The current geopolitical scenario has once again pushed discussions of independence and sovereignty into the center of public discourse. From a European perspective, the sudden and cold collapse of our idealism is painful—but it may also open the door to a new future.

As a society, we seem to be rapidly coming to terms with a sobering truth: the values we hold as essential for a better world—democracy, gender equality, freedom of expression—not only won’t sustain themselves, but also cannot be assumed, exported, or expected beyond our borders. This is especially true if our economies and market influence are increasingly irrelevant on the global stage. A factor that amplifies consistently by a reduced productive capacity, and weakened industrial policies that have basically exported basic needs to sweatshops in other countries as a way to artificially foster high living standards.

While it will take time—and plenty of inaction—for this realization to fully harden into political reality, the window for reaction is closing. That may be one reason why, in conferences like the recently concluded #OsloLiveTech, data sovereignty took center stage.

The problem is both one of infrastructure and morality. Years of taking certain lifestyles and ideologies for granted have produced a generation partially immobilized by fear—and largely unaware of what it actually takes to uphold the standards they see as the default way of living or engaging with the world.

While the moral debate is too complex to fully unpack here, it’s worth staying focused on infrastructure. From an economic perspective, what we need is an aggressive reactivation of the economy and a deliberate, large-scale update of the technical capabilities of our populations. While this may ruffle feathers in environmental circles, it’s also the only way we’ll even be able to pretend that the environment will remain a topic of serious political relevance in the years ahead.

After all, Europe didn’t become geopolitically significant because of its ideals—but because of the economic realities that raised the living standards of a substantial portion of its population. A classic example of what’s often labeled “soft power” in the context of international influence.

In this context, we need to rethink and re-centralize our productive capacities—in a way that ensures they can’t be used as leverage when disagreements arise on issues we consider fundamental. We’ve already had a bitter lesson in this regard: Russia’s use of gas exports as a bargaining chip during the war made it clear how vulnerable we are when dependencies are weaponized.

More recently, even superficial disagreements with the U.S. administration have surfaced as veiled threats—reminders that in both economic and military terms, our territories remain exposed in scenarios of conflict, whether economic or actual warfare.

The relocalization of services, infrastructure, and productive capacity should become a spearhead issue of national interest—even if it comes at the cost of short-term reductions in stakeholder profits. This isn’t a communist argument; it’s a pragmatic one that recognizes that Western societies—despite their flaws—offer some of the most stable living conditions on the planet.

Say what you will about rising economic inequality or other social issues. It’s still a far cry from being dragged from your home for expressing an unflattering opinion about a political leader—a reality that millions still face globally.

If anything, this geopolitical chokehold we’re being threatened with should be seen as an opportunity. As production moves closer to home and the so-called “invisible costs” of globalization become part of our everyday reality, there’s a chance that consumer habits will shift, and the greater societal good will be prioritized, leading perhaps to greener economies and once more societies striving to achieve social justice.