Available worldwide via Amazon (Kindle Edition)
US: $5.99
Other regions: Local Amazon pricing
Available here:
https://www.amazon.nl/dp/B0GMXLX56T
The fusion of economic policy and national security is reshaping governance. As interdependence becomes a source of risk, states shift from efficiency to resilience, redefining control over infrastructure, technology and global flows in an era of systemic rivalry.
Across Europe, telecom operators are navigating a historic transformation. From AI-native architectures to autonomous networks, the industry is no longer just about connectivity—it is about trust, culture and influence. Deutsche Telekom, Orange, BT, Vodafone and Telefónica are all experimenting with AI-driven networks, yet the road ahead is far from straightforward.
For decades, telecommunications lived comfortably behind a powerful assumption: neutrality. Operators built the pipes. Society decided what flowed through them. Connectivity was infrastructure — invisible, technical, politically silent. This separation created reassurance. If networks were neutral, responsibility lay elsewhere: with governments, platforms or users. Telecom, in this view, merely enabled.
For years, the security debate around 5G has been dominated by reassuring words: encryption, zero trust, secure by design. Telecom vendors, regulators and operators alike have emphasized that modern mobile networks are mathematically robust, cryptographically sound and architecturally resilient.
Salesforce’s introduction of Agentforce 360 marks a new phase in the evolution of artificial intelligence inside organisations. Rather than positioning AI as a standalone automation layer, the concept of the “Agentic Enterprise” frames AI agents as collaborators: systems designed to support employees in decision-making, coordination and execution. While this approach is technologically ambitious, its European rollout reveals challenges that go far beyond software adoption.
The global race for artificial intelligence (AI) has often been framed as a competition between the United States and China. But quietly, Europe is staking its own claim. The continent does not want to rely on foreign AI systems, whose code and decision-making remain opaque. Europe’s goal is clear: AI that is powerful, transparent and built to European standards.
Europe’s quest for digital sovereignty is no longer a theoretical debate; it is a pressing strategic challenge. The continent, with its long history of innovation and strong governance, must ask itself: can it build a digital future on its own terms or has it already ceded too much control to global tech giants? This question is not only about technology—it is about Europe’s ability to protect its values, its institutions and its citizens in a world dominated by digital networks.
Europe is entering a phase it has avoided for decades: the acceleration of defence innovation driven by artificial intelligence. What was once a patchwork of slow-moving national programs is shifting into a coordinated response to geopolitical pressure, battlefield realities and NATO-level technology standards. The continent is not rearming in the old sense—it is rewiring its defence thinking for an age where software, autonomy and data matter as much as hardware.
France approaches artificial intelligence not merely as a technological tool, but as an instrument of national power. Unlike Germany’s industrial pragmatism or the UK’s research-driven model, France explicitly positions AI as a lever for European sovereignty, both economically and strategically. From the government-backed Mistral AI initiative to Thales’ defence applications, Paris is asserting that Europe can—and must—control its own AI destiny
Artificial intelligence is transforming every industry, but nowhere is its impact as profound as in the defence sector. For decades, military innovation moved in predictable cycles, centred around large hardware projects and slow technological maturation. AI disrupts that rhythm entirely. It accelerates processes, shifts decision-making and moves the balance of power from who has the most equipment to who can interpret information the fastest.
