According to The Guardian on September 14 local time, Christine Lagarde, President of the European Central Bank, said during a speech in Vienna that Europe must develop its own artificial intelligence (AI) technologies and build more data centers to eliminate the threat of being cut off from technological supplies by the United States or China.

Lagarde cited data showing that regions outside Europe are the main drivers behind AI model development. Last year, the U.S. launched 59 major AI models, China launched 35, while France and the UK each launched only one. Meanwhile, 75% of global AI computing power—supplied by data centers—is concentrated in the U.S., whereas Europe accounts for just 5%.

Lagarde stated that Europe thus faces a "difficult choice": either delay adopting AI technologies due to an inability to protect data, thereby missing out on growth opportunities; or rapidly adopt AI and risk becoming highly dependent, exposing itself to the danger of losing autonomy in organizing economic activities according to its own values.

On the surface, Lagarde’s remarks are a call for "technological sovereignty," but against the backdrop of Europe's current economic struggles and geopolitical tensions, they actually constitute a carefully orchestrated "anxiety mobilization"—using the threat of supply cutoffs to pressure European nations to set aside their differences and increase investment.

Lagarde made “the potential cutoff of technology supplies from the U.S. or China” her central argument, yet upon closer inspection of her entire speech, the real target is almost entirely the United States.

The data she presented themselves serve as evidence: the U.S. holds 75% of global AI computing power, while Europe has only 5%; the U.S. released 59 significant AI models last year, China 35, and France and the UK each just one. Although China’s 35 models represent a substantial number, European businesses actually rely almost entirely on AI tools provided by American tech companies. She herself explicitly stated that “Europe’s adoption of AI is largely equivalent to importing American technology.”

Incorporating China into the narrative serves more as diplomatic rhetoric. Had she named the U.S. alone, it would have appeared overly confrontational amid the Trump administration’s imposition of tariffs, threats to take over Greenland, and warnings about withdrawing troops from Europe due to political disagreements. By pairing the U.S. and China, she maintains diplomatic decorum while constructing a coherent narrative of being “strangled at the chokepoint.”

The “either-or” dilemma Lagarde presents is not fundamentally about technology—it reflects the fact that Europe’s post-war growth model is failing. More ironically, while Europe worries about being “choked” by American AI, eurozone households hold around €440 billion in U.S. tech assets, European pension funds heavily invest in American tech stocks, and U.S. tech firms even borrow in Europe, raising financing costs for others. While claiming the need for autonomy, Europe’s money is effectively helping its rivals build barriers.

Lagarde’s proposed solution is straightforward: build domestic data centers and develop “adequate-enough” indigenous AI models. But the issue lies not in knowing what needs to be done, but in Europe’s inability to actually do it. According to research commissioned by the European Commission, Europe’s data center capacity shortfall could reach approximately 20 gigawatts by 2036, with funding required to close the gap potentially reaching up to €60 billion. Yet the EU’s “AI Continent Initiative” has mobilized only €20 billion, with just €2 billion actually disbursed by August 2026.

As President of the European Central Bank, Lagarde’s core responsibility lies in monetary policy and inflation control. By directly integrating the issue of technological sovereignty into the framework of monetary policy discussions, she rests on a crucial underlying logic: if Europe continues to rely on U.S. AI, American tech firms borrowing in Europe will keep driving up financing costs, a downturn in U.S. stock markets could be transmitted to European savings via pension funds, and an AI supply cutoff could simultaneously trigger systemic risks across all industries—issues squarely within the ECB’s mandate.

Her decision to deliver such a strong message in Vienna—a city soon to host pivotal EU policy debates—essentially amounts to pressuring the European Commission and member states: act now, or I cannot guarantee financial stability.

Lagarde’s remarks carry three parts warning and seven parts coercion. The warning is genuine—Europe’s dependence on AI truly poses a systemic risk. But the coercive intent is even clearer: using the fear of supply cutoffs to force concessions on issues like cost-sharing, site selection, and regulatory relaxation across member states.

Original article: toutiao.com/article/1876453141595139/

Disclaimer: This article represents the personal views of its author