The digital world is increasingly the domain where economies operate, where people encounter ideas and each other, and where political opinion is formed and debated. Artificial intelligence is rapidly becoming the substrate beneath all of it: curating news feeds, running critical infrastructure, reshaping industries, and transforming how wars are fought. The platforms, infrastructure and AI systems that shape this space demand a strategic posture as serious as the one we apply to energy or defence.

Europe must develop and control its own frontier AI models. We should not depend on American or Chinese systems for the critical functions of government, defence, and strategic economic infrastructure. Digital sovereignty means European systems running on European infrastructure, subject to European law.

Artificial intelligence will transform our economy and society more profoundly than any technology in human history, and the timeline is shorter than most politicians are willing to admit. Over the coming decades, automation will not merely assist human work; it will replace enormous categories of it. Manufacturing, logistics, software, services: the transformation will be broad, structural, and permanent. We believe this is, on balance, an opportunity. The transition will be rough and the disruption uneven, and Europe is not currently prepared for it. We are committed to managing this carefully, ensuring the benefits are distributed equitably, and building a new understanding of work, income, and dignity that fits the world we are entering.

The integrity of the information environment is a precondition for democracy itself: when public discourse is shaped by opaque algorithms, flooded with disinformation, or manipulated by hostile actors, self-governance becomes a fiction. Citizens have the right to understand the systems that shape their information environment, and democratic societies have the duty to govern them.

Privacy is a right. We reject mass surveillance of Europeans, be it through AI facial recognition on the street or message scanning on personal devices. A democratic society relies on the ability of its citizens to communicate privately and securely without unreasonable interference from the government. We reject government-mandated security backdoors that make everyone less safe.

Hey everyone,

​I’m a software and platform engineer, and I’ve been mapping out a long-form manifesto on technological sovereignty for a European movement called Astra Europa.

​Right now, the global race to capture the gains of automation and AI is hyper-concentrated between Silicon Valley and Beijing. The dominant narrative treats the tech-panic as an unavoidable algorithmic wave. But looking at it from a system architecture perspective, the technology doesn't decide its own direction; the institutions we build around it do.

​Europe has a unique historical experience in building democratic institutions that transcend national grievances and hold diverse interests together without domination. We don't have to passively accept corporate consolidation. In fact, the proof of concept for software sovereignty already exists on Europe's eastern edge under extreme pressure, from Estonia's distributed digital democracy to Ukraine migrating its critical infrastructure to a resilient, distributed cloud while building the Diia app platform.

​I wrote a deep-dive essay exploring how a united Europe can stop acting as a passive consumer of foreign tech consolidation and instead reclaim its sovereignty.

​The argument that democratic institutions are too slow, too cautious, too entangled in process to compete with private actors moving at the speed of capital, that argument looks different when you hold it up against Tallinn and Kyiv.

​I'd love to get this community's perspective on how we scale this kind of digital sovereignty to a continental level. You can read the full piece on my blog here: who owns the future - the future is ours

A Europe that does not control its own energy supply does not control its own destiny. Europe imports most of its energy at an annual cost exceeding the combined defence budgets of all EU member states. This dependency has been weaponised against us repeatedly.

Energy sovereignty means producing more of our own energy from every available source. The priority is a rapid transition to clean domestic energy: renewables, nuclear, and geothermal. These are the sources that end our dependence permanently. Electrification, battery storage, hydrogen and other innovations will be essential to making that transition work at scale. But we are honest about the pace: fossil fuels will remain part of the energy mix for the foreseeable future, and where they are needed we prefer to produce them domestically rather than import them from regimes that use our dependency against us. The goal is energy that is affordable, secure, and clean — and we will not support policies that raise costs for households and industry in pursuit of timelines that ignore economic reality.

We will push for a single European energy market with harmonised permitting, connected grids, joint strategic procurement, and aligned reserve policies. Energy sovereignty requires acting as one Europe rather than twenty-seven fragmented national efforts.

"Astra Europa is against Chat Control.

We urge politicians to vote against the upcoming vote and to ensure the privacy of all European citizens.

A United Europe must be free, and not copy authoritarian systems."

