Choosing an AI partner in Europe now comes with a question that didn't used to hold up the decision. Who controls the technology? What happens if that control changes? The providers building the most capable AI are still mostly American, and waiting for a European alternative to catch up costs more than most enterprises can afford. The safer route isn't ruling a provider out on sovereignty grounds alone. It's choosing on capability, then building in the protections that keep you in control regardless of where the technology comes from.
Does a sovereignty concern rule a provider out?
Not on its own. Rad Parvin, co-founder and senior value partner at Valliance, made this case in Computer Weekly. The debate about sovereignty is real, but treating it as a precondition for adoption is a luxury most European enterprises can't afford.
Two signals back that up. OpenAI paused Stargate UK, citing energy costs and an unsettled regulatory environment. SAP, a company with every incentive to keep migration work in-house, endorsed Palantir as a validated path for the most complex S/4Hana migrations anyway.
“Sovereignty should not be a precondition for progress. It is something to build alongside, at the level of policy and over time.”
How long until a European alternative closes the gap?
Two to three years at best, by Rad's estimate. That's longer than most enterprises can wait if they expect measurable results in half the time. Every year spent waiting for parity is a year competitors spend extending their lead, unconstrained by the same caution.
What should you actually look for when choosing an AI partner?
Four things matter more than where a provider is based: the capability on offer, the terms you can negotiate for exit and portability, who owns the data and the models built on it, and whether your team could operate without the vendor if it had to. Get those right, and the provider's passport matters far less.
This piece draws on analysis first published by Rad Parvin, co-founder and senior value partner at Valliance, in Computer Weekly.
FAQs
Does SAP's endorsement of Palantir change the calculation?
It's a signal worth noting. SAP has every incentive to keep S/4Hana migration work inside its own ecosystem, and endorsed Palantir as a validated path for the most complex migrations regardless.
How long until a genuine European AI alternative exists?
Two to three years at best, according to Rad Parvin's analysis in Computer Weekly.
Should sovereignty concerns rule out a US-based AI provider?
No, not by themselves. It's one factor to weigh against capability, cost and time to value. For most European enterprises, the bigger risk is delay, not dependency.
What contract terms protect against long-term vendor lock-in?
Explicit exit and portability clauses, retained ownership of data and any models built on it, and internal capability that doesn't depend on the vendor to keep running.
What does building sovereignty alongside adoption actually mean?
Adopting the most capable technology available now, while contracting for exit and portability, retaining ownership of your data and any models trained on it, and building the internal capability to switch providers if conditions change.
