Digital autonomy has become a serious topic in recent years. Reducing dependence on American cloud and AI platforms. Looking at European alternatives. Thinking about risk, control, and geopolitical exposure.
The conversation is often framed as a technical one. But when you talk to founders and technical decision-makers, it becomes clear very quickly that technology is not the main issue.
The real friction lies in trust, risk, and perception.
That became clear in an internal discussion we recently had. Not because we disagreed, but because every answer immediately raised a new question.
A reality few people talk about openly
Many European software companies run their infrastructure and AI models in Europe, but on platforms owned by American companies. Not for ideological reasons, but out of habit. These platforms feel safe, proven, and easy to defend to customers and investors.
At the same time, they are often significantly more expensive than European alternatives. Still, they are seen as “the standard.” European solutions are framed as “alternatives.” As long as that distinction exists, real change remains unlikely.
When people try to break this pattern, the conversation usually ends up circling around three possible paths.
Option 1: Government as risk-bearer
The first option is more active involvement from governments. Not from idealism, but to help spread risk.
This could mean subsidies for European cloud providers, but also other forms of support. For example, governments acting as launching customers, offering guarantees around compliance and continuity, or providing long-term contracts that create stability.
The goal is not to control the market, but to lower the barrier to switching.
Once part of the risk is shared, the decision changes for companies. Not because they suddenly become more principled, but because the choice feels less one-sided.
Without that safety net, switching often remains an individual gamble.
Option 2: Shifting standards and defaults
The second path focuses less on money and more on behavior, by changing what is seen as “normal.”
Not by banning American technology, but by requiring transparency and accountability. For instance, asking organisations to explain why a European solution was not considered, or setting clear requirements for data portability and exit options.
Once choosing a non-European solution requires justification, the psychology changes. European options stop being exceptions and start becoming real alternatives.
This is not a quick fix. But it can lead to long-term structural change.
Option 3: Moving together instead of alone
The third option is often underestimated. Many companies are willing to move, but not on their own. The fear of being first is real.
That is why the discussion often turns to collective approaches. Sector agreements. Joint pilots. Groups of companies trying out European infrastructure together, where it is acceptable if things do not work perfectly right away.
When switching becomes a shared step rather than a solo move, much of the hesitation disappears. Not because the risk vanishes, but because it is shared.
And then there is culture
What all three options have in common is this: none of them works without cultural change.
As long as European technology is perceived as “riskier” or “less mature,” even subsidised or collective approaches remain difficult. Perception drives behaviour, often more strongly than facts.
That culture does not change overnight. Sometimes trust only really shifts when existing certainties start to break down. Because of geopolitical tensions. Reputational damage. Or events that show dependence is not just an abstract risk.
Subsidies without cultural change remain technical fixes.
Cultural change without a safety net remains theoretical.
One does not work without the other.
Where do we stand as Spadework?
At Spadework, we do not see this debate as ideological, but as practical. As one of our co-founders put it:
“If governments take on part of the risk, companies can switch. But without cultural change, it will still feel risky. Subsidy without trust does not work, and trust without support does not either.”
For us, digital autonomy is not a box to tick. It is an assessment that only changes when the conditions change. Through policy. Through collective action. Through culture. Most likely through all three at the same time.
The question is not whether digital autonomy is desirable.
The question is which combination of incentives, trust, and normalization is needed to make it realistic.
And maybe even more importantly: who is willing to seriously support that shift first?