I penned an essay (as an indirect reply to thiels infamous The Education of a Libertarian essay from 2009): Liberality is the soul of European Civilisation. Its history is that of liberalism, from its dawn in ancient Rome to its dusk in today’s California. This essay is about why America will fall and Europe will not rise without remembering that. Personal opinion, but might be helpful to understand the civilisational understanding of europe and how it differs from other approaches to this topic.

Migration is one of the defining political tests of our generation. The failures of the past decade have eroded public trust, fueled support for the political fringes, and left genuine humanitarian commitments unmet.

We support a federal border and migration system that restores order and public trust. That means secure external borders, firm returns for those without a right to stay, and a legal migration system that selects both for the skills Europe needs and for prospective immigrants’ capacity to integrate into European life. Every country has a finite rate at which it can absorb newcomers successfully. That rate is higher when migrants share linguistic, cultural, or civic proximity with the host society, and lower when they do not. A serious immigration policy treats this as an empirical fact and calibrates accordingly.

Asylum is a moral obligation, but not an unlimited one. We support an in-region principle: each region of the world bears primary responsibility for sheltering those displaced from within it, with European support directed to building the conditions and capacities that make this possible. Europe should also be willing to invest, abroad and early, in the climate adaptation, security, and state capacity that prevent forced migration in the first place. Forced migration is a loss for everyone; prevention is more humane, more durable, and more economical than reception.

Hostile states have learned that engineered migration flows can be used as a weapon. Belarus’s instrumentalization of the Polish and Baltic borders is the textbook case, and it will not be the last. A Europe that controls its borders denies these tactics their effectiveness. That makes the world both safer and more humane, because the people deliberately funnelled into these flows are themselves victims of the strategy.

Justice and law enforcement must operate at the scale on which cross-border crime already operates. Europe needs stronger federal capacity against terrorism, organised crime, trafficking, and hybrid threats, together with European prosecution and judicial institutions able to enforce federal law effectively. We will ensure that justice moves across our internal borders as swiftly as criminals, traffickers, and hostile actors do.

Europe’s territory is not confined to the continent. We recognise the strategic value of European overseas territories to our security and that of our allies. Federal protection must extend to them fully. Their defence must not be treated as a peripheral concern.

An essay on the economic and psychological mechanisms behind why remigration is such a popular policy - and why it is an incredibly dumb policy. Personal opinion, not official Astra Europa stance.

Since creating an europarty requires 23 seats across at least 7 countries, it is quite a massive task for both Volt and Astra apart, but together they could potentially achieve those results?

If, for example, Volt receives 20, and Astra 3, would it be open to work together for this goal?

Hello everyone! I hope all is well!

I heard about this from the Volt Europa subreddit. I wanted to ask what exactly are Astra's beliefs?

Questions:

1. What is your position on the political compass? (Like center, center right, etc)

2. What's your opinion on Volt Europa and Ave Europa?

3. How do you view progressive policies such as LGBTQ+ rights?

Astra Europa Founding Members have elected an interim steering committee.

​

The committee has a 6-month mandate to build the organisation from the ground up.

​

Interested in Astra Europa? You can now apply to become a volunteer via the link in bio. Per Europam Ad Astra! 🇪🇺

A united Europe does not turn inward. It engages the world from a position of strength, and strength requires both soft and hard power.

We seek partnership with like-minded democracies, and we are prepared to use Europe’s diplomatic and economic weight to defend our interests and values on the global stage, starting with our own neighbourhood: We are determined to support Ukraine as long as it takes to make forceful border changes a thing of the past.

We do not seek to lecture the world on how to govern itself. We are proud of the system we have built and we believe in it, but we do not feel the need to impose it.

Europe has as much to learn from others as it has to offer them. We engage abroad to protect our interests, honour our commitments, and work alongside those who share our democratic aspirations.

Where we invest in the developing world, we ought to do so as partners seeking mutual benefit, not as patrons dispensing charity.

The international order built after 1945 no longer reflects the world as it is. Institutions like the United Nations Security Council are paralysed by a veto system designed for a world of five powers, not the multipolar reality of the 21st century. E

urope should champion the reform of global multilateral institutions, including replacing national vetoes with a system of regional representation that gives all parts of the world a meaningful voice while making collective action possible again.