Azure Sovereign Controls

I deliberately moved this chapter to the end; not because AI is less important, but because it is often treated as the starting point in sovereignty discussions. In reality, it sits on top of everything we’ve already covered. AI is frequently used as the primary argument by hyperscalers, and in many conversations it becomes the focal point for discussions (alongside email). T...

This is where the conversation gets uncomfortable, because for all of the removing emotions, the structured risk models, and trade-offs we’ve discussed so far; sovereignty discussions are not just about facts. They are also about perception, and that perception is often shaped by how “Big Tech” is viewed. Organizations may try to stay grounded in risk models. The wid...

Time to get real.. we talked about all the things we need to take into account. If all is well, we understand difference between hyperscale and any other option. Also that hyperscale today provides real value (at multiple costs) and that we should not expect a “European” (or any other for that matter) hyperscaler soon.

How can/should we talk about this to customers,...

In our previous posts, we discussed sovereignty as a risk, the trade-offs that come with it, and the reality of Europe building its own hyperscale ecosystem. The conclusion we derived from that is not comfortable, but it is essential:

There is no architectural pattern, provider choice, or regulatory construct that fully removes sovereignty risk.

In the past few posts we’ve discussed how to address Sovereignty as a risk, what the trade-offs are and now its the “why can’t we build this ourselves” chapter. This is more of an economic background chapter.. but the next post (4) will be about mitigations..

Hyperscale did not appear overnight. It is the result of several decades of evolut...