First letter from Michael to Andreas
Dear Andreas,
we are at a dramatic turning point. It is not unfolding with a bang, as one might expect, but almost silently accompanied by a shrug from large parts of society. While in Europe we talk about efficiency, scaling, and “time to market,” we are quietly handing over central parts of our ability to act. Not because we have to. But because it’s so convenient.
I believe sovereignty is not a “nice to have,” and not a topic for theoretical papers alone. It is a question of power politics and strategic leadership.
Take digital sovereignty, for example. It does not end with the location of a data center. It ends where foreign law, foreign interests, and foreign access options can cut through at any time. Anyone who ignores that is confusing compliance with control.
Digital tools, especially those from Silicon Valley, shape our daily work, our communication, and our decision-making processes down to the core. They are powerful, cost-efficient, and perceived as without alternative. And that is precisely the problem. This dependency shifts control, the ability to shape outcomes, and ultimately sovereignty away from Europe.
Anyone using digital infrastructures today is not just choosing tools, but choosing legal jurisdictions, dependencies, and who ultimately gets the final say when it matters. In Europe, these decisions are outsourced far too often both in our thinking and in practice.
And we talk ourselves into it.
“The data is in Europe.”
“It’s an industry standard.”
“Everyone does it.”
Sovereignty means freedom of choice. And freedom of choice presupposes that you still have a choice in the first place. Anyone who doesn’t understand their digital infrastructure, doesn’t know realistic alternatives, and doesn’t actively manage dependencies is not sovereign.
To me, sovereignty does not mean isolation. It does mean taking European interests seriously. The rule of law, data protection, resilience, and democratic oversight are not “nice-to-haves” to me they are strategic factors. Anyone who sacrifices them for short-term convenience squanders long-term economic and political capacity to act.
Europe, in particular, cannot afford to be digitally naive. We regulate complex markets, protect fundamental rights, and demand resilience while running our digital foundation on infrastructures we neither control legally nor in practice. This contradiction is unsustainable and dangerously so.
Sovereignty begins with the decision to stop accepting dependencies as a law of nature.
Andreas, this letter addressed to you also speaks to everyone who is willing to consciously live with this contradiction and accompany our shared process of thinking. It is an invitation to dialogue not with alarmism, but with plain language. Not with ideology, but with responsibility. Step by step, through exchange, through disagreement, with the aim of truly understanding things rather than merely simplifying them.
Your friend,
Michael
This text marks the beginning of an experiment: a public exchange of letters between Michael Mrak and myself, inspired by Epistulae morales ad Lucilium, in which reflections on sovereignty far beyond the digital context are developed further through dialogue.