Google could do this easily, there are whitelabel GCP offerings run by EU companies already:

https://cloud.google.com/t-systems-sovereign-cloud?hl=en

Hardware, personnel and all access is EU company. Google can provide updates they have to manually review and install, and provides support.

It's pretty niche now but if demand grows more providers will spin up the same thing.

That will probably work as long as it yields the desired results.

It would be fine if ends up like this: https://a.dropoverapp.com/cloud/download/b053fcd7-4635-4508-...

The common opinion though is that if T-Systems runs it then no way of external knowledge will fix anything.

The trend in EU is to tighten up regulation to the point where the achieved goals occurs fairly slow and steady. The goals are also not about ownership (there is no country called Europe, so what would it even mean?), but rather that the data and control remain within the jurisdiction of EU law and then ratified by each country.

The results so far has been that most large companies has local legal presence within Europe, EU data centers, EU specific contracts with customers, and recently EU specific features in applications. It basically salami-tactics. Part of this strategy is also to use the court system to enforce specific aspects, like how part of GDPR is just now getting enforced after a case in March in 2024 by EDPS. The case initiated in 2021, GDPR was written 2016, so it also illustrate the pace. In the time between 2016 and now there are multiple new regulations, and those will also take time before they are fully enforced.

I don't know about the hidden intentions but it appears that its time to switch the cutting style from salami to ribeye or arms and legs.

>here is no country called Europe, so what would it even mean?

Soon there will be, they are creating the 28th regime which is essentially a virtual country with a jurisdiction designed for speedy bureaucracy. I hope they do a good job with the implementation of the idea.

> but rather that the data and control remain within the jurisdiction of EU law

The fundamental problem is that EU and US law are incompatible. FISA allows the US to access any data from any US company no matter where it is located. It doesn't matter that the data is located in the EU, on a European server, manager by the European division of a company. As long as there exists a US parent company, FISA can compel the data. And that is fundamentally against the GDPR.

I get your comparison to the TikTok ban, but not even noyb is questioning the legality of transfers outside the EU to countries in general, whether pursuant to an European Commission adequacy decision or pursuant to Standard Contractual Clauses.

The problem is specifically that US law and policy will make both of those options unviable to guarantee the rights GDPR requires with respect to transfers to the US, once noyb gets the EU courts to state this clearly enough and invalidate the Commission’s adequacy decision for businesses which participate in the EU-US Data Privacy Framework. (In the meantime, EU companies are allowed to rely on that decision.)

There are several non-EU countries with adequacy decisions whose validity nobody is questioning, including Canada, New Zealand, and the UK. Many more countries can adequately be handled through Standard Contractual Clauses. The problem is very US-specific.

I mean look, the details may vary but the core holds. The businesspeople running EUs communications are directly involved with the openly hostile US government and directly try to influence politics and create rage with the European public.

The current open markets model is not working, time to copy from the success stories: Ban foreign ones or force them to become local.

The current politicians are still in denial but as things deteriorate things will have to happen. Unlike US, European politics are not just two parties having about the same support.

Things can get very spicy very quickly. You think the anti-establishment ones are pro-American? The most pro-American politicians are those in power or those who recently lost power to the anti-establishment.

Pretty much non of the anti-establishent are pro-American(with the exception of UK with Farage) and with Musk targeting Farage I'm sure they took a note on how transactional their relationship with the US anti-establishment is.

Whichever factions and sentiments gain power in the EU, there's only so much they can do before hitting the major factor that's usually not spelled out explicitly in polite company, but generally understood: the US has nukes and aircraft carriers. We don't - or at least not enough to replace US in the role it plays in Europe's security.

I hope they won't be crazy enough to just bludgeon through that anyway, as past that, hic sunt dracones.

EU+UK has nukes and Aircraft carriers and even though minuscule to US, has the capacity to build more as the US security is no more.

