Finnish European Parliament lawmaker Aura Salla has urged European countries to reduce their dependence on American technology, warning that reliance on foreign-controlled digital and military systems could threaten Europe’s security and strategic independence.
“Stop using U.S. tech. That’s my message,” Salla declared on Thursday at the European Pulse Seminar, arguing that Europe’s dependence on American technology has become a growing vulnerability, particularly in the defence sector.
Salla pointed to last month’s speed cap imposed on SpaceX’s military Starshield satellite communications service in Ukraine as another example of what she described as a technological “kill switch.” She argued that restrictions on access to critical American technology could have direct consequences on the battlefield, potentially costing lives.
“We are losing lives in Ukraine. It’s about our defense, because defense is technology,” she said.
Her remarks highlight growing concerns within European political and security circles about the continent’s dependence on foreign technology providers, particularly the United States, for critical infrastructure, artificial intelligence, satellite communications and advanced military capabilities.
The controversy surrounding Starshield has intensified discussions about whether European governments can afford to rely on technology platforms whose availability, operational limits and strategic direction are ultimately controlled by companies outside Europe.
For Salla, the issue extends beyond the immediate risks associated with satellite communications. She argued that Europe must develop its own advanced technological capabilities if it wants to maintain control over its security and influence the future direction of artificial intelligence.
Her warning also challenges the European Commission’s increasingly prominent emphasis on adopting and deploying existing artificial intelligence technologies rather than prioritising the development of Europe’s own frontier AI models.
In her September 16 State of the Union address, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen argued that Europe did not necessarily need to develop the world’s most advanced technologies to capture their economic benefits.
“We do not need to be the ones who develop the frontier technology to be the ones who draw the greatest value from it,” von der Leyen said.
However, Salla disagreed with the approach, warning that Europe risks losing its influence over the development, governance and safety standards of artificial intelligence if it cannot compete in building the most advanced models.
She argued that developing frontier AI capabilities is essential for Europe to have meaningful leverage in international negotiations over the technology’s future.
Without European companies capable of developing competitive frontier models, the continent could become increasingly dependent on American and Chinese technology providers, leaving European policymakers with limited influence over how those systems are designed, controlled and regulated.
Leading French artificial intelligence company Mistral has expressed similar concerns, warning that Europe risks being excluded from shaping the future of AI if it does not establish companies capable of competing at the highest level of model development.
The debate reflects a broader strategic question confronting European policymakers: whether the continent should concentrate on becoming a major user of artificial intelligence or invest heavily in developing the underlying technologies itself.
Salla maintained that technological independence cannot be achieved through political declarations alone. Europe also needs a stronger financial and regulatory environment capable of supporting the growth of globally competitive technology companies.
She identified access to capital and the fragmentation of Europe’s internal market as major obstacles preventing European technology firms from expanding at the scale required to compete with American and Chinese rivals.
Among her proposals were harmonised insolvency and tax rules across European countries, which she argued would make it easier for businesses to operate and attract investment across national borders.
She also called for greater cross-border investment from European pension funds, suggesting that institutional capital should play a larger role in financing strategic industries, including defence technology and advanced manufacturing.
As an example, Salla cited Danish pension funds financing weapons development in Romania, illustrating how European investment capital could support defence production and technological capabilities beyond national boundaries.
Her proposals point to the need for a more integrated European investment market in which financial resources can move more easily towards companies and industries considered strategically important.
The discussion comes as European governments face mounting pressure to strengthen their defence industries, expand technological capabilities and reduce vulnerabilities exposed by Russia’s war against Ukraine.
For Salla, the lesson is that technological dependence is not simply an economic disadvantage but a direct national and European security concern.
Her central argument is that Europe cannot guarantee its strategic autonomy while relying on external providers for technologies that are increasingly essential to modern warfare, economic competitiveness and political influence.
