Sovereign AI’s “Second Wave” Meets Europe’s Targeting Shift—Are Power Structures About to Flip?

CNAS argues that “sovereign AI” is entering a second wave, implying a new phase of state-led capability building rather than early experimentation. The piece frames the next sprint as a move from pilots toward durable industrial and security architectures, where governments seek control over models, data, and deployment pathways. In parallel, RUSI’s analysis of modern targeting in European militaries points to operational changes in how forces plan, integrate, and execute effects in complex environments. Together, the articles suggest that AI is not only a technology race but also a command-and-control and targeting transformation that can reshape deterrence and escalation dynamics. Strategically, this cluster maps to a broader contest over who controls advanced computation and how that control translates into coercive power. Sovereign AI efforts typically benefit governments and defense-linked industrial ecosystems, while they can disadvantage firms and states that rely on external model providers or lack secure data pipelines. The “Fight Back” series on countering authoritarianism adds a political layer: it implies that states may increasingly use policy, legal tools, and resilience measures to resist information manipulation and coercive governance tactics. Meanwhile, the Harari interview underscores the societal stakes—how AI could up-end power structures and potentially alter the nature of human agency—reinforcing that the competition is as much about legitimacy and governance as it is about capability. Market and economic implications are indirect but potentially material, especially for defense, cybersecurity, and AI infrastructure supply chains. If sovereign AI accelerates, demand could rise for secure compute, data governance tooling, model hosting, and defense-grade networking, supporting segments tied to semiconductors, cloud infrastructure, and cyber defense. European military targeting modernization can also influence procurement cycles for sensors, ISR integration, and software-defined command systems, which may spill into defense contractors and systems integrators. Currency and commodity effects are not explicit in the articles, but the direction is toward higher capex intensity in AI and defense-adjacent technology, which can tighten supply for specialized components and talent. What to watch next is whether “second wave” sovereign AI translates into concrete procurement, regulatory frameworks, and interoperability standards across governments. Key indicators include announcements of national AI compute programs, secure model deployment mandates, and defense experimentation that links AI to targeting workflows under clear oversight. For the political dimension, monitor how “Fight Back” themes evolve into actionable legislation or funding for resilience against authoritarian information operations. Finally, the European targeting discussion should be tracked for doctrinal updates and exercises that reveal how quickly AI-enabled decision support is moving from concept to operational use, with escalation risk rising if transparency and safeguards lag behind capability growth.

Geopolitical Implications

• 01

  State control of AI could harden strategic competition and accelerate deployment.

• 02

  AI-linked targeting may compress decision timelines, raising escalation management needs.

• 03

  Counter-authoritarianism framing suggests governance and information resilience will be central.

• 04

  Societal power-structure risks make legitimacy a strategic variable.

Key Signals

• —Procurement and doctrine updates tying AI to targeting workflows.
• —National secure compute and sovereign model hosting programs.
• —Regulatory/interoperability standards for sovereign AI.
• —Funding or legislation aligned with “Fight Back” resilience themes.