Also, as it was revealed with the war in Ukraine, the Americans spend crazy money on their military but they don't get the best value for it. They failed to provide the Ukraine the necessary ammunition and apparently the costs were multiple times higher with no better outcome compared to the Russian ones.

In addition to that, the warfare changed significantly with the drones and its the Europeans(Ukraine + Turkey) who have the most experience with those - both in use and production.

Mentioning Turkey, it's actually one of the most formidable militaries with very capable military industry complex. Although it has it's differences with EU, it is an EU candidate country and its economy is fully integrated with EU.

Later on when things calm down with Russia, EU-Russia is actually a very fruitful relationship because Russia and EU are perfect match(one has the resources, the other has the technology) and that's why Europeans didn't want to believe that the war is possible.

There are many more reasons not to be pessimistic about Europe too.

> Although it has it's differences with EU, it is an EU candidate country and its economy is fully integrated with EU.

What is "fully integrated"? It's not on the Euro, for example.

Many EU countries are not in the Eurozone.

Turkey and EU have a longstanding relationships with Turkey being part in many of the EU institutions, like the customs union for example. In many ways Turkey acts as an industrial base for EU, many many EU companies have facilities in Turkey that serve EU.

Turkey is also in the Council of Europe, is in the jurisdiction of European Court of Human Rights(pays a lots of fines, unfortunately), European Border and Coast Guard Agency.

Turkey implemented GDPR compatible privacy laws, it has its infrastructure compatible and integrated in EU etc. Roads, electricity, gas, trains - everything is by the EU standards and integrated within the EU. Environment protection and worker rights are also not that far off. Turkey and EU fell apart only on political level and things like the upholding of the rule of law. In fact, Turkey is one secular government away from being full EU member.

For comparison with US, Turkey exports about $140B to EU and only about $14B to US. No matter the politics, it's EU what matters to Turkey and US is a distant 3rd with being only about %8 of the Turkish exports(Europe is %58).

> Many EU countries are not in the Eurozone.

Well, 6 aren't. But then I wouldn't say their economies were "fully integrated".

7, and living one of them, I don't see any obvious signs of incomplete integration.

> EU-Russia is actually a very fruitful relationship

That's a few decades away, at best; have to wait through Putin's death, the collapse, the post-collapse warlord era, and the reconstruction.

"That's a few decades away, at best; have to wait through Putin's death, the collapse, the post-collapse warlord era, and the reconstruction."

Why? Germany already pushes for reconciliation, as they were hit the most.

For other countries in Central and Eastern Europe it doesn't matter who rules in Russia, as Russia interests are shaped by much grander forces, and those interests are opposite to those of Finland or Poland.

Let's stop looking at world through Marvel-like glasses. There are countries and nations, each with different interest shaped by the world and geography around them.

"EU-Russia is actually a very fruitful relationship because Russia and EU are perfect match"

And this shows limitations of any political analysis that operates on the concept of EU.

Poland, Finland and Baltics are all in EU, and their relationship with Russia cannot be changed - core interests are completely opposite. The fact that these countries may buy russian gas if they need it doesn't change that.

The protection tax Europe paid used to be for protecting against USSR/Russia. This was virtually not needed since decades. If we're being pragmatic, the protection tax became one against the US.

The EU unfortunately has an agent of chaos always in its side that can do a lot of indiscriminate damage around it if triggered.

Those in the protection racket know how to create a market for it, with layers and layers of plausible deniability that you'll get the chance to start to unwrap maybe 70-80 years from now.

"As of July 2023, France possesses approximately 290 nuclear warheads" how many do you really need?

The answer is none.

AFAIK there are no simulations in which nuclear war works. I am not convinced nukes would have helped Ukraine.

I don't see how banning foreign entities or forcing them to become local would help: many of the disruptive entities in Europe are locally owned.

