Kubernetes Can Offer Freedom - If Done Right.

Why Managed Kubernetes with Hyperscalers Doesn’t Lead to Digital Sovereignty

Kubernetes has established itself as the de facto standard for orchestrating containerized applications. It promises portability, scalability, and unified control of complex IT environments. However, many companies use Kubernetes in a way that undermines its core promise: independence.

Managed Kubernetes offerings like Amazon EKS or Azure AKS seem convenient at first glance. They take over operations, provide integrations into the respective platform, and promise an all-inclusive package. In reality, however, they shift central control functions out of the company’s influence. The supposed convenience comes at the cost of massive dependency.

The Misguided Path of “Managed Convenience”

Using Kubernetes through hyperscaler services leads to an infrastructure increasingly tied to the respective provider. Whether it’s logging, monitoring, identity management, or network control—many functions that Kubernetes leaves open are replaced by proprietary extensions. The result: architectural decisions that are not portable.

These dependencies reveal their weaknesses at the latest when you want to migrate the deployment to another environment: whether it’s a private cloud, on your own hardware, or to another provider. Migrations become expensive, slow, and risky—not because of Kubernetes, but because of vendor-specific implementations.

Sovereign Kubernetes: Open, Portable, Controlled

Kubernetes is strong when operated consistently as an open control layer. This means specifically:

• Avoid proprietary extensions that bind to specific cloud providers
• Use open interfaces, open tools, open standards
• Keep operations and automation under your own control

At ayedo, we implement precisely this approach. Our Kubernetes setups are designed to allow switching at any time. Because we leave control in the hands of the customer, build on open source, and think of infrastructure as a modular system. The result is not “managed dependency,” but true digital sovereignty.

Digital Sovereignty Requires Technical Decision Freedom

Anyone who takes Kubernetes seriously should not view it as a convenient product of a hyperscaler, but as an operational concept for an independent, secure, and scalable IT architecture. This also means: taking responsibility for operations, automation, and architectural decisions.

Kubernetes is not a service—it’s a tool. It doesn’t get better because AWS manages it. It gets better when used consistently.

Conclusion: To Stay Free, Don’t Bind Yourself

The allure of Managed Kubernetes is great. But companies that want to align their IT strategy with digital self-determination and control today must choose architecture over convenience. Kubernetes offers all possibilities—but only if you use them.

A Kubernetes cluster is not sovereign because it’s “in the EU” or “ISO-certified,” but because it can be redeployed at any time without being tied to a provider.

Therefore, our standpoint: Kubernetes, yes. But not through hyperscalers. Instead, open, portable, sovereign.

Companies considering a cloud exit or wanting to strengthen their digital sovereignty will find the necessary independence and control in European private cloud solutions.