🧠 Editorial

I increasingly feel that Europe confuses digital sovereignty with infrastructure folklore.

US clouds suddenly become “sovereign” as soon as a German data center is set up and a Telekom logo is placed next to it — while the technology, platform control, and dependencies remain exactly the same.

That the Google/Telekom model apparently found no customers does not surprise me at all.

Because the crucial question is not where data resides. The crucial question is who controls the platform on which processes, automation, and business logic run.

At the same time, we regulate European providers so strictly that many fail due to compliance costs before they can even scale. The result is paradoxical: Europe demands digital independence — and indirectly strengthens exactly the corporations from which it wanted to become more independent.

Meanwhile, modern infrastructure now relies on open-source projects, GitHub tokens, and software supply chains. The attack on Grafana Labs clearly shows where the real risks lie today.

2026 sometimes feels like a distributed system failure with regulatory overhead.

📰Tech-News:

Google and Telekom Cloud Cooperation Facing Restructuring

According to a report by Handelsblatt, the cooperation between Google Cloud and T-Systems International for so-called “sovereign cloud solutions” is apparently facing restructuring. Particularly noteworthy: the joint air-gapped offering, marketed since 2021 as a highly secure sovereign infrastructure, has reportedly not found a single customer to date.

And that does not surprise me at all.

I do not consider it a loss for Europe’s digital sovereignty if this cooperation fails or needs to be restructured. Because this model was from the beginning a prime example of #SovereignWashing.

A US cloud does not become sovereign just because a German data center is placed next to it and some marketing is done. Infrastructure, platform logic, innovation control, and technological power remain with a US corporation. Yet this dependency is simultaneously sold as a European solution.

This is not digital sovereignty. This is a politically nicely packaged dependency model.

For years, Europe has been trying to simulate technological control without seriously questioning the structural dominance of American platforms. Instead of consistently building its own ecosystems, constructs are created that primarily aim to make existing dependencies look more acceptable from a regulatory standpoint.

This becomes particularly problematic when such models are presented as a strategic response to European security and data protection interests. Because the crucial question remains unchanged: Who really controls the technology?

And that’s precisely why genuine sovereign alternatives are gaining relevance. Open-source-based solutions and European providers are taken more seriously because companies and authorities are slowly realizing that digital dependency cannot be eliminated with new marketing terms.

Europe still does not need rebranded US clouds with a sovereignty sticker. Europe needs technological independence, open standards, and providers that are not only geographically located in Europe but are structurally independent.

🔗https://regionalheute.de/bericht-cloud-kooperation-von-google-und-telekom-vor-umbau-1778674682/

Is Cloud “Made in Germany” No Longer Enough?

Today, cloud service providers for healthcare, critical infrastructure operators, or future NIS2-regulated companies must meet strict security standards. The most important of these: the BSI C5 standard. For authorities and many healthcare providers, it is already mandatory. For other industries, it is becoming a de facto access ticket.

This is precisely why the current case surrounding the Berlin provider Luckycloud is becoming explosive.

Because although the company reportedly lacks a C5 certificate or comparable relevant certifications, it is aggressively courting customers from highly regulated areas such as healthcare. This is not just a marketing problem. It highlights a structural dilemma in European cloud policy.

On the one hand, Germany demands maximum compliance, maximum security, and maximum verifiability. On the other hand, the hurdles have become so high and expensive that primarily large international corporations benefit. Because C5 certifications are exclusively certified by auditors. Competition among auditing firms practically does not exist. The result is high costs and regular follow-up certifications, which particularly burden smaller European providers.

The real problem begins where providers try to communicatively circumvent this regulatory reality.

Technically, Luckycloud is considered solid in many areas. The provider strongly relies on open source and has often been positively reviewed in trade media. But security marketing does not replace formal verifiability. Especially in critical infrastructures, trust is not decided by branding but by verifiable compliance.

Additionally, in 2018, Luckycloud reportedly faced a serious incident. Defective hardware and a faulty update not only led to prolonged outages but also to irretrievable data loss for customers. At the same time, allegations arose that the company was legally challenging negative reviews. Reports of problematic contract practices are also in the air.

The case highlights a fundamental problem of European digitization: there is an increasing gap between digital sovereignty and regulatory reality.

Because Europe urgently needs its own cloud providers. But trust in critical areas does not arise from national origin or open-source rhetoric alone. What matters are transparent security proofs, reliable processes, and verifiable standards.