Bolloré owns some major influential right-wing media in France, Axel Springer does the same in Germany (and even in the US - Politico), and so on. Axel Springer is also quite pro-American as well as being right-wing, and Bolloré is quite aligned with the North American right wing, both the anglophone and (in Quebec) francophone varieties. Plus the US Republican Party and the Conservative Party of Canada have major ties to EU member state Hungary and the current Orbán regime, which controls much of the media in that country.

All of these entities feed and profit off of rage, despite being EU-owned.

> What if EU gives a year to American cloud providers to sell their companies to a European owner?

Well "liberty" will appear on our doorstep rather quickly, to free those clouds from the oppressive EU regime of course.

Maybe AWS knew this. In China they already operate under a different company.

"AWS plans to invest €7.8 billion into the AWS European Sovereign Cloud " - https://www.aboutamazon.eu/news/aws/aws-plans-to-invest-7-8-...

"...The AWS European Sovereign Cloud will provide customers the capability to meet stringent operational autonomy and data residency requirements within the European Union (EU), with infrastructure wholly located within the EU and operated independently from existing Regions. The AWS European Sovereign Cloud will allow customers to keep all customer data and the metadata they create (such as the roles, permissions, resource labels, and configurations they use to run AWS) in the EU..."

EU tried hard to guarantee open markets through rules based security but this is now out of fashion. Instead, the new game is to close your markets to foreigners and say its for national security reasons.

This might be bad for the citizens as it is limiting and breaking the global humanity ideal and I hate it that this is happening but EU must be really stupid to have the only open market then get ridiculed for not having "global" tech companies.

As it appears, the world going forward would be like the Chinese "tech" will be for 1.4B people, the US "tech" will be to 330M people and the EU "tech" will be for 450M people.

At this time, because you can access the EU market form US you can just form your business in US and hire people from EU to do the work. If EU imposes limits, suddenly it makes sense to invest in EU.

If you think about it, EU+UK+Asia taxpayers educate most of the "US talent". Very few of the people who invented the tech are US educated, the US educated ones tend to be the money guy or the entrepreneur free riding on foreign tax money.

Time to end the EU subsidies to US companies or maybe impose tariffs to make up for it. US is being very bad for EU, doing very nasty stuff.

> EU must be really stupid to have the only open market then get ridiculed for not having "global" tech companies

I'm not sure how these are related. The EU has far less money than the US for speculative, big payoff investments, to my knowledge. That's why there's less chance of creating new companies (and new markets) compared to the US.

"Tech" is now mature, doesn't need much speculative capital to create the alternatives for US tech giants. Protection will do it, for example banning Google Maps can immediately enable its replacements to take over.

Moreover, EU actually has plenty of capital as savings per capita are significantly higher than US. They lack a nice fluid market for it as Europe is much more fragmented than the USA. Recently they announced the creation of a new regime to address that(something like a virtual country with simplified regulations).

Do not forget the Indian "tech" for another 1.4B people. They are also placing restrictions on how Indian's data is handled on the cloud.

True, India is also a "tech" giant already. For them getting rid of foreigners is a piece of cake even if their average citizen is much poorer. The very large population is also an advantage.

I don't know about countries like Brazil etc. but I am sure that they will notice the benefits of having local companies too.

Yeah, they'll all just set up new opcos in the EU to carry on doing business, rather than actually selling up.

The goal of such regulation would be to reduce the amount of influence US tech billionaires can exert over the EU. Any regulation would be written with that in mind, so an opco which would still be controlled from the US is not in line with that goal. At the very least, regulation could enforce that any opcos (more joint ventures at that point) would be at least 51% owned and operated by EU entities.

Everyone does that in China. You always need a separata contract with a cleared entity.

As long as it is a subsidiary of Amazon US in any way, shape or form, this won't work, because it's not safe from FISA.

It seems like Oracle Cloud have tried to do something along these lines, with their "EU Sovereign Cloud". I'm not actually sure if it's open to everyone or by application only tho. https://www.oracle.com/uk/cloud/eu-sovereign-cloud/