Microsoft sovereign cloud for Europe: How real are its “Digital Principles for Europe”?

Three months ago, Microsoft announced its “European Digital Commitments”, a set of promises aimed at rebuilding trust in the services of Microsoft sovereign cloud for Europe. The message was clear: Europe can count on Microsoft, even in times of geopolitical tension or when faced with pressure from its own government. The company pledged to defend European interests in court if necessary, to ensure stable and independent operations, and to ensure digital resilience.

So what exactly do Microsoft’s commitments offer?

We put its five principles to the test, and also look at what it would take for Europe to achieve real digital sovereignty — not just on paper, but also in practice.

1. “We will help build a broad AI and cloud ecosystem across Europe.”

Microsoft’s version of “building a Microsoft sovereign cloud ecosystem for Europe” actually entails something else. They are not interesting in building a digitally sovereign European system. Instead, they are expanding US-controlled infrastructure across the continent. So instead of building autonomy, they are actually deepening dependency. No matter how many data centers are added, Azure remains a proprietary, centralized system operated by a US corporation.

2. “We will uphold Europe’s digital resilience even when there is geopolitical volatility.”

If resilience depends on legal promises from a US-based vendor, it’s not resilience, but risk management. Microsoft is subject to US law, including the CLOUD Act (Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act) Act. No contract can override that, as Microsoft France reps themselves admitted under oath recently. Europe can only ensure continuity if it owns and operates its infrastructure, including the legal, operational, and technical layers.

Let’s have a look at the facts to assess if a Microsoft sovereign cloud for Europe truly exists.

Microsoft claims they will challenge government orders that threaten customer data. But their own transparency reports tell a different story. In the first half of 2024 alone, Microsoft received over 160 legal orders from US authorities for enterprise customer data, including from customers outside the US. Of those, almost 30% resulted in some form of data being handed over.

Even more concerning: Microsoft confirmed it disclosed content data in at least one case involving a non-US enterprise customer, with data stored outside the US. The company didn’t name the country, but it did state that the customer wasn’t based in the EU or EFTA.

Still, the principle is clear: US authorities can and do access enterprise data, regardless of where it’s hosted. Microsoft’s strategy to reassure Europe includes putting source code in Swiss vaults and promising that local partners could take over if US courts forced a shutdown. But none of that changes the underlying dynamic.

If a US order arrives, Microsoft must comply or fight, and possibly lose. Europe cannot build digital sovereignty on systems it doesn’t control. Real digital resilience means that you own the legal, operational, and technical stack.

If someone else holds the keys, it’s not your infrastructure, but theirs.

3. “We will continue to protect the privacy of European data.”

Microsoft talks about encryption, EU boundaries, and customer control. But all of it exists within the boundaries of Microsoft systems, which remain closed and under non-European laws. Real privacy starts with ownership. Open source gives users instead of vendors the full control. That’s why data protection is not just about technical features, but also about transparency and accountability.

4. “We will always help protect and defend Europe’s cybersecurity.”

Microsoft often highlights its role in defending Ukraine from cyberattacks and its cooperation with European governments on threat intelligence. These efforts are important, but they don’t tell the full story. Microsoft’s dominance creates systemic risk.

Most public institutions in Europe rely on the same tightly integrated stack: Exchange, Office, Windows, Azure. When a vulnerability is discovered, it affects thousands at once.

In 2023, hackers identified as Storm 0558, exploited a vulnerability in Microsoft Exchange Online, gaining unauthorized access to the email accounts of senior US officials, including Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo and US Ambassador to China Nicholas Burns.

The Cyber Safety Review Board (CSRB) concluded that this intrusion was preventable and resulted from a “cascade of avoidable errors” by Microsoft. The report criticized inadequate security practices and a corporate culture that deprioritized enterprise security investments and rigorous risk management.

This incident exposes the importance of sovereign architecture. True resilience means diversity, transparency, and the ability to act independently. That’s not possible in a closed ecosystem maintained by a single vendor.

5. “We will help strengthen Europe’s economic competitiveness, including for open source.”

Open source is not a checkbox or a compatibility layer, but a founding principle for a company. Hosting open source models on Azure is not supporting the open source ecosystem. Especially not when the underlying platform is proprietary and the ecosystem is controlled by one vendor.

What does this show us for Microsoft sovereign cloud commitments?

Microsoft knows that its credibility in Europe is on the line. Over the past weeks, company president Brad Smith has been touring European capitals, giving speeches and meeting policymakers to promote a simple message: Microsoft is listening and investing, so it can be trusted.

These promises may sound reassuring on paper. But Europe doesn’t need reassurance, it needs control. Legal clauses, local subsidiaries and datacenter expansion won’t fix the underlying issue: If your infrastructure depends on a single foreign vendor, it remains vulnerable to decisions made far outside your legal and democratic reach.

When political pressure rises, even the most carefully negotiated contracts can’t protect access. Even critical institutions can lose service overnight without any warning, recourse, or real fallback.

Microsoft tries to address this with legal safeguards and emergency plans. But these measures only offer the appearance of autonomy. Being promised access to source code, under certain conditions, in a Swiss vault: that’s not independence. It’s like being handed the keys to an F-15 fighter jet: a complex and powerful machine, but one you can’t actually operate without the vendor’s ongoing support, such as the technicians, the manuals, and the spare parts.

You might have the asset, but you don’t have the capability.

With open source, the model is fundamentally different: You can rely on auditable code with no single point of failure, vendor lock-in, or legal grey zones. This make open source not just an asset, but an important step towards digital sovereignty for Europe.

The commitments of Microsoft versus the offering of Nextcloud is the difference between sovereignty on paper and sovereignty by design. And it’s the choice Europe has to make.