A necessary critique: €200 billion for AI — realistic investment or technological mirage?

By Antonio Tejeda Encinas, President of the Euro-American Committee of Digital Law - CEA Digital Law, CEO of Meta Channel Corp

Back to the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Action Summit in Paris, 10–11 February 2025

Europe has decided to make a show of strength — with €200 billion. Through InvestAI, announced at the Paris summit, the European Union intends to throw itself fully into the global artificial intelligence (AI) race.

The bet is ambitious: its own infrastructure, European talent and technological development aligned with EU values. However, once the initial euphoria has passed, the critique must be forthright. (I’ll play good cop another day.)

Can this investment really turn Europe into a leader in AI, or is it merely a belated reaction with no solid foundations?

To answer that, we need to look at what it really takes to lead in AI and whether Europe has what is needed to get there.

Leadership in AI cannot be bought; it is built on technological infrastructure, access to data, talent and strategic regulation.

Compare Europe with its competitors and the differences are obvious.

United States: innovation without restrictions

Absolute dominance in hardware: Nvidia, Intel and AMD control the production of advanced chips.

A private ecosystem free of bureaucracy: investment flows with little regulation.

Concentrated data and talent: OpenAI, Google and Microsoft have access to the best experts and to vast quantities of data.

China: massive investment and market control

Home-grown semiconductor manufacturing and strong state backing for giants such as Alibaba and Baidu.

Unlimited access to data, thanks to a digital ecosystem without restrictions.

A long-term strategy aligned with its industrial and military interests.

Europe: technological dependence and strict regulation

It does not produce its own chips and depends on Nvidia and AMD.

It lacks large-scale access to data because of restrictive privacy rules.

Excessive regulation slows its innovation compared with its rivals.

This raises the first big question: how does Europe expect to compete if it remains technologically dependent on its rivals?

The announcement of AI gigafactories under InvestAI has been presented as a key breakthrough:

but without European semiconductors, their autonomy is non-existent.

Without its own chip industry, any European AI model will remain tied to foreign suppliers.

A critical example: the US has restricted exports of advanced chips to China. What would happen if it decided to do the same to Europe in the future?

2.2. AI without access to large-scale data

The AI Act’s rules prevent models from being trained on large volumes of data, limiting their capabilities compared with those of OpenAI or Google.

For example, while the US trains models on data from thousands of platforms, in Europe data collection is restricted by privacy and individual consent.

Without data, there is no competitive AI.

2.3. Regulation that holds back innovation

While the US and China forge ahead without restrictions, the EU imposes complex rules that slow down the development of new AI models.

The AI Act imposes barriers that American and Chinese companies do not face, limiting the scalability of European start-ups.

2.4. Internal fragmentation within the EU

Each country has its own AI strategy, which complicates coordination and uniform access to funding and infrastructure.

France, Germany and Spain, for example, have each adopted their own AI strategies, with national funding and different priorities:

France is betting on digital sovereignty and generative AI, with major investment in supercomputing.

Germany prioritises industrial and manufacturing AI, building on its leadership in automation.

Spain has focused its strategy on ethical AI and the digitalisation of SMEs.

While companies in the US and China grow under a single regulatory framework, in the EU they have to navigate 27 different sets of rules.

The €200 billion investment is substantial, but it is poorly targeted.

Infrastructure? Without its own chips, it will depend on the US.

AI models? Without access to data, they will not be able to compete with OpenAI or DeepMind.

Talent? Without attractive conditions, European experts will keep leaving for Silicon Valley.

Investing without addressing these shortcomings is like building a skyscraper on sand.

The key lies not just in spending money but in building a sustainable technology ecosystem. To that end, Europe needs:

4.1. Autonomy in semiconductors

Urgent investment in home-grown chip production, so as not to depend on the US and Asia.

Incentives for European companies such as ASML (a Dutch company and the only one in the world capable of manufacturing extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography machines) to develop AI-specific processors.

4.2. Access to data without compromising privacy

Make the AI Act more flexible to allow more advanced AI training without compromising privacy.

Put in place internal agreements for the ethical sharing of data between EU countries.

4.3. Nurturing talent and preventing the brain drain

Offer tax incentives and better conditions to retain European researchers.

Develop AI research centres with globally competitive salaries and resources.

End fragmentation and establish a single regulatory framework for AI throughout Europe.

Simplify bureaucratic procedures to attract investment and help tech start-ups grow.

Europe has bet big, but unless it addresses its structural weaknesses, InvestAI risks becoming an initiative with plenty of money and little real impact.

€200 billion will achieve nothing if Europe remains dependent on the US and China for hardware, restricts access to data and imposes regulatory barriers that stifle innovation.

The investment is necessary, but without a strategy it will turn into spending with no return.

Key questions that will shape the future of AI in Europe

Will Europe be able to manufacture its own chips and secure its technological independence?

Will the EU revise its regulatory framework so as not to stifle innovation?

Can it really compete with the US and China, or is it destined to be a secondary player in global AI?

Europe is gambling not only with its technological leadership but with its geopolitical sovereignty. Investing €200 billion without resolving its dependence on others for chips, data and talent is not just a mistake: it is strategic suicide.

If InvestAI fails, the EU will face a future in which it loses not only the technology battle but also its economic and political autonomy. This is not just about AI; it is about whether Europe will be a digital power or be reduced to a technological colony, destined to write the rules for technologies it will never be able to control.