In the AI race, Europe sometimes seems to be relegated to the background in the face of bipolarity embodied by the United States and China which has been monopolizing media attention for several months.
When Washington announces its “Stargate” plan of $ 500 billion in investment in the computing power, Beijing Riposte with innovations like Deepseek, capable of performance comparable to the best with, it seems, a very lower energy consumption … and in the wake of the head of the uncle Sam overeated by taking out his O3 Mini model and many ads since a few weeks. In the meantime, fortunately the summit for action for AI in Paris has handed over Europe and France under the spotlight for a few days. But faced with this technological bipolarity, can Europe go beyond its apparent position as a spectator to establish itself as a determining actor?
- Technological bipolarity and European marginalization
From an external point of view, the AI landscape is therefore characterized by an avalanche of innovation between two Chinese and American superpowers. The American ecosystem, carried by GAFAM, mobilizes colossal investments – Microsoft alone announcing $ 80 billion for its cloud infrastructure dedicated to AI, Google which has already invested 32 billion in 2023 in 2025, AWS, 86 and META confirms its acceleration on AI. At the same time, the Trump administration amplifies this dynamic with its “Stargate” initiative, reaffirming the will of the country to keep its technological leadership.
At the same time, China methodically pursues its announced objective of becoming the world leader by 2030.
The Chinese government is pushing the developing of its ecosystem by massively subsidizing research and combining their efforts with large groups (Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent) and innovative startups.
The emergence of Deepseek illustrates this rise in power, demonstrating that it is possible to obtain performance comparable to American models with significantly fewer resources, even if everything may not be true in consumer drop ads, proof is made that China can be innovative and even more creative than its rival with less means.
He does not forget that for years, Chinese technological companies have been the pioneers of artificial intelligence applications used in computer vision, such as facial recognition. It has been a long time since China has bet and positioned itself on the extraction of certain rare materials and land essential to new technologies (battery, fleas, etc.)
In this confrontation, Europe seems to occupy the 3rd step of the podium, in all cases from a consideration point of view of its rivals. No European player currently has capacity to compete with American or Chinese leaders in terms of infrastructure. The most promising European startups operate with means considerably lower than their international counterparts. Certainly the investment announcements of France and Europe at the summit for the action of the AI show a desire to make up for the delay but will it be sufficient if one does not solve any other problems before?
- European structural handicaps
Several structural factors explain this delay from the old continent. First of all, a chronic investment deficit: Europe devotes much less resources to the development of AI than the United States and China. European venture capital, traditionally more conservative, hesitates to finance technological projects. In addition, private savings is little invested in this area, unlike the United States, which still widens the gap in terms of available liquidity.
I also think that fragmentation of the European market is probably the second major handicap. Despite the ambition to create a unified digital space, initiatives remain too local. In addition, linguistic diversity naturally segments the market, and certain actors undoubtedly favor their individual interests too much.
In the absence of real harmonization, it becomes difficult to reach the critical mass necessary to compete with American or Chinese platforms. Europe also seems to me exposed to risky technological dependencies, for example on semiconductors (NVIDIA GPU) essential to the training of large AI models. This strategic vulnerability exposes the continent to the geopolitical vagaries which could compromise access to these fundamental components.
I may exaggerate in my analysis, because there is a subject on which the European Union has positioned itself as a world pioneer … that of regulation!
In terms of AI, we have invented AI Act, the first legislative framework which perfectly embodies the European approach consisting in “regulating to innovate with confidence”, establishing precise requirements for high -risk AI systems.
I partly agree with this text, it is certainly necessary to frame the use of AI in particular the generative AI with which it is becoming even easier to create false and deceptive content.
Yet I ask myself questions, is this constant fascination for regulation and regulation that Europe is not likely to scare, slow down innovation, penalize European companies in the face of competitors evolving in less restrictive environments?
This concern found an echo at the Summit for Action for AI, where Emmanuel Macron announced that he wanted to “simplify” the administrative processes for strategic projects.
