, periodic testing). Focus on capability gaps: where Europe lacks scale and platform services, not just capacity.
For journalists: use a consistent angle. Ask not only "which provider," but "which layer in the stack." Where is the lock-in? What is the alternative? And which capabilities or adoption are missing?
How DigitalMonitor.eu approaches this
DigitalMonitor.eu aims to make this topic less abstract by asking the same questions per domain: who dominates, which European alternatives exist, what is concretely missing, and what this means for freedom of choice and continuity. The scores are indicative—intended for insight and comparison, not as a definitive judgment.
Digital sovereignty is not an end goal. It is a prerequisite for retaining the ability to make choices when circumstances change—not to be "against" anyone, but to avoid a future in which no realistic options remain.