The DIGGS Doctrine: The Need for an Independent European Infrastructure

Europe does not have a technology problem. It has an architectural problem.

The digital infrastructure we rely on is not neutral. It is built by actors whose business models presuppose lock-in, and whose jurisdiction lies outside our control. When critical systems can be restricted or, in the worst case, shut down from another continent, that is not an anomaly. It is a consequence of how the architecture is designed. The result is a form of silent asymmetry: the systems are operational, but not fully controllable.

The flaw in today's approach

European attempts to solve this have followed two tracks: copying existing platforms under new names, or trying to regulate their way out of the problem. Both fail because they do not change the mechanisms that create dependency. Copies reproduce lock-in in a new form. Regulation presupposes control over infrastructure one does not control. Thus, the dependency remains intact.

Open alternatives win technically – but lose in the market. Not because the technology is weaker, but because distribution, adoption, and usability are treated as afterthoughts, not as a part of the architecture itself.

The Principle

A sustainable solution cannot be a product. It must be a set of architectural principles that make dependency unnecessary in the first place. This means open standards right down to the root level, the freedom to move data and services without structural lock-in costs, and commercial usability built into the architecture from day one – not added on top afterwards.

We cannot be religious open-source fanatics. But we must be pragmatic patriots. Digital sovereignty is not ideology – it is an architectural requirement for systems that must function under real geopolitical uncertainty.

Why I am building this

This project requires a specific type of actor. Someone who understands system architecture from the root level, but who has lived long enough in the commercial market to know exactly where European alternatives lose their grip. Someone who has experienced the distribution problem firsthand – not just read about it. One who can stand in the space between deep technical architecture and commercial reality, and build the bridge between them.

I have spent 25 years becoming that person – not as a plan, but as a consequence of every step. From the Linux grassroots in Kongsberg in the 90s, via scaling SaaS companies and demanding B2B migrations, to documenting exactly why existing solutions don't hold up. This project is not an idea I had. It's the culmination of everything I already know.

Digital sovereignty is not established through declarations. It is built through architecture. Or not at all.

And it is urgent.