Can Europe End Its Dependence on US Tech? w/ Aline Blankertz

Episode Summary

Executive Summary: The episode examines Europe’s response to Trump-era pressure, growing US tech dependence, and the push for “digital sovereignty.” Guest Aline Blankhurst argues Europe is moving toward military, nationalist, and market-oriented solutions rather than democratic or anti-authoritarian ones, with regulation helping but not transforming Big Tech’s power. She warns the Eurostack vision risks becoming a profit- and defense-driven European copy of Silicon Valley.

Main Topics: Europe’s shifting relationship with the United States (Priority: 5/5): The conversation opens with Europe reassessing its dependence on the US amid tariffs, threats, and a more openly hostile Trump administration. The guest says reactions are mixed, but trust is eroding and European leaders are increasingly seeking autonomy. Military rearmament as the dominant response (Priority: 5/5): European policymakers are broadly converging on increased defense spending and arms investment, even as the purpose of that buildup remains unclear. Blankhurst notes this is often framed as counterpower, security, and sovereignty rather than a genuine democratic break from authoritarian trends. Europe’s dependence on US technology infrastructure (Priority: 5/5): A major focus is Europe’s reliance on US cloud services, platforms, and digital infrastructure in hospitals, schools, public administration, and more. This dependence is now perceived as a security threat because Big Tech could theoretically turn services off or use leverage against governments. Why Europe failed to build its own tech stack (Priority: 4/5): Blankhurst points to capital constraints, weak public procurement choices, and overreliance on regulation instead of industrial strategy. She argues Europe often tolerated dependence because governments believed global markets and regulation would suffice. Limits of European tech regulation (Priority: 4/5): The EU’s regulatory model, including the Digital Markets Act, is described as useful but soft. It constrains some abuses but does not change the business model of Big Tech or solve issues like cloud dominance and malicious compliance. The Eurostack and ‘buy European’ sovereignty agenda (Priority: 5/5): The Eurostack is presented as the leading proposal for digital sovereignty, centered on steering public procurement toward European firms. Blankhurst warns that it is easily captured by incumbents and can align with growth, innovation, and defense interests rather than public empowerment. Resistance, alternatives, and democratic governance (Priority: 4/5): The guest argues that the most important task may be preventing Europe from copying US authoritarian and militarized tech politics. She emphasizes open source, local bottom-up efforts, democratic governance, ecological internationalism, and research agendas as partial counterweights.

Key Arguments: Europe is not responding to Trump with a strong anti-authoritarian project; instead, it is mainly pursuing rearmament and a search for counterpower, often in nationalist terms. US tech dependence has become a strategic vulnerability because critical public systems across Europe run on Big Tech cloud infrastructure and could be disrupted. European leaders historically underinvested in domestic tech capacity and defaulted to buying US services because it was politically easier and not treated as a strategic sector. European regulation has been valuable but was never designed to alter the underlying business models of platform monopolies, only to curb the worst abuses. The Eurostack’s emphasis on buying European can empower incumbents like Deutsche Telekom, SAP, and Orange without fundamentally changing power relations or values. Military and tech sovereignty agendas are converging, especially around AI, cybersecurity, and defense, which risks accelerating automated warfare and authoritarian uses of technology. The main danger is not merely US dependence but reproducing Silicon Valley’s logic in European form: profit-driven, nationalist, and militarized digital infrastructure. A better response would prioritize democratic governance, open source, ecological internationalism, and public-interest research rather than national champions and profitability. Current policy conversations are dominated by damage limitation—trying to avoid US-style extremes—rather than building a truly different model. There is still room for bottom-up alternatives, but scaling them requires political commitment, public investment, and a willingness to depart from pure market logic.

Data Points: Tech Won’t Save Us anniversary: 5 years - Host notes the show is turning five years old. Patreon goal for new supporters: 100 new supporters at $5 tier or above - Funding target tied to launching a new defense tech series. Current progress toward goal: Over 30 people - Host says this goal has already been partly met at recording time. Second Patreon goal: 150 supporters - If reached, the host plans to make a zine. Eric Wickham’s tenure: Going on 3 years - Host says the producer has been with the show nearly three years. Germany military investment plan: 500 billion euros - Blankhurst cites Germany’s agreement to invest in its military over the next few years. Helsing fundraising: 450 million euros - Example of a European defense-tech company raising major funding for battlefield AI. EU tech companies signatories: Over 100 companies - A letter supporting buy-European procurement was signed by more than 100 firms.

Pivotal Quotes: "What I actually find interesting and surprising is that in Europe, there is less talk about really going against this authoritarian turn, which we're observing in the U.S., but it's more about how do we build counter power? And this is then framed in military and often nationalist terms." — Paris Marx: Opening framing of the episode’s central concern about Europe’s response to Trump-era politics. "Nothing would work if big tech companies just said from one day to the other, hey, we don't like the way Europe is treating us. So just to demonstrate how powerful we are, we would switch it off." — Aline Blankhurst: Explanation of why Europe’s dependence on US cloud and platform infrastructure has become a political fear. "I think right now this approach is very dominant." — Aline Blankhurst: Assessment of the current policy climate, referring to market-oriented and military-oriented digital sovereignty agendas.

Implications: Europe may move toward tech sovereignty, but without stronger public and democratic goals it risks building a militarized, profit-driven copy of Silicon Valley. The key fight is over whether digital independence means public power or just new national champions.