And even with this desire to simplify through this agreement for an open, inclusive and ethical AI approved by several countries (France, India, European Union, African Union Commission, China), the United States and the United Kingdom have not signed it. The American vice-president, JD Vance sees it as an “excessive regulation” of the AI in Europe.
The United States promotes a regulatory environment that allows experimentation.
So supervise but do not lead!
Regarding investments, Europe made a few announcements at the AI summit, but is it enough? The European Commission presented a plan of 200 billion euros to develop an “confidence AI”, including 150 billion mobilized to the private sector.
France has at the same time announced 109 billion euros to accelerate innovation & guarantee sovereignty mainly of private funds, part of which was validated in May during Choose France. Unfortunately, these commitments remain below the amounts mobilized by the American and Chinese counterparts.
- The underestimated assets of Europe
Despite all these structural challenges and difficulties, Europe has strategic advantages that could allow it to return to the AI race.
First of all, scientific excellence!
With world -scale research centers and an exceptional pool of specialists in mathematics and AI for decades, Europe and France in particular have the raw material: intelligence and technological vision.
The challenge lies in their detention within the European ecosystem.
The strong European involvement in the open-source ecosystem also represents a significant asset.
Organizations like Hugging Face and initiatives like OpenGPT-X allow European researchers to participate in global collaborations without having the resources of technological giants.
The French president had even put forward a last advantage: the strong production capacity of a decarbon energy in France to allow the training of AI models. On this point, I will be more circumspect, because the production of the additional 1GW necessary for the operation of the datacenters announced by the president at the summit are not possible with green or intermittent renewable energy. It will therefore take more slices of nuclear power plants or move quickly on the construction of small SMR type reactor. But it is true that we have enough to combine AI and take into account the environmental impact with the most clean energy production in Europe.
And there is a subject on which everything could change and on which we are well positioned in France: quantum!
Quantic computing could revolutionize the AI of tomorrow by allowing even faster calculations embarking on its wake of colossal promises on the capacities of future models.
Finally, on the geopolitical chessboard, Europe can also exploit its intermediate position. Being in relation to Washington as well as with Beijing, she can potentially play a role of mediator and architect of international standards.
Also the fact of having combined with India at the summit, a country closer than us of China, seems to me to be a good idea. This probably makes it possible to weigh heavier worldwide.
- Strategic perspectives for Europe
I therefore think that Europe is not condemned to a secondary role in the AI revolution. But to catch up, she must act quickly with a few priority orientations:
- Massively intensify investments in basic research and innovation by supporting innovative startups and SMEs in AI, robotics and quantum
- Strengthen European digital and technological transversality, by establishing a real single market for data and calculation spaces, as well as facilitating the mobility of skills.
- Reassuring by promoting an ethical and responsible AI, based on AI Act but ensuring the balance between protection and innovation.
- Develop a targeted industrial strategy, concentrating resources in sectors where Europe already has competitive advantages.
- Investing in skills development and education on AI to guarantee that European workforce masters these technologies.
- Promote an energetically efficient AI, by developing an approach to frugal AI as a strategic differentiator.
- Conclusion: a third voice / track is possible
Europe is at a decisive moment in the global competition for AI control. Faced with the confrontation of the 2 giants that are the United States and China, it must define its own trajectory, by combining intelligent regulatory framework, massive investments and transverse cooperation. The risk of an irrattimilized delay is real, but the history of technological revolutions shows that the dominant positions are never definitively acquired. The Russians were the first to launch a satellite and send a man to space but they did not work on the moon!
By capitalizing on its unique assets and overcoming its structural weaknesses, by going beyond national logics and by mobilizing the necessary investments Europe can still be a global pole of influence in the ECC ecosystem.
The coming months will determine whether the European continent can take up this major technological challenge or if we will be forced to observe a Sino-American bipolar and to accept a technological dependence which would destroy us economically.
