The exaggerated fear of AI annihilation, while dismissed by practitioners, has shaped US policy. This risk-averse climate discourages domestic open-source model releases, creating a vacuum that more permissive nations are filling and leading to a strategic dependency on their models.

If AGI is concentrated in a few US companies, other nations could lose their economic sovereignty. When American AGI can produce goods far cheaper than local human labor, economies like the UK's could collapse. They would become economically dependent "client states," reliant on American technology for almost all production, with wealth accruing to Silicon Valley.

The competition in AI infrastructure is framed as a binary, geopolitical choice. The future will be dominated by either a US-led AI stack or a Chinese one. This perspective positions edge infrastructure companies as critical players in national security and technological dominance.

The conversation around AI and government has evolved past regulation. Now, the immense demand for power and hardware to fuel AI development directly influences international policy, resource competition, and even provides justification for military actions, making AI a core driver of geopolitics.

Mistral's $1.4B investment in Swedish AI infrastructure is more than an expansion; it's a political move. By building a "fully European AI stack," Mistral is positioning itself as the regional alternative to US tech giants, capitalizing on growing desires for data sovereignty amid fraying political ties.

As countries from Europe to India demand sovereign control over AI, Microsoft leverages its decades of experience with local regulation and data centers. It builds sovereign clouds and offers services that give nations control, turning a potential geopolitical challenge into a competitive advantage.

Despite its talent, Europe struggles to scale domestic tech companies, leaving it strategically vulnerable. It's forced to depend on US cloud providers it views with suspicion or Chinese alternatives it also distrusts, with no viable third option.

The push for sovereign AI clouds extends beyond data privacy. The core geopolitical driver is a fear of becoming a "net importer of intelligence." Nations view domestic AI production as critical infrastructure, akin to energy or water, to avoid dependency on the US or China, similar to how the Middle East controls oil.

The open vs. closed source debate is a matter of strategic control. As AI becomes as critical as electricity, enterprises and nations will use open source models to avoid dependency on a single vendor who could throttle or cut off their "intelligence supply," thereby ensuring operational and geopolitical sovereignty.