If European providers want to credibly compete against AWS, Microsoft, or Google, they must deliver precisely there.

🔗https://www.golem.de/news/fehlende-sicherheitstestate-cloudanbieter-im-zwielicht-2605-208687.html

📌Short-News:

Instead of Microsoft — These Four Office Suites You Should Know

Four privacy-friendly office alternatives show practical ways to avoid vendor lock-in and increase sovereignty in everyday work.

🔗https://www.heise.de/news/Video-Statt-Microsoft-Diese-vier-Office-Pakete-solltet-ihr-kennen-11269405.html

Linus Torvalds Warns of AI Chaos in Linux

Linus Torvalds warns of AI-generated bug reports hindering Linux kernel development. The report emphasizes risks for open infrastructure, coordination of large open-source communities, and system dependencies.

🔗https://www.golem.de/news/nahezu-unverwaltbar-linus-torvalds-warnt-vor-ki-chaos-bei-linux-2605-208750.html

Goodbye Google Maps: Navigation Apps with OpenStreetMap Compared

Comparison of OpenStreetMap alternatives to Google Maps shows open data approaches as a sovereign navigation ecosystem; emphasizes open standards and European data sovereignty.

🔗https://www.heise.de/ratgeber/Tschuess-Google-Maps-Navigations-Apps-mit-OpenStreetMap-im-Vergleich-11268273.html

Podcast Recommendation:

Digital Sovereignty - Remaining Capable in Case of Emergency

Over the weekend, I listened to the INNOQ Podcast with Anja Kammer and Gil Breth on the topic of digital sovereignty — and rarely has the topic been so pleasantly differentiated.

I found it particularly exciting that the usual discussion about “European clouds” or data protection buzzwords was not conducted, but rather it was very clearly worked out what it is actually about: technological capability.

So the question of how dependent companies have actually become on individual platforms, proprietary services, and geopolitical conditions today — and what happens when these dependencies suddenly become a risk.

I found the examples around vendor lock-in, geopolitical influence, and lack of changeability particularly precisely described. Especially because the podcast does not slip into alarmism but conducts the discussion very strategically.

I also found the view on open source, open standards, and community-driven technologies as a possible basis for genuine digital sovereignty very strong — not ideologically, but from a very pragmatic perspective.

You can tell from the conversation that it is not just a buzzword being discussed, but that both are deeply involved in the practice of such transformation and infrastructure topics.

An absolute listening recommendation for CIOs, CTOs, architects, and decision-makers who do not want to view digital sovereignty as just a compliance issue.

🔗https://www.innoq.com/de/podcast/179-digitale-souveraenitaet/

🚨Alert:

Hackers Hijack Grafana Labs’ GitHub

Grafana Labs confirms a security incident: Attackers were able to access the company’s GitHub environment via a compromised token and apparently download the entire codebase. According to current information, customer data is not affected. However, according to Grafana Labs, the attackers attempted to extort the company by threatening to release the stolen source code.

The case is particularly explosive due to Grafana’s role in modern IT infrastructures. The open-source platform is part of the standard equipment for monitoring and observability in many companies worldwide. A successful attack on the development environment of such a project is therefore more than an isolated security incident. It shows how critical the security of build and developer environments has become.

Grafana Labs has revoked the compromised credentials and initiated investigations. The company apparently already has clues about the cause of the token leak. Who is behind the attack is not officially confirmed. However, a group called “Coinbase Cartel” is mentioned in relevant circles.

The company’s response is also noteworthy: Grafana Labs explicitly refuses to pay a ransom. A position that is becoming increasingly relevant. Because attacks on software supply chains and developer platforms have long since developed into a business model of organized cybercrime.

🔗https://www.golem.de/news/quellcode-erbeutet-hacker-kapern-github-umgebung-von-grafana-2605-208761.html

🧨Unpopular Opinion:

The term “digital sovereignty” has become so diluted in Europe that it often serves only as a political buzzword, behind which the same technological dependencies are hidden that one supposedly wants to overcome.

Because anyone who seriously reduces digital sovereignty to the question of whether data is stored in Frankfurt or Virginia has not understood the real power problem of digital infrastructures.

Dependency does not primarily arise where data resides. Dependency arises where processes, business logic, and operational workflows are technically tied to proprietary platforms, whose rules